You can't define what is wrong and what is right like you can define who is and isn't ill.

Why not? It's pretty easy. There's no such thing as a basis for morality which makes sense--which is rational--which doesn't have anything to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. If the word evil is to mean anything and still make any sense at all, it has to mean somebody who would push the big red button and plunge everybody into the 'worst possible suffering'.

I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.

So I guess that means medicine, psychology, neurology, sociology, economics and anthropology are all subjective?

No news story, but it's on GQ's twitter feed. Turns out he's pretty funny; as he left the stage, he said "The Labour Leadership contest hasn't got long to go and I've got three more votes left to cast." (Only Brits will get that).

Also found this amusing joke from him back in 2011, which unfortunately wasn't taken well by the crowd.

I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.

Hence it's not a negative sensation.

Is health objective?

Quote from: guts on September 08, 2015, 07:02:05 PM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 06:59:11 PM

Quote from: guts on September 08, 2015, 06:58:13 PM

Jeeeez you make one comparison and nuka TRANScends the whole point

I don't even know why he disagreed with you; I thought you two agreed with me here?

I think he misinterpreted my post

The two ideas weren't comparable.

Course they are.

It's about committing an act which increases the probability of a negative consequence. Walking through a bad district is obviously going to increase the chances of you being mugged, just as sex is going to increase the chances of you ending up with a kid. It's not a perfect analogy, but the fundamentals are there.

Why are we even arguing about this whole rape thing?

The whole "don't walk through a bad district" thing is analogous to "don't have sex if you don't want a kid".

Quote from: gOD'S NOT REEEEEEE on September 08, 2015, 06:41:42 PM

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on September 08, 2015, 06:34:30 PM

Quote from: gOD'S NOT REEEEEEE on September 08, 2015, 06:19:03 PM

Quote from: guts on September 08, 2015, 03:47:12 PM

lol you know that argument guys present when discussing rape?
"you wouldn't walk through a bad part of town with a stack of fifties, you have to take precautions don't dress like a slut"

i think the same notion applies here no?
wear a condom and take responsibility for yourself cuz we don't live in a perfect world
i mean, unless im wrong, please correct me if i am

That's not the same. Men aren't the ones that have to carry around a baby for 9 months and then give painful birth, have to nurse it and raise the baby for the next 15-20 years.

Not to mention, rape is entirely non-consensual.
Regular sex is consensual. You KNOW the consequence of unprotected sex. Yes, take responsibility and wear a fucking condom. If the girl gets pregnant, it's your fault for whining about how you didn't want to wear a condom.

It's a girls fault if she walks in a minority district and doesn't carry.

Prove me wrong.

I'd say it's the fault of law enforcement of not doing their job in cleaning crime up.
They're much too focused on making their quota in speeding and parking tickets these days.

Cops do not have an obligation or duty to protect you.

Fucking kill me now.

Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith has been criticised for referring to people without a disability as “normal”.

The Conservative cabinet minister made the remarks in the House of Commons as he defended the government’s record on getting more people with a disability back into work.

“I think the figure is now over 220,000, which I believe is the highest figure since records began, in proportionate terms, but the most important point is that we are looking to get that up to the level of normal, non-disabled people who are back in work. Those with disabilities have every right and every reason to expect exactly the same support into work that everybody else gets,” he said.

He was criticised by Eilidh Whiteford, the SNP social justice spokeswoman, who heard the comments in the chamber and said they provided a “shocking insight” into Duncan Smith’s mentality.

Unite, the trade union, said “shame on IDS and his shocking language” about disabled people, while the PCS union said the remarks were “disgraceful”.

Labour MP Kate Green said: “Iain Duncan Smith’s remarks about disabled people in parliament are offensive, hurtful and ignorant. It’s completely unacceptable for a government minister to single out disabled people as not ‘normal’. The work and pensions secretary should issue an immediate apology for calling non-disabled people ‘normal’.”

I just. . . I can't do it any more.

Fuck me.

Farmers have been filmed trying to drive tractors through a group of heavily armed riot police during violent clashes in Brussels, Belgium.

Farmers were protesting in the EU capital over milk and meat prices, which they say are down 30-40 percent, causing many farms to go bankrupt.

Rally organisers said at least 6000 farmers had gathered in the city, with 2000 tractors blocking traffic.

Tractors were used to try and break through the police cordon, while hundreds of protestors lit fires and threw stones, eggs and firecrackers at police officers.

The protest took place outside EU headquarters where the European Union’s agricultural ministers have gathered to discuss the market crisis.

Prices for European meat and milk have dropped due to falling Chinese demand, Russian embargos on Western products put in place in response to sanctions over the Ukraine conflict, and changing dietary habits.

The European Commission announced a 500 million euro package aiming to provide relief to farmers.

"This package will allow for 500 million euros of EU funds to be used for the benefit of farmers immediately. This is a robust and decisive response," European Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen said.

Secretary-General for the European Copa-Cogeca farmers union, Pekka Pesonen, said the aid package was nowhere near enough to compensate for the loss of the Russian market.

“EU farmers are paying the price for international politics,” he said.

HURR DURR GIV US LODS OF EMONE CUS FURMIN IS SPESHAL

-- Farmers everywhere.

octopuses are my second favorite animal

Octopoedi*

I am trained in economic calculation and I’m the top Austrian price theorist in the entire Mises Institute. Your arguments present nothing to me other than the usual New Keynesian claims regarding idle resources and the profit-and-loss mechanism. I will refute your assertions with precision the likes of which academia has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with arguing in a peer-reviewed journal that Say's Law is invalid and the "accelerator" and "multiplier" of the consumption function determine levels of employment? On the contrary, my friend, you are committing a very deep economic fallacy. As we speak I am contacting Peter Klein, Mario Rizzo, and Robert Murphy and your citation is being copied into my abstract, so you would do well to prepare for a comment. The comment that wipes out most of the claims asserted in your paper as though they are a priori principles, despite your other statements to the effect that they must be confirmed inductively somehow. You are going to be hard-pressed to respond in the next volume. I can publish in any journal, in any volume, and I can respond via a great variety of methodological approaches, and that's just with my own arguments. Not only am I extensively trained in the deconstruction of fallacious arguments, but I have access to the entire set of academic databases with economic sciences included as subjects and I will use them to their full extents to respond to your unfounded presuppositions. If only you could have known what response your otherwise non-controversial paper was about to bring down upon you, perhaps you would have reconsidered publishing it. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you are facing the consequences of intellectual laziness. I will bombard you with corrections and expositions, and you will be overwhelmed by them. You may have to reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of your methodology, professor.

ABCDEGHMNPQTVXYZ

Good news.

A tad ironic that liberals are the ones doing that too

I refuse to call these fucking retards liberals.