Indeed... especially since Friendship is Magic is so innocent. Suddenly, there's demons running around kidnapping people to turn them into monsters and enslave him. Its... more disturbing contrasting it against FiM. Anyways... I just put it out there.
If you want to pull age out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Fantasy_Battle Warhammer wins. And Chaos works the same way in Warhammer as it does in Warhammer 40k.
Where the hell were you the first half of the argument? You would've changed the whole thread.
It may or may not happen. I do not believe it will, but rather, it could.
Well.... Spoiler Its disturbingly addictive isn't it? Its even worse if you seen Friendship is Magic. Its the pilot episode. Basically, they fight what would be in Warhammer the codex definition of a Chaos Greater Daemon, a Chaos Lord and an army of Chaos Spawns.
Did you watch the video?
On the scenario you outlined, avoiding water could be unhealthy, if it becomes aqua-phobia it is emotionally unhealthy. I just worry that OS may be a manifestation of one of the scenarios I outlined. Also, thanks for not attacking my neutral stance Makaze. I merely expressed concern, and advocated research. My mistake was I used examples which were rather abstracted, and some people got the impression I was advocating necrophilia, or that I was saying that people with OS were somehow demented or evil. I truly believe that, unless someone was truly inflicting harm upon others to be selfish when it is not needed for survival, there is no "bad". Anything other than that at worst can only be "confused."
Warhammer 40k is a fantasy story which features lots of "good guys" who explore the galaxy, and use their bonds, and magic to fight an army of demons from another realm to protect all they know from being corrupted by the Evil Forces of Chaos. My Little Pony, is a fantasy story which features a lot of "good guys" who explore friendship, and use their bonds, and magic, to fight an army of demons from another realm to protect all they know from being corrupted by the Evil Forces of Chaos. Warning... clicking on the spoiler is rather... disturbing...
Existentialism? A solid argument. I won't take it on head on... as I agree to an extent. Which is why I often double talked in my earlier argument. However, I based my early argument off of real world examples, which is why I myself continually brought up concern for it. Here is my argument I pushed earlier: In my original argument, I was comparing it to abusive situations where one individual in a relationship believes they are loved, but they are not, due to a misunderstood concept of love. I used the example of a child raised by a narcissist, as narcissist have difficulties having affection for other people. The child often grows up believing they are loved, but truly does not know what love is. Those children often grow up with dangerously low self esteem, and are confused about the concept of love. That's the "effect" of believing you are loved when you are not. I also argued that there was an unhealthy cause. Low self esteem, or a history of sexual and physical abuse often leads to a series of self destructive relationships. At any sign their partner loves them (showing affection), they end the relationship. Their longer term relationships are ones without love. I hereby say that such a relationship without affection is similar to an OS relationship. I never made a solid case that either of these scenarios were solidly true, only that such scenarios were realistic enough to warrant more research. However, a majority of the thread insisted that OS was purely genetic, and not learned. They also argued it was purely healthy, and there was nothing wrong with it. They cited a case study, which presented an alarming connection to autism. I could not ignore that, and changed my argument. Anyways... you now are caught up in the short version of the thread.
[spoiler]
@Makaze: If you argue that OS is genetic, I speculate that its genetic because of a link to autism, and therefore is likely a flaw, and should be investigated more. If you argue that its learned, I argue that it may be unhealthy and should be investigated more. Why? Because believing something loves you, when it does not, is either a self destructive pattern, or a coping mechanism for emotional trauma. @Phantasm: Let me explain the "large percentage". Its 3500% more likely that someone with OS will have autism than a general person. THAT is the large percentage.
*Fixed* Ok, I'm not presenting my argument here. I am presenting something along the same line of reasoning as you. You argue that "emotionless culling" is needed to reduce harm. I argue that such is not justified at all. If "emotionless culling" was justified, then genocide in cases where genes are dangerous is justified. Its a cold, calculated, logical decision that I would never make. Its not "justice". If I was emotionless, I would look at the odds they would inflict harm on people. If odds were, they were more likely to be killers than not, then logically, I would kill them. Experiences cannot be controlled, and are very difficult to monitor... Genes on the other hand, can be studied, and theoretically, controlled. If I was emotionless, I would not need to. Just preempt any possible damage. I'm giving you a way out of this spiral you put yourself into. But you can freely deny it.
I'm sorry... I still don't get what you are saying. Are you taking a stance on the subject yourself? Or just inquiring? I acknowledged you bringing it up by asking why you bring it up when you do not take a stance on it in relation to the overall argument. BTW: My original argument was it was unhealthy. Please go back to my earlier post. If you read them, you'd see how awkward my situation is, as you are making me argue myself.
So... in order for them to be justifiably culled by your admittedly "emotionless culling", they first have to do harm to others? One could argue, "If the serial killer gene is in them, they will kill." And... will be right oftentimes. Less death and suffering will happen if they are killed at the first sign of detection... Doesn't that conflict with the principle you posted below? Unless of course, you believe a better course of action is to mix the goals of Preventing Harm, Deterring Harm, and Punishing Harmful Action (what you call revenge) into one big concept? Well, that's what justice is. EDIT: I Forget, its Makaze I'm dealing with, he doesn't like the word "crime." Edited.
Spoiler I knew it had me when it said, "Is your character Pink?"
So... once the human genome project is finished, there is a chance they will find a "serial killer" gene. Will you advocate culling all those who possess such a gene?
BRT! Hold on...
Online anyways... http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/ FYI: Aspergers is a form of autism. That's what my argument evolved into. If you do not believe its has anything to do with genetics, then defeat my original argument, rather than the current one. Your argument is sound against my current one, but makes no sense against my old. My current argument assumes its genetic. My old one assumed it was a learned trait, which other members countered with a case study. The case study in question is the one we've been talking about. Um... no. I didn't realize there was more to your argument. I believe I covered all the bases. If there was another argument in there please clarify.
[IMG]
