Search Results

I remember grinding a lot in the Tchita Uplands because I couldn't beat those annoying Mandragoras in the Sochen Cave Palace. Those things were so annoying. :c

I think most people agree that marijuana does have harmful effects but they're similar to the drugs that are already legal and it also offers its fair share of benefits so why prohibit it?

There's nothing like nicotine in marijuana so your body doesn't necessarily crave it like it would if you smoked cigarettes. Becoming addicted to marijuana is like becoming addicted to any other thing that isn't inherently addictive like exercising, sugar or alcohol for example. There's nothing there that causes cravings but you like the effect that it brings so much that being without it feels weird.

Where was this said? Too lazy to look in the thread. If it wasn't said here, could you link to where you read it?

Same thing can be said for alcohol. I agree that it's an issue but like alcohol, you'd either have to ingest copious amounts of weed or be constantly smoking for memory loss to become a problem. And like alcohol, weed should be used in moderation to prevent effects like this from happening.

oh god I feel so bad for laughing

THREE *****S! THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

What kind of music do you usually sing?

But I never said that "willfully ingesting alcohol = consent". Maybe I didn't communicate what I meant well enough but I simply meant that consent while drunk is still consent and if a person has sex with a drunk person, they shouldn't be accused of rape if the drunk person gave some form of affirmative consent and actively participated in the act. Note though that what I said previously doesn’t cover cases where the person was intoxicated against their will, or drugged without their knowledge, as that implies lack of agency. This also doesn’t cover cases where someone is passed out or completely insensible, as they’re literally incapable of giving consent or even participating. Those are obviously cases of rape. Getting drunk and deciding to bang somebody isn't.

We already accept that someone is criminally responsible when they are drunk, which is why drunk drivers go to jail. If someone chooses to become drunk, and then breaks a law, we do not allow them to defend themselves by saying they were intoxicated. Why does this not work the same where sex is concerned? Why the refusal to hold people accountable for their sexual actions while drunk?

For example, if I walk across a highway with my eyes closed, obviously the drivers passing by carry some blame if they hit me. However, do I not share the blame for impairing myself and then doing something stupid? How is alcohol different? If I voluntarily impair my ability to make decisions, am I not partly responsible for the result? While intoxicated, it’s certainly the responsibility of others to make allowances to a degree but I am also accountable for my behavior after I voluntarily choose to administer a behavior altering drug to myself with the full knowledge of what that would do. It’s not victim blaming to hold me responsible for my actions while drunk, and sex is an action just like any other.

But didn't the girl in the Steubenville rape case get really drunk, pass out and then got raped instead of consenting to sex while drunk? There's very much a difference between the former and the latter. Consent can't be given in the former while it can be in the latter.

I personally believe that people should be held accountable for the decisions they make regardless of what condition they're in if they decided to put themselves in that condition. Most people know that alcohol lowers their inhibitions and they might do something they wouldn't normally do under the influence. And most people who drink know what they're like when they're drunk. If they know this and drink it anyway, then they're accepting the possible consequences of their actions.

So if a person decided to have sex under the influence of the alcohol that they willingly ingested, then I don't think they can accuse the other of rape.

And to answer your first question, it depends on the person. Whenever I've been drunk, I still knew what I was doing and I was very much in control of my actions. I knew when I was drinking too much, when to slow down, when to stop drinking and what to do when I got home so I wouldn't have a hangover in the morning.

I'm all up for bringing them back. But if the majority aren't for it, then I'm cool with that. I always personally liked those categories. More Underrated than Overrated though. There are a lot of members and even staff members who are pretty nice and funny people but not many people actually notice that because they don't post in the Spamzone for example. Overrated is more for knocking people off their high horse, I guess.

But how can we disregard such a huge population of our community? I'm calling discrimination! TROLLS ARE PEOPLE TOO! But seriously, why was it rejected? :c

pssssssh, people still like that game?

What do you guys think of having Biggest Troll for a category?

I can't remember seeing a washing machine in the kitchen in any of my friends' house. More often than not, the laundry machines were in a small room or the garage.

We all know Doctor Who would win both of those categories, Cat. Or tie with My Little Pony.

I personally think that Most Underrated/Overrated should still be included this year. Why were they cut?

Bakemonogatari.

BAKEMONOGATARI!

BAKEMONOGATARI! B|

>people bitching about it being over 90°

Oh god, you guys wouldn't be able to live in my country. It's 86°F over here right now and I consider that a good day. Oh, and it's not even summer over here. Our summers are something to truly ***** about.

goddammit!

I'm always late to the party. :c

The Amazing Spider-Man didn't have Emo Peter and all the narm that came with it. Or that convoluted tangle of a mess that was called a romance. Comparing the two seems a little weird in my opinion as well. The Amazing Spider-Man is a new start and is setting and building things up while Spider-Man 3 just takes what's already been established and messes it up completely.

I'll agree that Venom did look better than the Lizard but every time he opened his mouth and Topher Grace's voice came out, I was expecting "Hangin' Out, Down the Street" to start playing. I just couldn't take him seriously most of the time.

How about all the fights between Spider-Man and The Lizard? The action seemed much more fluid imo with much more agility and webplay and omg the snark! The best thing about Spider-Man and they got it right! YES! Or how about the scene at the bridge when Peter finally becomes an actual hero instead of some vengeful vigilante? Or how about Gwen? Instead of being your typical damsel like Mary Jane in the original trilogy, she risks her life by staying in the lab until the antidote is done and she even fights off the Lizard with a flamethrower.

How does he suck at his job? The way I see it, Peter's still getting a hang of the whole hero thing in this movie like he does in the comics. He doesn't go from zero to hero after Uncle Ben dies like he does shortly afterwards in the original trilogy. The kid is a teenager after all so he's gradually maturing throughout the story which I personally liked.

It's cheesy but I liked it. xD

At first I didn't care about what was going on in this thread but then I saw this.

Spider-Man 3 is better than The Amazing Spider-Man?

...

Spoiler