THIS THREAD IS DUMB

WELL YOUR MOTHER WAS A CLASSY LADY

I FIND THAT HIGHLY DOUBTFUL

I DOUBT YOUR SELF-DOUBT AS I HAD RELATIONS WITH HER IN THE FORM OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE FUN HOLE LAST NIGHT, TREBEK

DO ALL THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD HAVE TO BE IN ALL CAPS, OR CAN WE TYPE IN LOWER-CASE LETTERS TOO?!

Guys.

Obama = socialism.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID QUESTION IS THAT
YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR ASKING

>>13528
AND SOCIALISM = HITLER

ALSO YOUR POST BROKE OUR ALL-CAPS RECORD FUCK YOU

FUCK YOU IN PONY HELL!!

plz 2 move socialism/federal power argument here from "Things worth Posting"

POLITICAL MATTERS ARE MERE TRIVIA FOR THE WORKING CLASSES TO OBSESS OVER IN THE ADORABLY MISGUIDED NOTION THAT THEY CAN AFFECT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE NATION

GENTLEMEN I BRING YOU A TRUE MATTER OF CONSEQUENCE FOR YOUR HEATED DELIBERATION

CHOCOLATE DIGESTIVES, OR RICH TEA BISCUITS?

>>13534
Whatever you say COMRADE

EVERYTHING IS JUST SO TERRIBLE
SO TERRIBLE
UGH

>>13536
YOU ALWAYS SAY THAT

JUST RECALIBRATE YOUR SCALE, JESUS

>>13537
WHAT DO YOU YOU MEAN RECALIBRATE MY SCALE
DOES IT INVOLVE FOOD OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT? OR ARE YOU IMPLYING GARRUS VAKKARIAN SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT MY SHIPS GUNS DUE TO HIS INVALUABLE CALIBRATION SKILLS?

>>13543
>It doesn't matter if it's a service, or regulation, or whatever the fuck else you want to call it. It's still a case of the government effectively managing the country
Yes. As you might notice, I agree that the federal government does indeed do a passable job at some things. I do not agree with your apparent belief that the government doing a passable job at one thing automatically means it will do an exemplary job at a different, unrelated thing.

>However, I'm sure Obama could find several precedents and a few loopholes allowing him to pass the healthcare bill.
So you feel that it would be good to violate the constitution in order to affect a universal solution over several discrete ones, despite the fact that the universal solution is, based on past performances, most likely to be inferior in terms of both penetration and fiscal efficiency? For what benefit? Merely because you desire to strip the right of states to make their own choices, thus slightly reducing the available freedoms of the American people? Even if you are of a blithely totalitarian bent and thus find this to be a positive thing, the "benefit" here would be so minor as to be nearly intangible.

>the postal service is pretty much the norm.
No. It is far more successful than most government programs.

>>13558
>No. It is far more successful than most government programs.
Prove it. Prove anything.

>>13560
>Prove it.
If doing so were trivial, I would have. Since it's not, I am unwilling to do so. I don't really have the time or, perhaps more importantly, the inclination. Proving this would require that I pull up a fuckton of information, much of which isn't publicly available. Even then, "successful" is a relative term, so true proof is kind of impossible.

>Prove anything.
Well, I did just prove that constitution thing. That was trivial; all I needed to do was link an online copy of the constitution.

>>13540
IT MEANS YOU SHOULD REDEFINE "TERRIBLE" SO IT ISN'T "EVERYTHING" AND THEREFORE HAS A USEFUL DEFINITION

IN OTHER WORDS, PUT IT IN RELATIVE TERMS

>>13558
>If doing so were trivial, I would have. Since it's not, I am unwilling to do so. I don't really have the time or, perhaps more importantly, the inclination. Proving this would require that I pull up a fuckton of information, much of which isn't publicly available. Even then, "successful" is a relative term, so true proof is kind of impossible.
This is a ridiculous excuse. Define successful. If you have no definition of success, you cannot call one thing more successful than the other. You must, therefore, have some definition of success.

>Well, I did just prove that constitution thing. That was trivial; all I needed to do was link an online copy of the constitution.
You've proven nothing! Proof requires more than just a link and sitting on your ass waiting for people to do it for you, you know; to claim you have made a proof requires that /you/ actually go out of your way to connect the evidence in your favor so that it will sound correct in /our/ eyes.

>I do not agree with your apparent belief that the government doing a passable job at one thing automatically means it will do an exemplary job at a different, unrelated thing.
Nobody said that but you. Stop putting words in his mouth.

Just because the government doesn't do well on some things doesn't mean it's not going to be /able/ to do well on others. That's the key word: "Able." Nothing is for certain. So consider the fact that we regard ourselves a democracy; it's supposed to be up to us, but then in order for healthcare to be in our hands (the hands of the public) it needs to be under public control as direct as possible. Even if that control is indirect, as it probably will be in a republic where we elect representatives to (hopefully) do what we want, it seems better to me than having no control at all. You're throwing away your own power by decrying a public plan. Having only a variety of private insurers may give you a choice, but they are not obligated to give you the choice you want.

>So you feel that it would be good to violate the constitution in order to affect a universal solution over several discrete ones
Let me quote the Constitution for you (The Necessary and Proper Clause, Article 1, Section 8):
>The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It says "foregoing powers," referring to the enumerated powers. One of these enumerated powers is that of Congress to pass laws that benefit the "general Welfare," evidenced here (same section):
>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
If it is Congress's duty to provide for the welfare of the United States - which also means the welfare of its people, for without the people there would be no United States - is it necessarily harmful to that welfare that we instate a publicly funded insurance plan? I do not think so, which brings me to my next response below.

>despite the fact that the universal solution is, based on past performances, most likely to be inferior in terms of both penetration and fiscal efficiency?
Past performances like, say, Japan? They have public plans available and they are the longest-lived people in the world, on average (last I checked, anyway, though if that statistic has declined then I can't imagine it was by a significant amount). Many European nations, with their public options, live longer than we do. What makes you so sure publicly funded healthcare, or at least insurance in the case of the US, will be so bad, especially considering we, too, will still have private insurers if we go through with it?

Now, mind you, I'm not saying the public plan going through Congress now is necessarily the best plan; what I am saying is that a public plan is not necessarily a bad thing, and if it can do good for the general welfare, then passing it is not out of constitutional bounds. If it was, don't you think that that "lack of penetration" would mean more people in these countries would be sick without care, and therefore the nations' average lifespans would be considerably shorter?

GUYS! GUYS! I THINK YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT HERE!

The amount of posts in this thread is approximately twenty, not counting this post.
Twenty is double the amount of ten, which is double the amount of five.
Five, when multiplied by six hundred is three thousand.

Three thousand times two equals six thousand (3000X2=6000).
Six thousand plus twenty five is 6025, who was guitarist in the band "Dead Kennedys" from 1978-1979.
1979 minus one thousand nine hundred equals 79.

79 minus ten equals 69.
69 is a sexual position. Sex often involves penises.
Penises are phallic objects, bananas are also phallic objects.
69, 6 and 9 are all results of multiplying something with three.

Therefore, three equals banana (3=banana).

>>13571
>sound correct in /our/ eyes
You have made a mistake here, therefore your entire argument is invalid.

>>13564
MY PERSPECTIVE CHANGING WOULDN'T MAKE EVERYTHING LESS TERRIBLE, IT'D TURN ME INTO A LYING, SMILING MACHINE IGNORANT OF TERRIBLE LIFE.
COME ON IT IS BASIC FACT LIFE IS PRETTY TERRIBLE. I CAN PROVE IT. FIRST PUT YOUR FINGER ON YOUR NOSE, SPIN THREE TIMES, THEN REFLECT ON YOUR LIFE. YEAH, PRETTY TERRIBLE, ISN'T IT?

>>13571
My bad:
>If it was, don't you think that that "lack of penetration" would mean more people in these countries would be sick without care, and therefore the nations' average lifespans would be considerably shorter?
Is related to "not necessarily a bad thing," whereas the part about constitutional validity (and if it can do good for the general welfare, then passing it is not out of constitutional bounds) should have come after.

And,
>Nothing is for certain.
I should not have linked that with to
>consider the fact that we regard ourselves a democracy

>>13573
What? {:v

>>13571
>Define successful.
Serving the intended purpose in an efficient and thorough manner.

>Proof requires more than just a link and sitting on your ass waiting for people to do it for you, you know;
If people are unwilling to read the very constitution that they cite then I am able to prove nothing. That's pretty fucking baseline.
>to claim you have made a proof requires that /you/ actually go out of your way to connect the evidence in your favor so that it will sound correct in /our/ eyes.
Amendment 10 is one fucking line, and it explicitly says exactly what I said that it says. There is no need to "connect" the evidence in my favor, it's sitting right there.
To give an even simpler parallel (which shouldn't be fucking necessary), consider if someone asserted that the sky is red. I then point up and say "look, the sky is blue". You are saying that that would not be proof that the sky is indeed blue. You are wrong and also a faggot.

>Nobody said that but you. Stop putting words in his mouth.
He repeatedly submitted that the federal government has done passable jobs with certain things as evidence that the federal government would do a good job with socialized healthcare. The implication inherent to the fact that he submits this information is that he believes it to be relevant.

>So consider [...] the choice you want.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant that we lose control going to federal healthcare over state healthcare. At state level, each state decides independently. That means that the people of one state are not unnecessarily bound by the decisions of those in another state. Furthermore, many states have truer democracy than the federal system. In my own state, for example, I could alter any legislation I cared to (including the State Constitution) by obtaining the signatures of registered voters equal in number to 1/16th of the votes in the previous election, and then my changes would go on the ballot to become law on a simple majority. So I would lose a lot of freedom if the issue became federal. States wherein the people have less access to democracy would of course have less to lose in this respect. But they even then lose the ability to have services independent of their neighbors.

>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
This refers to taxation. It does not necessarily mean that the federal government is obligated to act in some specific manner, but could also meant merely that it is able to acquire money to do as described in the rest of the document.
However your interpretation is entirely valid and would probably be the one that the Supreme Court would go with.

>Past performances like, say, Japan?
No, I meant past performances of the US federal government specifically, and not with regards to healthcare in particular. Sorry for being unclear. I am aware that public healthcare works very well in other countries, especially countries that are on a scale similar to the member states of the USA. I think that reinforces my point, rather than hindering it, however.

>What makes you so sure publicly funded healthcare, or at least insurance in the case of the US, will be so bad
I am not sure it will be bad. In fact I think it would probably work out mostly okay for a significant majority of the population. But the same could easily be said for the current healthcare situation. I am not optimistic about magical socialism because our federal government does not tend towards magical performances, and I am unwilling to risk state-guided healthcare programs for this.

>If it was, don't you think that that "lack of penetration" would mean more people in these countries would be sick without care, and therefore the nations' average lifespans would be considerably shorter?
I have some stories I can bust out here. My grandmother, who is Danish and lives in Denmark, once broke her arm in the US. She went to a doctor here, covered by my family's insurance because she was visiting. She went to the doctor that night and was all patched up by morning. She also ended up diagnosed with diabetes, which the socialized medicine of Denmark had failed to notice. When she returned to Denmark, she waited six months for a checkup on the cast that should have happened after a week.
My aunt, who has eye problems, has similar waiting.
And something that was in the news, a man needed treatment to be able to walk again. Something to do with his nerves, I'm not sure of the details as I don't actually read Danish that well and this was a while ago. Anyway, the guy's treatment was not covered by the Danish national healthcare plan. So he asked for donations. He received them, largely from Americans. But because non-social medicine is taxed heavily in Denmark, he gave up half of that money to support a system that would not treat him.
Obviously, this is just one country and anecdotes are not really evidence anyway, but it's worth thinking about, at least.

Also, not all health issues result in decreased lifespan.

>>13576
>And something that was in the news...
You have started a sentence with a conjunction. Your inability to handle straightforward grammar invalidates your entire argument.

None of you faggots know jack shit about constitutional law. GODDAMN.

>>13522
HEY SEAL YOU FORGOT TO DRAW YOUR CAT

>>13576
>You are saying that that would not be proof that the sky is indeed blue.
Sorry, I didn't read your post as clearly as I thought I had.

>I am not optimistic about magical socialism because our federal government does not tend towards magical performances, and I am unwilling to risk state-guided healthcare programs for this.
Nobody said it was going to be a magical process. I don't, at least. The problem isn't so much that people think it would be a great thing or that it wouldn't be, but that people don't seem to realize that they have to be the ones to make it great; without the action of the national public, a federally-operated or at least regulated public healthcare program will not work to their desires.

>I meant that we lose control going to federal healthcare over state healthcare.
>I am aware that public healthcare works very well in other countries, especially countries that are on a scale similar to the member states of the USA. I think that reinforces my point, rather than hindering it, however.
Perhaps so. However, if only certain states benefit (because almost inevitably, some states will not institute public healthcare - at least, not now), then what of the nation as a whole? I cite the Preamble, which I think sums up the purpose of forming the United States, or any national government, fairly well:

>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The "more perfect Union" stands out to me in this case because I think it is essential: In order for a nation to continue to survive, its people must strive to keep it coherent. If we go for individual state healthcare plans, then it may make it easier to get decent and affordable healthcare for ourselves and those in our own states, but we run the risk of leaving more people behind in those states you described whose people have less power to influence legislation. If we do that, then how does this contribute toward the formation of a more perfect union? I am aware that the above quote also states that "we the People" aim to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves," but if we make individual priviliges for ourselves our highest priority then we run the risk of leaving others behind, which is detrimental to the general welfare, at least.

>Obviously, this is just one country and anecdotes are not really evidence anyway, but it's worth thinking about, at least.

It's a way to sway some hearts, perhaps, but no, it's not really conclusive evidence.

>Also, not all health issues result in decreased lifespan.
Not necessarily, no, but it's telling that these countries are at least better able to deal with life-threatening problems, in the short and long run. And if you look at a list of the top ten causes of death from, say, the WHO's 2004 sheet, the leading causes in the high-income countries are all diseases. (Data table: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html ) In fact, aside from road traffic accidents, disease accounts for the top percentages of deaths in the entire world. The CDC's statistics for US deaths ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm ) rank diseases in the top causes of death, aside from accidents; still, accidents account for less deaths than lower respiratory disease. So I think lifespan, while not an extremely accurate indicator of overall health, is a good one still.

>>13588
>without the action of the national public

This is the part where the plan goes horribly... horribly wrong. This is the part where ALL socialism goes wrong, people are, by and large, tiny deer raping cocks.

>>13588
I just want to point out a few things without quoting excessively and writing a treatise.

Your document does not support the premise that it was originally introduced to support. Everyone dies eventually, and pretty much 100% of the diseases listed for high-income countries are 'old people diseases.' I don't know if you are aware, but countries with socialized systems rarely treat these diseases because they have to allocate resources, and use potential lifespan/likelihood of survival as a measure for determining how resources should be allocated.

Another thing you seem to be saying is that just because there could theoretically be a good health care bill, we should accept this one even if it is bad. This is stupid. Really stupid.

>State v. Federal Problem

Health care deals very closely with the actual population and its needs if it is successful. Why is a solution that is the same across the board instead of tailored to the needs of the people there superior? You seem to think that the democratic process only works on the state instead of the federal level. Keep in mind that the bigger the area you have to administrate, the harder it is to administrate well.

>>13588

I meant to say that you seem to think democracy only works on the Federal and not the State level. Switch those in my above post.

State level is a good level to decide such things if simple do the the vast expense in 'whoops, looks like we were wrong... sorry bout that whole national economy thing'

While if a system works other states will look and say "hey now... that's a good idea, let's see if we can't do that too?" and maybe it will... or won't but that depends on the local social and political climate.

The Unites States is after all, "the Great Experiment" and in every experiment you need multiple test subjects and even control groups.

>>13534
>RICH TEA
FEEBLE LITTLE DISCS OF HATE.

>HEALTH CARE BITCHING
Still not getting how the Basic Human Rights Fail has continued for so long in the US with so much opposition.

>>13594
NICE TRY, BUT THE CORRECT ANSWER WAS "HOB NOBS"

I WOULD ALSO HAVE ACCEPTED "GINGER NUTS"

>>13594
Because I'm becoming more and more convinced that your average American has his head firmly lodged in his colon.

>>13594
>>13596
We stopped being a progressive country long ago. It's sad, really.

>>13591
>I meant to say that you seem to think democracy only works on the Federal and not the State level. Switch those in my above post.
No, I don't. See my following response.

>>13591
>Another thing you seem to be saying is that just because there could theoretically be a good health care bill, we should accept this one even if it is bad.
No, I'm saying that /a/ federal healthcare plan better serves the national interests outlined in the Constitution.

>>13593
>The Unites States is after all, "the Great Experiment" and in every experiment you need multiple test subjects and even control groups.
And that is somehow invalidated if a federal plan passes? Even if all states then have public healthcare, that does not rule out the possibility of different subplans for different states. Of course a state like California should be provided for differently under a federal plan than one like, say, Vermont, but that does not change my point that a federal plan better serves the interest of the entire nation. It just requires a different wording of the final legislation.

>>13591
>I don't know if you are aware, but countries with socialized systems rarely treat these diseases because they have to allocate resources, and use potential lifespan/likelihood of survival as a measure for determining how resources should be allocated.
What evidence do you have to support this?

>>13590
>This is the part where the plan goes horribly... horribly wrong. This is the part where ALL socialism goes wrong, people are, by and large, tiny deer raping cocks.
You're projecting far too hard. If the majority of people truly thought like that, the situation would be much worse than it is today. We wouldn't have Medicare or any of the other government-funded and operated institutions that work to keep our country together and prosperous (to a point), the military included. We wouldn't have states to begin with!

Since you seem to believe that socialism is necessarily something wrong, let me make clear the definition of the word. Socialism is that which supports the government, because the government must exert some control over the economy (and socialism is technically defined as supporting common management of the economy) in order to survive. If it didn't, it would have no resources with which to run itself. But I digress somewhat.

More to the point, I don't disagree that on the most basic level, a human only does something because he thinks it will benefit him. What I do disagree with, though, is your apparent belief that no human thinks that helping others will benefit him. Why would we have nations at all, if that were true?

If we did not pay taxes toward a general fund (the national treasury) from which a government we elect can draw to pay people to provide all the necessary goods and services to us, it would be much harder for each person to get all those goods and services. Stable governments also offer protection from crime and from the armed forces of other countries. It is ultimately beneficial to the individual to contribute a share of one's wealth and to involve one's self in the politics of his home nation, to ensure that he will continue to have a safe place to live where he is provided with all his basic needs.

So even though it may be true /now/ that not enough people are willing to push for a good national healthcare plan that serves everyone well, you should not assume that it will always be that way. After all, if you think it is that hopeless, then what reason will you see to try and make it less true?

tl;dr: Keep your spirits up. Untempered cynicism is just as fruitless as untempered optimism. A mix of the two is best.

>>13584
I do not constrain my self to the most irrelevant of formal grammar rules because I am not a pretentious English major. My choice to ignore something you find important does not relate to anything else I say.

>>13588
>However, if only certain states benefit (because almost inevitably, some states will not institute public healthcare - at least, not now), then what of the nation as a whole?
What of it? This is not a matter on which we need be unified in the face of a unified opposition. If some people choose not to implement such a program, then why strip that freedom from them?

I notice from your data that the top killers are life-style influenced. The unhealthy lifestyles of Americans unfortunately confounds the data on healthcare.

>>13591
>You seem to think that the democratic process only works on the state instead of the federal level.
Federal democracy is very limited. It only allows the election of a relative few people, who make the actual laws.
Most states in the US have some form of initiative these days, though some require more signatures than others. That allows people to change any law that enough people truly care about. That's a form of democracy which simply doesn't exist at the federal level, and it's the truest form of democracy to ever function on this scale.

>Keep in mind that the bigger the area you have to administrate, the harder it is to administrate well.
This is a very good paraphrasing of something I said less clearly earlier. Thanks for that.

>>13594
Free health care is not a basic human right. It is not inherent to the human condition, as with freedoms of speech, assembly religion, and similar. It is not a protection of anything in particular. It is not even considered a right by the UN's declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) and they think free education is a basic right (and mandatory free education, too, which makes no sense at all).

>>13598
According to Wikipedia, the Progressive Era lasted through the twenties. That's not that long ago. And whether we truly ceased to be progressive according to a more direct definition of the word is something that could still be debated. But any such debate would essentially boil down to a mess of semantics.

>>13598
YEAH IT'S NOT LIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ISN'T PROGRESSIVE AT ALL. NO, THE US IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHO IS DOING JACK SHIT FOR THE FURTHERING OF HUMANITY.

JUST WHAT IS WITH ALL THIS BETTERMENT NONSENSE. WHO SAID WE HAVE TO BETTER OURSELVES. WHAT'S WRONG WITH STAGNATING IT ISN'T HURTING ANYBODY AND SURE DOES TAKE A LOT LESS EFFORT. WHAT DO WE GET OUT OF BETTERING OURSELVES?

>>13603
>If some people choose not to implement such a program, then why strip that freedom from them?
Strip what freedom? Most developed nations with public healthcare have both public and private plans available. Having a public one does not necessitate that the private options go away. And regarding freedom, I want the freedom to buy my healthcare, or at least my health insurance, from the state. By your logic, I think you helping to keep me from having that freedom.

>I notice from your data that the top killers are life-style influenced. The unhealthy lifestyles of Americans unfortunately confounds the data on healthcare.
That may be, but does that change it drastically?

>What of it? This is not a matter on which we need be unified in the face of a unified opposition.
Yes, it is. It might not be a wholly unified opposition, but if we don't try to provide the best possible for everyone in our nation, then we run the risk of falling behind our competitors. That doesn't just mean healthcare necessarily, but everything essential to our prosperity. China, for one, seems poised to overtake us - we already have very little leverage over them, not only because they are also a superpower but because we are heavily mutually invested in each other, and we have moved most of our non-high-tech manufacturing base to it and the surrounding developing Asian nations. If we do not do everything to ensure that we have a healthy, strong workforce to compete with such countries, then we will surely fall behind them, sooner or later.

And while that in itself may not seem to tie in directly with public healthcare, consider that if we allow each state to go its own way, then it defeats the purpose of - and therefore degrades - the union. While I don't disagree that each state should be provided for differently, I do disagree that we shouldn't all have to come to a unified decision on whether or not to provide healthcare at all. Regarding what you said about the federal government - no, our federal system is far from perfect, and it may well be further from the democratic ideal than the state system. But while the United States would be nothing without its individual states, the individual states would not be anywhere near as influential, both politically and economically, in today's world, if they were not expected to come to agreement on something as important to the continued prosperity of their people as healthcare as one Union of States.

>>13602
>Of course a state like California should be provided for differently under a federal plan than one like, say, Vermont,
Under a federal plan, it cannot be.

>Socialism is that which supports the government, because the government must exert some control over the economy
This is either a totally false statement indicating absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, or phrased so poorly that it appears to be.

>If it didn't, it would have no resources with which to run itself.
Except taxation. And bonds. That's worked okay for quite a while now.

>>13603
>pretentious English major
You have made an ad-hominem attack, ergo your entire argument is invalid. Also you have an ugly face.

>>13602
Oh, and technically it's defined as supporting public ownership of enterprise. Seems like a small difference, but it can matter quite a bit.

>>13605
>Strip what freedom?
The freedom to choose your own government policy.
>And regarding freedom, I want the freedom to buy my healthcare, or at least my health insurance, from the state.
Then vote for that in your state. You currently have the freedom to do so, because it is still a state issue.

>That may be, but does that change it drastically?
I don't know. I don't have the numbers required to find out, and I don't think they'd really be possible to generate in any concrete way. If we factor that in, it could work out that the predominance of private health care actually causes Americans to have a better life expectancy over all. Or it could turn out that they're about the same. Or it could turn out that despite what the FDA and health groups say, the US lifestyle doesn't really effect life expectancy at all, and the entirety of the difference is from health care. But there's no way of knowing, so you also can't use this data as proof that socialized health care is certainly better for people overall.

>US vs. them
That's not really the international system these days.

>And while that in itself may not seem to tie in directly with public healthcare, consider that if we allow each state to go its own way, then it defeats the purpose of - and therefore degrades - the union.
The purpose of the union is, in layman's terms, to stick together so that we can not be taken out individually.
Healthcare is not relevant to that.

>But while the United States would be nothing without its individual states, the individual states would not be anywhere near as influential, both politically and economically, in today's world, if they were not expected to come to agreement on something as important to the continued prosperity of their people as healthcare as one Union of States.
No. They would not be considered as influential if they did not band together on matters of military or trade. Healthcare is a purely domestic issue, and people outside of America do not really give a fuck about that. At least as far as international politics are concerned, I'm sure there's plenty of idealists scattered around the globe who feel that their own position is right and Americans are utterly stupid for not agreeing with them.

>>13606
>This is either a totally false statement indicating absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, or phrased so poorly that it appears to be.
Perhaps it is the second one. I shall try to make myself clear.

>Except taxation. And bonds. That's worked okay for quite a while now.
Those are means by which the government meddles in the economy to acquire revenues for itself. If you don't think that taxation and selling and buying bonds has any effect on, say, disposable income, inflation, or recession, then you're kidding yourself.

Socialism is by definition the theory that the "means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" - I cite the Oxford Dictionary, but I doubt it will be much different if you look for the definition from any other source. It is essentially the belief that the community (i.e. government, especially in a democratic nation) should interfere with the economy for its own interests.

Now, to go back to taxation and bonds, both of those are ways of interfering in the economy that are necessary for a government to provide for itself. A government has to meddle in its economy in some way that could be considered a tax or a tribute, or else it wouldn't be able to get the revenues it needed. That is why I say that any socialist action is necessarily one that benefits the state, because to be a socialist is to support regulation of the economy for the benefit of the community.

>Under a federal plan, it cannot be.
Why the hell not? Why can't a federal plan make provisions to create different subplans for the individual states? Why must a federal plan be so hopeless to you?

>>13608
>The freedom to choose your own government policy.
If I had the ultimate freedom to choose my own government policy then I'd be living in my own damn utopia right now!

Nobody truly has that freedom, in the end. It's something to be striven for, but I think that while we're doing that we need to start making sure we have the infrastructure in place so that we /can/ strive for these things. Providing for healthcare is providing for one part of that infrastructure.

>I don't know… But there's no way of knowing, so you also can't use this data as proof that socialized health care is certainly better for people overall.
That's fucking bullshit! If there was no way of knowing then why bother having a fucking healthcare system in the first place? If there's no way of knowing then that implies that we can't expect consistent results from any healthcare system, which is obviously not true if you compare the systems of the developed world and the third world. Even if a state healthcare system is better than a federal one there has to be a way to /know/, or at least get close to knowing for sure.

>The purpose of the union is, in layman's terms, to stick together so that we can not be taken out individually.
>Healthcare is not relevant to that.
Yes, it is. If we cannot provide healthcare then we can be taken out individually, by disease and injury. It may not seem like much to you, but if Americans lead as unhealthy lifestyles as you say, then it must be important. If an (un)healthy lifestyle doesn't have to do with disease or injury, then what the hell does it have to do with?

>Healthcare is a purely domestic issue, and people outside of America do not really give a fuck about that.
Other people outside of America may not care about it directly but if we don't take care of our domestic issues, we won't be able to handle ourselves on an international scale. If domestic issues were so unimportant to our standing in the world, don't you think we'd be arguing about them just a tad less?

>That's not really the international system these days.
You're fooling yourself, then. The United States must keep up in the world or it will be trammeled upon. It will at least lose its position of relative power over other nations. That's the way life works; the strongest get their way.

I guess what I'm really meaning to ask you is this: Do you want to become another country's bitch?

>>13609
What the Oxford dictionary said (and what other dictionaries say) is not the same as what you said it meant directly after. Of note, taxation and all that are not considered socialism under the dictionary definition, while your definition does include that.
As the meaning of a word is based on common consensus, and the meaning supplied by everyone (including the source you cite) disagrees with the meaning you allege is correct, I submit that your definition is wrong.

>Why can't a federal plan make provisions to create different subplans for the individual states?
Because then it wouldn't be a federal plan. It would be a bunch of state plans (and would have whatever downside people apparently thing a state plan has, though no one has yet supplied one) but instead of allowing people to choose democratically according to their own needs, it's decided by people in Washington who are less likely to have any idea of what would be most advantageous to the citizens in question. Not due to any incompetence or anything (or at least not primarily), but just because it's not their job to know.

>If I had the ultimate freedom to choose my own government policy then I'd be living in my own damn utopia right now!
If you were infinitely competent, and had access to infinite resources, then yes, you'd be living in a utopia. Unfortunately, everything is limited by reality. Even freedom; you don't have the personal ability to rule the nation by yourself because that would invalidate the freedoms of others.

>That's fucking [...] knowing for sure
Sorry if I was unclear. There's no way of knowing how much of the difference (if any) is due to healthcare and how much is due to lifestyle. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's utterly impossible to perceive a difference in different payment models for healthcare at all.
It is quite apparent that both private healthcare and public healthcare are superior to no healthcare.

>Yes, it is. [...] have to do with?
"we" refers to the states in this case, not individuals. Sorry for being unclear.

>Other people outside of America may not care about it directly but if we don't take care of our domestic issues, we won't be able to handle ourselves on an international scale.
This is true. But failing to take care of domestic issues in this sense refers to such things as civil unrest. The fact that people disagree on policy is not internationally relevant.
>If domestic issues were so unimportant to our standing in the world, don't you think we'd be arguing about them just a tad less?
No.

>You're fooling yourself, then. The United States must keep up in the world or it will be trammeled upon. It will at least lose its position of relative power over other nations. That's the way life works; the strongest get their way.
If that was true, all other countries would be being "trammeled upon" right now. Since that is clearly not the case, it is apparent that you are wrong. In fact, multiple countries can exist without people breaking out the trammels.

>I guess what I'm really meaning to ask you is this: Do you want to become another country's bitch?
If being their bitch just means that they can say they've got some numbers higher than us, I honestly don't give a fuck.

>Rationing

It's the reason we didn't sign the Int. Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Article 12 requires "–―The States Parties . . . recognize the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health."

How the hell do you think pure socialized free health care systems work? There are limited resources that must be distributed to everyone in your population. It is an ethical violation of the doctor to waste medical resources that could better be used elsewhere. You have to ration as an attendant circumstance of any such system.

The exact opposite of here, where you can basically get any healthcare that you can pay for. A patient would likely sue the shit out of a doctor if he could pay for treatment and the doctor refused on those grounds.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we ALREADY have a federal system in place, but it is minimal and only for certain classes of people (medicare/medicaid). Also, if you're poor, you can get emergency healthcare and just not pay.

The real issue with health care in America has to do with the way doctors interact with insurance companies. We need more insurance reform, not a federal plan.

You seem to think a federal plan is the only way to have an effective system. Why is that?

I would be fine with a federal plan if it were to actually cater to the needs of local populations and was cost-effective.

The government should keep its filthy hands off my police and fire departments. I should have the right to choose what, if any, police or fire protection I want.

Well, I'm down for the count. Cruxador, even if my definitions are wrong, you seem incapable of allowing yourself to reconcile them with your own even for a moment, if only to understand what the hell I'm saying. I was originally responding to the poster who said all "socialism" fails by describing all the socialist programs that we have implemented with success (to a degree, for success in approaching some ideal is always to a degree). The dictionary definition may not include "taxation and all that" by name, but I do believe that those things fall under the kind of economic meddling implied by communal regulation of production, distribution, and exchange. And if they were not intended to be for the government's benefit in some way, then what were they for? Everyone ultimately serves themselves, you know. Say my definition is wrong all you like, it's not going to change my point. And before you go calling me a hypocrite for doing the same thing you're doing to the other poster I was responding to - correcting his definition of a word - remember that unlike you, I actually responded to his point, rather than merely try to put him down in a game of semantics one-upmanship.

To address your point about taking us out one by one - even if you were talking about the states, I think my point still stands that we are more likely to be taken out one by one by unhealthiness of any kind if we do not strive to provide the best care possible. The Union is more than just states, you know - it is people.

I'm not sure at the moment how to appeal to you on the trammeling argument, though I remain convinced that I am correct. To answer your concern (or rather, lack thereof) regarding domestic vs. international issues, however, while healthcare may not be /as/ pressing an issue as civil unrest - which I see no reason to believe, since there are no ongoing large-scale protests I am aware of that threaten our quasi-democratic regime, unless you mean politicians in Congress who hold up the lawmaking process endlessly until they can ransom what they want out of each other, in which case I could agree - it is an issue that could certainly lead to civil unrest, if allowed to go too far. And while I'm aware of how unlikely that is, at least for the time being, I don't believe that makes it something we can just brush under the table forever and expect nobody important to give a damn.

I still don't believe a nominally federal plan couldn't have state subplans, if handled correctly. You have given me no evidence that any federal plan would necessarily be handled only by people in Washington. Even if it is most likely to be that way under the current system, there is a reason we call ourselves a democracy: It is that we are supposed to have the power to change the system. Even if that change is improbable, we are obligated to try if we consider ourselves a democracy, because democracy is useless if nobody has the will to try and effect change.

Even if there is no way to truly know how much of "the difference" is attributable to healthcare and how much to lifestyle, there must be a way to get as close to knowing for certain as possible. I'm not sure how I can tell you you're completely wrong there, because it's certainly true that some things are improbable. But improbability doesn't put something outside the realm of possibility, and it seems even more that way to me for this particular case when you don't give me an actual reason for why we can't come close to knowing. To dismiss it outright as wholly impossible or improbable (it makes no difference, since you're dismissing it anyway) speaks of a fatalist bent to your thinking that I believe marks the difference between how you and I operate.

I also have yet to hear you prove, beyond significant doubt, a single point about healthcare to me. When I press you for evidence, you dodge my inquiry with a rambling statement along the lines of "I can't/don't want to go to the trouble to try and prove that, so it must be wrong," a claim which you never back up with supporting evidence. I suppose that would be too hard for you, though.

db9097, while it may be true that other countries' public healthcare systems ration resources and services (something that I will pull a Cruxador on for now and not bother trying to prove or disprove), is that any reason for us not to try and push for a system that is better? Not a wholly public system necessarily, just /a/ better system. I think we could be better than them, if only we tried - which isn't to imply that the process of trying is going to be a "magical" one, no. Anything we try is going to carry the weight of risk with it. But if we never took risks, we'd never get anywhere in life. Maybe insurance reform is the way to go; maybe not. And I'm not saying a federal plan is the only way to have an effective system; I'm just saying it makes the most sense to do so in the context of the stated aims of the Constitution that Cruxador seems to hold dear.

Your point is also invalidated by the fact that most countries with public plans also have private ones, so it's not as though the two are mutually exclusive. Maybe it will mean the private plans are taxed more heavily, as in Cruxador's case of Denmark; maybe not. Is that such a bad thing, though? Again, you have yet to prove to me beyond significant doubt that it is: 1. Impossible to have a public plan without getting rid of (or significantly taxing) any private plan, and 2. That if we don't have a private plan (or if the plans are significantly taxed) that it is necessarily something /bad/.

Consider me out, for now. I may come back every now and then, but I am not going to continue to argue on a point by point basis in so pedantic a manner as to quote specific passages of your post and try to respond to each one separately. It's obviously not helping me here (though I expect I will get a few smartasses pointing out that it's not just the /way/ I write, it's the core /ideas/ behind what I'm writing that are wrong. Maybe that's true, but if it is, I have yet to see it). Anyway, ta-ta.

>>13618

I guess I was just never clear on exactly what you were advocating, and you seemed to make arguments that basically said any sort of federal plan was always superior while refusing to admit that that could potentially not the case.

Cruxador is a stupid ass, but you also never actually responded to any of my questions about why you think that a Federal solution of any kind is the only reasonable one. I mean, if you agree that a plan that is specifically tailored to each state is superior, why would you even be against state plans?

I am for the most efficient solution that actually works, whether it is State, Federal, or Private. Also, the existence of a private system on top of a government one doesn't 'invalidate' my argument at all, because I wasn't arguing one way or the other in regards to rationing. You just seemed to be unaware that those systems worked that way.

We discussed it in detail in my Bioethics survey course in law school. It is the area of expertise for that particular professor. Looking through my slides and notes, I don't have actual citations for you, sorry, but I did check.

I hope you people don't believe that we won't treat everything or that we let patients die because of "resources"? I mean it's sometimes ridiculous to what extent we go. We treat everything. I'm sure I just misinterpeted.

As for Denmark I suspect somebody really fucked up or their system is broken. You really don't have to wait that long. As for cost effectiveness you get what your government pays for and prevention is always preferable to treatment after. Guess which one gets cuts when the bad days roll over even though it ends costing more that way. That said it took time to get it right and my country is tiny compared to yours with less politics. Good luck with that if you intend to go through with it.

Since they come up so often on tv shows I must ask. Bankruptcy and lifetime of debt because of medical bills true or false? Not getting treatment or only partial because you can't pay? Seems a bit extreme.

>>13618
Cruxador?

Definitonal argument?

Couldn't possibly be!

>>13620

Nevermind, did a google because I finally got curious. Your system sucks that is all.

The US health care system is balls, but is compensated for by a campaign of misinformation which claims that people basically lay bleeding in the streets in other countries. People dying of thirst in overcrowded hospital waiting rooms, etc.

>>13620
>bankruptcy etc
Yeah, that happens sometimes. It's not normal though. Most people have health insurance, so if something expensive hasppens, they're covered. For people that can't afford insurance, there's the existing federal programs. People are never turned away for emergency procedures, though poorer people might sometines choose not to go to the doctor for something minor in order to save money. Usually this is the sort of shit most folks would ignore because it's totally trivial. I imagine bankruptcy allegedly due to medical charges is generally also due to existing financial troubles.
I've never met anybody with this problen, though.

>>13624
Which is not too surprising, considering the other countries don't have electricity, still use horses as main transportation method and worship heathen deities, like the Pope, Allah or Lenin.

>>13637
Some of them even have nepotistic dictatorships installed at the top of their government!

>>13625
>Yeah, that happens sometimes. It's not normal though.
"Not normal" insofar as your standard medical visit does not result in a bankruptcy. But it is extremely common. 60% of all bankruptcies in the United States are due to medical costs. This is a figure which cannot be emphasized enough.

>>13695
Just to play devil's advocate, since this is the big dumb argument thread, what is a "proper" percentage of bankruptcies to be caused by medical bills? How should it compare to foreclosures, failed business ventures, credit cards, college, and whatever other sources of debt I may be forgetting?

Percentages don't really say much of anything unless they are given in a "number of incidences per 10000 citizens" style.

>>13695
Also, cites please? From what I read, 40% of people who filed for bankruptcy in the past two years had a serious medical condition. That doesn't mean that's the reason they filed for bankruptcy.

>>13735

It also doesn't really account for how many people are already in crippling debt and on the verge of bankruptcy before it happens because americans can't manage finances to save their fucking lives (literally sometimes!)

Also it is very difficult to type perfectly on a cell phone.

Eh, I'm bored. Recognizing differences in gender and race is important, and not doing it is an impediment to modern medical testing.

This has nothing to do with thinking less of individuals because of their race or gender.

>>13905
I'm surprised that so many people are falling for such an obvious troll

>>13911
(I was referring to Technomancer, not you)

>>13912
I see. That was unclear to me. I apologize for misunderstanding.

>>13913
Though I frown on banning people for their views, banning for such arbitrary shit is entirely acceptable to me.

Also banning for ban evasion should be a given, it's not like you need to say that.

>>13915
>>13911
Ugh.

Shut up, troll. My god, you are being so obvious.

>>13922
This is the Big Dumb Arguments thread.
Getting mad at things posted in it is kind of a waste of mad.

>>13922
I assure you, this is no troll. If you actually give a fuck, you could go into IRC and ask people if my opinions and statements seem in keeping with my general behavior over the last however long it is now that this place has been around. I'm sure there will be plenty of folks who will answer in the affirmative.

Though if you care that much, you're a big dumb faggot.

I don't think I've seen Crux fuck around that much, admittedly. But he can troll without trolling, somehow. He's a mystical nerd-cowboy that inspires anger wherever he goes.

>>13926
Not anywhere I go. You are overstating the case. Sometimes people become irate in my presence, but it's not like everywhere I go, people are exploding in rage at the merest touch of my shadow. Although that conjures a pretty badass image to mind.
This is probably related to my tendency to be right, and unassailably so, even when faced with mistaken beliefs which are held very deeply.
Also people tend to assume that any contention leveraged indicates that I am against everything they stand for. I don't know why that is. I guess people are silly.
And of course kids do tend to get worked up about shit. But most people around here are old enough not to, and those that aren't yet will be eventually.

But mostly people are not mad.

>>13934
>Shadow of Rage
This is totally my next character in a supers game.
The yells of FUUUUUUU- shall herald his arrival, and the floodlight mounted behind him shall turn all villainous plans to ruin.

>>13934
>my tendency to be right, and unassailably so, even when faced with mistaken beliefs which are held very deeply
Excuse me, you are not Seal.

>>13934
It has nothing to do with you being right about anything. People simply don't like it when people act like jerks. There's more than one way to make a point, and just because you think you have a point doesn't mean you can pick any one you want. Politeness still applies to the "right" side.

>>13934
It has nothing to do with you being right (or "unassailable") about anything. People just don't like it when people act like jerks. There's more than one way to make a point, and just because you have one to make doesn't mean you can choose any method you want. Politeness still applies.

>>13943
If you can make it frustrating enough to argue with you that nobody bothers, then you win the argument and are right by default. This is how the Internet works.

>>13944
And that is basically all that Cruxador does.

Can we all agree just to never talk to him? Ever? I have yet to see a situation where talking to him led to good things.

>>13948
That would just be unfair. There's no reason to exclude him when he's not belittling people. My policy is "you are who you are at the moment"; when you act like a jerk, you're a jerk, and when you act nice, you're a nice guy. It's easier and more practical than keeping track of grudges.

>>13967

Independently of the reason you got banned in the first place, you keep getting banned and your threads and posts deleted for ban evasion. Wait for your ban to expire or contact the mods in the IRC channel if you want to try and appeal your ban.

And a mod only needs a single click to ban your last proxy and delete all your posts. It's not like we're gonna get tired of it.

>>13971
Protip: That's not the mod that banned you.

Now kindly fuck off.

>>13971

>My ban evasion has happened because I don't think it's for me to be banned for the original, ambiguous reason.

Nope. You even said that it was reasonable.

I was even going to decrease the duration because you were a fair sport about it after it was explained, then you just 'decided to not be banned anymore' so I reset the timer instead.

I also like how you talk a big game until you get called on it, then backpedal like crazy. Classy stuff.

>>13971
Dodging bans without talking to the mod is not reasoning with the mod.
In fact, what you did was agree to the ban and say "Okay, okay. Fine, I guess I can live with that" and then you started evading it. You didn't contest it at all.

>>13967
I'm pretty sure you were largely banned for being a faghat, not for your actual opinions. You suggested that your views were right solely because they were unpopular, for one thing.
Also not that I've espoused similar views in this very thread, and not been banned.

>>13969
I am pretty sure that such petty and pointless shit was not the cause of his ban.
Furthermore, your statement that nobody wants him is in error - his art is appreciated, even if his rhetoric isn't.

>>13971
>Okay, for starters, my original ban was placed out of personal bias and misunderstanding.
I am pretty sure there was no misunderstanding and little bias. But who cares? You're banned for a fucking week.

>My ban evasion has happened because I don't think it's for me to be banned
You're wrong. This is a privately run website, you have no right to post here. There is no claim made that moderation follows any strict rules. You can be banned for whatever a moderator wants, and it remains totally valid.

>Now I'm permabanned
It amuses me that you don't even bother to check your ban duration. It doesn't amuse me nearly enough that I would approve of it, though.

It's funny how whenever someone starts talking about tgchan on 4chan and posts a link to the thread on IRC, everyone drops their false civility in that thread and starts insulting each other under the guise of anonymity.

>>14059
>False civility
I take it you don't go to the IRC channels, then.

>>14062

It's more like they say under anonimity what they don't have the balls to say under their real IDs or nicks in the IRC.

We used to have the anon thread for that, now that we don't have one anymore, people go back to /tg/ to rip off the people they don't like here. But yeah, this isn't news.

>>14059
What's all this about? I did a search for 'tgchan' on that easymodo archive and didn't find anything except that OVERLORD guy mentioning his ban, Technomancer linking images, and anon claiming we have fapfics instead of quests.

>>14066
I think the most recent one was actually on /co/ and had started as a thread about one of Weaver's characters (Chain Chomp or something?) before getting derailed by "where is Weaver now?"

>we have fapfics instead of quests
This is pretty ironic given most of the sincere (and horrifically bad) attempts at erotic fiction on this site (i.e. not Driblis' one-paragraph joke ones) seem to come from fresh 4chan refugees.

But maybe they made the mistake of somehow only reading Blake Quest and Pink Dragon and Venji Quest.

>>14066
People greatly exaggerating.

Tdchnomancer is using this site to link his images back to /tg/? Okay, that needs to stop.

>>14073
The last I knew the mods were cool with 4chan/tg/ drawfags using tgchan/draw/ as a NSFW image hosting site.

>>14073

More like you need to stop being a baby. A baby behind a proxy, even.

>>14075
I'm not behind a proxy, but thanks for playing :V

>>14073
Why the fuck would you have a problem with that?

>>14069
>This is pretty ironic given most of the sincere (and horrifically bad) attempts at erotic fiction on this site (i.e. not Driblis' one-paragraph joke ones) seem to come from fresh 4chan refugees.
Yeah. There was also an anon or two saying that we "turned full circle" by "driving people out for posting stuff we don't like."

Tis a silly place.

>>14073
Why?

>>14077
>>14078
Because there's such a thing as reputation.

"But anon! This is tgchan! We already have a tarnished reputation, and besides, this is the internet! Who cares?"

We should care. Not because we're not a bunch of perverts, furries, etc, but because that shouldn't be the only thing that people see from this website if they don't already visit here. If we already have a bad reputation, and then enforce what people think the site is about (IE: fapfics and other fetish shit) by allowing people to use our site for those purposes and then post all about it on /tg/, we are never going to see any growth because our reputation will remain "That place is a shithole."

How many quest authors have found the site in the past year? Lonelyworld? Flynnmerk? Maybe four or five people have actually joined the site and contributed things. We are going to see less than that and especially less people who have any merit to what they draw if we willingly let people advertise ourselves as a complete and utter shithole that embraces this sort of thing.

We don't need to do anything to try to right our reputation on /tg/, nor do we need to actively go over there and try to say "No way guys, tgchan is awesome, look at Journey and Bitequest and shit!" All I'm saying is that we shouldn't willingly allow ourselves to be advertised as a shithole haven for the dregs of /tg/ deemed too crazy and shitty for even them, and a complete and utter hugbox towards any freak that can't post their shit on /d/ or /tg/.

It's for the good of the site that this does not continue and that Technomancer finds some other place to post his art.

>>14079
I salute you.

>>14079
I doubt the majority of the regulars care about reputation or getting new faces in. Seems to me they are pretty happy with their shitty injokes and drawing porn of each others characters.

The thing with Lonely World and the old guard greeting him by drawing porn of his main character was pretty symptomatic for that. Sure, it turned out ok in that case, but I still don't get how anyone could have considered a appropriate thing to do.

>>14081
That was because of a joke/meme that started instantly though.

And even if some of the regulars don't care about reputation or growth, they should, lest the site be overrun with people like Flynnmerk, Technomancer and their cronies. It was bad enough when Reaver was around, we don't need more people like them. If left completely unchecked it could well be the death of the site, when quality quests are pushed to the wayside and stuff like Ratsturbation Quest becomes the most popular quest. It's not the community that started this site, and it's not the community that this site should try to maintain.

>>14082
Were you even here when the site started, anonymous? Saying "It's not the community that started this site" is pretty absurd because the community absolutely started the site, and I don't even know what to say to your slippery slope argument, especially considering the first popular quest that got TGChan actually going and being active was Rape Quest.

>>14082
I am going to tell you this once. You are a fucking idiot. Communities decide if a site is worth going to.

You know why Youtube was sold to Google? Because there is a massive amount of people that go to that site. That is the community that decided the site was worth going to. Without them, there would be no Youtube.

You do realize that this site is entirely community driven, right? That the posters are the community? That by posting here saying that the community didn't start this site is something a fucking imbecile would say? Do you know who runs this site? It is Dylan. He runs this site without donations and probably on his own time. He adds features for the community to use like colored text and those new thumbnails like .

He made this site because he wanted a place for people to go from /tg/.

>>14079
Well, I don't think my opinion on this is really worth a damn, but since this is the Big Dumb Arguments Thread: mostly well-said.

>>14079
>>14082

Nah, the site has always been full of fetishists, perverts and kinks than in any most social circles would make us look like sick fucks. Technomancer isn't even the worst thing that this site has seen, at all. I personally find that the fetishists don't shit up the place as much as the people trying to kick away those artists they personally don't like, using "reputation" as an excuse. Or those who think they should decide who is worthy of staying here and who is not.

>It's not the community that started this site, and it's not the community that this site should try to maintain.

Boy, selective memory is such a sweet thing. Easy to forget the myriad of weird porn that came since even Rubyquest, or the ocean of shitty and/or creepy quests flooding the front page during the first months of the board. Those were the golden ages!

>>14084
Um, I think you misread my entire post.

I'm saying that people who enjoy Flynnmerk, Technomancer and others are not the same community as the old guard that started the site, who value quality storytelling in quests over porn shenanigans played straight. They are a community of people who wouldn't know a good story if it hit them in the face. They are people who would legitimately praise Silvermoon and think it's awesome instead of laughing at it or finding it funny.

The two quests commonly praised as the best of the best are Journey and Bitequest, neither of which are based around fetishes or porn. If you would like to see the community change to where Blakequest and Valley of Love's retard-sex chapter are the most widely praised things around, be my guest, but I for one would rather see the community stay the same, encouraging inventive ideas and just plain good storytelling. This is NOT to say I want to see the community remain stagnant, but that we need to have some values to hold onto. Basic storytelling, art, characters, you name it, we need to hold onto what made this site great and what Bitequest, Journey and others examplified as the epitomes of what a good quest should be.

>>14086
The weird porn came out of Rubyquest, but it's not what rubyquest was about. There is a major difference here.

>>14087
You're being silly, now.

For every Blake Quest, there's been something like, say, Herbert vs Happiness. For every VoL, there's been a Tales from Meigara. We are not falling down any slippery slope. THis is the way things have ALWAYS been, since rape quest, since surprise sex quest, since bg, since forever. And, miraculously, we aren't gone yet! Does that mean that people who dislike fetishism-as-story and blatant fapquests are bad? No. It means they have as much of a voice as anyone else here. That your posts haven't been deleted and you haven't been banned is a pretty clear sign of that, don't you think?

>>14087
>>14088
This is also not to say we need to kick out people like Flynnmerk, Vyt or others, but strongly encourage them to improve and maybe help them along the way. If they flat out refuse to improve, refuse help and refuse criticism, that's when we send them to /brofist/.

>>14089
Yeah, but see, for Valley of Love, Surprise Sex Quest and others, they didn't bring people to the site specifically to post in their threads and theirs alone, which is what we are starting to see happen.

Honestly, the only actual problem we have now is Technomancer posting the links to /tg/, which is advertising tgchan as a place to find his art, which is not the sort of "advertising" we want.

Bob 2011/03/29(Tue)18:41 No. 14092 ID: c5cc97
File 130144931935.jpg - (220.56KB , 902x755 , NoFist.jpg )

>>14090
>that's when we send them to /brofist/.

Doesn't look like that'll be happening anytime soon.

>>14087
You did NOT just compare Valley of Love with Blake Quest.

>>14093
The retard-sex chapter specifically, yes. It's up there with Ratsturbation, Pink Dragon, Blakequest and Sevi in the "worst things quest has to offer" category, in my humble opinion. As far as dating sim quests go it's probably done better than any other and was probably better written than any other, but that still doesn't make the quest good overall.

>>14094
Ratsturbation was hilarious though.

>>14095
No... it really wasn't. It was just awful.

>>14094
>The retard-sex chapter specifically, yes.
I don't think there was any actual indication she was retarded.

>>14098
oh boy here we go

>>14078
>There was also an anon or two saying that we "turned full circle" by "driving people out for posting stuff we don't like."
Seems a valid concern to me.

>>14079
>If we already have a bad reputation, and then enforce what people think the site is about (IE: fapfics and other fetish shit) by allowing people to use our site for those purposes and then post all about it on /tg/, we are never going to see any growth because our reputation will remain "That place is a shithole."
Assuming you meant "reinforce" rather than "enforce" (because I otherwise have no idea what you were trying to say), you are somewhat exaggerating reality. "Things are allowed there" does not, in most people's minds, directly equate to "That place is a shithole." People have founded entire countries around the idea of shit being allowed.

>We are going to see less than that and especially less people who have any merit to what they draw
Not really. What effects the influx of people is mostly how much people are aware of tgchan. And "merit" is not an easily definable thing. While I don't deny it exists, I suspect I disagree with you on what's actually meritous, and moreover I find you to be judging prematurely.
>if we willingly let people advertise ourselves as a complete and utter shithole that embraces this sort of thing.
Okay, so we should advertise ourselves as a castle of wonders that embraces this sort of thing. Because guess fucking what? We embrace this sort of thing. Being deceitful in our advertisement (and by the way, we don't actually advertise) will get us nowhere.

>We don't need to do anything to try to right our reputation on /tg/, nor do we need to actively go over there and try to say "No way guys, tgchan is awesome, look at Journey and Bitequest and shit!"
Eh, we should probably remind them we exist, actually. But I agree that we need not do any correcting of reputation. Our reputation is mostly accurate.
>All I'm saying is that we shouldn't willingly allow ourselves to be advertised as a shithole haven for the dregs of /tg/ deemed too crazy and shitty for even them, and a complete and utter hugbox towards any freak that can't post their shit on /d/ or /tg/.
Guess what? That's what we are. tgchan houses things that aren't on /tg/. Quests with art, and many of the threads on our /tg/ board, are here because they need to exist for long periods of time without 404ing. But things are also largely here because on /tg/ they'd run afoul of the janitor or sage-bombing asshats (presumably such as yourself, based on your demeanor).

>It's for the good of the site that this does not continue and that Technomancer finds some other place to post his art.
Technomancer posting his art here isn't even related to any of that shit. All that tells people is that you can post images on tgchan.

tl;dr: Fuck you and your puritanism.

>>14082
>lest the site be overrun with people like Flynnmerk, Technomancer and their cronies.
I am pretty sure they are not associated with each other and do not have cronies.

>It was bad enough when Reaver was around, we don't need more people like them.
People who do a chapter every day for months? I disagree. Reaver-borne drama was a downer towards the end there, but overall Reaver helped the site a whole hell of a lot more than he hurt it.

>If left completely unchecked it could well be the death of the site,
Slippery slope fallacy.

>It's not the community that started this site
Your memory differs substantially from mine. Surely a quest about a little black kitten repeatedly almost getting raped would also be counter to your tastes? RapeQuest was the first major quest, and there really wasn't a community at all before those days, although the board did predate it by a few weeks or months.

>>14087
>I'm saying that people who enjoy Flynnmerk, Technomancer and others are not the same community as the old guard that started the site, who value quality storytelling in quests over porn shenanigans played straight.
That's why everything Gnoll did was universally reviled always until everything went to shit just recently.
Oh wait. Gnoll has never or almost never had a plot that lasted longer than a single thread, and is well-loved by everyone, and has been since almost when the site started. And Freis and bg and I'm sure plenty of others that I'm forgetting did the same thing since for as long as the site's been around.

>but that we need to have some values to hold onto.
Seriously? Are you just running out of arguments now? Are you going to ask us to think of the children next?

>>14092
And nothing of value was lost.
I hope some of those folks come back here, though.

>>14094
It's not better than Sourg Rapes.

>>14098






Also as a side note I haven't noticed anything Technomancer's done that's even remotely close to objectionable enough to prompt this. Did something get deleted?

What I'm taking out of this is that some would like that artists didin't use this place as their personal gallery to link to. On the logic if all they draw is huge slopping vaginas then the sloppy vagina enthusiast will come here and start quests about huge vaginas slopping around driving away those who like their vaginas tight and virginal?

Mostly reasonable request. Though I don't think the ratio of awesome quests will go up nor the site gain more readers even if this was the cleanest site on internet. Questing just isin't popular or well known and it's thinly spread around on multiple sites. I guess it's just a question of reputation or internet points. I'm going to have to say nay.

Also damn I'm a slow typist and agree with above.

lol at the people going on about how Flynnmerk is a horrible person for making a shitty quest makes me laugh. I haven't even seen the guy act all high and mighty, does he act like a fag in IRC or something? At most from what he posts, he seems like some sad, kinda confused dude. That likes attention, but hey, who doesn't? He just has the writing quality of some dumb 15 year old. No need to make him out to be scum. I'm pretty sure most of us has made some weird, awful quality stuff in their time.

I see content flowing around, some of its quality, and we got some cool bros making stuff here. As long as that's happening I really don't see a problem with what's going on on tgchan. We're always gonna have shitty questmakers as long as this site supports quests.

I know someone will likely rebuke with a "but I never said we won't have shitty quest makers." I'm just saying that, I know, that wasn't the point I was making your posts out to be, but you seem to be saying that they should "just stop being shitty once they realize it or GET OUT" within the subtext of the argument. Some people can't improve. Hell, for that to fucking happen, quality would have to be objective instead of subjective. And on the subject of the authors using criticism to improve, the constructive type seems to be either rare or, even more-so, in the subtext of posts under the guise of the opposite type of criticism. The other times no criticism of any kind is posted when authors ask for it. I'm guilty of it because I'm a lazy fuck that just wants to read and have fun, admittedly.

Authors who do want to improve but seem to be stagnating, please do try harder to understand and weaken your faults please. I really do not want the message of this post to also be taken as an argument for you to not improve on account of lacking above criticism. I know someone might take that, because I would since I'm an idiot and I know there might be a few of you are just as idiotic as me and would mix meanings or get false ones. I'm not insulting anyone's character specifically here with that disclaimer, just trying to protect my own... with deprecating humor about questioning my intelligence and the merit of my own opinions I suppose.

What... what does that even mean?

>I know someone will likely rebuke with a "but I never said we won't have shitty quest makers." I'm just saying that, I know, that wasn't the point I was making your posts out to be, but you seem to be saying that they should "just stop being shitty once they realize it or GET OUT" within the subtext of the argument. Hell, for that to fucking happen, we'd have to be able to judge quality objectively. And some people have a tough ass time improving to the point that they can't do it at all because of many reasons. Maybe they're thick-headed that shit is just not getting through or just have no idea how to go on about improving it, so they try continuing hoping that they somehow fixed whatever was going wrong by going forward and trying small different things. Sometimes, they've worked long enough on a quest or are attached to it enough that they don't want to see it die but realize the mistakes they've made cannot be fixed or are big enough no improvement can make it go away so that the only choice IS a reboot.

I had to fix the things in this sentence so it might make some better sense. the placement of "Some people can't Improve" and me not elaborating on it is the main one that bugged me on top of it being pretty cut and dry, plus me mucking up the objectivity/subjectivity sentence.

>>14106
You could have deleted the post and remade it with the new text in place.

Also I've not seen FlynnMerk do anything worth criticism besides being a furry with fetishes, and even that remains within his own threads.
So criticizing him is a bit like getting mad at someone for shaving in the shower and getting beard hairs in the drain when you just clogged it already from shaving your legs.

>>14108
I don't have a saved password and closed my window. I kind of fucked up in that regard.

>>14103
>RapeQuest
>First Major Quest
>Not The End or HatchQuest

>>14112
Neither of those were really major at that time. Even now, they're primarily notable only for being long-running. RapeQuest was major on a scale that nothing's been besides it and Reaver's quests. Fucking everyone read it.
Also, RapeQuest predates The End by 16 hours, while Hatch predates it by only two days.

>>14108

Flynn isn't really an awful guy, just a kid who makes an awful quest.

If we ran people off for making awful quests we would have a much smaller site than we do now.

>>14103
>We embrace this sort of thing.
This statement is false. Some subset of users embrace the sick and/or just plain mind-numbingly-terrible-but-who-needs-quality-when-its-pandering-to-my-fetishes shit. The proportion is pretty hard to judge, though, let alone if those people are actually "us" in any sense, or just drive-by people from 4chan/tg/ following a link from there then returning.

>>14108
Pretending that the reason people don't like/mock FlynnMerk's work is because it's furry is the most retarded thing you've said this thread. Yamoto Cannon Fire.

>>14069
Oh you.

>>14112

Well yes, as they've already told you, those two are technically older (although not by a notable difference), Rape Quest was the first major quest in the board, the one that brought most of the users to post in it and discuss it on the channels, the one that originated a large quantity of fanart. And ultimatelly, everybody remembers it as the one that started up the flux of suggestions and authors creating their own quests.

Why is it always hurf durf Rape Quest in those arguments?
Barely anything actually happened in Rape Quest, despite the name, and the little that did wasn't overly explicit.
People really seem to have missed the joke.

>>14092
You don't go to brofist. Brofist comes to you.

>>14115
So what are we going to do, force those suggesters that embrace shitty quests out? That's even more impossible then kicking shitty authors out! Suggesters like that don't give a shit about the overall quality of tgchan, they're just here to probably fap on top of enjoying some shitty shit.

Has there been a quest that's legitimately bad but enjoyable to read? Like how some people watch shitty movies for fun? Ironic Quests like that Green-Haired Cloud guy don't count because they were made to be that way on purpose. Sometimes people just want to fucking suggest in the Troll 2 equivalent quest.

>>14120
I used to love reading Sanya Quest for that very reason.

>>14115
I haven't noticed people caring about pandering to fetishes, actually. Nor have I noticed any quests pandering to fetishes. Most users find things amusing completely regardless of what some fag in the arguments thread thinks.

>The proportion is pretty hard to judge, though, let alone if those people are actually "us" in any sense
Well, based on IRC conversations, a pretty decent majority of those people are tangibly "us" in the sense that they come on IRC regularly and have done so for years. And everybody on IRC at least passively embraces such shit.

>Pretending that the reason people don't like/mock FlynnMerk's work is because it's furry
I did not actually say that.

>>14118
It was a shitty quest with no real story that was oriented around silly fanservice shit. And it was the first major quest here. The fact that it was a cocktease is immaterial.

>>14117
The End is not technically older.

>>14130
>I haven't noticed people caring about pandering to fetishes, actually.
So you've missed the conversation you're part of?

>I did not actually say that.
Wow, apparently so! That or you're being pedantic about "with fetishes", a suffix which is completely redundant when talking about furries since furryism is a fetish, and also equally applies to why your point is dumb: i.e. if people hated on furries with fetishes here they'd hate on pretty much every quest author. I think, uh, Ed is an exception? Maybe Brom depending where you draw the line. I'm struggling to think of another.

>a pretty decent majority of those people are tangibly "us" in the sense that they come on IRC regularly and have done so for years
Pray tell, what magic allows you to determine that the people in /draw/ and /tg/ posting support for things like Technomancer's art and that kobold fapfic are longstanding IRC veterans? Those boards do not have IDs visible. Has a mod confirmed this?

>And everybody on IRC at least passively embraces such shit.
This claim is also complete nonsense, given that IRC is a relatively common place for rage about shit landing on the board. (You can usually tell when this is happening because LawyerDog will start calling people whiny babies.)

>>14131
>Pray tell, what magic allows you to determine that the people in /draw/ and /tg/ posting support for things like Technomancer's art and that kobold fapfic are longstanding IRC veterans?
The magic of being in IRC when folks talk about it.

>I'm struggling to think of another.
There's plenty of folks. Jukashi? Weaver? The main issue with knowing who is or isn't a fetishist furry is that folks don't always share that information widely. There's no huge visible distinction between someone who lacks these traits and someone who has them but is not vocal about it.
Also, this line of conversation has no relevance to anything anyone has been talking about.

The remainder of your post is divorced from logic and/or observable fact to the extent that I am not unable to formulate a proper response.

>>14132

>The remainder of your post is divorced from logic and/or observable fact

No,

>Well, based on IRC conversations, a pretty decent majority of those people are tangibly "us" in the sense that they come on IRC regularly and have done so for years. And everybody on IRC at least passively embraces such shit.

Is.

Not only is the concept of a 'passive embrace' completely absurd, but you are conflating tolerance with embracing.

And there's certainly no 'observation' going on here, you can't even NAME these supposed IRC legends supporting this shit.

also:

>This claim is also complete nonsense, given that IRC is a relatively common place for rage about shit landing on the board. (You can usually tell when this is happening because LawyerDog will start calling people whiny babies.)

Is an objective fact and you are absolutely retarded for even pretending that it isn't.

>>14133

Oh, and also:

>Jukashi
>Not fetishist
>Will of the Underpants

Nope.mp4

Is "ladies" really a fetish?

It doesn't matter how terrible a quest is because TGChan does not have quality control. If TGChan starts having quality control things are going to get completely retarded and shitty because people have different tastes and you're not going to get a clear line of what belongs and what doesn't.

>>14137
Pretty much yeah.

>>14135
Of course. Anything to do with sex, thinking about sex, using the word sex, or any thought process more involved than 'Eeew, cooties' is obviously fetishistic.

Sorry, venting from folklore classes.

>>14137
Aww man you hit the target on the bulls-eye. The people going on about trying to improve tgchan as an art form or community does not get the fucking point of quests.

>>14140
>The people going on about trying to improve tgchan as an art form or community does not get the fucking point of quests.

I need a drink.

You do not understand any aspect of the argument whatsoever.

>>14134
BECAUSE NICE ASSES ARE CERTAINLY A FETISH

AND SO IS SEX, OH MAN

WHAT ABOUT BLOWJOBS? OH YEAH, DEFINITELY A FETISH.

>>14143
you mean we aren't arguing about quality here?
Jeez man, it's just whining about all that crap about improving a community and other things is just dumb from a standpoint. This whole site is mainly to be a front for interactive storytelling and is a community second. I think anyway. Too many variable people in communities to actually improve them.

Guys. I *did* suggest that we never talk to Cruxador.

But I guess if you WANT to let him troll you that's fine.

>>14144

I consider a creepy obsession with the hypersexualization of plants to be basically the same thing as furry (similar to how I do not mark a distinction between FURRY and CHITINY and SCALEY and FEATHERY and ALIEN SEX), and furry is absolutely a fetish.

but oh wait Jukashi is -popular- so his fetishes don't count as fetishes. Forgot. Because 'fetish' is automatically a bad word on the internet (and not the neutral word that it actually is) and it's SO WRONG to insult somebody that you like.

I hate everyone here more and more every day. That is all.

>>14150
I am pretty sure that the sexualized aspect and the plant aspect are independent of each other, since none of Jukashi's other stuff has anything to do with plant people.

Jukashi's fetish is pretty clearly just promiscuous girls. Which is pretty damn vanilla as far as such things go.

>>14153

>I am pretty sure that the sexualized aspect and the plant aspect are independent of each other,

No more and no less independent than in 95% of furry porn.

You know you don't have to take the thread title literally?

>>14156
Yes we do. It's a literal title. If this was supposed to be a thread for small intelligent agreement, it would be called that.
And it would get no posts.

I'm not going to complain about it since there's just as many quests that aren't overtly sexual than there are, but sex, furry or otherwise, has always seemed to be a prominent part of the site. Its always been there, at least as long as ive been here, but It's not really intrusive or anything, at least not in my opinion.

Then again, the very first quest I saw on the site when I found it was about a rat girl who masturbated a lot, so it's worth saying that there's certainly a point where I think the sex in quests can go too far. Furry-Ear-Sex-Yamoto-Cannon-Fire-Crying-While-Jerking-Off-Wearing-Your-Pants-and-Getting-Blood-Boners-Quest is probably the most recent example of that.

>>14150
>hypersexualization of plants
Seal, don't go dumb on us. That's Crux's job.

If Maolla starts sporting a huge stamen surrounded by murry petals, sure, but for now she's just a Star Trek green-skinned-space-babe. If Jukashi didn't say "they're half plant" there'd be nothing to indicate it from her visual design, and all the hypersexualised parts are regular old mammal equipment and behaviour.

You could make a more convincing argument that he's a regular furry since he has at least two female Lunars who go beastform with their tits out. :V

>>14159
MORE LIKE BREASTFORM AM I RIGHT

>>14159

Again, 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human aliens with a roughly human mindset' isn't significantly different from 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'

That they are part plant specifically is actually ancillary, although it was misleading of me to mention the whole plant thing first.

>and all the hypersexualised parts are regular old mammal equipment and behaviour.

just like the tits and vaginas in 95% of furry porn.

>>14160
You are right.

>>14161
>just like the tits and vaginas in 95% of furry porn
Well, furry tits are, y'know, furry.

But since the argument is the not-human-but-almost part and they're clearly green, fine.

>>14150
Elves are nonhuman and therefore fetish.

Also, Kirk was a furry.

>>14163

>Elves are nonhuman and therefore fetish.

If you focus on the sexualization thereof, then yeah basically.

>Also, Kirk was a furry.

When used in the sense that most quests on tgchan fit into the 'furry' fetish? Absolutely so.

Pretty much everyone is a 'fetishist' by that metric, because they like things which possess traits.

>>14165

Yes.

Which is why it is absurd to even consider a significant percentage of the quests on /quest/ fetishistic.

I'm pretty sure that would make every quest a fetish quest, actually.

Except Golem Quest, of course.

>>14167
Golem Quest is actually the most sexually depraved quest on the board; it's just that nobody outside the hardcore and self-contained fanbase can stand to read it long enough to find out.

reality doesn't categorize it self into Black/white

debating things either being Fetish/not fetish

is like debating wether someone is either Ghandi or Stalin (this is a crappy example, illustrating extreme things, I am not claiming fetish are evil, or that ghandi was a perfect guy, or stalin is satan, or any of that bullshit, I'm just trying to make a point here)

reality works in degrees, for example Will of the Undermind and Blake quest are both have fetish qualities

in my opinion (this is an opinion not fact, and is based on my own reasoning which may differ from the reasoning of those around me)
Undermind is much less of an imposing quest where fetishism is involved, though a lot about the Scellor's sexual nature is mentioned, it is rarely described in any detail, and almost nothing aside from some minor nudity is even shown. though many sexual things can be implied from things like "retractable teeth" and "three tongues" it (again in my opinion) is not openly offensive for those reasons Stupid and ridiculous perhaps (this is still my opinion)are technically not sexual in a normal sense any more then teeth and tongues are sexual to begin with.(by this I mean that these are not sexual organs on their own merit)

no on too BlakeQuest (my opinion yada yada you get the point!)
the problem with this sort of Fetishism is that the author blatently shoves his preferences down your throat (this is non literal exaggeration) fully illustrating sexual acts of the fetish nature with multiple updates. (in my opinion) this
Thus Blake quest level of Fetishism is far higher because the reader cannot ignore or dismiss subtle hints and must indure or enjoy said fetish to be able to read the quest

the thing with fetishes is that most people them, but it's up to the author to understand that most people won't also share yours

this is my main point, a quest with a thousand invisable fetishes offends no one,
but the more explicit, visualized, and pivotal to the quest your fetish becomes the great the chance you have to offend someone

another example: I have one really major Fetish,
but from reading my quests it will be very hard to tell what it is

(feel free to try and guess) :3c

IS IT TOMBOYS

>>14171
I can't tell if that's serious or not

>>14161
>just like the tits and vaginas in 95% of furry porn.

This is objectively wrong. About 25-50% of furry porn involves animal-like primary sexual organs.

Also, stop calling green humans with earstalks furry. You're being retarded. Furry = humanoid with animal traits, and Scellor have no animal traits. They don't even have PLANT traits. They're just part plant in ways that are not even PHYSCIALLY APPARENT. Unless you count being green. Would a human with green body paint be lumped with furries in your mind?

Also...

>Again, 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human aliens with a roughly human mindset' isn't significantly different from 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'

This is also objectively wrong. Aliens are people. Animals are not people. That is a big fucking difference.

I've always read furry and alien fetishists just wanting to have sex with people, just wearing some weird shit. I mean, from a standpoint, these characters they make may as well be human dressed up as whatever the fuck they are.

Dude, they just wanna fuck humans but make it kinkier. Is that so wrong? (Yes)

>>14171
LW, you have a thing for tongues. You called Lucid's Bangle pictures sexy and they have her doing the "come hither" tongue pose. You totally dig that pose and its allllll right.
Also, you dig softcore from what you said in IRC one time I was actually there. But I dunno if that counts as a fetish or a type or whatever.

>>14174
If I ever saw a human that looked like a scellor, even without the ears, I would shoot it in the face and call it a monster. People don't look like that. At all.

>>14174
No, you are objectively wrong. Taking an actual sampling of a large portion of furry porn, the site e621.net (excluding pictures rated safe), you get 3.6% of furry porn having non-human parts. 25-50% is an absurd amount to assume, and there's no reason to believe it is even close to that.

This is not comparing animals to aliens, this is comparing animal people to aliens. Animal people are people, aliens are people. Furry is just a generic term to cover all the shit that is humanoid but not human, because there is no better term. If anything Scellor are more furry because of them being more distinct from humans than a lot of animal furry characters.

>>14174

>Also, stop calling green humans with earstalks furry.

And flippers
And headtentacles
And tails
And three tongues
And sharp, shark-like, retractable teeth
And no noses
And slitted pupils
And wide mouths

>Aliens are people.

'aliens' as in 'residents of other nations' are people. Aliens as in 'extraterrestrials' are not. Unless you just want to count 'sentient humanoids' as people, in which case aliens are people too.

Also I'm not saying that they're furries, I'm saying that the distinction between the two is ultimately irrelevant.

>>14179

in which case furries are people too derp derp.

>>14171
Is it tiny furries with laser guns?

>>14181
>but from reading my quests it will be very hard to tell what it is

On that basis, macrophilia. :V

oh wow I just noticed the things going on in this thread

Ok, I don't particularly care to get involved, but maybe I can clear some things up? For a start, I actually am indeed a furry (in the sense that I am particularly attracted to characters that blend human and animal characteristics), I just don't like saying so or showing so because the furry community is pretty terrible and I try to distance myself from them. And it's not like it's anyone else's business anyway, any more than that I like other exotic ladies, or light bondage, or girls wearing oversized men's shirts.

That said (and hopefully never to be said again), I do not personally consider scellor to be furry, and though I do consider them attractive I feel it no more strongly than I do for, say, dark-skinned human women. In fact, there are aspects of them that I wouldn't like in that way, such as the earstalks, or the oddly-shaped limbs. I make no claim that I do not include some lovely ladies in my stuff, nor that I avoid sexuality, but I do like to think I've done a pretty good job of keeping my personal fetishes from having any major influence in my comic or quests. That's a pretty awful thing for any creator to foist on their audience.

>>14184
>girls wearing oversized men's shirts
<3

Although most of them would believe otherwise, the people of this board would probably never be able to guess any of my fetishes based on my work. That shit has nothing to do with good storytelling, yo.

That being said, I do clump the xenophiles and furries in exactly the same bucket, although I think the 'furriness' of our board is greatly exaggerated. I will say that I've found the better quests tend to be the ones with human protagonists. I pretty much read anything with a human character.

>>14186
This is, of course, why Bite's two biggest and most successful quests have had non-human protagonists. :3c

>>14179
Your comparison was between aliens and animals. Not furries and aliens. That comparison was invalid.

>>14177
What. How did you even get that statistic? If you're going purely by tags, then that number is way lower than it actually is.
I personally went through the 20 latest pages of results for -rating:s penis, at 48 images each, and I got 4-10 images per page with animal dick. One or two times more than that, only ONCE less than 4. It tended to be above 6.

So I guess I overestimated by a factor of 2. It's more like 10-25%.

>>14188
which comparison was that? Because the one I saw stated "'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'"

Assuming this is the comparison you are referring to, the "humanoid" right there at the start, prior to "animal" makes the animal anthropomorphic. The most common use of the term "furry" refers to anthropomorphic animals. So his comparison there is indeed about furrys vs aliens, so I don't really know what you're on about.

Well, this thread sure lives up to it's title. It feels...weird being one of maybe two or three people on 4chan who have no particular hatred for furries. I'd think that people on here wouldn't have that self same opinion about them. But, i guess that even this place will have at least one or two people who have that ARRRGHHH FURFAGS! mindset.

INB4 furfag accusations.

>>14191
The comparison I quoted. Here, I'll quote it again.
>Again, 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human aliens with a roughly human mindset' isn't significantly different from 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'

He changed 'aliens' into 'animals'. Wanting to fuck something having animal qualities suggests you want to fuck an animal. Even if you really don't. Wanting to fuck something with alien qualities implies you want to fuck an alien. Which, let's face it, isn't that objectionable. This is because animals are not people, while aliens are. Yes, I mean in the sense that they are 'sentient humanoids'. Or just sentient, really. Or sapient. Whatever the term is to describe something that can give consent.

Oh yeah. Also, aliens are pretty much already humanoid and distinctly non-human. Since the entire comparison revolves around putting those qualifiers on both types of being, the fact that they are unnecessary further invalidates the comparison.

>>14193
>Wanting to fuck something having animal qualities suggests you want to fuck an animal. Even if you really don't. Wanting to fuck something with alien qualities implies you want to fuck an alien.

Note that the something you're referring to is humanoid, as in similar to humans. These people want to fuck human things in a kinkier style, not animals. If they wanted to fuck them, they'd just go grab one if they could ignore law and the chance being outcasted for being a disgusting pervert for their entire lives should they get caught.

No man, they want to fuck people with the the grace of human anatomy. Aliens count as wanting to fuck aliens because on all counts they do count as motherfucking aliens from space, which have the potential for actually existing in a form thanks to the size of the universe. Though the probability of wanting to fuck said alien will probably drop as soon as we realize these real aliens aren't green space babes.

>>14195
People fuck cars. CARS. Look up Chris Donald. Sexuality is truly unbounded.

>>14197
I wasn't talking about that people don't want to fuck weird things, I well aware some people do. Unless your referring to my statement about people not wanting to bone aliens if they are green space babes, but that's why I put down probability of wanting to bone instead of saying they won't want too. More people would lose their libido if the thing they're were about to copulate with wasn't in a form that they're relative to.

My point was just going over whether or not furries and xenophiles want to just get with what would essentially be human with a few extra features and more varied colors.

I don't like the description "Anthropomorphic animals" because it implies they started with an animal and gave it human qualities.

It should be the other way around, they start with a human and give it animal qualities. They have a human shape, human mind, human everything except they have fur and their face is a little different. Unfortunately "Therianthropic People" is not the term that most people use to describe these creatures, and "Therian" is already used to describe a particular sort of person on the internet.

>>14192
>Hasn't read the fucking discussion
Go cry "fursecution" somewhere else.

Furries pretend to be normal people now?
Who would have thought.

>>14193
You are so fucking retarded that it hurts me.

There is no significant difference between any vaguely humanoid thing with a bunch of weird shit stuck on it, whether or not it is a consistent set of animal features or imaginary bullshit.

I don't think that point is really arguable. You guys realize that normal people don't want to fuck either, right?

If it's just a green skinned babe, or an elf, then sure. Scellor are not that, though. They have a bunch of freaky characteristics.

>>14203
that's just like, your opinion, man. you may not find scellor fuckable but others do. heck, i would be willing to do anything with more then a 50% physical similarity. need at least 90% or greater brain power compared to a human, though.

>>14204
I wasn't saying that some people don't find them attractive, I'm saying that they're at least as different from humans as a furry.

>while aliens are.

Including non-sentient extraterrestrials.

LIke, say, tribbles?

Or wampas?

Or banthas? Wanting to fuck a humanoid Bantha totally isn't furry because banthas are aliens, right?

An extraterrestrial is at LEAST as far from human as an animal. In most cases, they would quite likely be FARTHER since they are unlikely to have the same common genetic ancestors.

I'm not surprised, though. Here you are, so caught up in being violently opposed to anything I say just because I'm me that you are now arguing that furry = bestiality. Fantastic. I always knew that you actually WERE a shithead, shii, but I didn't think that you'd actually go and prove it where everyone could see it.

>>14206

Oh, and I TOTALLY said vaginas, not genitals. Animal-like vaginas are waaaaaaaaaaaaay less common than dog/horse cocks in furry porn.

Also I hope you aren't counting conedicks as animal dicks. They aren't.

I think one of the core problems with this discussion, as with pretty much all discussions on furries, is the question of what definition of "furry" people are using, and what particular quality people are finding most objectionable.

>>14208
oh absolutely.

>>14207
>non-sentient extraterrestrials.
You would have a point here if there was any porn at all of it. Besides it's a bit irrelevant, isn't it? You'd be talking about alien animals. Not just aliens.

I'm going to state my point once again. IGNORING OTHER STUFF YOU SAID, that single comparison is invalid because it simply replaces 'animals' with 'aliens' and while animals are universally non-sentient, aliens usually are.

Also, if you were just talking about vaginas... uh, why? I don't see the point in arguing about fetishes while excluding men. Personally I think the only reason we don't see more animal vagina in furry porn is that the differences between human and animal vagina are pretty subtle in most cases. It doesn't look interesting thus people don't draw it. I think the only time people bother to make it look different is with snakes and horses (ugh, horses).

>conedicks not animal dicks
Psh, yeah right. Conedicks are dolphin dicks. People just put them on everything.

>>14203
I don't think you read everything in my post. I already addressed everything you just said. Of course I just restated my main point again so maybe that'll help you understand.

>>14210
You obviously didn't understand anything I said then.

Your entire point is mind-numbingly stupid and you addressed nothing that I said.

Wanting to fuck a furry has nothing to do with wanting to fuck animals, and wanting to fuck a freaky space creature is objectionable to most people. Anything that looks distinctly non-human is objectionable to most people, just not most people on this site or certain less savory parts of the internet.

It has nothing to do with perceived intelligence and no one was even talking about that before you started being ridiculous everywhere. I mean, the original shit even stipulated about the same level of intelligence and everything. You just... came out of nowhere with a completely irrelevant and ridiculous argument.

Re: Animal vaginas - most people don't draw them on furries because they look fucking gross. There are definitely more than "subtle differences." Hell, furry dog cocks don't really look like dog cocks. Dog cocks are fucking disgusting-looking.

Popsicle dicks are not dolphin dicks. They are just shittily-drawn shapes because furries. The same reason most vaginas are just lines. They're simple to draw and nobody can really tell you that it's 'wrong.'

The original context was Scellor v. most furries. How their only human parts are basically the tits and vags (and being bipeds). So, yeah, that would exclude dicks.

Bob 2011/04/01(Fri)10:55 No. 14212 ID: bf1e7e
File 130168055835.png - (114.94KB , 400x400 , ALossisaLoss2.png )

>>14210

>You would have a point here if there was any porn at all of it.

And there is!

>Not just aliens.

Alien Animals are just as much aliens as alien sapient beings.

>and while animals are universally non-sentient

But furries aren't. I suppose it's my fault for using 'humanoid' instead of 'human-like,' but you used it too (And I quote: "Furry = humanoid with animal traits, and Scellor have no animal traits.") So I guess I can be forgiven for having a momentary lapse and thinking that you weren't a fucking idiot.

>IGNORING OTHER STUFF YOU SAID, that single comparison is invalid because it simply replaces 'animals' with 'aliens'

Ignoring the context of a discussion to try to argue semantics just makes you a retard. I also specified that we were talking about aliens that were similar to humans, in much the same way that furries can be considered animals that are similar to humans. The comparison stands, as both are just 'humans with exotic features.'

Also, by your argument, there is nothing 'furry' about this picture because it's just a picture of an alien. YAY.

>I don't see the point in arguing about fetishes while excluding men.

Well you're completely ignoring all of the furry pictures of chicks when saying pulling TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ALL FURRY PORN HAS ANIMAL GENITALS out of your ass.

So not only did you fail semantically (by ignoring that the original point was about tits and vaginas), you failed at statistics by ignoring an outrageously large portion of the thing you were trying to sample!

>is that the differences between human and animal vagina are pretty subtle in most cases.

No they're really not. Most animal vaginas are pretty silly and/or gross. I know, I've actually been paid to draw a couple.

>Psh, yeah right. Conedicks are dolphin dicks.

Not even remotely.

>This is because animals are not people, while aliens are.

Again, plenty of aliens are not people. Alien PEOPLE are people, but so are Animal PEOPLE. This is the entire point of the argument and none of your failed attempts at semantics have even approached addressing it.

Dirtbag 2011/04/01(Fri)11:12 No. 14213 ID: e3f578
File 130168155345.jpg - (67.54KB , 426x640 , D4kMA.jpg )

Man, what is this even about right now? The shape of genitalia on certain fictional organisms? I'm not getting this at all anymore.

Aww man, Seal, why'd you have to go and post fanart porn from your stripset in the argument thread? Even if you're using it to prove a point it's the only picture in here that isn't the OP image and man now this thread is all awkward like. It would have been better to use an example you didn't make yourself... I think. I dunno, it just puts me off like it shouldn't have a place in this thread.

I'll think I'll put some attractive picture of a model I found on some forum I like to lurk in to offset the picture. Maybe it can inspire a new argument, like what's attractive or some shit.

Are tanktops attractive on women?

>>14213

I used one I had myself because it was already handy, I didn't have to bother going and getting one from somewhere else.

>>14214

Well, I don't think tanktops are your thing, but I agree that it's better if you use one of your own instead of someone else's.

>>14213

Depends on the woman. Some women look bad in tanktops and some women look good, as I reckon.

How do you feel about women in the item of clothing known to americans as a wifebeater and to most of the rest of the world as a vest?

Also to step back to the previous argument, I think a problem is that at some point someone said "alien" and intended it to mean "sentient non-humans from space" while the other person took it as "any living creature of extraterrestrial origin". Technically it means the latter, but in common usage people wouldn't think of something like a martian bacterium or a tribble when they hear the word "alien".

And you have to think of social context. There are aliens in lots of things and there are furries in lots of things, but furries are more likely to be associated with the furry fandom in particular while aliens are not associated with people who are attracted to aliens. Although both have "legitimate" uses in fiction, furries are considered more childish and unoriginal (because HURR WHAT IF HUMAN HAD DOG HEAD) and are laden with associations from their fans, while aliens are usually more imaginative and the examples that people think of when they hear the word usually have more thought put into them. I think that's a dividing line. Like, a race of dinosaur people who just act like humans is furry, but a race of raptor people who are strict carnivores, have feathers, are mostly cruel but loyal to friends and have a culture otherwise based off logical extension from their biology and likely natural behaviors is... well, not as furry, in the pejorative sense.

You can argue that a sexual attraction to aliens is just as deviant as an attraction to furries, and you're probably right! But the point remains that furries have a lot of baggage that aliens don't. People don't think of them the same way.

best animal dong = horse. best vagina = dolphin.

>>14217
So aliens are more different from humans than furries and are therefore better to fuck, got it.

Lohrke tails tickle your balls while you fuck them, you know.

>>14219
>So aliens are more different from humans than furries and are therefore better to fuck, got it.

That is the opinion which seems to hold amongst most people on the internet, as far as I can deduce from observation.

how about star trek. klingons and humans have fucked. it is canon, we see half-breeds.

I think what
>>14217
is saying is actually incorrect if it is what
>>14220 and
>>14219
are saying.

Aliens are theoretically more legitimate than furries if you're talking about using them in media (a story/movie/something) for the reasons 14217 says.

However, I'd argue that sexing aliens is probably less acceptable than furries for similar sorts of reasons. If furries carry the baggage of being sexualized by their nature, then being attracted to them, although carrying some fandom garbage, is at least recognized as something that lots of people do.

If you're fapping to non-furry aliens, however, you are more of a fringe guy. You are sexualizing something seen as more 'legitimate' and less 'porny.' Of course, it sort of depends on how the aliens are presented in the medium for any of this to hold water. Blue people will funny foreheads who are cosmic sluts in skintight outfits? One thing. District 9? A total other thing.

>>14222

To approach my argument from another angle; I think that sexualization of anthropomorphic animals is not, in fact, what bugs people about furries. This seems counter-intuitive, I know. But what really bugs people about furries is the community. It's the fursuits, it's the unoriginal donut-steel original characters, the sparkledogs and the murry-purry yiffing circlejerking hugbox obnoxiousness of it all. And every piece of art, every comic, every story that uses furry characters is tainted by association.

People are, mostly, ok with the idea of fucking intelligent fictional creatures. Sci-fi and fantasy alike have played it both straight and for laughs for decades. You can go onto /tg/ now and make a thread about tyranid porn, and if you tried to make a similar thread about furries you would receive a much more massive backlash, despite the fact that furries are much closer to sexual norms than the other.

It's true that fucking aliens is more "fringe" than fucking furries, but that's the problem with furries in the first place. Their exposure has made them the recipients of backlash, to which they unwisely respond and perpetuate an upward spiral of mutual agitation. People are exposed to furries more often and, because of that, develop a grudge, a negative emotional response. They don't have that with sexualized aliens, because they aren't given reason to think about it very often.

>>14223
>People are, mostly, ok with the idea of fucking intelligent fictional creatures.

I think your argument is mostly valid except for this line. Your comment about tyranid porn is totally true, but that's on 4chan. It's pretty far from mainstream.

I think most people have a negative association with furries because of the assumption that everything is 'for faps' instead of for some more legit purpose.

Most people thought the sex scene in Splice was disturbing and creepy, not boner-inducing.

Lawyer Dog 2011/04/01(Fri)14:42 No. 14225 ID: 70d9eb
Audio 09_-_Monkey_Baby.mp3 - (6.27MB , 09 - Monkey Baby.mp3 )

I think this should help conclude the argument.

>>14224
>I think most people have a negative association with furries because of the assumption that everything is 'for faps' instead of for some more legit purpose.

>implying it isn't

>>14224

Ok, I'm going to backtrack a bit and say instead that people are relatively ok with the notion of fucking intelligent fictional creatures. And by "people", I mean people who are already familiar enough with the idea of such creatures existing in the first place.

By this I mean they're open enough with it that it can be played for laughs, such as in Star Trek with idle chatter about dating a guy with a transparent skull, or in Red Dwarf with jokes about finding six-breasted alien women to teach about This Earth Thing Called Kissing. Or it can be played more straight - for more on why you might see http://io9.com/#!5378477/why-are-people-always-having-sex-with-dragons-in-science-fiction

If you asked most people on the internet if they thought that humans, if they ever met intelligent alien species, would try to have sex with them, they would probably just say "yeah, probably". They might be a bit uncomfortable about it, or maybe not. If you asked a similar question about furries, you'd get a similar answer but there'd be more of a negative emotional response attached.

>>14226
>implying there isn't a substantial amount of clean content produced by furries

>>14228
>implying something can be both furry and not sexual when furryism is a sexual fetish

Unless you're one of the faggots who considers any and all anthropomorphism furry, in which case literally every person in the developed world is a furry and you have made the word completely useless.

Which is understandable if you're a furry in denial trying to convince yourself that you're not a deviant weirdo, but still not useful.

>>14229

Once again we run into the ambiguity of the word "furry". Perhaps we should all try make our language a bit more clear?

>>14223
>>14224
>>14227

In my experience, the negative reactions you describe seem to be prevalent mostly within the English speaking part of the web (not sure exactly which countries, though). On the majority of non-English speaking fora, *chan-sites and art/comic galleries that I visit regularly (mainly Nordic, German and Japanese, though), there is generally a much more relaxed attitude to "fringe" stuff, erotic or not. Of course, most people whose sole language is English probably won't be aware of (nor care about) this.

Maybe the reason that they seem so much nicer is that non-English speakers tend to flock to the larger, English fora and *chans most of the time? Or is it simply because of cultural differences, or even a mix between the two? I don't know. After all, the viewpoints put forward in this post are merely trends that I've noticed, but which I cannot pinpoint the causes for.

Do any of you have any additional insights on what exactly is going on with that?

(Also, I apologize if I fail to make my points clear, as I'm not used to having "lengthier" discussions in English.)

>>14231
This makes perfect sense. The negative reaction people have to furry media is tied to the way people who associated with it comported themselves. It's obviously not a function of furry media in and of itself.

This is early fandom: the insular, thin-skinned groups who made asses out of themselves. People trolled the shit out of them,and most places had strict policies against their kind. It lead to the sort of reaction where no one wanted to associate with the tangential media because they were afraid of other people accusing them of being furries. They were the butt of the internet's jokes and a universal scapegoat. I've been aware of the fandom since around '98 or so, and I've always kept up with the drama and fighting because it was interesting to me.

As the internet itself became less of a group of insular communities centered around discrete interests and more of a conglomeration of communities with lots of crossover between members, the reaction against furries has greatly decreased. I think in most places, most people just don't care that much anymore. In large part, I think it has to do with the fact that a larger percentage of internet users use the internet more casually - they don't associate themselves strongly with any online group, and get their sense of community and belonging from elsewhere. In other words, a larger part of the internet doesn't take the internet so seriously.

To a degree, this has been shifting the other direction with things like Facebook, etc. but those social interactions are still mostly intrinsically tied to the real world, not talking about dragons.

>>14227
That article is interesting, but isn't really more than tangentially related to the discussion. None of those examples were really people thinking the monsters were sexy - they were the monsters simultaneously thinking other monsters were sexy while the humans did the same with other humans: Extended metaphors for sexuality, not sexualizing nonhuman creatures.

I'd still argue that in most instances, sexing the nonhuman thing is played for laughs or horror, or it's some kind of metaphor for looking below the surface and understanding other cultures. I'd say generally it's not because we're expected to find the nonhuman attractive (there are exceptions, obviously, as I said above).

>>14229
>implying that I'm in denial
>implying that the term "furry" actually has a single well-defined definition (how does it feel to be so very very wrong)
>implying that most of said definitions are either strictly porn and fetish fuel, or so broad as to be useless
>implying implications

also
>mfw you fit three different fallacies into 2 lines of text

>>14233
>mfw you fit three different fallacies into 2 lines of text
What can I say?

I've had a lot of practice.

Bob 2011/04/01(Fri)18:18 No. 14235 ID: 31b52c
File 130170709779.jpg - (14.14KB , 120x125 , icwutudid.jpg )

>>14234

There's some sort of innuendo there...

>>14229
does that mean my quests aren't furry?

>>14236
i would say not. it's like that robin hood cartoon where he was a fox. just being an animal person doesn't make it furry.

Having sexy animals embarrassed in their underwear is furry, though.

>>14238

I think some sexuality can be included without being furry, so long as it's no more than would normally be encountered. Usagi Yojimbo, for example (an excellent comic that I recommend to anyone), hints at the existence of sexual relations in the build-up to a story about illegitimate children. The scene of which you speak (I'm assuming it's the one in Crash Quest) contains no more than normal responses to a situation that came about for perfectly good game reasons. (Also I think it is arguable whether those characters are "sexy").

Which raises another issue, when dealing with quests in particular. To what degree can quest authors be held accountable for being fetishy or for oversexing their quests when a lot of the responsibility for anything that happens can be placed on the suggesters?

>>14239
The author has a lot of control over the quest, even if they pretend or even think they don't. "The suggesters told me to" is not really a legitimate defense if someone accuses you of putting fetishy stuff in your quest because you're totally capable of just telling your suggesters "no" and there's nothing they can really do about it if you do.

don't even act like those tiny animals aren't sex machines

Bob 2011/04/01(Fri)23:28 No. 14242 ID: fdd8f1
File 130172573320.jpg - (8.52KB , 244x192 , sonicehwut.jpg )

>>14241

>>14240
well sure. but if every suggestion is
>put it in
it's kinda hard to ignore without making people mad.

>>14243
The opinion of people who suggest "put it in" doesn't matter. If you make them mad the most likely response is that they give up on your quest and stop suggesting "put it in".

If you literally have no other suggestions then you have pretty chronically failed at setting the tone of your quest or providing any plausible alternatives. Your quest is over as much as if it had no suggestions at all.

Remember: only you can prevent sex quests.

>>14248
>Remember: only you can prevent sex quests.
This has to be, like, stickied on top of every page.

THen you tell them inquest and in a discussion thread related to it:

No.

No, not even if you beg. No, not even if it makes sense. No, not if you present a fucking thesis on it, because this is my quest. If they continue to be assholes, drop the quest, it's all they deserve for not listening to you.

It's like the tabletop, really. The DM can say No at any time he likes and either walk out or kick everyone out.

could also gloss over it with a blank image with the words 'and then they fucked' written in it.

Test Pattern 2011/04/03(Sun)09:19 No. 14266 ID: 15b51b
File 130184758251.jpg - (28.06KB , 539x502 , iranian_cleric.jpg )

ITT

I, for one, enjoy sex quests. I also enjoy serious quests. I think nipplelessness is ridiculous.

Nipplelessness is next to godliness.

Quests without sex? INCONCIEVABLE!

That's almost as bad a quest that includes consensual sex between two healthy humans of opposite gender in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation!

>>14272
I think that might be taking it a bit too far!

The majority of the community being completely unfunny and the spouting of tired memes and old jokes is arguable way worse than any assumed or actual perversions.

Nipples are distracting. Tozol Quest is better off without them.

Hypothesis: adding nipples and genitalia is not dissimilar to ending every other sentence with a tilde.

>>14276
Does this mean Slinkoboy will start adding nipples to his quests?

What the fuck would you do to test that hypothesis?

>>14278
Massive government-funded study.

>>14282
Yes, of course. But what expiramental design would you use?

Quest full of Tildes vs Quest full of Naughty Bits vs Standard (Control) Quest.

Metric is earthquake strength and frequency in Iran.

>>14284
I can provide a quest with all nipples. You know I can.

>>14535
But can you provide a quest with all tildes?

>>14536
Well we know that Slinkoboy can't not produce a quest with all tildes.

So basically this is Gnoll vs Slinkoboy vs...uh...someone who makes very standard and generic quests?

>>14538
Slinko vs. Gnoll vs. Test Pattern.

Digitigrade legs are not built for superior bipedal locomotion, or strength load out for resistance. The extra joints in the legs allow for bigger strides in quadruped locomotion. Having an extra joint creates a larger amount of stress on the muscles attempting to keep the joints rigid.

On the opposite scale, animals with no muscles, and exoskeletons are capable of leaping and lifting a greater exponential amount of weight because there is no stress against their joints virtually at all until a great variable difference.

Digitigrade look neat, and even I use them, but they're more stressful for walking, and they're fairly unbalanced for bipedal actions.

>>14545

I don't even see how that is a counter to anything. Especially the human who do to having nothing but thighs is not tiring themselves almost at all beyond balancing themselves and using their ball joints to propel the legs.

None of those bipedal creatures are proportionally strong either. I never said they cannot run fast, because it is built almost entirely to run--flee from predators in most of those cases. They're also incredibly imbalanced (and most of them are dead).

The T-rex was proportionally slow and strong for its size, and its strength was in its bite for combat. Unless the jaws are supposed to be a part of the legs themselves.

Again they are built for sprinting, and overexertion of using them fatigues them quickly.

>>14545

Notice how dinosaurs had huge, very heavy tails to be used as a counterweight for the unbalanced center of gravity that a digitigrade bipedal has.

As for humans, yeah, digitigrade legs work in races and so because they're good for accelerating purposes. Now, watch videos with people walking with them. It's like trying to walk on heels, but worse.

Now, I'm not trying to dis people using digitigrade designs for fantasy and sci-fi designs. digitigrade creatures look pretty badass, and adds to the inhuman feeling. It's just that they don't really work in real life.

!DReamEr2eU 2011/04/18(Mon)15:48 No. 14549 ID: 55c4cf
File 130316690299.jpg - (66.24KB , 500x333 , nomusclesatall.jpg )

I also never said the legs were bad at running, I am saying they are bad for lifting. Show me the digitigrade human fellow dead lifting in a strong man competition and we may have an actual counter.

>Notice how dinosaurs had huge, very heavy tails to be used as a counterweight for the unbalanced center of gravity that a digitigrade bipedal has.
What? You're focusing on traits that don't have to do with the legs. They have big tails because their upper bodies are way, way forward of their center of gravtiy. If they have an upright posture, no such imbalance exists.
>Now, watch videos with people walking with them. It's like trying to walk on heels, but worse.
It's almost like having your feet cut off has a deleterious effect on your walking abilities!

Humans with prosthetics aren't going to be quite the same as a creature who evolved that way. A dog with its front legs cut off, who learned to walk on its back legs, won't be as good as a creature who evolved that way. People wearing those weird stilt things won't be as good as a creature who evolved that way. Dinosaurs, who did evolve that way, hunch forwards and need tails to balance out.

But at this point, all you're arguing is "no creature exists which is precisely like a sergal." And you're right. Sergals don't exist. But you are not making a case that this form of locomotion is impossible.

If you exclude humans, you can very easily make the exact same case that bipedal plantigrade locomotion is impossible. No creature exists which walks quite like that. All you've got are things like bears which can stand up and lurch around on two legs, and lizards which can scramble around (but which have long tails and shit) and so on.

The arguments I see reduce down to:
1) Digitigrade legs are unbalancing.
But this is obviously untrue. Humans can walk around on the balls of their feet without falling over.
2) Digitigrade legs can't be strong legs.
But that isn't true either. See: Ostrich riding, multi-ton bipedal dinosaurs, etc.
3) Adding more joints makes things intrinsically worse.
But then horses, which have yet another added joint, and therefore are even worse, must just burst into flames whenever they try to move.

>>14546
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems to me like you're arguing that bugs have more proportional strength than tyrannosaurs due to their legs.

No offense intended, but just in case anyone reading has forgotten how the whole ant strength thing works:

"The real strength of an ant, or any insect for that matter, lies in its diminutive size. Generally speaking, the smaller the critter, the stronger it will be. It's physics, plain and simple.

First, you need to understand a few basic measurements of size, mass, and strength:

* The strength of a muscle is proportional to the surface area of its cross section.
* Surface area is a two-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the square of its length.
* Volume is a three-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the cube of its length.

An animal's weight is related to volume, which increases in proportion to the cube of its length, or by a factor of 3. But its strength is related to surface area, which only increases in proportion to the square of its length, or by a factor of 2. Larger animals have a greater disparity between mass and strength. When a large animal needs to lift an object, its muscles must also move a greater volume, or mass, of its own body.

The tiny ant has a strength advantage because of the ratio of surface area to volume. An ant need only lift a small measure of its own weight relative to the strength of its muscles."

>Digitigrade legs are unbalancing; But this is obviously untrue. Humans can walk around on the balls of their feet without falling over.

Humans don't have tails.

>2) Digitigrade legs can't be strong legs. But that isn't true either. See: Ostrich riding, multi-ton bipedal dinosaurs, etc. I said they tire the body, and are poor for lifting.

Ostriches and dinosaurs aren't proportionally strong.
>3) Adding more joints makes things intrinsically worse. But then horses, which have yet another added joint, and therefore are even worse, must just burst into flames whenever they try to move.

Okay, now you are using hyperbole, and getting off course here. Horses are quadruped. They are built for sprinting and have hooves. They are actually poorly balanced for sudden changes, and poor recovery for broken bones which happens from the previous instance.
Horses are very well built animals and don't have heavy tails. They have high endurance, but their strength isn't a high multiple compared to its muscle weight because most of its build is for carrying itself and speed.

Conversely, monkeys are recorded as being over 4x the strength of a human despite their small size. Monkeys are probably the best example of exerted strength in plantigrade bipedal animals, and because they are wild animals as well it shows the physical potential from required physical exertion on a day-to-day basis.

Test Pattern 2011/04/18(Mon)16:44 No. 14554 ID: 8bdb6a
File 130317025781.jpg - (58.71KB , 398x325 , Picture89[1].jpg )

>Humans don't have tails.
So what?

>Ostriches and dinosaurs aren't proportionally strong.
Okay I guess I can explain some more. Or just copy paste wikipedia's explanation because I'm kinda in a hurry, if that's cool with everyone:

"If an animal were scaled up by a considerable amount, its muscular strength would be severely reduced since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while their mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular functions would be severely limited.

In the case of flying animals, their wing loading would be increased if they were scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. Air resistance per unit mass is also higher for smaller animals, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot die by falling from any height.

As was elucidated by Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. The bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. Because of this, the giant animals seen in horror movies (e.g., Godzilla) are unrealistic, as their sheer size would force them to collapse. However, it's no coincidence that the largest animals in existence today are giant aquatic animals, because the buoyancy of water negates to some extent the effects of gravity. Therefore, sea creatures can grow to very large sizes without the same musculoskeletal structures that would be required of similarly sized land creatures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

I'm also completely baffled where you are getting the idea that I think locomotion is, "impossible."

I am stating that without the increased number of stressed joints, it would be easier to exert the same amount of force.

For a machine perspective, it is easier to exert more force with a stiff pole than it would be to push a pole guiding another pole with a flexible ligament.

You can have a digitigrade leg and a strong character, but it is very likely that a plantigrade skeleton would be superior.

I have no idea why you are coming away as if I am saying anything other than this is 'impossible.'

Do you often go to extremes over a disagreement?

>I am stating that without the increased number of stressed joints, it would be easier to exert the same amount of force.
How much easier? Significantly easier? How do you know that?

>For a machine perspective, it is easier to exert more force with a stiff pole than it would be to push a pole guiding another pole with a flexible ligament.
But legs aren't poles and joints. Having more spring in your step, so to speak, provides advantages.

>You can have a digitigrade leg and a strong character, but it is very likely that a plantigrade skeleton would be superior.
How likely? How do you know that? The heaviest bipeds in history were digitigrade, so obviously it can be used to exert a truly incredible amount of force. The same square-cube law which would cause an ant to die in minutes if it were the size of a dog also prevents most animals from becoming as large as a T-rex. Yet T-rexes existed, and weighed up to six and a half tons. This is a stupendous feat of biology. What do we have to counter that, other than "Well, it seems to me that such and such if you think about poles and sticks"?

Even if digitigrade legs reduce the maximum strength you can lift with your legs, which I'm not ready to grant, it seems that they provide advantages, as well, which would contradict your initial statement in the other thread that digitigrade motion is a major disadvantage.

Most of the bipeds in history have been digitigrade, and frankly, humans are not very far removed from our knuckle-walking ancestors, in the grand scheme of things. We have lots of problems with our knees and backs as we age due to this. Maybe this just the price of walking upright, or maybe, with another few million years of evolution, we might not have stayed plantigrade. I'd guess that digitigrade legs are better shock absorbers, but what do I know.

I can't really speak authoritatively about the mechanics of this, because I'm not an engineer or a skeletal biologist. But if anyone's going to talk like that, I'm going to need to see some math.

>Do you often go to extremes over a disagreement?
I'm so extreme, I shit snowboarders into half-pipes.

!DReamEr2eU 2011/04/18(Mon)22:58 No. 14561 ID: 55c4cf
File 130319273132.jpg - (34.95KB , 576x467 , medium.jpg )

“Plantigrade-Feet allows greater forward propulsion than digitigrade and unguligrade mammals.”* (Brown and Yalden)
Digitigrade allows longer strides and increases speed.
Ulguligrade have the most quick and efficient movements.

Research done by Doctor Yalden seems to confirm that plantigrade feet give the most propulsion. I believe since propulsion is different than speed, current studies done do actually show plantigrade have more strength, as I meant it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Yalden
Also studied by J. Cleveland Brown (Who I cannot track down)

*: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1973.tb00178.x/abstract

I'm not going to carry on about the T-rex. The T-rex and its related dinosaur cousins were all strong. It moved around and is a marvel of biology, but as mentioned before its capabilities to move itself however great don't show how much propulsion it is actually creating. It did not use its legs for strength, its incredibly strong body part much like today's crocodiles and similar creatures have obscenely powerful jaws.

However if doctors in the field have shown so far that plantigrade animals is a stronger structure, then who am I to disagree with them.

Most digitigrade animals have a pad or area behind the toes which absorbs the shock created from the heavy force pushing down on both joints, before using the muscles to push off for bursts of speed.

It is true that the advantage of the structure is a long stride and speed, but I've already admitted that earlier. It is just my opinion that a humanoid digitigrade biped would be at a strength advantage in close combat due to having a lower propulsion resulting, as well as a center of gravity more easy to throw off. The center of gravity of extended biped digitigrades is higher, and also raises the center of the whole body. Higher centers of gravity are less balanced for close combat situations.

Now, a very fit biped digitigrade could lower their center of gravity, but conversely a fit biped plantigrade lowers it even further.

I'm not going to argue about this any further, but I had a thing of research with the center of gravity information on it, but I closed it and do not feel like looking it back up to cite it. It can also be countered that fantasy creatures have structurally been set up to have superior center of gravity shifts, but I'll leave that be forever.

It is worthy of note that very few scientists in the field give a damn about this subject because it isn't particularly useful in anything but fantasy settings. Most information about this involves furries.