Place your random thoughts.

As I’ve been reading TV Tropes about South Park, I learned that the girls of South Park Elementary are among the biggest hypocrites, even more than Cartman despite Cartman being the most selfish character on the show. Examples:
  • In Season 20, the girls spend the first three episodes being mean to the boys to the point that they broke up with the boys, even though none of them were the troll that was harassing them. When the boys began to fight back, they complained and got disgusted by the boys. Yet their behavior towards the boys was why the boys acted inappropriately towards the girls.
  • In Season 23, the case in point was more of a nod to how vegetarianism requires followers to force their beliefs onto others, but the girls were the vegan kids. They say that they have the right to free speech, yet they’re using their rights to trample upon others’ rights.
 
Alolan_Apples said:
In Season 23, the case in point was more of a nod to how vegetarianism requires followers to force their beliefs onto others,
Click to expand...
I don't watch South Park so I can't speak to the exact context of the episode in question, but this isn't true. It's a common misconception because there's a lot of pushy vegans and vegetarians out there for sure, but it's not a trait held by all of us. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't care what other people choose to eat—in fact, it's not a decision I'd recommend people make lightly because you really have to pay attention to your nutrition to avoid health issues if you cut out meat entirely, and I know for people with certain health issues that it's not a safe or viable option at all. Most of my family eat meat to varying degrees and I've never once tried to convert them or argue about it with them, nor am I bothered by it. I just wouldn't prepare it or eat it myself.
 
Merielle said:
I don't watch South Park so I can't speak to the exact context of the episode in question, but this isn't true. It's a common misconception because there's a lot of pushy vegans and vegetarians out there for sure, but it's not a trait held by all of us. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't care what other people choose to eat—in fact, it's not a decision I'd recommend people make lightly because you really have to pay attention to your nutrition to avoid health issues if you cut out meat entirely, and I know for people with certain health issues that it's not a safe or viable option at all. Most of my family eat meat to varying degrees and I've never once tried to convert them or argue about it with them, nor am I bothered by it. I just wouldn't prepare it or eat it myself.
Click to expand...
There are complete proteins like quinoa that do some of the same things meat has. But that South Park episode wasn’t trying to mock on how judgmental vegetarians are (that’s already been done many times). What it was mocking on was plant-based meats and how they aren’t any better than real meat. Some lessons that it may or may not have taught are:
  • Plant-based meats are just as bad, if not worse than real meat for your health, since they’re mostly processed junk. Even if you’re doing it for the environment.
  • Plant-based meats aren’t much better than real meat for the environment either because only 10% of the land (3% of the Earth’s surface) is farmable. An increased demand in plant-based meats may use up all that land, leaving less room for other crops.
  • Finally, the healthiest people in the world have some meat in their diet.
Now if I were to go vegetarian or not, that’s very unlikely. Even if I do go that route, animal welfare is the last reason why I would become a vegetarian. I suggest better treatment of animals in factory farms, but I’m not for this “animal rights” thing. Reducing carbon emissions - you don’t have to reduce all of it to save the planet. You can still eat meat and do stuff like recycling or renewable energy. For health, I’m already bad when it comes to eating choices anyway, but if I were to eat healthier, I wouldn’t limit how much meat I would eat. I’d just cut out the fast food and sweets.
 
Last edited:
I want to make a thread in the Brewster's Cafe board that just goes off on a tangent about what I want the circumstances to be like in the future, but I rather wait until this medical result rigmarole is behind me.
 
Here is an interesting moral dilemma. No, it’s not the trolley one, it’s another one.

You have $500. You can only donate it to one of these two people, and you’ll have to donate it all.
  • One of them is an environmental activist who needs the money to build more recycling plants, solar and wind farms, and carbon sinks which will trap carbon emissions in the Earth’s surface. If you don’t donate to this person, global warming and mass extinctions will reach a critical phase.
  • The other would solve the polarization crisis in America, and is the expert who has the best solution. If you don’t donate to this person, America will enter another Civil War.
You also have a third option, which was to buy a new OLED Nintendo Switch with new controllers for your workplace.

Which one will you choose?
 
Alolan_Apples said:
As I’ve been reading TV Tropes about South Park, I learned that the girls of South Park Elementary are among the biggest hypocrites, even more than Cartman despite Cartman being the most selfish character on the show.
Click to expand...
In Going Native, Butters says this at the beginning to his friends:
“You guys think Cartman is the only selfish piece of crap in this school? You're all fake and stuck up , and none of you have the courage to tell Jimmy that his jokes aren't funny! The only kid here with any sense of dignity is Kenny, and the rest of you have your heads up your butts!”. So maybe people realize Cartman isn’t the most self absorbed person at school.
Post automatically merged:

Alolan_Apples said:
Here is an interesting moral dilemma. No, it’s not the trolley one, it’s another one.

You have $500. You can only donate it to one of these two people, and you’ll have to donate it all.
  • One of them is an environmental activist who needs the money to build more recycling plants, solar and wind farms, and carbon sinks which will trap carbon emissions in the Earth’s surface. If you don’t donate to this person, global warming and mass extinctions will reach a critical phase.
  • The other would solve the polarization crisis in America, and is the expert who has the best solution. If you don’t donate to this person, America will enter another Civil War.
You also have a third option, which was to buy a new OLED Nintendo Switch with new controllers for your workplace.

Which one will you choose?
Click to expand...
For this I pick the first option, because even though I live in America, the first option helps the entire planet.
 
Yoshi155 said:
For this I pick the first option, because even though I live in America, the first option helps the entire planet.
Click to expand...
If I had to choose, I’d play Roulette on a wheel this rigged to only pick a certain color. Bet it all on that same color, win $1,000, and donate it to both people.

Actually, if I really had to choose one person, it goes to the environmentalist. A second civil war may screw up America, but you’ll never know how bad the damages could get or how long the war will last. But the environment, you do know how bad the damages would be from global warming, and it’s going to be BAD. Very, very bad. Because there’s a chance that the second civil war wouldn’t be as bad as the first, it would be more practical to donate to the environmentalist.
 
Alolan_Apples said:
Here is an interesting moral dilemma. No, it’s not the trolley one, it’s another one.

You have $500. You can only donate it to one of these two people, and you’ll have to donate it all.
  • One of them is an environmental activist who needs the money to build more recycling plants, solar and wind farms, and carbon sinks which will trap carbon emissions in the Earth’s surface. If you don’t donate to this person, global warming and mass extinctions will reach a critical phase.
  • The other would solve the polarization crisis in America, and is the expert who has the best solution. If you don’t donate to this person, America will enter another Civil War.
You also have a third option, which was to buy a new OLED Nintendo Switch with new controllers for your workplace.

Which one will you choose?
Click to expand...
Although I think some of it doesn't solve the issue, I'd pick environmentalist. USA is already on a path it can't get out of.
 
it's 20 degrees outside and it's nighttime. i've been with my thoughts for about an hour which has been chill but if the temperature could just drop a bit i'd love that
 
Sometimes, I could complicate the moral dilemma even further.
  • Basic story: A train is running at a fast speed. If you don’t pull the lever, it will hit the four people tied to the track. If you do, it will avoid that route, but instead going to hit the one person tied to the other track.
  • What if 1: The four people tied to the first track were a gang of criminals, and the one person tied to the other track is a police officer.
  • What if 2: The gang of criminals were outlaw heroes while the officer has a bad record of police brutality.
  • What if 3: The gang of criminals will eventually be corrupted to hurt innocent people and not just other criminals, while the officer will turn around and stop doing police brutality.
The truth is, reality is a lot more complex. Going back to the environment one, there’s a reason why we couldn’t transition to 100% renewable power, not drastically at least. It’s because renewable resources cost more to produce just as much power as the fossil fuels, and it would put many people out of work. Not to mention, but renewable resources don’t work everywhere. Hydroelectric only works near a body of water. Wind doesn’t work in areas that aren’t as windy. Solar could be blocked by trees and clouds, hence not being a viable alternative in rainy places. Biomass would probably be the best renewable resource when it comes to working anywhere, except that it emits carbon dioxide too (at least carbon that hasn’t been trapped in the Earth). Regarding that civil war one, we all know that slavery was the leading cause of the first one, but the second one wouldn’t be started by a single issue. You could blame the COVID-19 protocols and Trump on the second civil war, but it goes further than that.
 
So I found this old post of mine, which was two months before I left this site for 31 months.

If I had to choose between the freedom of speech or common decency to make everyone feel welcome (which means I can’t talk about some stuff because it’s too “insensitive” to some groups or not inclusive to all groups), I would choose freedom of speech over common decency. While I refrain from attacking others or posting stuff that’s blatantly offensive (even in cases where I share my frustrations), I should be free to say whatever I want. But, others have the right to not listen to me. It would be better for others to not listen to me at all than to silence me.
Click to expand...

I may have changed a lot since last spring, but this is something that I have not changed on. Normally, only bigots and bullies would think freedom of speech is more important than kindness, only so they can say what’s harmful. But I’m not like them. If something is obviously mean or rude to say, then I wouldn’t say it. The problem with me is that adapting to change is hard. There are some morals that I’m not willing to follow along when they weren’t morals from when I was a kid or a young adult. Examples:
  • If some words or phrases are only insensitive to some (like 10% of the population or less) and not widely offensive, I would use them. But it depends on the situation.
  • If my language isn’t inclusive enough or honors someone or something that only some people find offensive, I would still say it, especially if it’s only deemed offensive not too long ago rather than for an extended period of time.
  • If my speech contains triggering subject matter, I would say it without warning. I’m more of this “grow up” kind of person than “I’m so sorry” kind of person if I’m met with negative reception.
And it’s not just limited to this forum. It’s everywhere. On another website, in public, and with other people. I have cut back on discussing controversial subject matter, but when I’m talking about something else, I should be free to discuss it.
 
Last edited:
I think, that because of the way we live, we may not fully comprehend or appreciate life.
Our lives(environment) are very controlled and artificial (and pretty fast paced now). But if you really take the time to really think about how you would rely on your chicken to lay an egg this morning to feed you, you may appreciate a chicken and see them a little differently. I feel like the sight of the relationship between yourself and others is a little lost, causing detachment and maybe even carelessness. You take care of that chicken, and it takes care of you.
You rely on earthworms to do thier job for your soil, and the trees for relief from the sun.

Ancient cultures saw this well and was the reason certian creatures appeared in their artwork frequently. They saw cycles daily and certian qualities in certain creatures. Those creatures became very symbolic to them. They weren't just random meaningless decorations or logos to make a buck. They had teachings and stories attached to them.
The depictions probably mean way more to them than they could to us.

Just thoughts.
 
I need to get this.
IMG_5409.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top