
LCDRformat
u/LCDRformat

The Bible-believing Christian is logically committed to the position that every rational agent who is not a Bible-believing Christian is stupid.
Terms: For this argument ‘God’ will refer to the God of the Christian Bible.
The Christian Bible is assumed to be the word of God and correctly translated.
‘Rejecting God’ as an action is assumed to result in some sort of suffering - be that little red guys with pitchforks waterboarding you for eternity, or simply a self-selected separation from God, who is the source of all Goodness, Joy, Love, etc.
‘Stupid’ is taken to mean both of two possible definitions:
1: Lacking intelligence, common sense, or good judgment
An Attack on William Craig’s Moral Argument With Regard to the Christian God
Or: an attack on the motivations for premise 2 of Craig’s moral argument.
In my last post, I incorrectly asserted the following theses:
[Given the truth of Bible-believing Christianity, Stomping on a Baby’s Skull is not an Intrinsically Evil Act.]
Through some fun dialogues with Christians, I conceded my argument wasn’t sound, and I was forced to retreat. u/brothapipp correctly pointed out that the method was not Baby skull stomping. Citation:
[1 Samuel 15:7, NRSVUE Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. ^(8) ***He took King Agag
The description of the subreddit is:
"...where women are not allowed to use their gender as a handicap or an excuse to act like assholes. Yay equality!"
But more and more it seems like it's not actually about checking women who try to use their gender to get away with poor behavior.
In several recent threads, there are mass-upvoted comments that are basically just 'women have it too easy' and 'Women are stupid'. Like no pretense at all, just straight women hate.
If you guys really are all incels, just tell me and I'll leave
I noticed that the next thing that happens with Luigi is always that he attacks you, kind of no matter what. It goes like
Hit luigi - next thing that happens: Luigi hits you
Throw Luigi -next thing that happens: Luigi hits you
Miss grab on Luigi -next thing that happens: Luigi hits you
Luigi hits you -Next thing that happens: Luigi hits you
I don't know if I'm communicating the point well cause I don't know how to say it any other way. Like most characters when they use an attack, there's sort of a cool down on the move and they can't do another one for a little while. Against luigi it feels like the next frame after and attack is also an attack, with zero cool down. And if you hit him
His argument is something like this:
All action has a goal: Whenever you act voluntarily, you do so to achieve a goal you consider valuable.
Action requires basic conditions: You cannot pursue any goal without freedom (agency) and well-being (life, health, physical integrity). Gewirth calls these generic goods.
You must claim a right to these conditions: Because you need freedom and well-being to act, you logically must insist that others do not interfere with them. You are committed to the claim: "I have a right to freedom and well-being."
The claim is based solely on agency: You make this claim simply because you are an acting, goal-directed agent—not because of your special iden
https://www.literotica.com/s/the-taboos-of-planet-venus
My wife had the flu. I had too much melatonin. After ten days of no sexual contact and a sleep-aid reported to cause vivid dreams, I wrote 10,000 words of free use, voyeur, and the strangest dream I've ever had.
The only thing I didn't care for was the speed. Holy shit this guy caved faster than Darbo uploads a funny moment.
The Devil: if u kill a homeless guy these tan chicks will flash u their tits
Protagonist, 1 attosecond later: *Bashes homeless man with guitar*
(Also this is not the story of "Devil Went Down to Georgia". Johnny wins that confrontation and keeps his soul. This is not that)
This time, Master Morgan takes advantage of his newest acquisition: the virginal church girl Tabitha. Marcie tries to help the innocent girl through her first sexual encounter.
Title: Given the truth of Bible-believing Christianity, Stomping on a Baby’s Skull is not an Intrinsically Evil Act.
Thesis: If you are a Bible believing Christian, you must hold the position that stomping on a living baby’s skull is not an intrinsically evil act, but at very worst a morally neutral act.
Terms: For this argument God will refer to the God of the Christian Bible, and the Christian Bible is assumed to be inerrant and correctly translated.
Intrinsically: I take intrinsically to mean a concept being considered entirely by and of itself. To give an example: walking through a door is not an intrinsically evil act. However, if someone else owns the home,
So basically I have two questions / issues.
- What is the line for non-consent on this site? The Content Guidelines specify prohibited content in this way:
Ravishment/non-consent fantasies in which the “victim” receives no thrill or enjoyment from the acts, or is seriously and/or permanently physically harmed/abused/maimed/killed.
I thought this pretty much meant all non-con had to be CNC, or at the very worst coercive in a way that the victim enjoyed, or something similar. But I've read several stories recently (extremely popular ones) where the victim is simply violently raped and there's no enjoyment at all. I took the above guideline to mean that sort of thing would be forbid

The story was not good. There was no cohesive through line. No clear consequences. Nothing scary because there were never any stakes - everything bad that happened either had no consequence or wasn't actually real. It just had nothing. I didn't care about anything that happened because I never had any reason to think the situation was real or impactful or would matter later. This story was the same as if nothing had happened at all.
The first half was interesting. Some things were real. Some things weren't, but we didn't know which was which. In the end, we learned nothing about the distinction and actually it didn't matter anyway.
Very good writing, very bad story telling.

