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 ... 320321322 323324 ... 502
9631
« on: December 23, 2014, 08:52:45 AM »
Who the fuck thinks this is even vaguely good marketing? It's just fucking sickening. I'm just trying to watch a bit of TV or a youtube video of whatever, and some cunting fat fuck-pig is there lathering his disgusting fucking titties. Fuck you, Otrivine.
9632
« on: December 23, 2014, 08:22:34 AM »
kekThere was recently a poll of the electorate to place the main parties and their leaders on a left-right political spectrum. It doesn't look like a good reflection of our understanding of politics. They were asked to go from zero (very left-wing) to ten (very right-wing). They placed the Conservative Party at 6.9, and fucking UKIP at 6.6. Nick Clegg apparently lies at 5.1 with his party - the Liberal Democrats - at 4.9. And - worst of all - Labour, Ed Miliband and the Green Party are all hovering around the same place at 4.1. Interestingly, Prince Charles is apparently at 5.9. Fucking retarded.
9633
« on: December 23, 2014, 06:50:31 AM »
Fuck me somebody move this.
9634
« on: December 23, 2014, 06:50:07 AM »
We see this not only in the left-wing papers of the Guardian and the Independent, but even the decidedly conservative Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph have their time to insult UKIP and accuse Nigel Farage of various - and largely untrue - things. For instance, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a journalist who identifies as a Shia Muslim and a feminist and writes for the Independent, made the claim that the media ought to be controlled to stop Nigel Farage from broadcasting as much as he'd like, and then going on to say that we should be "very worried" about him and UKIP. Of course, this is just one instance spreading fear about UKIP while, oftentimes, criticising them of spreading fear at the same time. I wonder how long it'll take the media to realise that Farage is essentially a British Reagan, and will stop mindlessly assaulting him. And this woman in the fucking Telegraph is using an unfortunate encounter with a racist to hate on UKIP. Fuck me.
9635
« on: December 22, 2014, 09:51:08 PM »
Sorry, I never join gay clubs.
9636
« on: December 22, 2014, 09:45:41 PM »
nope
This saddens me greatly.
9637
« on: December 22, 2014, 09:43:49 PM »
I love you so much, babe.
9638
« on: December 22, 2014, 09:42:32 PM »
UK ceases all trade with India and expels Ukraine from Jordon for assisting in the subjugation of Palestine.
Well. . . At least you stick to your principles.
9639
« on: December 22, 2014, 09:37:14 PM »
That Meta Cognition prick.
Or Nuka. Fucking newfag struts around like he made everybody's nameplate or something.
9640
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:55:06 PM »
Oh god, that show was just brilliant.
My favourite episode was the one in the dump where they pretend they're spacemen and the canker sisters are aliens.
That show, alongside Spongebob and Codename: Kids Next Door pretty much made my childhood.
9641
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:38:09 PM »
>dailymail
>Frenchsource
#europosting
9642
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:33:14 PM »
All I'll say is that tight montary policy around 2007 is what caused the Great Recession - which you can't blame on Reagan.
If you want to blame the financial crisis on somebody, blame whoever fucking wrote the Basel Accords.
dems were in control of congress in 2007
le maymay ebby posteng
Ah, but a Republican was in control of the Fed.
9643
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:19:53 PM »
All I'll say is that tight montary policy around 2007 is what caused the Great Recession - which you can't blame on Reagan.
If you want to blame the financial crisis on somebody, blame whoever fucking wrote the Basel Accords.
9644
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:11:56 PM »
- Beginning of economic policies that directly led to the Great Recession
*leaves thread* Not today.
9645
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:10:06 PM »
At first I thought you meant instruments which were underrated in their capacity to function as excrement.
9646
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:08:37 PM »
Moral reletavism has gone way too far. It's time for some fucking purges.
9647
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:06:54 PM »
But they'll just claim something else or that they're using the language in a way that aligns with what you say, but uses the words differently.
I'll still take the challenge. Logical positivists die hard.
9648
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:02:26 PM »
no one posted the chart yet
That's actually ridiculously useful - thanks.
9649
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:01:33 PM »
Anyone who identifies as "agnostic" and nothing else is a ball-less wonder.
I really don't care how people identify. If anything it sort of reveals much about how they orientate their beliefs and values. Assuming they understand the partition in the first place, of course.
9650
« on: December 22, 2014, 08:00:07 PM »
This will never end.
Anybody who disputes this is pretty much demonstrably just using the langauge incorrectly.
9651
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:57:28 PM »
I'm posting this for a couple of reasons. First of all it's because a semi-debate in PSUs thread was hobbled by bad communication (probably on my part) and because this is something a lot of people tend not to know. Also, since it's more of a philosophical explanation than anything controversial or anything to be debated about, I figure I'll put it into the Flood for the sake of discussion value.
The first thing which is important to understand is that the two aren't fundamentally different positions on the same spectrum. For instance, you can be an atheist and an agnostic - as most people are. You can also be an agnostic and a theist.
The two differ in their foundations. Agnosticism is concerned with epistemology, and usually asserts that we don't know - and can go on to say we never will. Atheism is more to do with ontology and metaphysics, and is thus conerned with belief.
A lot of atheist are agnostics because they don't claim that God doesn't exist - they simply claim to not believe in a god. They say they don't know if God exists and thus lack faith. Making them both agnostics and atheists, however this position is configurated.
For theists, it can be much the same. A lot of theists aren't agnostics, and are instead fideists since they claim their belief in God through faith - although some certainly have faith while still being explicitly agnostic.
Hopefully that's cleared it up.
9652
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:45:53 PM »
That's nice.
I still don't consider myself an atheist.
I don't know why you're so forcefully rejecting the idea of atheism. I'm certainly not trying to convince you to go around identifying as an atheist, I'm just trying to explain to you why you are philosophically an atheist whether you choose to identify in such a way or not.
I'm not attempting to alter your behaviour in any way, I'm just trying to correct a confusion you have which I encounter often.
Fundamentally they are different.
Atheist: God does not Exist
Agnostic: I don't know if God exists, and I never will.
There we go. Not much pointing in going in circles now.
Except that's not true. There's a big leap between disavowing a belief in god and then actively claiming he doesn't exist - the latter of which very few do.
9653
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:42:55 PM »
No.
9654
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:39:51 PM »
That's nice.
I still don't consider myself an atheist.
I don't know why you're so forcefully rejecting the idea of atheism. I'm certainly not trying to convince you to go around identifying as an atheist, I'm just trying to explain to you why you are philosophically an atheist whether you choose to identify in such a way or not. I'm not attempting to alter your behaviour in any way, I'm just trying to correct a confusion you have which I encounter often.
9655
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:33:38 PM »
Assumptions assumptions.
You can be an atheist and spiritual. . . Theravada Buddhists manage it quite well.
So, I'll ask you directly. Do you believe that a deity of any description exists?
Hey guess what, the agnostic label still fits.
That means I'm agnostic.
So I specifically believe in anything? I can't tell you, because I don't acknowledge that which we don't know as an absolute. I don't need to go into detail about my beliefs or even my knowledge in scripture for you to tell me what I am because I already know.
Okay. But at no point did I say you weren't an agnostic. . .
You said it was the same thing as being an atheist. Which I'm not.
Most people that argue that also try to assert that by that logic, there's no such thing as agnostic.
Umm. . . No I didn't. This is probably my fault for not communicating well enough but I'm arguing the two are in separate realms of philosophy. You can be an agnostic and a theist, in the same way you can not be an agnostic and an athesit. You're initial point which was wrong however is that there's a meanigful difference between the two; that they're two points on the same spectrum, in some respects. And yes, you're an atheist by the look of it. You told me earlier somethig along the lines of now acknowledging that which we don't know as absolute, which is actually quite a damning indictment of a lack of faith. Atheism is a default position, not an active one.
9656
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:28:09 PM »
Assumptions assumptions.
You can be an atheist and spiritual. . . Theravada Buddhists manage it quite well.
So, I'll ask you directly. Do you believe that a deity of any description exists?
Hey guess what, the agnostic label still fits.
That means I'm agnostic.
So I specifically believe in anything? I can't tell you, because I don't acknowledge that which we don't know as an absolute. I don't need to go into detail about my beliefs or even my knowledge in scripture for you to tell me what I am because I already know.
Okay. But at no point did I say you weren't an agnostic. . .
9657
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:26:38 PM »
I'll bet you're one of those people that denies the existence of pansexuality and writes it off as bisexuality. Just because they're slightly different but still very similar, it doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Except I don't do that and didn't come close to arguing that.
It's the same argument.
I don't understand what you mean - expand please.
9658
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:25:59 PM »
a stupid thing to argue about.
That's true for this entire thread, which is why it hasn't been moved to Serious.
I'm curious though as to why you think my arguments were poor?
The primary issue for me is a psychological one. Subjective meanings have the capacity to motivate and emote their holders, and since there is no sort of continued experience it doesn't matter that they might be forgotten. They still motivate the agent in such a span of time that it, as far as it matters, makes it permanent.
Also, truth isn't predicated on some metaphysical conception of meaning. You could be correct in saying that subjective meaning is meaningless a priori, but that doesn't make the existence of a God any more likely.
The first half I don't agree with, because to me it still seems meaningless.
Yet where I coming from that looks solidly like a subjective meaning repudiating other subjective meanings.
9659
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:24:27 PM »
Assumptions assumptions.
You can be an atheist and spiritual. . . Theravada Buddhists manage it quite well. So, I'll ask you directly. Do you believe that a deity of any description exists?
9660
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:22:25 PM »
a stupid thing to argue about.
That's true for this entire thread, which is why it hasn't been moved to Serious.
I'm curious though as to why you think my arguments were poor?
The primary issue for me is a psychological one. Subjective meanings have the capacity to motivate and emote their holders, and since there is no sort of continued experience it doesn't matter that they might be forgotten. They still motivate the agent in such a span of time that it, as far as it matters, makes it permanent.
Also, truth isn't predicated on some metaphysical conception of meaning. You could be correct in saying that subjective meaning is meaningless a priori, but that doesn't make the existence of a God any more likely.
I'll bet you're one of those people that denies the existence of pansexuality and writes it off as bisexuality. Just because they're slightly different but still very similar, it doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Except I don't do that and didn't come close to arguing that. I also think you quoted the wrong post.
Pages: 1 ... 320321322 323324 ... 502
|
Show Posts
