Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 23, 2015, 04:01:16 PM

Actual answer:

Spoiler

Kar98k

Fucking barbarians.

Lol Garand > Carbine

Actual answer:

there is a 50/50 chance that any given user is gay or bi

Duh, they either are or they're not.

50/50.

Something along the lines of: I don't want to die, so I assume you also don't want to die. So then we shouldn't kill each other.

I guess.

I'll lay my position out in a set of premises, if you like:

- Moral sentences express propositions, are are thus truth-apt
- These propositions relate to objective facts about the world
- These objective facts (moral features) are reducible to non-moral facts.

In this way, we can determine exactly what is (im)moral within a situation, in principle.

They have all of the same rights as us, and I applaud India for recognizing dolphins as non-human persons.

I'm quite a big believer in the personhood of certain animals like dolphins, elephants and chimpanzees (or used to be, anyway). I'm just not sure if its personhood, in a proper sense, if the dolphins (or whatever) can't conceive of their obligation to respect the personhood of one another.

Like, we understand it. But I'm not entirely sure if it's really applicable to animals.

I've been struggling with the idea that animals have rights. It seems to me that having rights implies obligations (you're obligated to not murder your neighbour), but how can we grant rights to the likes of those who lack the cognitive ability to even conceive of such concepts in the first place?

Do rights imply obligations?

I used to be of the opinion that 'rights' don't exist in any real, or objective, sense. I've changed my mind. I think rights necessarily stem from morality, and since morality is objective then (some) rights are necessarily objective, also.

It seems that the individuals of a society are to be endowed with all the negative rights reasonable to foster self-reliance and a sense of regularity. Certain positive rights also necessarily exist, in the name of morality.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more the line between rights and morality becomes blurry. It seems that rights are essentially just politco-legal manifestations of morality. It might not be true to say, in that case, that rights themselves are objective, but that rights have an objective basis.

I don't know, I need to think about it.

Quote from: Camnator on January 23, 2015, 01:31:26 PM

Also, you can live ANYWHERE in the United States for $8 an hour.

No, incorrect. My rent is $1050/mo. Even if I didn't pay taxes, I would barely have enough to keep my roof over my head at $8/hr. That's not to mention food, utilities, car, cell phone, and other expenses.

Stop making shit up.

Not everyone lives in your crazy little fantasy world.

While I agree with you, I'm not sure you can use your rent as a metric.

>dankier

Are you austistic?

inb4lock

CNN

(CNN)Song lyrics that glorify violence are hardly uncommon. But a prosecutor in California says one rapper's violent lyrics go beyond creative license to conspiracy.

San Diego-based rapper Tiny Doo has already spent eight months in prison, and faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted under a little-known California statute that makes it illegal to benefit from gang activities.

The statute in question is California Penal Code 182.5. The code makes it a felony for anyone to participate in a criminal street gang, have knowledge that a street gang has engaged in criminal activity, or benefit from that activity.

It's that last part -- benefiting from criminal activity -- that prosecutors are going after the rapper for.

Tiny Doo, whose real name is Brandon Duncan, faces nine counts of criminal street gang conspiracy because prosecutors allege he and 14 other alleged gang members increased their stature and respect following a rash of shootings in the city in 2013.

Prosecutors point to Tiny Doo's album, "No Safety," and to lyrics like "Ain't no safety on this pistol I'm holding" as examples of a "direct correlation to what the gang has been doing."

No one suggests the rapper ever actually pulled a trigger.

In fact, Duncan may rap about violence but he's got no criminal record.

Duncan told CNN's Don Lemon he's just "painting a picture of urban street life" with his lyrics.

"The studio is my canvas. I'm just painting a picture," he said. "I'm not telling anybody to go out and kill somebody."

He denied any involvement with any gang but said the prosecution has him concerned about future creative expression.

"I would love to continue to rap," he said. "But these people have you scared to do anything around here."

Prosecutors say lyrics aren't the only evidence they have. At Duncan's preliminary hearing, they presented social media posts that they say prove Duncan is still a gang member.

CNN Legal Analyst Mark Geragos says the district attorney may be trying to send a message "that you shouldn't glorify or glamorize gang activity."

"The problem is you're going to run straight head-on into the First Amendment," he said. "If they don't have anything other than the album, this case I don't think would ever stand up."

Yeah, and my country is the one assaulting freedom of speech.

You kidding?

I am the government agent.

What if the God you fear is Satan himself?

Oh my fucking God, Dustin, take it to the cunting sep7agon board. Stop shitting up my threads with your bullshit.

Well, it wasn't his wife...

Just googled him.

My kinda man.