Things you will always defend.

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

You're awfully simplifying it based upon your own personal morals there. No, as long as all precautions are taken, I don't see anything wrong with it at all. If all parties are willing and legally aged, then tell me exactly why is it wrong? And don't just say "It's gross". Give me a meaningful answer.

As for bestiality. I am unsure. That is a topic that requires more contemplation on my part, before I reach a conclusive opinion.

 

[putowtin]

Human Rights

The right to love who you want, worship who you want, and do what you want.
Sound's simple? I wish it were so.
One other stipulation, in doing the above you cannot force your opinion/beliefs/desires upon another

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

snip

You're awfully simplifying it based upon your own personal morals there. No, as long as all precautions are taken, I don't see anything wrong with it at all. If all parties are willing and legally aged, then tell me exactly why is it wrong? And don't just say "It's gross". Give me a meaningful answer.

As for bestiality. I am unsure. That is a topic that requires more contemplation on my part, before I reach a conclusive opinion.

Okay, why do the parties have to be legally aged for it to be alright? Why do they have to be an arbitrary age defined by the government for it to be morally right? And before you say consent, I'm fairly certain that almost anyone 12 and up is smart enough to understand what sex is and make a judgement on whether they want to do it or not.

The reason it's not right is similar to the reason it's not right for kids to be doing it. Because there are boundaries for things like this, or at least there should be. Kids shouldn't be allowed to hump everything just because they can, they should wait for an age where it's appropriate. I'm not saying all laws have it right, but 16 seems like a decent enough age to be waiting till. Same with incest, distant family isn't so bad but a brother getting it on with his sister isn't right. These people have grown up together with a certain kind of relationship, making it a romantic or sexual relationship isn't particularly great.

I'm likely not satisfying your desire for a justified opinion, but morals can be like that sometime. There's no way anyone can really stop this sort of thing but I definitely condemn it.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

Actually, the reason there is an age limit is because, by most people's reckoning, minors cannot give consent. Just like a heavily intoxicated person cannot give consent. Not because it's icky. That's why I brought age into it, because if a brother and sister was over the legal age, then they can give consent. In that case, who's business is it but their own? If a brother and sister love each other more than family, then who is it harming? Provided they take the precautionary measures regarding children, they aren't harming anyone.

Now, I can understand people thinking its disgusting. I understand that, and accept that. What I can't accept, is how incestual couples can be fucking jailed for it, as its illegal in many areas across the world.

 

[latiasracer]

You don't have to be a confrontational asshole to be an athiest
& When people call out conspiracy, with no actual sound evidence or basis for their claim other than "i dont trust the goverment". Particually with the moonlandings did happen. When people rattle on about how "ERMEGERD DER FLERG ERS WERVERN ERN DER MERN WERV NER AIR CONSPERECER" i often get really angry, and have to give them a good old fashioned lecture

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Nothing, mainly because there is always a chance (admittedly a very tiny, smaller than a quarks testicle tiny) that we may indeed be standing on a flat earth/gays a piece of liberal fiction/the moon is made of cheese.

In short, I hold nothing above reproach.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Actually, the reason there is an age limit is because, by most people's reckoning, minors cannot give consent. Just like a heavily intoxicated person cannot give consent. Not because it's icky. That's why I brought age into it, because if a brother and sister was over the legal age, then they can give consent. In that case, who's business is it but their own? If a brother and sister love each other more than family, then who is it harming? Provided they take the precautionary measures regarding children, they aren't harming anyone.

Now, I can understand people thinking its disgusting. I understand that, and accept that. What I can't accept, is how incestual couples can be fucking jailed for it, as its illegal in many areas across the world.

Except most minors can give consent, they don't magically mature on their 18th birthday, level up and attain the 'give consent' ability. You assume that these people are going to take precautionary measures but even if they do there's a large risk still there that they'll have a child and that's enough to make them make it illegal. What, are they going to make it illegal to have an incest child? No, they're just going to make it outright illegal. I'm not one of those people that builds their morality around laws, far from it, but in this case the law is pretty much right. While it's not morally wrong it's in no way acceptable.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Skepticism.

Of religion, science, logic, knowledge, experience, and human confidence in its abilities.

Nothing, mainly because there is always a chance (admittedly a very tiny, smaller than a quarks testicle tiny) that we may indeed be standing on a flat earth/gays a piece of liberal fiction/the moon is made of cheese.

In short, I hold nothing above reproach.

Well it sounds like you're defending something.

snip

You're awfully simplifying it based upon your own personal morals there. No, as long as all precautions are taken, I don't see anything wrong with it at all. If all parties are willing and legally aged, then tell me exactly why is it wrong? And don't just say "It's gross". Give me a meaningful answer.

As for bestiality. I am unsure. That is a topic that requires more contemplation on my part, before I reach a conclusive opinion.

Okay, why do the parties have to be legally aged for it to be alright? Why do they have to be an arbitrary age defined by the government for it to be morally right? And before you say consent, I'm fairly certain that almost anyone 12 and up is smart enough to understand what sex is and make a judgement on whether they want to do it or not.

I think it's the "almost" which is found to be a problem. And rightly so, don't you think?

 

[AngloDoom]

- The "Don't be a dickhead" rule.

I think this pretty much covers it. I'll support any person in having their own views and beliefs, whatever they may be. I do not, however, support their decision to belch it into the face of someone they know it'll offend.

e.g.

"I have every right to use the word 'retard'."
Correct.

"I will now use the word 'retard' to a friend I know takes offence to the word, because it's my RIGHTZ!"
Burn.

Captcha: Fo sure

 

[HoneyVision]

Wait... incest? That's not a sexuality that's fucking creepy. Incest is so wrong that even our genetics oppose it.

I disagree. As long as the involved parties consent to it, and are over the legal age limit in their country, I'm all for it. I am aware of the possible birth problems that can be caused because of it, and I raise a simple solution: adoption.

It's actually extremely easy to argue in support of even many other taboos like cannibalism (there are groups that still practice it mutually), necrophilia (it's not hurting anyone except the person doing it), suicide ("it's my body, I'll do whatever I want with it"), bestiality (like you say, if both parties consent), scat and piss fetish (MANY people practice this). I bet if you look hard enough on the internet you'll find at least one forum site dedicated to the practice of each of these things.
But the question is shouldn't we draw line at some stage? Because if you give even a little leeway to just one of those things, then within time everything will become "acceptable" and people will probably even more taboo things to indulge in.

 

[Aesir23]

Universal healthcare is something that I will always defend. I've had a pretty extensive experience with it so I tend to take debates on that subject far more seriously than I probably should. There is always one phrase that never fails to piss me off since my mind has the tendency to pick up implications that the person in question probably didn't mean. Needless to say, I try to avoid the healthcare debate when I can.

Aside from that, just equality in general.

 

[Strazdas]

well, im a bit contraversial in this regard as i got my pinions that are, lets just say, not traditional.

A right to opinion. and ability to express it. noone should be able to limit it. that does include even if the opinion is racist/sexist/ect. you have a right to have this opinion and state that such is your opinion. you dont have a right to state it as a fact or some heavenly truth. but you have a right to have this opinion.

I also defend sacrificing individual for the greater good. if a perosn has to die for society to function better. so be it. its cruel, and looked down upon. but i do believe that this is something we should look for. (and no i didnt got that from vulcans, i had this opinionbefore i even knew about vulcans). If my death today would mean humans living much better in the future, i will accept that as a fair trade. Of course the biggest problem with this is knowing what the greater good is.

I will also defend birth control. and that is not limited to condoms. i do think the the government HAS a right to decide whether you should be allowed to have a child or not. whether to actually have it is your choice, but you should not be allowed to have 5th child if you cant feed the first 4 for example. Sadly, the human rights declaration does not agree.

I also defend surveillance. privacy laws are the reason most criminals go free nowadays. caught someone killing another person on tape? whoops you didnt have a right to take video of him, your evidence is void, he cant be put to jail. i call bullshit.



so, is that contraversial enough?

You don't have to be a confrontational asshole to be an athiest

you dont, but its SO FUN

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Fairness really. A fair go for everyone. I think it pretty much sums up most people's answers to this topic too haha

 

[Azriel Nightshade]

Racial Politics in the borad spectrum of "nerd/geek/whatthehellevervidogamescomics entainment".(This one needs some more research, but it's very important to me)

I should also note that by Racial Politics, I mean I will defend the need for more representations of different kinds of persons( skin color, sexaul orientation, that sort of thing.)

Also, just cuz I've been playing them recently:

Mass Effect, specifically the games as I know next to nothing of the series outside of that. I haven't had time to play 3, but by the time I get around to that, all the bile sorunding it should be gone from my memory and I can enjoy the low price and all the DLC.

Dragon Age 2- Bought it on games on demand, love it, got all the DLC, including the item packs. BLASPHEMOUS!
Side note, I cannot enjoy Origins on a gameplay level, but my GF is doing a play-through of it and she loves it, so that's cool.

 

[kickassfrog]

Uh... yeah, that was probably someone trolling. Real people can troll too you know.

If that was really his view then he wasn't worth arguing with.

Although, yeah... I imagine that any attempt to conquer the world with an army of gamers would go pretty poorly. The enemy would soon learn to attack as soon as a new Zero Punctuation video goes up. Then they'd cut off our internet and wait until we went catatonic.

Too many armchair generals, not enough actual real world fighting units.
That said, games have spent years teaching us it's morally cool to kill people and take their stuff if you just happen to be a pre-appointed hero of the land, so get that message out and we'll have anarchy pretty quickly. Anarchy is a kind of victory.

Also OT: lots of things, but mostly my right to not be called some kind of bad guy by that crazy old dude in a dress who thinks he's friends with an invisible wizard. (My apologies if I have offended anyone's beliefs there)

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

Cannibalism is a barbaric practice that usually involves the death and murder of someone to achieve it. That is pretty undefendable if you ask me. Necrophilia is often done without consent, which also makes it illegal and wrong by definition. If the deceased gave written permission for the deed before they died, then a case could be argued there, but as it is, it cannot be defended. Suicide I believe shouldn't be illegal. Help should be given to contemplators, and every effort should be done to try and sway their decision, to convince them that it is not worth it. But if they themselves do not wish to live on this earth, then that should be their choice and theirs alone. I guess suicide is much more grayer than the first two in this regard. Bestiality, as I said, is a topic I haven't yet come to a solid opinion of. It's something I still need to think about and form a conclusive stance on, so I can't really say right now about that. Scat and piss fetishes are not problematic in the least. As long as they're consented and done between legal adults, I see absolutely no problem with it.

As for the question, of course a line must be drawn. Whenever consent isn't given, and it's forced. If it borders on harming people and mistreatment. Things like that. I do not believe we have the right to oppress other people's sexual lives just because we find it "icky" or gross. Many people find feet to be a disgusting part of the body, should foot fetishism be looked down upon or made criminal? No, no way in hell. That extends to the previous ones you mentioned, scat and piss (I forgot the proper terms). If two or more people are of legal age and they consent to it, then they aren't harming anyone else in their sexual indulgences and I see no rational reason to oppress them for it.

 

[Edguy]

The right to make jokes about "inappropriate" subjects.

Acceptance rather than intolerance.

Acceptance and intolerance aren't antonyms. I'd switch out acceptance with tolerance!

The right to decide where each cent of our tax goes/doesn't go.

That doesn't sound very practical..

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

The Wheel of Time. It has a big fandom, but as with any franchise with notoriety, there are many people who hate it as well. I'll let them beat up on book 6 all they want, but I will tirelessly defend the rest of the series (yes, even book 10).

The Dark Tower. Granted, it has many, MANY flaws, and the ending was a little controversial among the fans, but it's still one of my favorite series of all time.

 

[Korenith]

All the usual stuff to do with human rights and equality I can't usually keep quiet on when somebody's saying something offensive.

As for less serious things I will always defend the artistic merit of death metal vocals as a legit style rather than being "coz thy cnt sing propa". Also Science Fiction as a being more than just lazers and aliens and pew pew pew. Basically I defend stuff that people dismiss out of ignorance if it's something I know a bit about.