31 Forum Posts by "Lithium-I"
At 11/28/10 07:08 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
:decent DRM.
Decent DRM? There's such a thing?
At 11/28/10 03:13 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: The same goes for criminals, if they receive 10 lashes for stealing something, they'll go: "Fuck, take this good-looking TV and risk another shitload of lashes, don't think so"
As where you put a thief in prison, the tough prison culture forces him to become more violent and agressive then he normally would be, because he has to survive between murderers, rapists, drug dealers etc...
One might argue, that in the light of this, it's more humane to lash some-one, then to put him with even bigger criminals then himself.
For example, if you have a violent dog, and you want this behavior to end, would you put him between even more violent dogs? Or would you place him with good-behaving dogs, to show him the proper example? Clear choice it seems to me.
There are always alternative punishments that can be used in prison: solitary confinement, the removal of privileges, extension of sentence and so on. Mistreatment of prisoners is particularly open to excessive abuse from prison supervisors who seek to maintain order through a climate of fear.
Furthermore, look at the crime rates of countries that employ than those that don't. That alone should point out what is more effective as a deterrent.
At 11/28/10 02:17 PM, LordJaric wrote:At 11/28/10 01:56 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Also, a good parent would NOT physical abuse their children. Do you know how much long lasting mental harm that does? Far more than any physical harm.Ever heard of spanking, it's not going to cause mental problems for kids, when they get spanked for doing something wrong then they learn that what they did is wrong and avoid doing it again.
"The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults." Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cg i/content/full/101/4/723
At 11/28/10 01:35 PM, Warforger wrote: Humans are animals, humans then associate pain with bad, if they do something bad then receive pain they know that its bad. This is something kids understand, they don't however understand being locked away for a while if they aren't told what they did or just find out its not that bad and do it again, so the good parent would hit their child as you can't punish a child all the time by locking them in a room.
This is common sense, if lashings are painful then good, they're not supposed to feel good. I don't see how this is cruel, its quick and effective. I also don't see how stoning is cruel and unusual either, if your going to execute someone they're going to die anyway so why be so strict in the means they do it.
Sure, humans are animals. But no civilized country treats them as such, they treat them as humans, separate from the animal kingdom. And yeah, the whole "this shit hurts, I'm not doing that again" holds up too, but only since it's a smaller part of "fuck, punishment sucks, I'm not doing that again." Prison works fine as a crime deterrent, why add a violation of the eight amendment?
Also, a good parent would NOT physical abuse their children. Do you know how much long lasting mental harm that does? Far more than any physical harm.
At 11/28/10 01:07 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: So despite that fact I hate Iran, I think they got a good point here.
I can't believe people actually think lashings are good idea of punishment. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Punishing with pain is barbarian, a throwback to societies built on military might, slavery and the treatment of criminals as humans without any rights. The mark of civilized society is that it behaves better than its criminals. Prison is necessary as a method of punishment, prevention and rehabilitation, but it does not (or at least should not) stoop to cruelty; which is why the UN Declaration of Human Rights forbids "torture or... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
At 11/28/10 03:47 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: I'm not doubting that, I'm saying for minor crimes and misdemeanors we take a more direct approach instead of longer indirect government funded approach.
Well for most minor crimes and misdemeanors, for first offenses anyway, the government wouldn't throw you in prison for a year, most punishments for those crimes usually occur in fines that the government perhaps makes a little moolah off of. Paying a fine seems to much more practical than facing 10 lashes.
At 11/28/10 12:56 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: 1. From Fox's mistake, Obama writing a big-ass letter, I might be able to see that. Improbable, but not impossible. The problem here is the reporter has never heard of the Onion. (Yes, a fact-check WAS necessary, but onion articles always look deceptively professional to people who haven't heard of it.)
2. From MSNBC's mistake, 58% of all us exercise televised... REALLY?! What kind of retard would believe that?
I'm prettyyyy sure that first one sounds much more bullshit than the latter. For one thing, number uno is a wholehearted attack on the president. Number 2 isn't gonna affect anyone's approval ratings much.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/fox-n ation-readers-confuse-onion-article-real -news/
Fox News' opinion website Fox Nation and their readers don't seem to know satire when they see it.
The Fox News sister site re-posted a joke from the satirical website The Onion Friday about President Barack Obama sending a 75,000-word e-mail to the the entire nation. At no point does Fox Nation note that the story is a satire.
The Onion story joked that Obama had "reached the end of [his] rope" and sent out the "rambling" stream of : consciousness e-mail that addressed everything from the war in Afghanistan to his live-in mother-in-law.
The story goes on to say that the fake Obama e-mail was 27 megabytes and 127 printed pages.
If Fox Nation knows the story is a joke, they aren't letting on, and many of the comments on the post treat the : story as if it were actual news.
It can get hard to tell them apart at times.
At 11/7/10 04:24 PM, Memorize wrote:
It's your DNA, smart one. Not another individual.
Let me help you out with this: We are all, from the moment of conception, a combination of DNA from both parents.
Is your jizz genetically separate from you?
This is just another of one of those idiot pro-choicer arguments which, once again, have no scientific backing whatsoever!
What a shocker!
You were implying that the potential to become a person is the only thing necessary to have rights, I was commenting on how jizz, even though it needs an egg to fertilize, has the potetional to become a person when it fertilizes.
Actually that's only the law in 25 states. It's a state's decision.No shit.
So why do you people support a "state' decision on one hand, but not the other?
Pick up the pace, son.
Though you've once again, neglected to condemn those pro-abortion groups who NEVER criticize those laws.
L to the O to the L!
Sigh. Another misinterpretation of what I said. You're very good at that. I was saying that it's invalid to say that in all cases a fetus is a person solely because of the fact that when you kill a pregnant woman it's "double homicide" when that isn't even true in half the country.
And besides, if a fetus was a person according to law, then all miscarriages would need a federal investigation, and abortionists would be charged with murder. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position.Not really.
Abortionists being charged with murder would be funny as all hell.
But I fail to see where miscarriages would amount to federal investigations or even criminal charges.
Considering miscarriages wouldn't amount to an intent and the privacy would be between patient and doctor.
Well, since you say a fetus is a person, it would require immediate investigation, due to the "Deaths due to alleged, suspected, or known abuse, neglect, exploitation, homicide, or suicide." clause
Most miscarriages are due to neglect and/or abuse, but they don't become federally investigated. Thus, once again, you're whole "person in the eyes of the law" schtick falls short.
When didn't I say pain wasn't a criteria? I said most criteria have to be met,And what let's you define "most"?
I could say a fetus should be a person when it begins development of its own heart and later begins pumping its own blood through its own genetically independent body.
But you wouldn't accept that because that starts WAY before the end of the 1st trimester (effectively making around 80% of abortions illegitimate).
And could you stay consistent at all?
First it's blood. Then when provided an example of how that won't work... it's cognitive functions... then when provided another example of how that doesn't make any sense... it's "well they USED to be aware"... and when that didn't work, it's suddenly "most have to be met"?
W...T...F?!
Okay, I'll concede. I got inconsistent on the scientific aspects of personhood. But it doesn't matter because a fetus hasn't been born yet, thus doesn't not gain inalienable rights.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.sv gCongrats on skipping over an entire section of my reply because you couldn't back up your bullshit.
So 2/3rds into the second trimester you have a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb. That's close enough to the third trimester.
Even still: You're willing to kill a fetus during the 2nd trimester (of which people are alive today) based on what MIGHT happen?
I'm not willing, no. I'd personally let it live. But it's not my choice. Opponents of abortion may have a strong moral case and belief against abortion. Yet, their beliefs are not shared by all. They must tolerate a woman's right to have an abortion, even if they believe the act to be morally wrong. The best that opponents can hope for is to convince women that it is immoral, but to ask for the illegalization of abortion would be to wrongly deny that abortion is a right. Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.
Do you know how many dying patients would love to have even a 50-50 chance of survival?
After all, YOU'RE the one defending these abortions. You're the one defending Roe v. Wade. How can you support the woman going for an abortion, but then condemn the physician for killing it and throwing the newborn into the garbage when the procedure fails?
What the fuck? I don't support condemning the physician.
So answer one of the questions you refused to answer up top:
According to you: Is a dead individual with no living cells considered more of a person than a LIVING fetus?
Does this answer even matter? In what context is this even relevant to abortion? I could say yes, but then you'd be all 'dudewtfmoron' You should probably stop with all the straw man shit and ask relevant questions that aren't misinterpretations of what I say. But I'll go ahead and answer this question. Yes. It's more of a person, because, even when dead, you're rights, given at birth still cannot be taken away. Happy?
At 11/7/10 10:55 AM, shadowkills4 wrote: Hmmm....Hmm...Crack heads dident they just have a vote about this last week abbout that they mightl eglaizei t even though..IT DIDENT FUCKING PASS
100th post!
I don't think there was a vote on cocaine legalization, anywhere, last week. Learn to spell too.
I wholeheartedly support the legalization of all drugs, it's personal choice, and people are going to do it anyways.
Yeah I agree with the consensus. I was pretty much on blam/save duty all day yesterday and I was like, "What is going on?"
At 11/7/10 12:13 PM, quanmandetil wrote:At 11/7/10 12:09 PM, hitman1993 wrote:At 11/7/10 12:01 PM, quanmandetil wrote:We all have our preferences and opinions on everything from art to food to music. No need to bash me.At 11/7/10 11:57 AM, hitman1993 wrote:Music where the vocals are primarily screamed is shit. If you like it, then you are either one of those scene kids who buys into anything they see, or you have sustained brain damage and can't tell what good music is.At 11/7/10 11:49 AM, quanmandetil wrote: screamoNo such thing, actually. And if you don't like what you call "screamo" don't bother posting.(Sorry for coming on so strong. I was just trying to express disapproval for those "emo" kids who listen to "screamo" just so they can look cool.
Also, because I don't listen to this sort of music, what is the definition of screamo anyway. I always thought it was just music with screams in it.
They're actually a metalcore band.
Screamo is a primitive genre of hardcore punk. Riffs are fast and simple, there are generally no guitar solos, and the singer literally SCREAMS (not squeals, not death growl, not scream as a term used in metal to describe high pitch vocal)
Modern metalcore, generally, is melodic death metal riffs, breakdowns, and less "over the top" guitar solos than proper metal. The breakdown is perfect for moshing, it's the slowed drumming and chugged riff at about
So I pretty much disliked The Devil Wears Prada for the longest time, mostly because of my bias against Christian metalcore, but then I took a listen to their newest release, the Zombie EP, and I have to say, I was quite blown away. All five tracks are just brutal after brutal. I wouldn't mind slam dancing to the entirety of the record.
What is Newground's opinion on the EP?
At 11/7/10 01:49 AM, poxpower wrote:At 11/7/10 12:44 AM, Ravariel wrote:A network's rules against campaign contributions cannot stop a person from having an opinion on those campaigns. Should we also suspend journalists who vote?That's a fair question I suppose.
How can you NOT have a partisan news channel or a partisan news anchor?
Reporting favorably on certain politicians is as good as money for their political careers.
Preventing one from voting wouldn't do anything though.
But preventing one from donating campaign money is a step in the right direction, as is severe penalties for lies and an error rectifying policy.
There's always going to be a huge temptation for anyone to use their position to promote their ideals... If you believe that electing X guy will save lives and money, you would definitely sacrifice your integrity for the greater good.
You can't force someone to be fair. I think in the end, most of the responsibility falls on the viewers who should get their news from multiple sources.
Very well said. I think people would much rather watch biased news channels anyway. There are always those elitists that say "omg biased journalism bad" but the majority of the news watchers are gonna watch Fox News or MSNBC because of their political orientation.
Dubstep.
dub dub dubbbbbbbbbbbbb booom basslineeee
What the fuck, that's bullshit. NBC's parent company GE made political donations several times, and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn /A26386-2004Jan17
NBC chief executive Robert Wright has contributed $8,000 since 1999, including $3,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $1,000 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Andrew Lack, a former NBC News chief, gave $1,000 to Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) while NBC president, and Wright contributed $1,500--after the House committee Tauzin chairs held hearings on the networks' election night failures. NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network allows its executives to make contributions and that Wright "does not make any decisions specific to news coverage.
MSNBC just lost one of it's best hosts.
I'm not saying the seed is a tree.
But to sit there and say that the seed that eventually became the tree aren't the same individual, is just plain dumb.
All the tree is, is a later development of that individual's life cycle.
Is every single sperm cell in my jizz a person? How about the eggs in women, are they people too? Should we ban masturbation and menstruation because they kill things that could become people?
Oh, but wait... that's not what the law says... is it?
Because if you do kill a pregnant woman, regardless of what stage of the pregnancy, the law states it to be double homicide... which is supported by pro-choice groups with this statement:
"But the woman would have had the child, therefore it is a person!"
Actually that's only the law in 25 states. It's a state's decision. Half the country says that's not the law.
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/State homicidelaws092302.html
Which isn't what you said earlier.
You said that the fetus would have to have consciousness and be aware of itself in order to be considered a person.
It's an extension to what I said. And besides, if a fetus was a person according to law, then all miscarriages would need a federal investigation, and abortionists would be charged with murder. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position.
No, because you still defended a brain-dead individual on life support with no self-awareness as a person.
They, as like I said, have developed psychological features not found in embryos.Oh, so now pain isn't a criteria?
Then why did you even bother bringing it up on the first place?
Oh right... now you're just backtracking.
When didn't I say pain wasn't a criteria? I said most criteria have to be met, not all, and the fetus never shows more than one. You are given rights at birth. Birth. They can't be taken away after.
Under that logic, a dead individual with no living cells whatsoever would be considered more a person than a LIVING fetus simply based on the fact that they ONCE UPON A TIME were born.
On top of that, you've now resorted to the typical pro-choice argument above (on double homicide) where science and logic (according to you anyway) are completely thrown out the window.
What does an individual who USED to have consciousness have anything to do with that individual CURRENTLY not having any Consciousness or awareness?
I was under the assumption that, according to you (again), that you had to HAVE specific cognitive functions (key word being functions that have to... you know, function) in order to be a person.
They would exclusive have to had been third trimester abortions, which, again, almost never happen.Really? Then how about this scenario!
Woman goes to have an abortion. The abortion procedure fails and ends up delivering a newborn infant, which the physician then promptly throws away to die in a garbage bin out in the back.
The Physician is then charged with homicide!
Which no pro-choice group opposes!
Now, what was the developmental difference of the fetus before the procedure (when it was legal to kill it) and after (when it was murder)?
Oh, right... there was absolutely no difference in development.
Now you could say that the doctor should be able to do that, but you already said that birth, in and of itself, automatically guaranteed rights.
So... how would premature births work then?
Btw... Oh, lookie here!
23 weeks pregnant by the way. Within the 2nd trimester and legal... despite the fact that healthy infants have been born earlier and lived.
The link doesn't work. So I can't lookie there. Either way.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.sv g
So 2/3rds into the second trimester you have a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb. That's close enough to the third trimester.
Except that you already said you believed in the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So you can't play that card.
Whut.
You think people on newgrounds are talented? You should see people on drugs!
which is probably most of newgrounds.
An infant isn't an adult, but both are still human.
It's called a life cycle, smart one.
Alas, an infant left the womb, equivalent to a small tree leaving the seed. At that point, you can call the seed a tree.
Depends...
Is killing a pregnant woman grounds for Double homicide? Last I checked... Yes.
Only if the fetus is in the third trimester, because by then they could survive outside of the womb. . By the time a women is in the third trimester she has no doubt decided she wants to keep the pregnancy - third trimester abortions almost never happen.
Would tearing out the life support system of another family's relative in a psychotic rage amount of homicide? Why... yes it would.
Most "personhood" lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos.
So your own examples are contradicted by laws pro-choice people, ironically, support.
Congrats on consistency.
Nope, I'm consistent.
Also, you do realize that people are born with genetic disorders that render them incapable of feeling pain, right?
I guess they aren't people either.
They, as like I said, have developed psychological features not found in embryos.
No more than someone on life support is person because they lack a consciousness.
But wait... if someone is on a life support system, then that would be as if they were a fetus. So... would that mean the machine "owns" them?
Hurray for more contradictory examples!
But the people on life support have gained personhood before, gaining inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given at birth.
Except for that whole separate genetic identity thing.
And the fact that there are abortion survivors...
Yeah screw them.
They would exclusive have to had been third trimester abortions, which, again, almost never happen.
An imaginary one based on no scientific grounds whatsoever.
It's merely an arbitrary standard made up by people like you.
Who says rights have to be based on scientific grounds? You can't prove scientifically the right to free speech and such.
How about you get a clue and realize that economic systems in and of themselves aren't the cause of imperialism.
I'll concede to that, but time and time again Capitalism has shown to be more imperialistic than Socialism.
At 11/6/10 07:27 PM, Gario wrote:
Great, a statement that feels it needs nothing more to justify itself than a faulty comparison. Very nice argument, indeed.
It is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree."
From this point, let's just assume the previous premise is correct and draw a conclusion that has nothing to do with it - I guess there is some mysterious force restricting anything other than 'people' from having rights, eh? That's also a fairly large assumption, wouldn't you say?
Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy.
Because the fetus has no rights, or isn't a person, or whatever, at some undefined point in time, it is now an organ that is a part of a woman's body (you know, because all things that are in a woman's body are organs). Because of this the woman should have the right to keep it or get rid of it.
For one thing, never did I once say a fetus was an organ. Never. I said it was no more than an organ, meaning that, it's a part of woman's body, and it has to stay there in order to be sustained.
Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a woman's right. There are many things that are seen as immoral by some people, but which must, nevertheless, be upheld as a right. As is argued above, the fetus has no absolute right to the woman's body, and therefore the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort). This is the case no matter how "wrong" we might believe the act of "unplugging" and killing the fetus to be.
At 11/6/10 06:34 PM, Memorize wrote:At 11/6/10 06:15 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Capitalism, on the other hand, has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and sufferingRight.
Because Stalin didn't do any of that.
Well aren't you a few watts short of a lit bulb.
Who said I was in favor of Stalin or anything he did?
Socialism, in it's purest form, means a classless society where everyone owns the means of production. To argue that this was the case in the Soviet Union would be ridiculous. The Soviet Union was more akin to a military dictatorship. Examples of true socialism include the Spanish revolution, the Zapatista revolution in Chiapas, southern Mexico, the Israeli Kibbutzim and examples of things that have got, or are getting, close to socialism include the recent Venezuelan and Bolivian revolutions involving large federations of communes etc., the recent democratic planning experiment in Kerala, India and many others. If you look at all these examples you will see that they have, at least partially if not greatly, improved the lives of the people in them.
You might want to stick with empiricism and not insults, you'll at least appear smarter.
SadisticMonkey and RightWingGamer have, incorrectly, stated that there's too much regulation in the free market. I, however, am of the opinion that the free market hasn't had enough governmental regulation, and that's pretty much how it's been all of American history.
On February 28, 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote:
:And yet, in spite of this, there would be hams found spoiled, some of them with an odor so bad that a man could hardly bear to be in the room with them. To pump into these the packers had a second and much stronger pickle which destroyed the odor - a process known to the workers as "giving them thirty per cent." Also, after the hams had been smoked, there would be found some that had gone to the bad. Formerly these had been sold as "Number Three Grade," but later on some ingenious person had hit upon a new device, and now they would extract the bone, about which the bad part generally lay, and insert in the hole a white-hot iron. After this invention there was no longer Number One, Two, and Three Grade - there was only Number One Grade.
It saddens me that even after more than a century, similar rebrandings are occurring today, though admittedly not as bad as once was.
WOW TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR OBVIOUSLY GRAND UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS MR "MY PREFERRED ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAS BROUGHT POVERTY AND DEATH WHENEVER INTRODUCED"
Incorrect, one example of this is the Spanish revolution. Even though it only lasted for 2 years before it was violently destroyed by a counter revolution conducted by a combination of fascists and statist republicans, the revolution was responsible for many successes. In Aragon, Levant and Castile there were about 1,650 collectives and more than a million people and 70% of the rural population of Aragon lived in Collectives (organised voluntarily). Capitalism, on the other hand, has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and suffering
A fetus is no more a person than an acorn is a tree. That being said, a fetus cannot have "rights" protecting it from abortion. At that point in time, the fetus is no more than, say, an organ, in the woman's body, so it belongs to the woman, thus she should be able to decide what she wants to do with it. Also, it's better to have an abortion and regret it than giving birth and regretting having a kid.
I enjoy the inquisitive nature of this post, but how does one go about predicting politics 50, 100 years from now, when we can barely predict how the 2012 elections are going to play out? I assume the UN will gain power, only because that's been the case in recent years, perhaps a merge with the ICC to help prevent wars? Hopefully.
And overpopulation, well, you can't stop it. I can't see much solutions to try and end it. The world's population has significantly increased in the last 50 years, mainly due to medical advancements and substantial increases in agricultural productivity, and there are only going to be more medical advancements and advancements in the food industry. I don't see overpopulation to be much of a problem, actually, if technology can keep up, and I don't see why it can't.
As for one country dominating, I think America is gonna hold that seat for good, long while. Culturally, at least. Britain might make a run at being the world's economic powerhouse once again, and you can't count China out either.
That's some dope shit. I drink two cans before I drink two cans, then I drink two more.
I see nothing wrong with drinking and smoking, or any drug for that matter. Personal choice.
I smoke every now and then, like a pack every week or so. I drink much less often, like two or three times a week. However, smoke weed eryday, that's where it's at. I need no reason to do any of this, just because.
Sounds like a lame middle school confrontation to me.
At 11/6/10 03:37 PM, Lagatag wrote:
No humility is just saying "Thanks," not saying "Oh no, I look like a fucking troll, but you have the beauty of a goddess," in the hopes that people pile on to say you are actually not a fucking troll.
That's true. But then again, who are we to question their motives?
At 11/6/10 02:01 PM, Gagsy wrote:
Perhaps they are fishing for compliments, but generally speaking all girls think they aren't special or good looking at all, and the ones who do think they're gorgeous are usually just shitty people.
When you don't believe nice things about your appearance it does give you a good feeling when others say that you are nice. Naturally though, because you don't believe in your goodness you deny this, and then the other person who again try to get you to see what they see.
Yes, some girls do go a little over the top but it's just being nice to someone who can't see their own beauty, or even if they don't have much body beauty, or least giving them the positive feeling of that.
So yeah it's not circle jerking at all. Circle jerking is a bunch of NGers who literally follow mods around with their tongues out waiting for fresh stools to lick up.
These are just girls who want to be nice to their friends or people they sort of know online, and if they receive the same treatment in return then well that's just a bonus.
Extending on that point, I think it'd be worse to say:
Girl 1: "Girl 2, You're so beautiful!"
Girl 2: "Yeah, I'm so fucking gorgeous, thanks!"
Humility is a trait not to be bashed on, but to be embraced.
