bubbatheclown

Wait, Lunatic was TUF?

Frick. I never made that connection.

SNP1 is back, woot woot. I don't remember if our engagements were mainly positive or negative, but in any case it's great to see an old face pop up again.

Pretty sure all it takes is for the kid to be naked, especially with visible genitalia, for it to count.

I guess they weren't as strict about that sort of thing back in the '80s.

I actually have wondered before why that album cover isn't considered CP, but sure, I guess it isn't for some reason.

Oh hey, an actual new user. Welcome to the club, and I hope you have a good experience here.

The Nirvana album?

To clarify, what is in the link? I don't want to open it before I know what it is.

--> @Xenomorph

Correct, it's still a work in progress.

Good for you. Around early last year my bowel movements changed so I wondered if it was colon cancer and I ended up having to swab my poops with a little brush. Nothing came of it, thankfully.

Probably too late to change my username at this point lol

@Mal

Doing right by beings which have rights.

I remember a case not all that long ago when the findings of a researcher (it might've been a report card for then-Senator Harris indicating she was one of the least productive members of Congress) were pounced upon by Republicans for one reason or another.

In response, that researcher got upset, claimed his/her findings were being misrepresented, and scrubbed the page from the internet. I don't believe this is actually what happened; more like, what they were saying amounted to “I, the source of this knowledge, did not consent to said knowledge being used to support this ideology, and I conflate doing so with misrepresentation of said knowledge.”

Some of you may remember the story and it is sort of old news at this point, but I think there wasn't enough discussion around this idea: that a fact can be “properly” or “improperly” used depending on the originator's intent, as opposed to facts being in themselves neutral things that belong to nobody and to everybody. Or alternately, the idea that information which would be used for “wrong” purposes should be stifled; for example, FBI reporting on race and crime.

The idea isn't completely without merit. If you peeped on a woman in the shower and photographed her without her knowledge or consent, that is simply “knowledge of her unclothed appearance” but very serious moral problems would arise from this, or from thereafter disseminating said information to the public. In contrast, that same woman has a right to share a nude selfie with her boyfriend or husband. So this is an example of facts having proper/improper use based on the originator's intent. We can also say more broadly that privacy rights are the same way. 

But to what extent can this be said about research or statistics?

Morality needs some kind of independent referee to keep people from changing the rules. A book written 2,000 years ago whose contents are ubiquitously well known today and which nobody has the power to alter is at least as good as any.

And yes, this was my original username and profile pic from late 2013. My last username, the one I've had for the past 8 years, was Swagnarok.

Much more functional than it was yesterday. We are officially back baby.