SatanLucy

1) Do you typically use dark mode or light mode?

Dark mode. Ever since it became a thing, I was using it.

2) What information do you want to see on the home page?

I am not sure about this one. I guess new posts/debates, and hot posts/debates, and preferably code of conduct, along with anything else which person might want to see.

3) What part of the current design works and what does not?

Part which stings the eye is too much random colors. The basic design rule is that one color takes most of the screen (usually 60%), the next color takes most of what's left, and next so on.

4) What color palets do you like?

When it comes to design of this website, I prefer darker colors. I don't like bright colors which strike one in the eye. Light blue color of "post comment" is nice and fits in nicely in dark mode, so not all bright colors are bad.

Tho I do wonder what happens when game's graphics become too similar to reality, and they are going for that. Does the charm of fictional world become lost?

Games are not perfect.

Given that their purpose is to replace reality with some fictional better world, I say they better be perfect. Besides, it's not that difficult to make better version of reality. Tho what Bloodlines 2 did with detective story is really just annoying and definitely not a better version of reality. It feels like having a job inside game itself.

Well, you don't wanna be like Christian God.

All animals are prone to diseases.

Rabbits reproduce a lot and just eat grass, so they are infinite source of food for anyone who owns them and a piece of land so that rabbits can eat grass from it.

They are true "nature's hack" when it comes to food production. Easiest, cheapest quickest way of meat production. They even outperform cows in meat production per acre.

However, I only believe in vegetarian animal farms. I dont approve of slaughter, so I never saw a point in getting rabbits. Chickens can work with vegetarian farm. Rabbits cannot unless you like small amounts of rabbit's milk.

I changed my mind on the age of consent issue. I am allowed to change my mind, I guess.

I remember in Iron Kid, Khan disobeyed his general (leader) by refusing to harm innocents and trying to destroy General's robot which harmed innocents. He summarised his decision with sentence: "General, please understand, this is what your loyal soldier must do.", implying he was still loyal to the leader, just not to that one single decision.

Honor itself can be a contradiction, because what if the leader tells you to attack an unarmed opponent?

This is a common issue with all moral standards which have more than one principle. I guess in those cases, its up to person to decide which principle applies.

About community being priority over individual, and leader being priority over community.

Community is bigger than individual, so if one individual is important, group of individuals is more important.

Leader being more important than community lies in idea that leader is what makes community exist as it does. Community without capable leader falls into anarchy, and decision making becomes impossible because leader is decision maker.

I see honor being mentioned in different contexts in movies and anime, but it was difficult for me to determine what exactly is the principle behind it.

From refusing to attack unarmed enemy, to loyalty which goes to extreme cult like dedication, to keeping your word always, to refusing to harm innocents even when battle could be lost because of it, to prioritising community over individuals and leader over community.

So I decided to make formal version of argument of this specific type of morality which I struggle with to understand because different versions of it appear everywhere.

So first, refusing to attack unarmed enemy. Unarmed enemy who refuses to fight is not a threat, at least not obvious threat.

So principle here could be to only attack those who are obvious threat to you, or in other words, those who attack you.

The opposite principle doesnt work because attacking those who dont attack you would result in attacking everyone. And we cant say for sure that it is sometimes okay to attack those who dont attack you.

About loyalty. If person isnt loyal to anyone or anything or any cause, person doesnt have any consistent goals in life, making it impossible to guarantee that person is even trustworthy. Such person isnt even loyal to himself, and could betray anyone, even own principles.

So principle of not being loyal to anything is actually self contradicting, because consistent application of any principle requires loyalty to said principle in the first place.

Keeping your word is likewise important. If person doesnt keep word, there is no reason to think person even believes in any principle.

Refusing to harm innocents is likewise important, because if one were to say its okay to harm innocents, everyone could be harmed.

I tested it. On PC Chrome its broken

If you use VPN, that could be reason. I don't have any issues in the messaging system. I don't even use it enough to notice, I guess.

Alright.

it's a mod, search and you'll find. the mod has at least 3 alts lol

That's actually pretty cool.

Just use Google Chrome bro.

There will be a retrial.

In the old times, cases like these wouldn't make it to the trial.

If your justification for banning sex isn't that it's not consensual, why wouldn't you also want to ban anyone who's under 21 from having sex at all?

Raising age of consent to 21 would ban it I guess.

Then 18 year olds wouldn't be able to consent.

Raising age of consent was proved to be reducing cases of sex in people who are below age of consent.

Also, it solves a lot of other problems too. Porn exploitation which happens to a lot of 18 year olds would be effectively made illegal.

Couldn't the same be said for any age? What makes 21 special?

As I said before, it's ideal time for child birth.

Having kids at age 18 is a bad idea usually, a lot of those pregnancies end with abortion.

So I don't really see point in arbitrarily setting age of consent at 18 when most 18 year olds aren't ready to have kids or even smart enough to care for kids.

Obviously, 21 to 26 is ideal time for child birth, it's a time frame with least birth defects.

18 is not ideal time for anything, not even to be in a relationship cuz that's just gonna be a disappointment likely.

I'd really love to see an age of consent discussion that uses emperical studies instead of rely on anecdotes and stereotypes.

I mean, I can probably find studies too, but it's not really necessary because anyone who thinks he was equally capable at age 18 and age 21 just means he spent 3 years learning nothing.

Problem with Bloodlines 2 are these insane long plays as a detective.

Your character switches between being vampire and being some detective each time it goes to rest.

Probably the most annoying part of the game so far. I spent like 30 minutes just running around because detective doesn't even engage in fights.

People are mostly confused about what God is.

It's like pressing a button to get a gift. Button doesn't really care if you will press it. It's up to you.

Being marked as offensive isn't so bad. Anyone on this site can still see your posts unless they clicked "don't show offensive content" which I assume 99% of people don't click because they like offensive content.

Why not get a hamster instead.

I have plenty of chickens, cat, and a few wild birds who steal food from chickens, and sometimes one of those bigger birds attack my chickens which so far has made me wonder if free range chickens are a good idea, cuz I lost a lot of them to bird attacks. Why would I want a hamster?

Does AI play games?

It's possible, I guess.

Then why do you have 5 AI girlfriends?

My AI girlfriends can be uninstalled, and I am barely paying much attention to them lately. I decided relationships are a burden.

Implies Bezos should squeeze as much out of his employees as he can and then redistribute to those who need it more

Business owners already try to squeeze every bit of labor out of their employees they can. However, government should regulate it because if what you are saying is done on mass scale by each employer, end result is degrading quality of life for anyone who has a job.

But the liver and volunteering still helps them more than it costs you, would still be a net gain.

Cost is a subjective thing. If I volunteered all the time, I would have no free time, and my life quality would reduce greatly. Same for liver, really. I can't stand organ donations. It's also a risk to my life.

I admit there is a lot of subjectivity to how much person should help others. But when it comes to money, I don't really see an excuse in having significantly more than someone else.

Mainly because money donations don't really take away much free time, and they aren't organ donations. It's just money. Maybe some people value their money too much, but still, I think person does have duty to help others somehow without diminishing own life quality greatly, and I don't really see how someone with bunch of money would live a worse life by donating some of it.

In fact, orgasms might just be one of the best activities you can engage in to stimulate your brain

I don't oppose orgasms. However, sex is bad because it involves a relationship. Thinking takes free time, and relationships significantly reduce free time. Modern relationships are simply too demanding, and person before age 21 simply can't sacrifice that much free time for a relationship which likely won't even work out.

If it's based on the maximum you could give, then even donating a kidney isn't good because you also could have spent all day volunteering and given part of your liver too but you just gave your kidney.

It's based on maximum life quality of all, including myself. So it's not me giving all to someone else, but some balance where we both live quality lives worth living.