Michael Archer

And Michael isn't?

Pinkie is by far my second favorite character, bested only by Rainbow Dash. Pinkie is so charming and delightful--she makes me feel all gooey inside. Her little chuckle in Rainbow Dash's candle scene, makes me want to melt.

There is "gender" and then there are "gender stereotypes." They're completely different. One is an identity and the other thing is something subjective created by society. Obviously, the latter is irrelevant, philosophically speaking. There is no reason why a man cannot like things that are stereotypically female things; to say that one gender can like something but the other can't is a double-standard and therefore a contradiction. Our My Little Pony thread is a testament to this. I sort of understand what you mean. You mean a complete metaphysical change? Well I guess in that case, you change your identity--but the Law of Identity says you can't be two things at once. Everything has one identity, so A != B. If this is confusing, the modern day expression to demonstrate the Law of Identity is: "You cannot have your cake, and eat it too." Keep in mind that a modern sex change operation is purely a physical change, not a metaphysical one. A woman can operate to change her hormones and have a penis attached, but she'd be a woman with a penis and not a man. Man and woman are two metaphysical absolutes. Aristotle was awesome; I remember reading an article that said, "He's basically the guy who invented being smart."

Because the force-initiating terrorists hide behind them and the civilians put up with it. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " If civilians don't alter or abolish their government, then they have to pay the price if the government decides to initiate force; it's either our boys who pay that price, or their civilians. This should not be misconstrued as "WE WANT BLOOD" kind of thing--it's just a fact of nature. You have the right to establish a proper government, but if you don't, the government will screw you over. You also have the right to work and buy food: if you refuse to work and buy food, then you have to accept the consequences of not eating. If you don't secure your liberty and freedom, you pay the price of not doing so. Also, what's the alternative? Do you suggest we put our boys in danger because the terrorists hide behind civilians? A proper moral war is a war of self-defense where the defending army obtains victory by the quickest way possible with the minimum deaths of their own boys. Civilians killed in a such an action is the fault of the force-initiating nation. If civilians die, it's because the terrorists willed it; not us. Why should we send our boys to get killed to protect their civilians when the entire war was their will?

From Merriam-Webster: "something given up or lost; loss" So self-sacrifice means "giving up or losing part of yourself." That's nihilism and evil.

I don't know what you guys are talking about--I loved that episode! I really liked the villain, too. He's well written, convincing, and his voice acting is better than everyone else. He's an infinitely better villain than Nightmare Moon. Nightmare Moon was boring and even had the typical villain accent. Discord has a much better personality. Ok, yes it was fast-paced. But keep in mind: it's a show for little kids. Little kids have short attention spans. The only reason the season 1 pilot was slower paced was that they had to introduce all the characters. In flanksight, I didn't like the introduction of Nightmare Moon; it seemed like the writers at the last second said, "Ok, here's the villian. Go fight her." I guess they couldn't do anything better since they used the entire episode introducing the characters. You are certainly not helping the bronies' cause to disavow connection with the furries.

Oh, a hundred times better! Life of Brian is witty and original. It's music is very clever, catchy and memorable. Apollo 13 is one of my favorites. Zoolander is cute, nothing more. There were times when it was charming and other times where it was dumb. Apollo 13 is infinitely better; it's blasphemy to mention it alongside of Zoolander.

720p Youtube version? Fuck, that's what I get for being impatient. In case you were wondering, this is the amazing quality I was watching: rhBmxS86yw0 Next Saturday: WAIT FOR GODDAMN WATCHABLE VERSION

I had to watch it as a shitty grainy Youtube upload but it was a brilliant, brilliant episode. Well worth the wait. Rainbow Dash was bad-ass, as expected. Yes, my dream came true! Earlier, I wished that the season would have one obscure internet reference; I will now be satisfied if there is no other reference for the rest of the season.

And with this, I bid the forum farewell until I'm all caught up with ponies. Closing thoughts: everyone's seen this, right? Of course you have. 6cdKtJCpDyc Funny, right? I thought so too! Notice anything weird? No? Are you sure? Look again... How exactly is Rainbow Dash holding the candle? She doesn't have thumbs, or a magical horn--and neither does Pinkie Pie. Thoughts?

I was in somewhat of an agreement up until here: This implies that a fetus does has rights over its host; this is what is implied when you say a mother should be forbidden to smoke or do drugs. This is a double-standard. Also, someone who murders a pregnant woman should get charged with two accounts of murder? Why is an abortion not murder, but abortion-by-proxy (that's what I'm calling the Terminator approach from now on) is? Another double-standard. Someone who kills a pregnant woman should get charged with one account of murder. A fetus has no rights.

Self-sacrifice is evil, in any context. What is self-sacrifice? Self-sacrifice is when you relinquish a higher value in exchange for an inferior value. In other words, it's ridding yourself of the good to obtain the worthless. I can already hear some of you angrily typing on your keyboard now, "So caring for anyone else is evil? What are you--a destroyer of love?!"; those of you who are thinking that are context-droppers. Caring for someone else is selfish; provided that someone you are caring for is one of your chosen values. It is not self-sacrifice to give a loved one money when it would not hurt you, provided that the person you're giving money to is valued higher than the sum of money; this would be a selfish act. To be a bit more clear, it is not sacrifice if you give food to your child if you personally are starving, this is a moral, selfish act. It would be immoral to give that food to your neighbor's child, when your own is starving. Self-sacrifice is immoral: The rational/moral action is to pursue your values in order from most important to least important; the self-sacrifice/immoral action is to destroy the values you hold dear. This is nihilism: the destruction of the good for the sake of destruction. So to answer your question: the only limit is your life and how much destruction can you take until you die. This was a good topic of discussion. This board index needs more philosophical questions.

Ah, I see what you mean. My answer is, what do you call people who's perception of reality is provably impaired? I don't understand what you mean. Are you postulating something existing outside of reality? You're right; I accept reality, that's all. It's the same reason why I don't believe in...NO, END SENTENCE--BEGIN A NEW.

Jesus Christ Superstar: Terrible, terrible movie. The fact that all the clothes seemed weirdly out of place broke my suspension of disbelief. I didn't like how they're all clearly actors reenacting the gospels. I'm serious; it's not that they're bad actors, it's that the movie begins with all of them getting out of a bus and putting on costumes. The market Jesus walks through was too contemporary--some of the merchants were even selling machine guns. Judas running away from the tanks was the last straw. Music was...ok. While it will never be as good as Les Misérables or Wicked, I have to admit there were some catchy tunes. "The Last Supper" and "Superstar" were my favorites.

Badly stated? Ok, I'm not a master wordsmith--but for my sake, would you mind pointing out why? I want to know so I don't make the same mistake in the future. I won't be offended by your corrections unless they're explicitly intended to insult me personally.

I have a low reputation because people click the little minus button next to "reputation" on my posts--what your point?

That "ping" is highly exaggerated in video games and movies. The gunshots are much louder than the ping and an enemy soldier won't be able to hear it four hundred yards away with heavy gunfire.

My name is Michael Archer; I'm clearly a woman. Wow, the male to female ration is quite significant. This can't be coincidence. I guess Ross just makes incredibly manly videos. EDIT: This is now a philosophical discussion? My favorite field! Aristotle postulated the Law of Identity: A is A. This is quite ingenious since it order to dispute it, you actually have to accept it. This pretty much means that reality exists independent of consciousness i.e. things have an identity and don't change, even from consciousness to consciousness. How is this relevant? In practice, this people who say "I'm a woman trapped within a man's body" are deluded. Reality and nature gave you the body of a man; it's irrelevant what your consciousness thinks. It doesn't matter if you think you're a woman; you have penis. A=A, Man=penis.

You can also play Russian Roulette with a magazine loading pistol.

Heh, you've got quite an ear. Wikipedia article says, "It blends American and British without being predominantly either." It adds "[it] is a cultivated or acquired version of the English language that is not a typical idiom of any location." I guess they are just pompus assholes.

Alright, so I was mistaken. Here. That's a picture derived from their researches. Click on any photo and it will take you to an entire scientific paper with an abstract and everything. It's about the Medieval Warm Period--a phenomenon that the climate cultists dismiss as a negligible factor. EDIT: BTG, the capitalization was a stylistic choice. It wasn't a mistake.

Which I've said many times, is an absurd contradiction in terms. Unspoken/unwritten ones means subjective, undefinable, rules that are based off of whims. There is no such thing as a "community"; when you say "community", you mean "a group of individuals". So in essence, you're saying that a group votes (a group doesn't think, so when a group 'decides' something, this is a majority vote) The community has no rules to follow; the community ARE the rules--this means anything. This is mob rule, no matter how you put it. This is Argument from Dismissal fallacy. Just because I'm free to leave does not invalidate my claim that anarchy is wrong. Your context-dropping skills continue to baffle me. There's a reason for the court and the appeal system: the government presents their evidence to a judge and the defendant questions the evidence. If any party feels important evidence was missing, they can appeal. Each hearing is fair and most importantly, objective. Men are not infallible: that's why even if the public is certain that a suspect is guilty, he still receives a fair trial to review the evidence. The "gunning for you" form of justice is exactly what it sounds like: an angry mob comes to lynch an individual. Remember what happened in the post-Civil War Southern states? The KKK came and lynched anyone they didn't like. The blacks were a minority--white people made up the "community". The community agreed that a certain black person was bad, and they came gunning for him. Same goes for stealing. What is stealing? What are the degrees of punishment for certain times of stealing? Again, no man can flip through a book and learn what exactly is forbidden and what exactly would be the punishment should he choose to commit the crime; they would only be answered through unwritted laws--subjective laws that are impossible to follow. You said there wouldn't be a court of law. So...an individual is suspected of stealing and the mobs just raids his house? That's certainly what it seems like you're telling me. You can't drop a context and expect everything else to be the same. Out of context, "murderers and thieves would be punished in anarchy by the community" sounds great--in its context, it's whim-worshiping mob rule. EDIT: I just remember a story that depicts anarchy as you'd like it: Things Fall Apart. It's about a primitive Nigerian tribe. All the "justice" is done by the community, for the community. There aren't any people in charge; just people's who's opinions are respected in the village. I'm sure I don't need to describe the horrors done by such a community.

It's true--however Islam is not a religion known for tolerance. Bush and Obama tried to convince them to understand us; too many Americans have died. There is no compromise between food and poison. They started this war; any civilians caught in the crossfire will be their fault, not ours. We can't be expected to lay down in submission just because they hide behind civilians like cowards. You're guilty of massive context-dropping. Traffic is an accident; acts of war are made deliberately to destroy another country, like your example of Israel. You can't divorce the context and expect everything to remain the same. Obviously, destroying the twin towers was the more terrorist act; the nuking Japan wasn't a terrorist act at all. America retaliated after they were attacked and completely destroyed the nihilistic culture of Japan; America was also showing the world what happens when someone initiates aggression on America. The context is of crucial importance--which is why context-dropping is incredibly harmful. An act of retaliation is a moral requirement, terrorism is a moral evil--yet you equate the two.

About nine hours 'till ponies. You can be assured I won't be visiting this forum until I watched that episode. I've asked a few people this question and none have come up with a satisfactory answer: from what region is Rarity's accent? Obviously, Applejack is Southern American and the rest of the ponies have Western accent variations--where the hell is Rarity from? Her accent is too British to be Western and too Western to be British! Also: The episode airs six days after 9/11. There are six ponies. HOLY SHIT, HASBRO IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY

YES. Bronystate is streaming the Premiere of Season 2. (as if I haven't said it 3 times...) It's airing at 9 a.m. on a Sunday. Lose a day of sleeping in to watch the new episode with dubious video quality; assuming that nothing goes wrong with the stream, their server can handle the traffic AND my internet somehow successfully fights through everyone else to get to the stream--when I can always watch it later? No thanks. Try watching it while laughing at how stupid we are for liking it. Laugh at every stupid thing--like at every time they say, "Equestria". You'll see that it can't hurt you--just laugh and make it disappear.