The CBB

Ah, tribadism. Scissoring. So awesome. Scissoring isn't the only form of tribadism. In fact I think I've only seen it once and read about it once (now twice). It's the rarest form to go by my extremely limited and almost certainly unrepresentative "experience". Also, I don't see how that,...

This is useless and obvious : Learn the articles together with the words. I fairly certain everyone has been told this when learning a language with gender. Nope, you would be fairly wrong. When I took French in high school, we weren't told to learn the articles with the words. We were told rules f...

Micamo, I have found that most people do not experience much or any taste for celery. For those that do taste it, most of them said that it isn't great, but they can cover the flavor up with some type of spread. However, I do taste celery, and it is one of the worst flavors I can imagine. In raw for...

Exactly what it says on the tin. Morality is inside our brains but it's not defined by our feelings. That's why it's still wrong to kill babies if you take a pill that turns you into a psychopath. Then why would you go by how you feel to decide this? (Important part bolded) I consistently get a fee...

Trailsend wrote:Do you have evidence that this property of objective rightness (no quotes) exists? If it exists, do you have evidence that it is non-trivial?

Basically what I said (or at least meant), but she took it as me "misunderstanding".

<snipped but not disregarded> For primality, we have well defined algorithms that can figure out a correct answer way more accurately, and much more quickly, than our brains can. For morality we unfortunately do not yet have such algorithms. Ok, I think that main difference between you and me is th...

No, it means they were mistaken about what is right and wrong. Who decides this? Because you can't say "everyone", because everyone doesn't agree. You could say some higher power, but then even putting aside whether or not that being exists, how do we know what it decides what is right or...

Yes, I do. But they said that killing was ok, or even expected in certain contexts. So does this mean that killing is ok in specific contexts but not others? Also, I think your confusing two types of moral relativity. The first is that everyone is equally justified in their morals, whatever they ar...

Moral relativism, when actually practiced, not just preached, has the practical problem of leaving you with no self-defense. When a crusader comes to your house claiming your wife to be a witch, should you try to stop him? He doesn't think what he's doing is wrong. Are you going to force your moral...

What is an Utilitarian? Someone who sees things as good only so far as they are useful, to themselves or people as a whole. Usually whatever is most useful to bring "happiness". They are the type to say, "Whatever brings them most happiness to the most people is right." However,...

If I've taken the pill, is it wrong for me to kill people? It is wrong to kill people, but you can't be held (as*) responsible for your actions. Which as a Utilitarian you wouldn't care about, but as I'm not a Utilitarian, I would put it as worse than killing to defend yourself, but better than kil...

And if you take the pill that makes you a serial killer, assuming you know it would make you a serial killer, and assuming someone didn't shove it down your throat or threatened bodily harm or similar on you or someone you care for, you CHOSE to take the pill. Which would still make you responsible ...

I could see how getting rid of things like the earthquakes in Japan or stopping meteors from hitting the planet would be good. But, could we assume that there is some way to set it so that any human action, any action, is allowed but say that natural disasters wouldn't happen? I'd even go with getti...

I know someone who prefers smaller breasts because all the females in his family have large breasts. He doesn't like thinking of his sisters (or aunts, etc) when he dates women. I like breasts as long as they aren't teeny tiny (like AAs), and they fit the woman they're on. I can't explain it better ...

I think I figured out where others, or at least I, got stuck on this. I will try to explain this reasoning as succinctly as possible while still pointing out what is meaningful. You said in the first post that the Pedestrians were trying to get away from all the technology of the non-Pedestrians and...

the a/an thing in english is essentially a form of agreement, between an artical and it's noun. No. "a(n)" agrees phonologically with whatever word follows it, which accidentally sometimes happen to be the noun, sometimes not. This. I don't know about you BlackWolf, but I say "an ora...

I'm gonna say "molars". I saw this response a while ago. I'm still wondering about it... XD Hmm... I haven't worked much on them as far as markers and such, but I have a semi-aquatic race that is something like otters with seal-like tails, or seals with arms and legs (and feet and paws/ha...

It's definitely not new, but would giants that control fire, and even take a form that IS fire be awesome? Cuz then I got some awesome.

Also, for that conworld, the fire giants fill the role of both the Nephilim and the Norse Jötunn. Mixing mythologies is fun. :-)

Pretty cool and I could see how you probably got there. But not insane cool if that's what you're going for.

According to Micamo, there can't be any racism in a conculture, because racism is something that's always from white people and always directed against black people. If blacks hate whites that's not racism, according to Micamo. If greens hate purples that's not racism either, according to Micamo. R...