Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

Abolish them. Give people tax breaks for having children instead.

That encourages population growth.

The government likes population growth. The alternative is a large elderly population and that sucks to have to deal with.

A declining population is better than population growth in excess of available resources.

No, not declining, elderly. Lots of people dependent on those of working age and the government.
It's much easier for a government to just get people to make babies/immigrate so that they don't have to deal with it. Not as if anyone who made the decision will have to deal with the consequences a few decades down the line.

[Frumple]

Abolish them. Give people tax breaks for having children instead.

Or you can just do what the states do and give tax breaks for entering into a joint and several tax agreement with another person! Which is what joint filing is, by and large. Little extra bits for dependents, but the "can go after either ass if one drops tax ball" is the big thing, from my understanding of it.

Also the part that doesn't really get talked about much*, but eh.

*People see that favorable tax rate and go, "Oh it must be because chillens!" Hahaha, IRS says, "Ho no, comrade. We just want you to think it is. Now I see your husband is behind on taxes. Thank you for the house that was in your name only~"

[BlindKitty]

As explained above, homosexual sex is by very definition extramarital,

And my entire point here is that not every Catholic agrees about that. :V

And my point, explained above, is that when somebody doesn't agree with that, they are heretics, not Catholics.

[quinnr]

You guys dig Jack Chick huh? Well then you'll be thrilled to know that someone got $25k on Kickstarter to do an un-ironic piece of cinema based on one of his most infamous leaflets.

And no, they're not wild-eyed zealots either. Gamers actually, who wondered what Dark Dungeons would look like if played completely straight.

Shoulda posted this to one of the Kickstarter threads when it came to my attention.

I bought this the day I discovered it (which happened to be the day it came out). I highly recommend it. I could not stop laughistaring in delight at the serious, not at all a parody masterpiece. But no really, I haven't enjoyed a piece of cinema that much in a while, and highly recommend it.

[scrdest]

Abolish them. Give people tax breaks for having children instead.

That encourages population growth.

The government likes population growth. The alternative is a large elderly population and that sucks to have to deal with.

A declining population is better than population growth in excess of available resources.

No, not declining, elderly. Lots of people dependent on those of working age and the government.
It's much easier for a government to just get people to make babies/immigrate so that they don't have to deal with it. Not as if anyone who made the decision will have to deal with the consequences a few decades down the line.

A bit late to the discussion but nevermind - give tax breaks for having exactly two children. No surplus, no decline, stable population.

[BlindKitty]

-snip-

A bit late to the discussion but nevermind - give tax breaks for having exactly two children. No surplus, no decline, stable population.

Decline, actually. Stable number is somewhere between 2,1 and 2,3 children per women in reproductive age, due to various factors (some more, some less obvious).

[Graknorke]

A bit late to the discussion but nevermind - give tax breaks for having exactly two children. No surplus, no decline, stable population.

I don't think you understood what I was saying.
The size of the population isn't the problem, it's demographics. With high growth there's lots of younger people, but when growth isn't so high, the older people take up a larger percentage of the population. That means the government needs to spend more caring for them.

[scrdest]

-snip-

A bit late to the discussion but nevermind - give tax breaks for having exactly two children. No surplus, no decline, stable population.

Decline, actually. Stable number is somewhere between 2,1 and 2,3 children per women in reproductive age, due to various factors (some more, some less obvious).

You are assuming nobody would decide to have more than 2 children, tax breaks be damned. Then again, some wouldn't even have a single one. Could be gradated, with minor breaks for 1, biggest for 2, and slightly less than the previous for 3, then stop for more.

A bit late to the discussion but nevermind - give tax breaks for having exactly two children. No surplus, no decline, stable population.

I don't think you understood what I was saying.
The size of the population isn't the problem, it's demographics. With high growth there's lots of younger people, but when growth isn't so high, the older people take up a larger percentage of the population. That means the government needs to spend more caring for them.

Yes. With 2(.2 or whatever) children per pair of parents, assuming stable policy, in, say, sixty years, you have the exact same amount of children and elders, so each adult supports one elder, plus one kid. Any more and in short term, you get less elders per adult to support but in long term you either have a drop and increase the load, or the population increases with each generation, utilizing more and more resources. Any less, and you get increased load in the short term.

[Graknorke]

Yes. With 2(.2 or whatever) children per pair of parents, assuming stable policy, in, say, sixty years, you have the exact same amount of children and elders, so each adult supports one elder, plus one kid. Any more and in short term, you get less elders per adult to support but in long term you either have a drop and increase the load, or the population increases with each generation, utilizing more and more resources. Any less, and you get increased load in the short term.

Well in 120 years you would have the same as 60 years from now, but that would be different to now. And nobody wants to deal with it now, they'd rather leave it to get worse for the future.

[smjjames]

I like how a religious topic turned into population mechanics discussion.

[Karnewarrior]

Posting to watch this topic, distract from the volatile topic of TEH GAYZ, and bring up something equally interesting that few people are likely to get all shot up about...

So, angels.

Watching Neon Genesis Evangelion reminded me that biblical angels are supposed to be fucking weird. And then I thought, well, the Devil & Cohorts are all fallen angels, right? Ergo, they probably look fucking terrifying also. And there's supposed to be one Archdevil for each Deadly Sin, though I can't remember much beyond Lucy being the Devil of Pride or such.

So...

Pride > Obviously Lucifer > Used to be the angel of Light/Beauty or something, yeah? > Probably ends up looking fairly human, maybe like the renaissance angels everyone thinks of. Though he could be weird in other ways, like being 6th dimensional or something. Or 2D, that'd be odd, and kind of fitting.

Gluttony > Beelzebub, according to Google (AtG) > Imagining an eldritch abomination of gluttony isn't too hard, but it might be more interesting to envision him as super skinny, maybe hollow. Being that gluttony doesn't take much more than a mouth, we're free to fuck him up all over the place. Obviously, a hunter-type like this is going to need binocular vision, so two eyes on the front of the head. It's probably pretty damn dark in hell, so make them infrared sensors, and thus largely blackish-brown in color. No visible pupils. Mouth is located on the stomache for least time to digest the meal, and so it's eaiser to just kind of roll around and Nom folk with your giant belly-mouth. Rolling means no legs, so they either atrophied to twigs or have become massive sacs of fat underneath his abdomen. Arms get in the way, so those are gone too. Brain is adapted to hunting, so he's probably not particularly intelligent if he's even sapient at all. More like a wolf or a tiger, if anything. Or a really smart goldfish.

Greed > Mammon, ATG > Money is hard to personify. You can personify the rich, but not really money. Unless you think a bit more abstract, that is. I'm thinking that money circulates, or changes hands. Ergo, perhaps some sort of parasite. Thinking something akin to Bardiel from Evangelion, but you'd never notice until something twisted essentially chestbursted from you to go lay it's eggs in your wallet. Perhaps not even one, maybe multiple. Or he could be some sort of disease, like ebola or being a brony. Being a Brony: Now a bigger Sin than trying to assassinate Ghandi (THIS IS A JOKE)

my god.

Lust > Asmodeous > Assuming we're following natural biological laws to at least some extent... Probably a swarm of something that breeds either most of the time or all of the time. Except with something exceptionally painful, and no blocks as to what they try to breed with/inside of/on top of. Probably some sort of horrible burrowing insect that lays it's eggs inside of paralyzed victims. Nothing says kinky like a planar-sized dirt-dauber nest full of person sized wasps that want to paralyze you and lay their eggs in your soft organs.

Well, besides Scarlett Johansson, but she wouldn't be hell.

Envy > Leviathan > A bodyjacker, without a doubt. I mean shit, we already have something that works for this. Yeerks.

Wrath > Aamon > Everyone immediately thinks of something covered in blades, charging around being dumb. That's wrath, yeah, but a demon like that wouldn't survive against a smart opponent. I mean shit, he probably wouldn't even be able to take down Beelz, he'd just get Nommed like every other dumbass running in a circle. So maybe something humanoid. But with 360 vision, either because of a crown of eyes or a single pair of compound lenses on top of his head. Maybe some small spines where his palms would be, coated in a poison that incapacitates through pain. And smart. Devilishly smart. Patient and calculating, but with only one goal; to make you hurt. Maybe he feeds on pain. Maybe he just feeds on you and likes the taste people get when in agony. Either way, I'm guessing this guy would be terrifying to fight, not because he's so weird, but probably because he's distinctly human.

Sloth > Belphegor > A species designed around not moving? Belph here is obviously a sea sponge. Probably filters out souls like regular sponges filter out plankton. And it wouldn't matter how large he gets. In fact, the bigger the better, since he's a distributed consciousness, so the larger he gets the smarter he gets and the more food he takes in. Maybe a few specialized creatures specifically for visual and audio information. A central core brain fueled by the outside sponges drawing in metaphysical nutrients. Souls sent his way are simply broken down and added to the collective, like some sort of horrifyingly dull borg. and this asshole started growing on the couch.


...........I like thinking Lovecraft.

[scrdest]

You're going too pop-cultural with the sins compared to the demonic weirdness you're working on.

Gluttony is not about food, strictly, it's about consumption in an inappropriate way. Too much, yes, but also too sensually, at wrong time, or too luxuriously in either look or quality - old-school theologians would condemn people who eat at those super-modern restaurants where you get a tiny, extremely decorated dishes as gluttons as well as the more recognizable type.

I like the skinniness idea, but since it also applies to stimulation, maybe have him look meth-skinny - or hell, just make him look like a fucked up mix of all kind of traits of long term substance abusers, so like rotting nose, discoloration like longtime smokers, massively bloodshot eyes, that kind of thing, maybe have it grow then consume some minor fucked-up creatures out of its own flesh. Hell, mix the two, have him be skinny but literally bleed fat instead of blood.

Greed I imagine having metallic, glistening skin, changing colors depending on the angle, some kind of proboscis and storage - greed's not about having wealth, it's about hoarding it and getting ever more... but have the storage part leak, endlessly, through visible bursts, like it overflowed once, so it can never be filled.

I disagree with your idea that Wrath should be smart - it's Wrath, not Sadism. The entire idea is that it's not rational, it's just implacable. I also kinda like the concept that Wrath should hurt itself by harming another - something like a sword with spikes on the handle, for instance.

[Remuthra]

If you want to avoid Wrath losing in fights due to a lack of tactics, just make it literally unbeatable. If you try to hit it you just spike yourself and it reforms, so you have to trap it somehow.

[Neonivek]

If you want to avoid Wrath losing in fights due to a lack of tactics, just make it literally unbeatable. If you try to hit it you just spike yourself and it reforms, so you have to trap it somehow.

Wrath is a vengeful anger it isn't hard to give him powers or abilities based on that.

If your still going to go with a "creature with spikes all over him" then do that... Any blow to Wrath hurts the attacker. Wrath's entire style is getting revenge for any blows done to him.

Heck, you can even add an ability that if Wrath died but kills his attacker, he just reforms from the carnage.

Or if you hate that... he could have a mind toxin that makes people attack him hand to hand blindly... which is suicidal against him.

Or his spikes could be tainted by rabies.

[freeformschooler]

Watching Neon Genesis Evangelion reminded me that biblical angels are supposed to be fucking weird.

Spoiler: what Christianity looked like before Paradise Lost (click to show/hide)