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 - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 666768 6970 ... 502
2011
« on: April 04, 2016, 04:29:00 PM »
The first person scene in Doom annoyed the shit out of me. I don't think I could take a whole movie of it.
That's because the first person scene in Doom was just. . . Weird. Like, the flow was odd. People don't move like that.
2012
« on: April 04, 2016, 04:24:58 PM »
Would have been better as a game tbh.
What a brilliant way to miss the point.
2013
« on: April 04, 2016, 04:21:12 PM »
2014
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:45:23 PM »
2015
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:36:29 PM »
He actually retweeted this on Twitter.
2016
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:06:38 PM »
I agree to a point, but does anyone else feel some people saying 'political correctness' for anything racist or questionable they might be doing, is bad?
It's turned into a buzzword if you ask me.
Sure, people do that. People also use the guise of pursuing political correctness in bad ways too. People are annoyed because it has become far, far too easy to get yourself branded as a bigot.
2017
« on: April 04, 2016, 11:51:10 AM »
So the Guardian asked a bunch of secret Trump voters to explain why they are voting Trump. Here's a 50-year-old college professor from California:I’m a liberal-left college professor in the social sciences. I’m going to vote for Trump but I won’t tell hardly anybody.
My main reason is anger at the two-party system and the horrible presidencies of Obama and Bush. But I’m also furious at political correctness on campus and in the media.
I’m angry at forced diversity and constant, frequently unjustified complaints about racism/sexism/homophobia/lack of trans rights. I’m particularly angry at social justice warriors and my main reason to vote Trump is to see the looks on your faces when he wins.
It’s not that I like Trump. It’s that I hate those who can’t stand him. I want them to suffer the shock of knowing all their torrents of blog posts and Tumblr bitch-fests and “I just can’t ...” and accusations of mansplaining didn’t actually matter. That they’re still losing. And that things are not getting better for them. They’re getting worse. based prof
2018
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:46:56 AM »
how would YOU feel if all you wanted in your life was to join the military and serve on the frontlines and then oh sucks you cant because you have a dick
how every single person on this forum isn't deeply morally appalled by this scenario fucking baffles me
Anybody who values serving in the military that much also values combat effectiveness, and the general well-being of soldiers. Anybody that driven to serve their country would set it aside, and take it with dignity.
2019
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:41:06 AM »
Of course it's worth it.
I refuse to believe you're this psychopathically indifferent to human suffering.
2020
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:35:27 AM »
fuck meta the most itt
"pulled out of thin air"
im just going to run around and say everyone elses values are pulled out of thin air and see what happens
Are you really so upset by my highlighting of your utterly whimsical moral system that you have to make separate posts detailing how much you are upset by it? Get a fucking grip.
2021
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:34:15 AM »
I picked out of the air??? What the fuck? Yes. You're offering us a deontological ethical system with no reference to consequence. This is arbitrary.and one thats far more important than human lives.
This is so unfathomably irrational I genuinely have to wonder how you can hold opinions like this. Say equality can only be ensured with massive poverty and human suffering as an unintended consequence; do you genuinely think it's worth it?
2022
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:05:08 AM »
and morality supercedes earthly negative outcomes.
What you have here is basically a recipe for poverty and persistent squalor, all in the name of some arbitrarily chosen principle.
This is the worst kind of zealotry.
TIL letting women fight in combat roles causes poverty and persistient squalor
Gotta love this slope.
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
The only way you can take that from what I said is that you really aren't paying attention to this conversation, and at that point it's just not worth having.
Even if study came out that damnned women serving in combat roles to the highest extreme, I would still be right.
Discrimination and hindering equality are worse crimes than making military less effective.
And now you're completely ignoring both of my prior points and simply repeating the same line you've been taking the entire thread. You really aren't paying any attention, are you?
2023
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:02:59 AM »
Oh, and fucking equality is arbitrary now.
Of course it's arbitrary. You're literally condoning religiously sticking to a principle you have picked out of the air, above all other principles, regardless of the consequences.
2024
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:01:12 AM »
and morality supercedes earthly negative outcomes.
What you have here is basically a recipe for poverty and persistent squalor, all in the name of some arbitrarily chosen principle.
This is the worst kind of zealotry.
TIL letting women fight in combat roles causes poverty and persistient squalor
Gotta love this slope.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? The only way you can take that from what I said is that you really aren't paying attention to this conversation, and at that point it's just not worth having.
2025
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:51:42 AM »
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? are you genuinely impaired
Technically, yes. High functioning autism is considered an impairment.
verb getting btfo
2026
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:51:05 AM »
and morality supercedes earthly negative outcomes.
What you have here is basically a recipe for poverty and persistent squalor, all in the name of some arbitrarily chosen principle. This is the worst kind of zealotry.
2027
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:03:43 AM »
Evidence from the IDF suggests male soldiers get frenzied when women soldiers are injured, and can act in ways which risk the mission objective.
Then that's the fault of the soldier for losing his wits, not the fault of the woman for existing.
You're being incredibly disingenuous. Serving a combat role willingly with this information (and, by extension, a government allowing women to do so) is extremely different from merely "existing", and I know you know that perfectly well. Stop using rhetoric to try and bolster your points. Secondly, yes, that's a fantastic idea. Let's blame the soldier in a middle of a combat scenario for acting on the basest instincts he probably has, all while we could've foreseen it happening and prevented it if only hippies like you didn't insist on allowing that situation to occur in the fucking first place. Soldiers in combat situations, even with training, are already highly unreliable-- anybody in a combat situation would be, compared to being in a non-combat situation. There's absolutely no reason to add to this burden in the name of equality. And fuck, it's not even about some neocon fetish for having a strong military. At the end of the day, it could mean more dead soldiers, more trauma and more difficult situations for serving personnel for absolutely no good reason. And it would especially mean more dead women soldiers; terrorists aren't dumb, and they no doubt know how consistently targeting women would harm morale.
2028
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:52:34 AM »
muh "unit cohesion"
That makes some sense to me. I haven't seen the data, so I can't say for sure, but I can definitely see that being a factor.
At some point in time race could compromise unit cohesion.
I think the relationship between a white guy and a black guy is just a little different to the relationship between any man and any woman. Evidence from the IDF suggests male soldiers get frenzied when women soldiers are injured, and can act in ways which risk the mission objective.
2029
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:48:50 AM »
"I support discrimination because it makes our military stronger"
Literally fuck off.
. . . Wha- What? Security is the area in which discrimination is most justifiable.
2030
« on: April 03, 2016, 09:03:30 PM »
That's religion for you. Islam is just as bad as Christianity.
LMAO
M
A
O
Christianity promotes hatred and discrimination, Islam promotes hatred and discrimination. I'm not saying all the followers of each religion are hateful, but the base texts of both certainly encourage it.
Sure, but who cares? The Old Testament is probably worse than the Qur'an, but why should that matter? We don't have a problem with Jewish militancy on the same level we have one with Islamic militancy. What matters is the way people act.
2031
« on: April 02, 2016, 08:12:52 PM »
I highly doubt you would be saying that if you ended up getting refused a public service all because of some petty reason.
What the fuck are you smoking, chief? Getting a custom-made cake is not a public service.
2032
« on: April 02, 2016, 06:50:38 PM »
How would you feel if you wanted something like a custom cake made for your dad but every place that would be doing them is refusing to all because you're a conservative?
I actually cannot emphasise enough how much I wouldn't give a fuck.
2033
« on: April 02, 2016, 05:10:22 PM »
Well it's in America
You wouldn't know that without reading the article, though. I didn't put the location in the title.
2034
« on: April 02, 2016, 05:04:14 PM »
In America, it's far more likely that the murderer is Christian than Muslim.
Sure, I was speaking generally.
2035
« on: April 02, 2016, 05:03:08 PM »
it's not exactly unreasonable to expect this kind of behavior from Christians as well
I didn't say it was; I'm disputing the equivocation.
2036
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:56:00 PM »
If you want to make this an issue of utilitarianism, I'm game. But so far you're yet to demonstrate just how the government having this specific power would be a net positive. Does the government not already exercise it in the context of race?
Yes, but so what? First and foremost, the fact that the government does this for race has literally no bearing on a utilitarian case for doing it with sexuality. Nor does the fact that we have prior regulations serve as a justification for any future regulation. I'd also add that refusing to serve people on the basis of their sexuality should--in my opinion--be illegal just as it is for refusing to serve people on the basis of race. As I said, I'm talking about businesses providing a service for a specific and known event. This may not seem like an important distinction to you, but it's a line which can be drawn on precisely the utilitarian grounds you're using to try and justify the reverse. Some level of two-way tolerance is required, and that seems as reasonable a point as any to draw the line.
2037
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:50:21 PM »
Or are you going to admit that there are areas in which businesses need to adhere to standards, for the betterment of society? I'll readily admit that. What I'm waiting for you to show is how coercing business owners to either act against their beliefs or shut their business down is preferable to allowing them to operate. Making sure workers aren't dying on the job due to negligence is very different to what we're discussing. If you want to make this an issue of utilitarianism, I'm game. But so far you're yet to demonstrate just how the government having this specific power would be a net positive. No one is thought policing. You can continue practicing your religion. There arises a problem when your religion leads to unlawful practices.
Okay, but you didn't actually answer the question. EDIT: I don't have a good answer to your last question, and it's something I've been thinking over during the course of this discussion.
2038
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:39:24 PM »
then the people should be able to leverage the government to discriminate downwards against a business for that exact same reason.
Surely that makes the playing field even more unequal. You're essentially giving the government the power to shut down businesses for doing something the majority don't like. That seems like it would be a lot more harmful than a business turning away gay customers.
2039
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:29:31 PM »
Besides, you literally just said it yourself: one part of the public (the business owners) can discriminate against other parts of the public (other individuals) but apparently the inverse should not be true?
I have no idea where you're pulling that notion from. Other individuals can discriminate against business owners (by not purchasing their goods) much more easily than business owners can discriminate against potential customers. You can choose to not shop at a particular store for literally whatever reason.
2040
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:22:46 PM »
They're being forced to cater to gay weddings if they wish to continue running a business. You're yet to justify why the government should be able to decide who owns a business on the basis of their beliefs. You're essentially advocating for the government to force the private sector to conform to whatever line it chooses to take. Just because there's no nationalism involved, it doesn't make it any less authoritarian. If you want to work at a butchery, have fun getting fired when you refuse to touch pork. When you choose to enter an industry, you either fulfill expectations or you're out. This is utterly irrelevant. If a butcher is employed on the basis that he will perform a service involving pork, and then refuses to, of course he's going to be fired because he has violated the terms of his employment. In this case, it is an employee fulfilling the expectations of an employer buying his labour. This argument does not hold when it comes to business owners deciding whether or not to perform a particular service. Business owners are not employed by the public. this is asking them to operate on common moral principles. Why is this pursuit of sexual equality any more important than both freedom of conscience and freedom of association? Two fundamental freedoms which have underpinned liberal societies for quite a while. Not everywhere is a big city, thinking you can just sit on your ass and wait for social standards to change is part of what's caused the current phenomenon we've seen where LGBT and blacks flee to urban areas where the model of "let capitalism fix it" works faster We're discussing businesses being forced to partake in a particular ceremony or event. Not somebody just trying to buy groceries.
Pages: 1 ... 666768 6970 ... 502
|
Show Posts
