This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ
Pages: 1 ... 474849 5051 ... 256
1441
« on: April 15, 2016, 08:35:24 AM »
Lmao
>europe
>free
1442
« on: April 14, 2016, 11:09:53 PM »
"if you didn't have a purpose, if life didn't have a purpose, then what stops you from killing yourself?"
I don't get this statement. I mean, I get it, but I don't get the mindset it comes from. Is an externally defined value to your life tge sole reason you don't jump off a cliff?
This isn't a really Christian idea, kind of a general theist thing I guess? Not even a wise notion.
If life doesn't have an externally defined purpose, you can choose one, or none. Life or death becomes a matter of taste and desire. There's no more reason to kill yourself than not to kill yourself.
But then, if you don't believe in God, why would you even bow to something like reason? Fuck reason, do what you like.
T.Christfag
This doesn't make any sense. Creatures can still feel pleasure and pain, regardless of a deity's existence. That inherently necessitates morality.
Here we are at the is/ought problem again.
It is ridiculous to claim that one thing inherently necessitates another when you cannot demonstrate it.
A creature's ability to suffer has no bearing on whether or not it should do so. I have an Xbox, but the simple fact that I have the Xbox doesn't necessarily mean I should or shouldn't play it.
Pain is inherently negative. In and of itself, the human body has a highly adverse reaction to pain. That's the is. The ought connects to that as clear as day. We ought to avoid pain, since it's an inherently terrible feeling.
Kind of a shaky connection, but more importantly, pain is not inherently negative. You're slapping a human category on something prehuman. Pain is an adaptation that tells your brain "I need to stop doing what I'm doing/eating/leave this place, so I don't get killed". It's why animals run from predators. Attaching our manufactured descriptors to it is somewhat arrogant at best.
Further, there are other things we consider negative. What about sexual frustration? Our biological urge to fuck is just as, if not more, important than our instinct to avoid painful things. Is getting laid a human right? Should we, as a society, strive to make sure everyone gets their fair share of tail?
If you think the "pain" of not being able to get some is up there with real pain and suffering, you're retarded.
It is ultimately a matter of sense and biological urge. It has no inherent moral value. That fag with the BMW killed people out of sexual frustration. As did one of the Columbine shooters. Don't write off the impact of instinct and biological urges on mental health and happiness. Who are you to tell others what real suffering is?
1443
« on: April 14, 2016, 11:07:31 PM »
Both in Korea and Vietnam, the last thing the people wanted was for us to leave. We backed the bad guy in Vietnam? Tell that to the screaming families who were toppling over each other for our helicopters to leave their own country when we pulled out.
The reasoning and ideologies behind both Korea and Vietnam was more calm than WWII, but it's an objective fact that countries living under a communistic rule are in a far worse condition, and the people of both countries absolutely did not want to be in those conditions. The world saw what happened to Germany, and how it affected the lives there, and there shouldn't be an argument on trying to prevent that from happening again. Unfortunately it did happen again, because such vehement protesters never saw such struggles, and people today of course wouldn't know these struggles at all.
There's no reason we should have been in any of the others like Korea or Vietnam. Heck, we backed the bad guy in Vietnam. No doubt. Neither were good. But we picked the worst one just because the other was communist. I can't remember it all, haven't been in school for awhile. I don't know those struggles, of course not. I hope I never do. My point still stands though. We should not, especially now, waste time, money, and resources on other countries.
We are only as healthy and strong as we are because we dominate other countries.
We were doing well before WW1 or WW2. We don't need to "dominate" other countries to be healthy and strong.
But that's literally what 1800's America did.
And did we need to? Being Imperialistic and all is kinda evil if you ask me.
Look at the world's other major powers. If we don't, someone worse will.
1444
« on: April 14, 2016, 04:05:23 PM »
1445
« on: April 14, 2016, 04:02:46 PM »
hodor
1446
« on: April 14, 2016, 03:32:32 PM »
as though their preferences in dating constituted a sexuality
Funny, this is how many ancient peoples would look at our modern notions of sexuality in general. It's silly to treat the fact that you prefer to fuck man ass over woman ass as if it somehow constitutes an identity.
1447
« on: April 14, 2016, 07:40:15 AM »
"if you didn't have a purpose, if life didn't have a purpose, then what stops you from killing yourself?"
I don't get this statement. I mean, I get it, but I don't get the mindset it comes from. Is an externally defined value to your life tge sole reason you don't jump off a cliff?
This isn't a really Christian idea, kind of a general theist thing I guess? Not even a wise notion.
If life doesn't have an externally defined purpose, you can choose one, or none. Life or death becomes a matter of taste and desire. There's no more reason to kill yourself than not to kill yourself.
But then, if you don't believe in God, why would you even bow to something like reason? Fuck reason, do what you like.
T.Christfag
This doesn't make any sense. Creatures can still feel pleasure and pain, regardless of a deity's existence. That inherently necessitates morality.
Here we are at the is/ought problem again.
It is ridiculous to claim that one thing inherently necessitates another when you cannot demonstrate it.
A creature's ability to suffer has no bearing on whether or not it should do so. I have an Xbox, but the simple fact that I have the Xbox doesn't necessarily mean I should or shouldn't play it.
Pain is inherently negative. In and of itself, the human body has a highly adverse reaction to pain. That's the is. The ought connects to that as clear as day. We ought to avoid pain, since it's an inherently terrible feeling.
Kind of a shaky connection, but more importantly, pain is not inherently negative. You're slapping a human category on something prehuman. Pain is an adaptation that tells your brain "I need to stop doing what I'm doing/eating/leave this place, so I don't get killed". It's why animals run from predators. Attaching our manufactured descriptors to it is somewhat arrogant at best. Further, there are other things we consider negative. What about sexual frustration? Our biological urge to fuck is just as, if not more, important than our instinct to avoid painful things. Is getting laid a human right? Should we, as a society, strive to make sure everyone gets their fair share of tail?
1448
« on: April 14, 2016, 01:14:06 AM »
"if you didn't have a purpose, if life didn't have a purpose, then what stops you from killing yourself?"
I don't get this statement. I mean, I get it, but I don't get the mindset it comes from. Is an externally defined value to your life tge sole reason you don't jump off a cliff?
This isn't a really Christian idea, kind of a general theist thing I guess? Not even a wise notion.
If life doesn't have an externally defined purpose, you can choose one, or none. Life or death becomes a matter of taste and desire. There's no more reason to kill yourself than not to kill yourself.
But then, if you don't believe in God, why would you even bow to something like reason? Fuck reason, do what you like.
T.Christfag
This doesn't make any sense. Creatures can still feel pleasure and pain, regardless of a deity's existence. That inherently necessitates morality.
Here we are at the is/ought problem again. It is ridiculous to claim that one thing inherently necessitates another when you cannot demonstrate it. A creature's ability to suffer has no bearing on whether or not it should do so. I have an Xbox, but the simple fact that I have the Xbox doesn't necessarily mean I should or shouldn't play it.
1449
« on: April 13, 2016, 11:55:42 PM »
Both in Korea and Vietnam, the last thing the people wanted was for us to leave. We backed the bad guy in Vietnam? Tell that to the screaming families who were toppling over each other for our helicopters to leave their own country when we pulled out.
The reasoning and ideologies behind both Korea and Vietnam was more calm than WWII, but it's an objective fact that countries living under a communistic rule are in a far worse condition, and the people of both countries absolutely did not want to be in those conditions. The world saw what happened to Germany, and how it affected the lives there, and there shouldn't be an argument on trying to prevent that from happening again. Unfortunately it did happen again, because such vehement protesters never saw such struggles, and people today of course wouldn't know these struggles at all.
There's no reason we should have been in any of the others like Korea or Vietnam. Heck, we backed the bad guy in Vietnam. No doubt. Neither were good. But we picked the worst one just because the other was communist. I can't remember it all, haven't been in school for awhile. I don't know those struggles, of course not. I hope I never do. My point still stands though. We should not, especially now, waste time, money, and resources on other countries.
We are only as healthy and strong as we are because we dominate other countries.
1450
« on: April 13, 2016, 11:53:18 PM »
 R E M I N D E R
1451
« on: April 13, 2016, 11:45:16 AM »
Life without purpose can be difficult, but it's not immediately kill yourself worthy.
There's purpose and externally derived purpose. Living for your children is purpose. Living because God values you is externally derived.
The statement in my OP is saying that the external purpose is all that matters. People who say it believe that God, and God alone gives purpose.
If there is a God, by nature of being the highest of the high, his purpose trumps all.
If there is no God, there is no objective purpose. But if there is no God, then man, the Unique, becomes the god of himself, and may choose whatever purposes and goals he wants.
You're a spook 👻
Yeah but at least I know I'm real.
1452
« on: April 13, 2016, 11:42:47 AM »
Life without purpose can be difficult, but it's not immediately kill yourself worthy.
There's purpose and externally derived purpose. Living for your children is purpose. Living because God values you is externally derived.
The statement in my OP is saying that the external purpose is all that matters. People who say it believe that God, and God alone gives purpose.
If there is a God, by nature of being the highest of the high, his purpose trumps all. If there is no God, there is no objective purpose. But if there is no God, then man, the Unique, becomes the god of himself, and may choose whatever purposes and goals he wants.
1453
« on: April 13, 2016, 11:40:17 AM »
"if you didn't have a purpose, if life didn't have a purpose, then what stops you from killing yourself?"
I don't get this statement. I mean, I get it, but I don't get the mindset it comes from. Is an externally defined value to your life tge sole reason you don't jump off a cliff?
This isn't a really Christian idea, kind of a general theist thing I guess? Not even a wise notion. If life doesn't have an externally defined purpose, you can choose one, or none. Life or death becomes a matter of taste and desire. There's no more reason to kill yourself than not to kill yourself. But then, if you don't believe in God, why would you even bow to something like reason? Fuck reason, do what you like. T.Christfag
1454
« on: April 12, 2016, 06:07:51 PM »
If a submissive sexual fetish is counter to military efficacy, I wonder how he got to the position that he did. 
It's almost like the two aren't related in any conceivable way
It's the fucking peacetime Navy, promotion has little to do with actual merit.
Better start showing From Dusk Til Dawn to potential officers and see which ones get an erection from the Salma Hayek domination scene
truly the most important factor in recruiting soldiers
In general, no, but high ranking officers should be cut from a certain cloth. Cuckoldry is not a part of that cloth.
First women, now people with fetishes. In twenty years, maybe we'll just go back to only white men above 6' can be a military officer.
lmao Anybody can have a fetish, even I have one, but if that shit is so uncontrollable that you have to spend nine hours watching it on a workplace computer, it's weightier than just a kink.
1455
« on: April 12, 2016, 06:06:17 PM »
costs so much for the patient out of pocket.
which is a problem. That is money that could be paying for literally anything but a plus sized hospital bed and artery clearings.
1456
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:59:36 PM »
If a submissive sexual fetish is counter to military efficacy, I wonder how he got to the position that he did.
It's almost like the two aren't related in any conceivable way
It's the fucking peacetime Navy, promotion has little to do with actual merit.
Better start showing From Dusk Til Dawn to potential officers and see which ones get an erection from the Salma Hayek domination scene
truly the most important factor in recruiting soldiers
In general, no, but high ranking officers should be cut from a certain cloth. Cuckoldry is not a part of that cloth.
1457
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:58:34 PM »
Your argument comes down to the socialized healthcare point, which is admittedly rooted in logic. In general, that's not one of my important issues. Acts of god and accidents should be paid for by the state through taxes, but I don't think addicts, obese people, self-mutilators, etc, should get the same free service for problems stemming from their self inflicted choices.
It is socially damaging even without public healthcare. The obese are limited in what work they can do, and limited in their capability and productivity in those fields. Usually they or their families help address medical costs, rather than spending that money consuming products and pumping it back into the economy at large. Thousands of dollars of medical equipment are diverted to treat the obese, when many of those devices could be used elsewhere to treat the genuinely sick patients. In some settings, the extremely obese even require special accommodations in seating and transportation. Obesity statistics are also, on the international stage, a source of national shame.
And that specialized equipment and care cost ridiculously high amounts of money. Money they pay and put into the economy and hospital's pocket.
The profit margin for medicine is quite low. And what profit there is isn't really going straight to treating others. If there was only one gurney, an obese person in need of care, and an ER patient in need of care, you're straight up paranoid if you think that gurney would go to the obese person. It's a good thing I care about the big picture and not retarded hypotheticals. Besides, I'm pretty sure the obese need specialized gurneys. All of your other points are just arbitrary. "National shame"? It would be a national shame to mandate what people can and cannot put into their bodies.
Nobody ITT advocated for dietary laws.
1458
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:55:15 PM »
Cool, next they should block Saudi Arabia, all of the Gulf states, Singapore, Malaysia, Russia, Belarus, and every other country which actively discriminates against homosexuals.
Or is it just that North Carolina ALLOWS people to discriminate, and that is for whatever reason worse than active discrimination?
Fuck businesses that engage in this kind of political stunt for good PR.
1459
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:53:06 PM »
Why are people so against fetishes? Jesus Christ, it's not some heinous act to get off to what your brain chemistry wants you to get off to.
You don't see the issue with an officer watching internet porn on a government computer?
I guess it's a waste of electricity or something. I wouldn't expect people's reactions to be any different if he was reading a magazine or a story.
The most pressing concern is security, but he was also definitely not doing his job.
Spoiler This isn't the Navy's reasoning, and this is really going to trigger you, but a cucking fetish in particular is unseemly for a military man. That kind of submissive mindset, reproductivly suicidal, is not a trait that should be allowed in people who may be sent to lead others in battle.
wait now, how do we know he was self-inserting as the cuckold and not as the bull?
That didn't occur to me.
1460
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:52:35 PM »
If a submissive sexual fetish is counter to military efficacy, I wonder how he got to the position that he did.
It's almost like the two aren't related in any conceivable way
It's the fucking peacetime Navy, promotion has little to do with actual merit.
1461
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:48:13 PM »
Your argument comes down to the socialized healthcare point, which is admittedly rooted in logic. In general, that's not one of my important issues. Acts of god and accidents should be paid for by the state through taxes, but I don't think addicts, obese people, self-mutilators, etc, should get the same free service for problems stemming from their self inflicted choices.
It is socially damaging even without public healthcare. The obese are limited in what work they can do, and limited in their capability and productivity in those fields. Usually they or their families help address medical costs, rather than spending that money consuming products and pumping it back into the economy at large. Thousands of dollars of medical equipment are diverted to treat the obese, when many of those devices could be used elsewhere to treat the genuinely sick patients. In some settings, the extremely obese even require special accommodations in seating and transportation. Obesity statistics are also, on the international stage, a source of national shame.
1462
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:35:05 PM »
Neither are bad at all, though, in a moral sense. In a health sense, being fat is "bad", but no one has the obligation to br healthy. Do you believe in state-funded healthcare? As in, funded through taxation rather than profit? If you're going to ostracize someone because you don't like how their body looks, then whatever. You have the right to do that. But don't take this high ground and pretend it's the big secret to ending obesity.
It's not a matter of me not liking how their bodies look. I think piercings anywhere but the ear lobe are disgusting, I feel sick just looking at them, but I don't recognize them as a real problem. Obesity is absolutely a problem. It is not ostracization over some kind of arbitrary personal taste, it is ostracization over a personally and socially destructive lifestyle. In an increasingly nationalized and networked world, the problems of the obese are made to be our problem. If in ten years the cost for a fat man to get his medical procedures costs me tax dollars, it is perfectly reasonable to recognize his obesity as a strike against me. But don't take this high ground and pretend it's the big secret to ending obesity. I don't think it is the answer, but it is certainly better than the alternative, saying and doing nothing negative for fear of hurting someone's fee-fees.
1463
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:14:36 PM »
]That's you. Believe it or not, people are different. Some respond better to negative reinforcement, for some that just makes it worse. Don't come in here and pretend your experience is some universal truth.
I don't, but it should be pretty obvious by now that telling the obese that everything is okay does nothing but damage to them and to society in general. Shaming and ostracization absolutely have an evolutionary role. Fat acceptance is functionally similar to acceptance of pedophilia. It is an attempt to normalize socially destructive behaviors in order to avoid making people feel bad, regardless of whether these people actually are bad in some way.
1464
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:09:56 PM »
Why are people so against fetishes? Jesus Christ, it's not some heinous act to get off to what your brain chemistry wants you to get off to.
You don't see the issue with an officer watching internet porn on a government computer?
I guess it's a waste of electricity or something. I wouldn't expect people's reactions to be any different if he was reading a magazine or a story.
The most pressing concern is security, but he was also definitely not doing his job. Spoiler This isn't the Navy's reasoning, and this is really going to trigger you, but a cucking fetish in particular is unseemly for a military man. That kind of submissive mindset, reproductivly suicidal, is not a trait that should be allowed in people who may be sent to lead others in battle.
1465
« on: April 12, 2016, 05:00:18 PM »
Don't pretend all this fat shaming has anything whatsoever to do with helping people.
That's literally it, at least from me. I was picked on when I was young for being so thin and lanky, now I work out and do my best to better myself, get bigger and stronger. Self-hate gave me a reason to improve, and it transformed from removing a flaw into improving and empowering what I have. If you're ashamed of your weight and lifestyle, but don't do what is necessary to change it, clearly you're not ashamed enough.
1466
« on: April 12, 2016, 04:55:08 PM »
Why are people so against fetishes? Jesus Christ, it's not some heinous act to get off to what your brain chemistry wants you to get off to.
You don't see the issue with an officer watching internet porn on a government computer?
1467
« on: April 12, 2016, 04:42:35 PM »
They are one and the same.
1468
« on: April 12, 2016, 04:40:21 PM »
Reminder that degeneracy is a matter of class, not race.
1470
« on: April 12, 2016, 01:54:03 PM »
There is nothing wrong with fat shaming.
Self-hate is the first step toward self-improvement and self-love.
Pages: 1 ... 474849 5051 ... 256
|
Show Posts