>>42378 >mercenary position

>>42365 No, it is not. Just like how you're not allowed to link CP. Don't ask how this applies to /hebe/ linking other boards when they're not allowed to post children. >>42375 >Funny thing is that, if you actually step back and think about the perceptions of cloning, religious people should be for it and atheists should be against it. This sounds retarded. >atheists believe that the universe "willed itself" into being with the big bang, so the requirement of an external force in the creation of life destroys that entire concept. No, it doesn't, because managing to create life via X does not mean X is a requirement to create life. That's retarded. There can be more than one method. Also, atheists can believe there was a time before the big bang and that the universe runs in an endless cycle with no beginning or end. >Meanwhile with religions, it boils down to the fact that the clones are NOT humans based on the simple law that they were artificially created With religion, it is generally not that artificial humans are not human, but that creation of life is sacred and reserved only for the deity of that faith. The lore from Outlaw Star is not representative of religion in general. That's retarded. One who is religious can easily be of the belief that an artificial human is imbued with a soul upon their creation by their higher power of choice. >creating them would violating the same "Don't make something in my image" laws that surround any and all art-forms that are not live productions. The fuck are you on about? As far as I know, while Judaism forbids saying His name and Islam forbids depicting Him, Christianity says humans were made in His image, so all art depicting humans is "creation of something in My image" to Christians. There's also other religions without such stipulations. This is retarded. You said that the religious should be for cloning and atheists should be against it, but you presented an argument as to why both groups should be against it. This is retarded. You're retarded. >>42377 How could you forget UAB? There's also some stuff by Bubukka.

>>42376 >the muh-tracings non-argument Again.

>>42378 you can still have genetic engineering with natural birth, and you can still have normal humans born from artificial wombs. we've had so called "test tube babies" since the 70's and we didn't see any holy wars or major freak outs

>>42381 It's the law, and Acid chooses to obey that law. I'm stating facts about the law and the rules of this site.

>>42380 >No off site linking of banned content. ok, could they say the name of the imageboards that do allow banned content without linking?

>>42371 Yeah, I just noticed it. I'm making some changes to various parts of the theme, like a different background, the board name and global announcement being plain white and yellow links with no background instead of being inside boxes, making highlighted posts and some buttons in the posting form grey instead of purple, making the text on the footer white to increase its readability, increased divs by 1px, etc. Here's a .txt with the changes so you can compare it with https://text-compare.com/ and similar tools. What I still haven't been able to fix is the way the borders of a post disappear when it is highlighted, that shit is annoying but I can't find how to edit it.

>>42384 Dunno. When 8channel was spammed by pedoniggers, it got word filtered to "CP SITE REPORT ME". Since the administration thinks it's gone now, I think they removed the filter. Whether or not the name of the illegal site being spammed is a requirement for it's direct mention to be verboten, I don't know. Why aren't you asking these questions in a meta thread?

>>42386 Because this is the thread that everyone looks at and talks in, obviously; they only go to the meta thread when their posts gets deleted here. 725 posts, by the way.

>>42387 I'm viewing the meta thread right now, though.

>>42380 >How could you forget UAB? I always forget about it because I've never played it, but I have enjoyed the memes and that one thread (immortalize by a comic strip anon) where somebody had their daughter do a playthrough/review of it. (comic strip anon also did a bonus comic based on my greentext story of embarrassing myself/relatives with games. it was a good time)

>>42388 Is anybody actually SAYING anything in it or is it on page 2 where nobody gives a fuck?

>>42385 >What I still haven't been able to fix is the way the borders of a post disappear when it is highlighted, that shit is annoying but I can't find how to edit it. In my CSS I added this to keep the borders from diappearing .postCell:target .innerPost, .markedPost, .sideCatalogMarkedCell { background: var(--marked-color); border-top: 2px solid var(--marked-border-color); border-bottom: 5px solid var(--marked-border-color); border-left: 2px solid var(--marked-border-color); border-right: 4px solid var(--marked-border-color); color: var(--marked-text-color); } .markedpost is probably what you're looking for.

>>42374 >>42376 Begone hebe concern troll.

>>42390 My point is, I'm watching it, and have been. Had he proposed those questions there, he would have gotten the same or similar answers from me. No one but me was replying to him in the first place.

>>42389 >their daughter do a playthrough/review of it I need an archive of this, or at least the comic strip.

>>42386 > I don't know. ok. >Why aren't you asking these questions in a meta thread? I almost never go outside of /v/, and this (GG) is one of the only threads I post in...

>>42392 How am I a /hebe/ concern troll for telling a /hebe/tard that it's not hypocritical to allow things like UAB while disallowing 3DPD child scans?

>>42395 >I almost never go outside of /v/ /v/ has a meta thread, and it's more active for discussing site rules than all of /site/.

>>42396 As explained in the /delicious/ thread, the scans aren't used directly because the technology doesn't work that way, they're basically used as reference. It's much more indirect than tracing a photograph.

>>42376 >Piracy Site obeys takedown requests. >terrorist propaganda Threatening to commit a crime is bannable. >government leaks Leaking classified data is illegal reposting it isn't necessarily because of the strong 1'st amendment protections. Besides most "government leaks" that are posted are Q tier LARPS Also you're being disingenuous. Traced or photomanip 2D is banned the same way scanned 3D is banned. >>42396 You may or may not be hebe but you ARE a concern troll. Kindly fuck off.

>>42391 Yeah, it works now. Thanks. Here's the .txt with your fix. By the way, you don't need to declare the border color on every border, doing this is more than enough: .postCell:target .innerPost, .markedPost, .sideCatalogMarkedCell { color: var(--marked-text-color); background: var(--marked-color); border-top: 2px solid; border-bottom: 5px solid; border-left: 2px solid; border-right: 4px solid; } This reminds me that the theme lacks [code] tags support (everything is black on white). >>42396 Not him, but it's very hypocritical since in both cases a real child is used as a reference to create a fictional one, and only the techniques used vary in each case.

>>42398 >As explained in the /delicious/ thread, the scans aren't used directly because the technology doesn't work that way Interesting. Link to the thread? This is the first I've heard of it. You're not talking about that thread that I heard Speedy nuked, are you? And are you absolutely sure it's legal? Tracing isn't what I'd compare it to in the first place. It falls under the same category as alterations of a photo containing a minor to become sexually explicit.

>>42394 Ron(codemonkey) told me he purged all/most of the 8ch archives (on site at least). I might have the the thread (and comic strips) on an old drive. but I've had no real time to work on my board archiving project.

>>42400 >Site obeys takedown requests. That's action only taken under active pressure by a third party. It's not actually or effectively banned. Technically the rules say nothing illegal is allowed, but the law also strongly implies loli is illegal. Enforcement and reality matter, both in terms of the law itself, which is why loli is fine, and the site's rules. Recent enforcement of law is also why Acid is spooked of text stories lately. >Threatening to commit a crime is bannable. But posting the Spyro shooter manifesto isn't. Threatening to commit a crime alone falls under it's own law, separate, but similar, to laws against terrorist propaganda. >Also you're being disingenuous. How? >Traced or photomanip 2D is banned Yes? I know. Are you reading the same text I'm posting, or confusing me with other torniggers? >but you ARE a concern troll. Again, how?

>>42402 >You're not talking about that thread that I heard Speedy nuked, are you? Yeah, that one. Speedy pulled a Mark and deleted half of the conversation for no particular reason. Still, one of the arguments I remember was that models generated with scanners have lots of defects and "holes" that need to be filled by hand by the modeler team, and that they do further tweaks to the base model in order to create their desired character (not to mention that fan modelers tweak the model even more to suit their own purposes), causing it to no longer be "traced" enough from the live model to be considered illegal. Is like the ship of Theseus but with little girls. my captcha almost reads like "feeelc(unny)" lole

>>42405 >lole Oh god no. Not one of these faggots. I thought I only posted on various /b/s.

As a tornigger, I cannot bake. The OP being a tor ID will fuck up filtering such that if torspam happens, the thread will be hidden if you try to filter the spam. SOMEBODY FUCKING BAKE ALREADY

>>42406 I adopted the term lole on /s4s/ long ago. To me it's like a nice version of lol, with lel being a less "normalfag" version and lul a slightly more malicious one. I actually have created a whole set of grammar rules for image boards that I follow because autism. >>42407 I'm going to shill the Moe OS8 theme if nobody minds.

>>42408 >I'm going to shill the Moe OS8 theme if nobody minds. Do it, quintsman.

NEW BREAD NEW BREAD NEW BREAD >>355558 NEW BREAD NEW BREAD NEW BREAD

>>42383 >my opinion are fact Really now.

>>42375 This entire post is so incredibly retarded that I had to respond to it. If it's bait, bravo, you got me and I honestly believe your post deserves to be pasta if it isn't already. If you're being serious, then please kill yourself.

>>42408 Your quints demand the shilling.

>>42410 FUCK I shouldn't have wasted time editing the thumbnails in the screenshot to make them show the screenshot they're part of.