False. 
TNP has a list of TNP replies
Nope.
TNP, as driver or passenger, stayed in a car in the highway over the maximum legal speed.
True; who hasn’t?
I do that about 90% of the times I drive. The other 10% is either extreme traffic or extreme weather conditions such as blizzards or torrential rains.
The next person has not.
False, I have grown up around fast cars and I myself do that all the time too, nobody does the 70mph limit anymore
TNP thinks they should raise the maximum speed limit on some UK motorways
Lol ninja edit. I don’t know about the UK motorways tbh. But they shouldn’t restrict certain derestricted highways if the traffic density is minimal.
Now, I did have a massive reply here, so…
[details=Massive reply under the cut]
(The following was dictated to my phone via text to speech so apologies for weirdness)
Yeah I 100% agree and I totally am not picking on you, but in a way, your ironic use of the phrase is a far superior Catalyst to initiate a conversation which will be far less hostile. I’d hasten to emphasize that there is a big gap between what ought to be and what is and this is something we should not forget. Because frankly the way I see it a lot of people have missed the memo that people are more than the sum of your body parts and I think the prevalence of pornography ( and generally sexualized material) has a lot to do with this: it’s not that p*** is necessarily bad but rather the way we interact with it and in many cases grow to rely on it bypassing real life interactions and considerations in the pursuit of instant gratification is like relying on drugs to keep you happy. If you’re able to compartmentalize and be aware of this phenomenon then you might be ok but there’s a reason why many psychologists now primarily specialise in p*** addiction. So despite what might seem like an obvious thing this is the state of our world as it stands now.
This is a deliciously controversial area of discussion. I’m not going to go into too much detail but while it may be convenient to separate humans biological imperative from cognitive and value-added behaviours it’s worth remembering that the latter is merely a natural extension of our biology (controversial point number one, depending on your religious, scientific, and philosophical belief). If you don’t agree with that let’s just say IMHO rule 34 speaks to an actual fundamental, inherent part of our behaviour and that we’ve merely spent thousands of years trying to defy this only speaks volumes in its favour. Again I must emphasize I’m only talking about how things are and not how things ought to be, because if we truly do conduct ourselves as the ravening Beasts that we are capable of being we wouldnt be sticking around for very much longer.
(skip forward several hours and now I’m back at a computer)
This is a good juncture to bring up this musing:
Have we really? It may seem so in such a polarised, heated climate where everything seems diametrically opposed, but if you look long enough at the history of our ideas and values, and more importantly our awareness of them, you’ll probably find that the reason we seem so inundated with bad news these days is because we’re becoming more aware of the reality of, again, what is happening versus what we assumed should be happening i.e. just how far our real behaviours are from what we always thought they were more like thanks to our over-inflated egos (or overreaching the presumption that cogito ergo sum which I’ll add can be thought of as a side-effect of the mechanisms of our consciousness… if you believe what Dennett says). Many places along the line we thought we were hot shit and demonise any perceived aberration from this, but all that really achieves is us doing all the behaviours we more typically engage in behind closed doors (like beating your spouse, men, women or other), or pretending that systematic, dynamic inequalities (e.g. casual sexism, see DeusExMackia’s examples), are okay. If you want to see the true face of man, you see man during war and conflict: Syria, Afghanistan, the activities of ISIS. Those are not the activities of demon, they are the activities of real people (Geez, I sound like Freud describing the superego, ego, and id). The only difference I have with what KA24DE said is that man’s behaviour during war has remained constant throughout all ages: they torture, kill, rape and pillage.
Even, and I will limit myself on this point, Trump’s election and the wave of social conservatism (or really just anti-immigration) that’s sweeping the globe right now shouldn’t be viewed as a regression. It’s a fluctuation in our dynamic, but that’s… fine, for want of a better word. Some of we (and this includes I) lefty social progressives have been going a bit too nuts lately and it’s a narrow line between pushing for change and being an bully.
Back on point– Ram brought up what seems like a reasonable assumption: we have a list of reasonable versus unreasonable behaviours which we ascribe values to, which we seem to have reasonable consensus on and therefore most people are content enough to live life without examining them in too much detail. The reasonable part of this is that we can’t be obliged to turn over every stone in our minds. But faced with the thousands of years of evidence that our assumptions don’t give us a very clear picture of the reality of our behaviours, don’t you think that they should be challenged? I assert that they need to be, in the interests of deepening our understanding of how we behave so that we might develop superior moral standards by which we can truly evolve to be a more civilised race as opposed to behaving on historical precedent and papering over gaps with stigma and prejudice.
This is a confronting approach to many. More confronting still is the typical (frequently atheist, though not necessarily so) assertion that the refusal to engage in such a process is intellectual laziness… where the atheists come in is that they frequently accuse religious persons who do so of using appeal to Divine authority as a form of laziness.
“Goodness gracious strop will you shut up already” I hear people saying… but I’m going to pretend the next question Ram has is: “so… exactly what does this have to do with thinking about animals, silicon, or minors sexually?” I’m not encouraging people to think about them in sexual terms. To be clear, I’m not advocating that everything have a sexual dimension (I also feel this is too much, too distracting, too unproductive), rather, I’d like people to challenge themselves to more properly define what is ‘weird’ about them, because in doing so, you’ll hopefully refine your definitions on what the real difference between humans and other animals is, and the basis for our social beliefs about the agency of minors and therefore the ethical and legal protections we afford them, and how this paradigm differs from, say, a time in history where sex with minors was actively encouraged (see: ancient Greece, having blown the mind of many an Arts student).[/details]
Can’t help you on the silicon bit though, Ram, that’s outside of my educational background 
(edit: anybody interested enough to try and figure out what the hell I just said or do some reading on things I referenced very loosely and lazily, feel free to ask but maybe not so much here unless you wanna tag me and put it under a cut lol)
TNP has worn a rubber suit.
2 Likes
False…at least not yet
TNP is is buzzing
@KA24DE Thanks for those tips! Never knew you could even do that.
And it’s scary to think that you might be right. That illegality is only thing that prevents such things from happening; it doesn’t stop people from considering them. No law will ever be able to stop people thinking a certain way (and good god, it shouldn’t), but laws should at least be respected to the point where people understand that something is wrong. Apparently, that doesn’t apply so much here…
Zzzzzzzzzzztruezzzzzzzzzz
True; who hasn’t?
My record as passenger, is 200km/h in a 350Z. Ameising 
TNP was waiting a long time ago to spool the car turbo 
False, only turbo car I’ve driven is a Civic 
and a stock one at that. A turbo Civic!? Yeah, only the 10th gen.
And that one spools at 1700rpm so there’s not much of waiting for anything.
See my big fat reply on this for a controversial take on the relationship between laws and morals 
TNP has felt VTEC kick in, yo.
False, my mom’s Honda is non-vtec
TNP feels the pain
True, I feel the pain, my current Civic has a throttle response rating of like 5 
TNP thinks the VTEC meme is way too rice.
True, it’s also only really said by vapers or people taking the piss out of rivers, plus the use of the word ‘yo’ died in the 90’s
TNP hates hipsters who vape for the sake of vaping and not to give up smoking
1 Like
uhhhhhh… i’m in the middle line of those… so no comment… YO
but by asking each individual to ‘define’ what is ‘unusual’ about them is only gonna produce opinion, it’s impossible to be 100% NOT biased, especially when the topic is your own self.
also silicons… are we talking about the toys or the implants here?
FYI guys. today this still stands. the legal age to have sex / age of consent in:
- Japan : 13 yo
- Bangladesh, China, Macau & Myanmar : 14 yo
- Cambodia :15 yo
- Iran allowed boys of 15yo and girls of 13yo to be married, but ‘temporary marriage’ allows them to be even younger
and unexplainably in indonesia it’s 17, but 18 for homosexual activities…??? O_o (didn’t even knew that was legal, heck. they couldn’t make up their mind)
also in north korea
"Article 153 of the criminal law states that a man who has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 15 shall be “punished gravely.”
so while not anymore encouraged, it’s still legal and allowed.
###TNP thinks this topic could use an independent thread by this point
1 Like
Probably. I didn’t make one because this is a car game forum and I wasn’t intending to start this up but then the horse bolted and couldn’t stop I guess
Just as a point of distinction, the ideal love in Ancient Greece involved adult men and prepubescent boys. Compare that to your defined age of consents per country (in Australia it’s 16 and provisional age differential of up to 2 years allowed if either party is below the age of 16 before being declared statutory rape… want to know how that provision was defined?) Like I said, if you look more carefully into the rationale or the history of these things, you’ll discover a lot about what we think and whether it seems right or not…
I suspect there are no laws re: homosexuality in N Korea except to forbid it. Any confirmation?
We all start with opinions, otherwise nothing ever was achieved. Besides we’re here to examine the premise upon which people are driven to define things. Upon that we build an argument, and through the battle of competing arguments we forge a better agreement. So that’s precisely what I’d hope to achieve.
TNP thinks we need a healthier sexual revolution.
Well tbh the whole VTEC thing has become a meme. It’s a shame when the technology is so interesting.
MULTISNIPE
Absolutley. I kind of hint at it in what I say below.
TNP has built someting from Ikea before.
And now to drag this conversation on a little further
Now that’s an unique take. I like it. I really agree with your argument of “what is happening vs what we assume should be happening”, and there is no doubt that, right across a range of topics, we are now far more aware of what is happening in the world. And indeed, challenging what people perceive to be ‘weird’ - I am wholeheartedly behind that approach. A couple of years ago, I would never have even considered saying that I find a guy attractive as a compliment as I was scared of whether people (at least the people around me) would see me as homosexual. Yet now, I do it without any thought behind it. I’m confident that I’m a hetero and as a result, it doesn’t matter whether what I say or do is perceived as “homo” or not.
You seem to be suggesting then that we should the relationship between morals and laws then? That we should question what is seen as ‘correct’ and what isn’t? (apologies if that is completely incorrect :P) That’s also something I can agree with. I’m going to rephrase what (I think) you’re saying and say that you feel there are certain moral boundaries that we can all agree upon that aren’t fully represented in our culture/law/society etc, and that challenging that should be something we do without feeling constrained by anything, and that we should only be limited by what is morally decent.
And what kind of society develops out of that process of challenging those boundaries sounds pretty good to me. Some kind of utopia where no matter what people say, you are pretty much free to go about your business without being judged, just so long as it doesn’t break moral law. This is starting to verge into the realm of the natural law, the moral good etc, and there’s a whole heap of stuff we could discuss there, but it generally boils down to a society that protects the natural law, and that natural law is definitively what is right and what is wrong (eg freedom of expression is right, killing someone else is wrong).
Whew. From standards of sexuality to political philosophy. Who said this was a forum about a car game?! 
3 Likes
False
TNP will talk about ponies
False, I think I speak for all of us when we say we really like you on these forums and want you to stay
… no homo bro I’m so sorry, I just had to be ironic
Right, time to roll up my sleeves, clearly.
Probably. I have some very strong objections to the way certain jurisdictions attempt to enshrine the concept of ‘natural law’ (or as expressed, ‘crimes against nature’), because I’ve concluded them to be based on false premises on what is ‘natural’. If my rudimentary history classes taught me one thing, it was that possibly the most succinct expression of our ideal of ‘the free world’, and the reason why we so looked up to the sacred ideal enshrined in what America was conceived as (never mind what it is right now, clearly it needs some fixing regardless of which way you vote), as expressed in the ratified version of the American Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This may pique Kyle’s interest, if he looked away from his burgeoning law schedule.
Certainly the philosophical debate about a) what morality is b) what morality ought to be c) the relationship between the origins of our existence (e.g. theology), our natures and the way we perceive it (ontology), and our ethics (deontology) raged before and after and independent of the happenings of 1776, but that quote above neatly encapsulates a starting point from which the crucial questions spring: where does the freedom of one person start and that of another’s end? To what ends should we regulate behaviour to afford opportunity to all people, presuming they were created equal? What on earth does it mean that they were created equal in the first place because we sure as fuck are doing a poor job of treating all people equal now are we. And from those questions spring the definitions of consent etc. but that’s increasingly murky.
And it’s that murkiness that I’m interested in. Human to human consent is easy enough, at least one might think, but then again apparently a lot of guys missed the memo (see: contested rape allegations, rape culture). Then of course as mentioned earlier, consent in situations where agency is not presumed (minors). Then if you want to get more complex, human → animal consent (ethical vegetarianism, or that Peter Singer suggestion).
How appropriate you bring this up as a natural law: Freedom of expression is currently one of the most hotly contested concepts. On one hand you have people saying they were triggered when you misappropriated their hair style because the acceptance of your skin colour and your hair style together is a microaggression towards people with the same hair style and a different skin colour because they are seen in less sympathetic lights. On the other you have people making fun of SJWs because of their hair colour and saying it’s okay to say offensive things because this world is political correctness gone mad. Then of course the white-collar redneck politicians (see how I trample on everything here) in Australia who want to amend section 18 of the anti Discrimination act by repealing the provision allowing people to litigate on the basis of offensive speech… you get the idea
TNP thinks triggered is a triggering word.
3 Likes
False. you’re the clown of our forum
#SNIPED
eh. triggered just means a codeword for an entertainment that is about to play
TNP wants me to make a separate thread
well that is how humanity progress, and how the science world have always been doing things. always ask why, and always ask the correctness. and once you find the answer, do the steps all over again. and i that principle should have been to most of things in life.
[quote=“DeusExMackia, post:9316, topic:4527”]I’m going to rephrase what (I think) you’re saying and say that you feel there are certain moral boundaries that we can all agree upon that aren’t fully represented in our culture/law/society etc, and that challenging that should be something we do without feeling constrained by anything, and that we should only be limited by what is morally decent.
[/quote]
i’d like to throw something into the mix. we’re not just gonna ignore religion are we? even when the law and morals aren’t a constraint anymore. religion is the last wall needed to be broken in order to feel that we’re not constrained by anything. and some of the ‘morals’ are set in stone based on the teaching of some religions, and throwing religion completely is basically throwing some of the basis of our morals away, which make us question our morals again. even when you’re not exactly religious
i’m really pushing my brains hard right now… i type these 10 lines in like 10-15 mins. and strop seems to just write just like a poet poems
1 Like
ok I’ll bite. Make a separate thread please!
Also English is like my first and only language (I’m a useless banana who never learnt any Chinese ) and I spent several years reading Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead of studying (NO RAGRETS), and I’m like nearly twice your age or something so of course this comes natural to me, this is like my actual home element. Please don’t let that stop you (or anyone else for that matter).
TNP doesn’t know what philosophy means.
uhhh i’m not sure. so i guess that considers as true?
TNP realizes that not matter how heavy the topic is, in the end we’re just acting like men, and our main topic is just started and based on sexuality and sex
3 Likes