Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Neutral [chat] Hotel

1…5681011…85

Posts

  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    skippydumptruck wrote: »
    space porn would be so weird

    boobies all flopping in odd directions

    cumshots just dribbling out of a penis and kinda hanging there

    I'm kinda surprised someone hasn't rented that commercial version of the 'Vomit Comet' and made a zero-g porno.

    And you know people have gotten it on in space.

    the AU high club.
    4cuwx.png
    Like CCGs? Check my CCG's Thread in CF and help me playtest it!
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »
    skippydumptruck wrote: »
    space porn would be so weird

    boobies all flopping in odd directions

    cumshots just dribbling out of a penis and kinda hanging there

    you can't get a boner in space

    It's... the opposite, actually. I can't find the article but one of the recent space station astronauts said he basically woke up with a mega-boner every morning.
    h1DI1.jpg
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong and a cast of thousands Registered User regular
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »
    i thought there was a porn company that tried to do space fucking and it was just like shoving a wet noodle in

    totally unworkable

    ???

    They weren't even in space, just in a plane doing parabolic arcs. If the dude was pushing rope, it was probably because he couldn't become aroused in those conditions, not because it's physically impossible.
    dkmouthsig.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Donkey Kong wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    I think you're pretty off-base here. Progressivism isn't about stopping people from excelling on principle. It's about making sure people don't excel at the direct expense of others. It's about making sure people don't create massive power structures that oppress blocks of people. It's about making sure that everyone has a fair chance at a decent life.

    There's nothing inherently in progressivism that says you can't genetically modify your children to have an IQ of 200. All progressivism is interested in is making sure that your genius kids don't use their intelligence to effectively enslave people. And maybe if the disparity in the population becomes too great, progressivism will tax your genius billionaires to supply genetic engineering resources to everyone.

    It's about pulling people up, not stomping everyone down.

    I wish I could believe you about that, but I'm not sure [chat] is the place to dive into it. I see progressives very much aligned toward taking from the successful they believe have enough, toward equality of outcome rather than opportunity.

    But we were only talking about what we imagine tomorrow's progressives will be wrong about, not trying to get into a discussion of the nature of the progressive mindset. Maybe you believe that tomorrow's progressives will be wrong about nothing at all!

    I don't.
    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • ShivahnShivahn Registered User regular
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »
    i thought there was a porn company that tried to do space fucking and it was just like shoving a wet noodle in

    totally unworkable

    ???

    No, it's apparently fucking crazy.

    Like there is a quote from an astronaut that basically boils down to "EVERYONE HAD SUPER PAINFUL HYPERBONERS"
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    Nasa maintains you cannot get an erection in space but I'm going to guess they're full of shit and just trying to reassure the public there aren't government funded ten mile high club shenanigans
  • ShivahnShivahn Registered User regular
    skippydumptruck wrote: »
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »
    skippydumptruck wrote: »
    space porn would be so weird

    boobies all flopping in odd directions

    cumshots just dribbling out of a penis and kinda hanging there

    you can't get a boner in space

    maybe YOU can't

    Cass can get a boner wherever she wants I will have you know.
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Tiger Burning wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    let's be honest

    y'all don't wanna explore space

    you wanna explore neil degrasse tyson's dick

    Neil deGrasse Tyson had managed to seduce an entire impressionable generation of youth into enthusiasm for space exploration.

    Damn you and your conspicuous resemblance to Billy Dee Williams!

    'cism

    Unpossible.

    I'm brown. Chris Rock Principle.
    network_sig2.png
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »
    i thought there was a porn company that tried to do space fucking and it was just like shoving a wet noodle in

    totally unworkable

    ???

    No, it's apparently fucking crazy.

    Like there is a quote from an astronaut that basically boils down to "EVERYONE HAD SUPER PAINFUL HYPERBONERS"

    Now that's a headline I'd like to read.
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    when people talk about space porn all i can think of is the archer episode where cyril gets forced into the floating mass of vomit
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Tiger Burning wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    let's be honest

    y'all don't wanna explore space

    you wanna explore neil degrasse tyson's dick

    Neil deGrasse Tyson had managed to seduce an entire impressionable generation of youth into enthusiasm for space exploration.

    Damn you and your conspicuous resemblance to Billy Dee Williams!

    'cism

    Unpossible.

    I'm brown. Chris Rock Principle.

    ...in 15 years you'll go from edgy comedy to voicing children's movies?
    h1DI1.jpg
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    you can make a gun with godamn plumbing supplies.

    being scared of 3d printing guns is silly.

    also kind of overstating the capabilities of a 3d printer.
    xlh6c3.png
  • CindersCinders Registered User regular
    To my surprise I did not wake up alone. My closest friend was alert and waiting. I had an erection so intense it was painful. I could have drilled through Kryptonite. I would ultimately count 15 space wake-ups in my three shuttle missions, and on these and many times during the sleep periods my wooden puppet friend would be there to greet me.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    Yes, this is a thing that people do now. The law allows it for private use. Selling it runs into a bunch of potential issues.

    It's just interesting that there is hysteria over 3D printed guns when the tech is considerably less mature than and comparably expensive to basic cnc equipment.

    I suppose it's because people can envisage 3D printing being a true consumer technology (in the "one in every home" sense)? Or they're just not thinking that hard about it.

    Basically I think that if you were a generally bad person looking to make (as opposed to buy, or steal) an untraceable gun for nefarious purposes you'd almost certainly buy or rent a CNC machine and use that with any of the freely available schematics online before you'd even consider 3D printing.

    I think it's more that people just aren't aware that making guns isn't some super tricky arcane art that only wizards can do.

    They think that, and then see 3D printed guns and go "oh shit!"

    People think 3D printing is replicators or some Diamond Age nanomachining. It's really nothing special.

    Besides, regular printers already are designed so they won't print certain things properly - like money. No reason certain sets of dimensions couldn't be locked out on commercial / consumer 3d printers.

    As for the whole 'shooting' the plastic gun...good luck with that. Hope you use your off hand.
    steam_sig.png
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    Yes, this is a thing that people do now. The law allows it for private use. Selling it runs into a bunch of potential issues.

    It's just interesting that there is hysteria over 3D printed guns when the tech is considerably less mature than and comparably expensive to basic cnc equipment.

    I suppose it's because people can envisage 3D printing being a true consumer technology (in the "one in every home" sense)? Or they're just not thinking that hard about it.

    Basically I think that if you were a generally bad person looking to make (as opposed to buy, or steal) an untraceable gun for nefarious purposes you'd almost certainly buy or rent a CNC machine and use that with any of the freely available schematics online before you'd even consider 3D printing.

    Right. The Polish Resistance turned out large quantities of guns during the war without access to large scale manufacturing. The 3-D Printing aspect is just a tech panic. Right now they have managed to make a single shot disposable gun. Which might be useful for Hollywood assassins I guess.

    Nope.

    Those guns are far too ugly for Hollywood assassins.
  • ShivahnShivahn Registered User regular
    RMS Oceanic wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »
    i thought there was a porn company that tried to do space fucking and it was just like shoving a wet noodle in

    totally unworkable

    ???

    No, it's apparently fucking crazy.

    Like there is a quote from an astronaut that basically boils down to "EVERYONE HAD SUPER PAINFUL HYPERBONERS"

    Now that's a headline I'd like to read.

    I am the best at.. well, if not euphemisms, then regular phemisms.

    HYPERBONERS is my new favorite word.
  • DeebaserDeebaser Way out in the water See it swimmin'?Registered User regular
    override367 wrote: »
    Nasa maintains you cannot get an erection in space but I'm going to guess they're full of shit and just trying to reassure the public there aren't government funded ten mile high club shenanigans

    Im willing to bet there are at least half a dozen people alive now that think they are the first people to bang in space.
    #FreeThan
    #FreeScheck
    #FreeSKFM
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Evil Multifarious wrote: »
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    they probably won't

    because space exploration is a pointless hobby
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Solomaxwell6 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    Sayng that progressives are for that is just as intellectually dishonest as saying that conservatives are for establishing a literal theocracy.

    Sure, a few people on the fringe might be like that, but you can hardly generalize a massive group based on the looney fringe.

    No dude, it is not a fringe.
    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot Registered User regular
    fuck i wish i had a hyperboner
    3zogMPM.png?1
    Oathkeeper - Updates Monday/Wednesday/Friday
    Buy Issue One! >< Two! >< Three!
    NEW! >< Four!
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    Solomaxwell6 wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    Yes, this is a thing that people do now. The law allows it for private use. Selling it runs into a bunch of potential issues.

    It's just interesting that there is hysteria over 3D printed guns when the tech is considerably less mature than and comparably expensive to basic cnc equipment.

    I suppose it's because people can envisage 3D printing being a true consumer technology (in the "one in every home" sense)? Or they're just not thinking that hard about it.

    Basically I think that if you were a generally bad person looking to make (as opposed to buy, or steal) an untraceable gun for nefarious purposes you'd almost certainly buy or rent a CNC machine and use that with any of the freely available schematics online before you'd even consider 3D printing.

    Right. The Polish Resistance turned out large quantities of guns during the war without access to large scale manufacturing. The 3-D Printing aspect is just a tech panic. Right now they have managed to make a single shot disposable gun. Which might be useful for Hollywood assassins I guess.

    Nope.

    Those guns are far too ugly for Hollywood assassins.

    YRKTwCx.jpg
    h1DI1.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I see no reason you can't get an erection in space. It's not like blood in the spongiform tissue is controlled by gravity. Cowgirl/doggystyle would be super disappointing if it was.
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    Evil Multifarious wrote: »
    Gay dudes working in teams and having firefights on a space station

    Ropes of semen hanging in the...cockpit.... like silly string

    A giggling man floats by, hand over hand across the bulkhead, narrowly dodging a sluggish pale tendril
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M
    Per3th.jpg
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    oh my god the picture of someone attempting a porn shoot in the vomit comet is just too great

    "come on, man, look like you're enjoying yourself a little atleast!"

    "I AM NOT hurgh ENJOYING MYSELF urgh EVEN A LITTLE"
    Abdhyius on
    xlh6c3.png
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    RMS Oceanic wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »
    i thought there was a porn company that tried to do space fucking and it was just like shoving a wet noodle in

    totally unworkable

    ???

    No, it's apparently fucking crazy.

    Like there is a quote from an astronaut that basically boils down to "EVERYONE HAD SUPER PAINFUL HYPERBONERS"

    Now that's a headline I'd like to read.

    I am the best at.. well, if not euphemisms, then regular phemisms.

    HYPERBONERS is my new favorite word.

    Phemi-Nazi.

    m i rite guys???
    network_sig2.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    Are you saying that progressives are overly panicky about genetically engineered crops because they often lack sufficient education on the subject Spool?

    Because on that we'd agree, also nuclear power - the progressive hateboner for nuclear energy has contributed to global warming as much as raw profit has
  • syndalissyndalis Aballah Can Tah Advancing the Human ConditionRegistered User regular
    edited May 2013
    Shivahn wrote: »
    skippydumptruck wrote: »
    space porn would be so weird

    boobies all flopping in odd directions

    cumshots just dribbling out of a penis and kinda hanging there

    OH MY GOD

    SOMEONE DO THIS

    THIRTY FOOT AWAY FACIAL

    Only if the facial happens to this music, since it may take a good 20-30 seconds for the facial to hit home.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxLacN2Dp6A
    syndalis on
    meat.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    when people talk about space porn all i can think of is the archer episode where cyril gets forced into the floating mass of vomit

    I think of the PBF comic with the vagina teeth.
    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • ShivahnShivahn Registered User regular
    How do I apply for Surgeon General?
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    override367 wrote: »
    Are you saying that progressives are overly panicky about genetically engineered crops because they often lack sufficient education on the subject Spool?

    Because on that we'd agree, also nuclear power - the progressive hateboner for nuclear energy has contributed to global warming as much as raw profit has

    Is that a hate HYPERBONER? Or just a normal hateboner?
    steam_sig.png
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Registered User regular
    Huh, kinda surprised they didn't go with .25ACP rather then .22LR. Pressure in the camber for .25ACP is quite a bit lower.
    There's no living with a killing. There's no goin' back from one. Right or wrong, it's a brand... a brand sticks. There's no goin' back. Now you run on home to your mother and tell her... tell her everything's alright. And there aren't any more guns in the valley.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    overpopulation may or may not become an issue

    it probably will? the world is resource-constrained in a lot of ways, and more people means more strain on finite resources.

    then again, technological and quality-of-life improvements tend to discourage having a shit-ton of kids

    i guess we'll see
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    this week's GoT :o
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Evil Multifarious wrote: »
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    they probably won't

    because space exploration is a pointless hobby

    Why?
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    matt has a problem wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Tiger Burning wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    let's be honest

    y'all don't wanna explore space

    you wanna explore neil degrasse tyson's dick

    Neil deGrasse Tyson had managed to seduce an entire impressionable generation of youth into enthusiasm for space exploration.

    Damn you and your conspicuous resemblance to Billy Dee Williams!

    'cism

    Unpossible.

    I'm brown. Chris Rock Principle.

    ...in 15 years you'll go from edgy comedy to voicing children's movies?

    White people sell out like this, and black people sell out like this.

    (I don't actually think Chris Rock "sold out.")
    network_sig2.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    if you put HMX in your 3d printer you can make bombs with it.

    Ban 3d printers!
    xlh6c3.png
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    skippydumptruck wrote: »
    space porn would be so weird

    boobies all flopping in odd directions

    cumshots just dribbling out of a penis and kinda hanging there

    OH MY GOD

    SOMEONE DO THIS

    THIRTY FOOT AWAY FACIAL

    Only if the facial happens to this music, since it may take a good 20-30 seconds for the facial to hit home.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxLacN2Dp6A

    This

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3oHmVhviO8

    But with a penis and vagina.
    h1DI1.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Donkey Kong wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    I think you're pretty off-base here. Progressivism isn't about stopping people from excelling on principle. It's about making sure people don't excel at the direct expense of others. It's about making sure people don't create massive power structures that oppress blocks of people. It's about making sure that everyone has a fair chance at a decent life.

    There's nothing inherently in progressivism that says you can't genetically modify your children to have an IQ of 200. All progressivism is interested in is making sure that your genius kids don't use their intelligence to effectively enslave people. And maybe if the disparity in the population becomes too great, progressivism will tax your genius billionaires to supply genetic engineering resources to everyone.

    It's about pulling people up, not stomping everyone down.

    I wish I could believe you about that, but I'm not sure [chat] is the place to dive into it. I see progressives very much aligned toward taking from the successful they believe have enough, toward equality of outcome rather than opportunity.

    But we were only talking about what we imagine tomorrow's progressives will be wrong about, not trying to get into a discussion of the nature of the progressive mindset. Maybe you believe that tomorrow's progressives will be wrong about nothing at all!

    I don't.

    Spool I think if you ever dealt with a political argument as more than a series of caricatures you might have a heart attack.
    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.
Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse