Space

or you have to accept many things that modern society do not accept to justify eating meat

Of course some assumptions to fit the 'morally wrong' part. You do not think murder is good, you think that being morally good is important, etc.

Main argument: Humans are on a level where eating meat is not necessary for surivval. Therefore, we should move off of it, to stop causing/support harm to animals. There lies no distinction between animals and humans that doesn't either include all humans and some animals or not all humans and some animals. Therefore, if you support treating humans well (not killing them, respecting their right to existence) you need to support that for animals.

For example, if the line you draw between other animals and humans is 'humans are most intelligent:' There are animals that are more intelligent than the least intelligent humans (i.e. someone with severe mental disorder). Unless you are ok with enslaving and murdering and torturing those humans, you cannot be ok with the treatment of animals.

Common counter-arguments:

It is natural - Lots of things are natural that we reject, you need something more i.e. murder.

They are a different species and therefore it is alright - This is sorta an appeal to nature. For example, most people would not support killing people who look different, but you are using the same arbitrary boundary.

It tastes good - Just because something feels good does not mean we should engage in it. Many things that feel good shouldn't be engaged in, for other reasons.

oh and just to get EVERYONE triggered if you eat meat you cannot advocate for 'humane' treatment of animals because you support enslaving and murdering these same animals, which is worse than literally anything.

They still have Raqqa so Daesh isn't gone. Plus, there will be insurgency just like after the Iraq war. The extra-judicial killings and sectarian violence that the Iraq Army and PMF have engaged in is just going to perpetuate this.

FeelsBadMan

don't transition until next summer rp doesn't change much between maps

9 minutes ago, Ford said:

 

my family's 17 year old beagle, named Bingo, though this was taken a year and a half ago 

 

 

0

 

OuO

holy **** don't read your cringey fucks

This has been a thread I've wanted to create since I hit the 5k post mark, but I didn't have much actual desire to until now. Usually to make these types of things it needs to be late and I need to be listening to sad music, two things that are fulfilled at the moment, so I might aswell, right?

I've thought of it, and while I acknowledge that there are a lot of other large things that have effected me, I think Lord of the Craft is genuinely something that impacted me massively. And I don't think that's unique-- Lots of people have made that statement, and share the semantic. Which is cool. I'm glad so many people have found such an impactful thing. I genuinely love this server, and everything about it. And I think it will still be a part of my life as long as LotC exists. Which I am happy with. I don't see how my love of the server is going to disappear, even if my active interest in the server dissipates.

Over the past like, year, I've looked at the happenings of the server sorta distantly. Whereas a few years ago I would probably make some long winded post or reply about some certain issue or why I think someone is wrong, that doesn't really interest me. I'll start typing and do something different. And maybe you'll think 'yeah he's maturing' or something, but I disagree. I give a **** about different things nowadays, I've not gained some sort of apathy to my surroundings. Not to say I haven't matured, but, I'll cover that. It's an odd feeling.

I guess what prompted this is this doom-saying about things, overreaction, pretentiousnes, etc. A lot of **** that I just see and really don't understand. Like, maybe this is an issue with everything, but why is all of the talk about the issues of the server, and never solutions? Why are any 'solutions' just 'put this person i think is better.' But let me completely contradict this by...

Like **** dude, I know there are so many issues with LotC. And I know I would ideally want it ran a different way, I would want the culture a different way, but I can't really see a scenario that the server moves in that direction. And I don't have any confidence that my solutions are the best ones. Or that anyone else is. There's no authority at running a minecraft roleplaying server. There's no expert at running online communities. And I look at LotC, and see all the various forms that different aspects of the server have taken, where none of them seemed to be 'good' (i.e. map size, default, various villain rules, magic rules etc), and I get a bit more certain that there isn't a solution or anything like that, and we have to accept that to a degree. We should strive for a 'perfect' system, but come the **** on, this isn't possible.

I guess I never really had the words to describe it, but I think I can now: My dislike for the direction into a 'company.'

The main reason that this seems to be supported is people want the server to make money so it can continue to function, and they want it to become more popular, and I don't necessarily agree with either of those? I mean obviously I think that the server should make money so it should be able to function, but I also don't agree with compromising a lot of morals that I would want the server to be ran on for that goal. As for becoming popular... Why? So it can continue to function? To get new donators? To get new people to RP with?

Those are good things, but should that be a goal? I don't know. Shouldn't we be striving to have the server the best for the people on it, not making some big effort to propel the server forward, which hasn't worked for almost the entire existence of the server? The playerbase pretty much stayed same, with declines at certain parts of the year and increases at others.

So why not focus on the current players as well as advertising for new players? Sure, that's a good solution I think, but I don't know if it's realistic. There's some sort of fetishization with becoming a massive server, when... Would it make LotC more enjoyable? I don't really think so. No matter what the population is, the density of roleplay seems to be just about the same. There seems to be other things that effect how much RP happens, with pop as a factor, but not as large as these other things.

So I guess this leads me to a few questions that I have to think on, that don't have clear answers. That the admins and the people who run the server have to answer, with their decision making. What is the focus on LotC? Why does it exist? Why should it exist? How long should it exist? What are we willing to compromise in pursuit of some goal?

I find myself thinking of some end of LotC. And I know it's not going to be satisfactory to anyone- When LotC dies, it will be with kicking and screaming. Which is fine, I understand, but... Isn't that undignified? I don't know. I'll be around for it, if I'm not banned, so I'll see. Makes me uneasy to think about. Not because I think LotC should never die, but rather because I want a happy death, y'know? I want it to be shut down with some celebration of the years of shared history. I guess I hope my future has a definitive 'end' to the lotc part of it, but I don't know how accurate that's going to be.

AND ANOTHER THING. I've had a decent amount of conversation with pretty much every level of staff member, and I don't think I've really found someone who was bad. I reject that, infact. I don't think there is relaly anyone who seeks position of authority out of purely selfish desires. There's much easier things to do than get staff on LotC. So the only thing left is that these are good people, period. Which I do thoroughly believe-- No 'bad' people. There's people who are misguided, or have bad ideas on how things should be enjoyable, but there's no hateful person who ******* just wants to **** this **** up. WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE IMPLICATION A LOT.

Going off that, it really disappoints me how ineffectual EVERY STAFF MEMBER SEEMS TO BE. From Ever to ******* Luv (idk that's like the axis of good to **** from what I've heard, never interacted with Luv sorry if it's random **** talk), they all had ideas that were never pushed on. I know I'm speaking as someone who has never actually been on any staff team, so I know that I am certainly not aware of how difficult things can be, and probably am not being fair, but... Come on. Like, Tahmas, you are probably like top 3 most 'powerful' people on LotC, and you make a post 10 days after leaving the admins that point out issues with literally everyone. WHY DIDN'T YOU DO ANYTHING TO FIX THIS. WHY IS THE BUCK BEING PASSED SO HARD. WHY ARE YOU JUST CREATING THIS DRAMA WHEN YOU HAD MONTHS TO ACTIVELY FIX THESE PROBLEMS IN AN INFLUENTIAL ROLE. WHY? WHY ARE YOU CONTRIBUTING TO THE RUINATION OF THE SERVER YOU LOVED ENOUGH TO PUT THIS TIME INTO? It makes absolutely on sense to me. But that's not a criticism I just have on Tahmas, that's like every admin who leaves the team and talks about how hard and **** things are. Even my love Ever. So ******* what dude. Do what you can. Don't have 20 unfinished projects. Be vocal. Be public. Don't be a ******* coward.

But onto a more self loathing topic: My interactions on the server. I remember when I was 'permabanned' the last time, I wrote this big ass cringey post about my regrets on LotC. I don't think many remember it, even though it got a few pages of replies. Glad. Looking back at reading it... Nothing changed. I still acted that way after I was unbanned. I mean,  didn't do AS mcuh, but I sitll was so combative an shitty to people for no reason. Still to this day. And I don't get it. I wish it wasn't like that. I don't know. A big too cringey for me to delve deeper into, so meh.

So I guess I will loop back to my love of LotC. I genuinely think it's different from anyone else. I've fanboyed LotC so hard. I've defended LotC from so much criticism, I've tried to show my passion as much as I can. I know that if I really had this passion I should try to reach a position that could actually change LotC, but I've destroyed every chance I have at any staff. I can't evne get ET. 5 years and they won't even let me on the event team, lmfao. So what, I'll just sit here and *****? I don't know.

tl;dr don't read it you ******* losers

tuturu!!!

Availer

Ham, bacon, pineapple.

Could an FM please lock this? I feel like all valuable discussion has happened, and now we're just going to be reading the same things over and over again. Good talk everyone.

cringey photoshop

@Vaynth I am uncomfortable, please act.

I like it, but I don't think the imp-people necessarily are a good fit. I'd prefer if they just didn't exist, so there wasn't a 'civilization' in this realm. Or atleast, they get knocked down to the same level as the satyrs and cervitaurs.

Which also reminds me of the few statements about the Imp people hunting and gettng mad at the cervitaurs and satyrs-- If this is a realm of eternal balance, should the Aspects not be like 'whoa Imps simmer the **** down m8?' Like the statement 'have seen better days' implies there is some upset in the balance, which the Aspects would want to maintain in their own realm, no?

Also, you missed Dryads-- They've gotta fit somewhere.

Oh and more mention of Nemiisae please :)

Also also, I feel like it should be clarified more on who gets to go to the Fae Realm when they die- Is it like a heaven for followers of the Aspects (even if they aren't Druids), or is it more like some Mormon heaven where only the 144,000 blessed get to go i.e. Druids?

But I like the lore a lot. Druid lore should be more fleshed out. It is only a good thing. I can think of so many Druid-esque events that could come about because of this.

And I guess as an aside, but could someone link me like 'realm' lore? Like there's the mortal plain, the void, the spirit realm, the Eternal Forest, but what else?'

edit- yeah what grim said although maybe not that lore but a 'trickster' type thing would be much cooler than how the Imps are currently IMO. Hard to take a bunch of midget baby snatchers seriously.

5 minutes ago, Alterazgohg said:

I can't argue one way or the other.

0

 

I just look at both sides and come to a consensus from that.

For example slavery.

4 hours ago, Alterazgohg said:

Hey, guys. Let's have some Centrist discussion. I sure love sitting on fences, don't you? It makes me feel so smug, sitting high on my posts.

0

 

get off of my topic right now tihsis a MINECRAFT ROLEPLAYING FORUM NOT the place for that type of discussion

Hi friends! SpaceOfAids here, otherwise known as Space, here to try to make an acceptable topic in off-topic!

I just wanted to acknowledge how well this server is ran, by everyone! Tag your favourite staff member hehe xd!

Vaynth is mine! tied with @Final

2 minutes ago, Sky said:

Please point to me what chromosomes are required for you to be transgender, and how that is different from that of a male or a female, because it isn't. You are quite literally, male or female, transgender is short for transitioning gender and you are transitioning from male to female. What other genders exist? Because if it isn't binary, then do tell what third, fourth or even fifth gender you believe exists.

0

 

Gender is a part of personal identity, so it can be whatever you identify. No limit to amount of genders. But not my interest in this thread, so that'll be my last reply my dude

1 minute ago, BittaBoBittoBa said:

One can be masculine without being male, and one can be feminine without being female, what constitutes either changes on the culture.

 

You can't abolish gender (its a construct of society and language), but you can stop thinking either is limited to their affiliated roles.

 

Afterall, I couldn't survive on this dear planet without my fantastic femboys!

 

 

0

 

Yes, of course, but I don't think this really deals with my question, y'know? Like, that doesn't touch the contradiction between transgender and abolishing gender roles.

6 minutes ago, Sky said:

There are two genders, transgender isn't a gender but a state of being which states someone is actively going out of their way to transition into the other gender, thus meaning if you are a transgender male to female, you are female and vice versa for the female to male. As for gender roles in society, well it's not like people truly give a **** if you are a male who does traditionally female roles and the same for female who does traditionally male roles, the only reason why friction exists is when those who do such things rub it in people's faces and it becomes actually irritating. Your last question makes no sense, transgender again isn't a gender at all thus it can co-exist with something that isn't in the same spectrum. 

0

 

To be transgender is a gender identity. It is part of your gender identity. Gender is not a binary thing.

But I am more interested, in this topic, about discussing the logical difficulty in both these things, not discussing the validity of modern scientific gender theory. That's a different discussion that I've had a lot.

5 minutes ago, Amordrin said:

 

okay also - i don't quite understand the dilemma here. anyone who says 'gender roles don't exist' is flat out ignoring every day life.

0

 

I guess it's bad wording. They exist, but we seek to deconstruct them because they are just social constructs.

3 minutes ago, Chaotikal said:

there's only two genders. Male and female, trans people are just transitioning from one to the other. 

 

there's also only 3 sexual orientations, bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual. all the others are just fetishes and are not blanket sexual behaviour terms.

dont remove me for no reason please.

0

 

nope

9 minutes ago, Archipelego said:

i like to think of it like this: people are people, and are governed by no set universal laws. therefore, the best thing you can do is not think about the details, and just let people be people.

 

i lack any set ideologies, so it's kinda hard for me to view either side of the discussion. i dont think there's any need to think about the specifics

0

 

That doesn't interest me. If I want to be logically consistent and able to engage in discussion with others I need to have my own personal beliefs ironed out and specified as much as possible so the conversation is actually fruitful and I can justify my own beliefs. That is the need to think about specifics.

8 minutes ago, Alterazgohg said:

Gender is a spectrum

0

 

That idea can pretty much exist no matter what.

I just realized a big problem in my main post-- This isn't really about non-binary, it's about trans-gender. Non-binary people could exist no matter what. Gonna fix that.

edit- the reason I see non-binary being able to pretty much always be justified is that this mainly has to deal with the 'cause' of the issues, and how you treat them- Non-binary people generally just dress and identify in non-binary ways, they don't usually seek gender reassignment surgery or hormone ****. So even if gender wasn't a hardwired thing, these people would be find because they are just experiencing gender outside of the binary state. I think.

Hi. In an interest of some new type of people from LotC to talk to, I wanted to try to engage in a discussion with people who are like minded-- sjw libcucks I guess. In my experience there is very few vocal people who are 'on my side' who are interested in discussing topics, which I don't get.

But I've had some discussion with other people that have got me thinking about my beliefs, and questioning them, and trying to shift a few things around so I don't suffer from the sorta contradictions I seem to believe in. And a way I think I can test my beliefs and logic is through discussion with others-- probably the only way. And I prefer to do this on a medium where I am familiar with people, 'cause it feels more at home. Also I wanna class up off-topic a bit.

TL;DR Hey libcucks of LotC, I have a question for you;

Most people who support non-binary transgender people seem to also seem to support the abolition of gender roles in society- To be more specific and clear, generally people who support concepts such as transgender, genderqueer, genderfluid, etc, also support eliminating the roles that society prescribes specific genders (like men being the leaders, where women are docile, etc in retrospect, this is sorta a flawed way of explaining it, because not everyone would agree that these two examples aren't inherently part of men or women. So better examples would be, things like society making men be the breadwinners and women be the carevgivers to the children).

And that describes me pretty well. I do acknowledge heavily physical things like manual labour jobs will favour men due to men being generally physically larger and stronger than women, but reject the notion of any sociological difference in men and women that would lead to massive disparity in representation in different careers, political positions, ability to create art, etc.

But, I recently had a discussion about this, and it gave me thought-- Aren't these inherently contradictory statements? If you support this modern view of gender identity, you are saying that these transgender people are born with body dysphoria, thus there is no cure- It is part of your genetic makeup. But, by saying that, are you not saying that people are born with a 'genetic' or 'inherent' gender role, and thus the elimination of gender roles is unfounded because these are things that exist?

On the other side, you could say 'well no gender roles don't exist' and thus you have to then say that transgenderism is a psychological thing, a learned thing that is shaped by our environment, which means there is a cure and we should be focused on a cure not letting people 'mutilate' themselves.

And that's sorta my issue. I have a few ideas on how you could fix that deadlock-- Which reminds me... Why is that bad? That these ideas are not compatable. And I guess my answer would be that I do not trust myself to be the intense logician that I hope to be, and never assume I've considered all the ideas just by myself. I don't trust myself to even make the assessment that these ideas aren't compatible. Especially when it's two things I hold up as pretty solid personal beliefs that I believe strongly in, independent of each other.

I suppose I come off as a bit stubborn, so I guess I should also say that, if I do not find a suitable solution to these issues, I would probably have to 'stop believing' in one. Which would probably just be shifting my argument for transgender rights as more of a personal liberty thing than a like 'medical' defense.

Anyways, yeah my dudes, would love to hear some ideas, mainly from people people who already accept one or both of these premises.

TL;DR How can support for transgender people co-exist with a support for abolishing traditional gender roles?

local sjw reporting in (i unbuttoned the top button for the record)

do you think you are gay

8 hours ago, joey calabreeni said:

h-he did it first https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/159906-emmanuel-macron-the-perennial-hag-chaser/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/12/former-miss-arizona-trump-just-came-strolling-right-in-on-naked-contestants/

@James2k will defend this

reminder that this man is the president of the united states

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html

@James2k will defend this

reminder that this man is the president of the united states

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn

@James2k will defend this

reminder that this man is the president of the united states

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317

@James2k will defend this

reminder that this man is the president of the united states

Just now, James2k said:

"hitler did nothing wrong maybe killing 6 million jews is ok in austrian culture we cannot judge"

genociding people isn't good in austrian culture

Just now, James2k said:

it says they started ******* at 15

re-read the article

and 1 sec