Quote from: Verbatim on October 23, 2016, 09:23:49 AM

Yeah, by restricting your child's access to the Internet--not the public's access to pornography.

But this will inevitably lead to children seeing pornography.

Not if you're a responsible parent who knows how to apply the appropriate levels of supervision and restrict access when necessary.

If a kid sees a porn site, it's really not that big of a deal anyway. It really isn't. Just carefully and sternly explain to him that what he saw was "for adults only" and not to visit that website again. If he doesn't listen, WHO CARES--it's just fucking porn. I've watched porn since I was twelve. It's not the end of the world if your kid likes watching porn.

And if he's like, eight years old, why the fuck are you letting him on the Internet anyway? If you're old enough to use the Internet by yourself without supervision, you're old enough to watch porn (so, 12+ preferably above). That's my opinion.

Yeah, by restricting your child's access to the Internet--not the public's access to pornography.

Quote from: Karjala takaisin on October 22, 2016, 07:32:34 PM

If Jews are in control why are there no Hollywood movies about the Six-Day-War and Yom Kippur War?

Americans won't watch a war movie if it's not about Americans fighting.

they'll watch A Serious Man and nominate it for best picture, though

Quote from: Street Hawk on October 22, 2016, 10:37:08 AM

I find it interesting how close they all are in %

maybe he only chose to answer a few questions, or just gave simple yes/no answers

You don't even seem interested in discussing the premise. You immediately interpret it as offensive and result to ridiculing some minuscule structural element of the associated Guardian article as a sweeping deconstruction of the thesis. You're not willing to have a sincere discussion, so I don't even understand why you're posting in this thread.

probably because any notion that conservatives have anything called "virtues" triggers the fuck out of me

The different moral foundations are specifically defined. They are, if I remember them correctly: Care, Fairness, Liberty,  Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity.

Liberals tend to care about the first three

False--liberals tend to reject the last two--authority and sanctity. The first four are well-regarded on both sides of the political spectrum, and any outliers must be looked upon from an individual basis. I'm gonna assume you know all this

Also, the whole there-is-no-god thing kind of nullifies "sanctity" as a moral foundation. In other words, it's not one.

This shouldn't be surprising; conservatives are more likely to be patriotic

False, liberals are the most patriotic people in the country. You can't truly love your country if you don't hate the fuck out of it. If you're talking about patriotism in the traditional flag-waving jingoistic sense, I consider that pretty narrow and ill-thought-out.

I'm pretty sure in his book the Righteous Mind he openly talks about how consideration for certain foundations can be bad and have been bad at certain points in history.

I'm referring specifically to this essay. Does he not, in this essay, directly imply some kind of moral superiority over liberals just for clinging to these redundant, arbitrary, and bogus moral foundations?

But honestly it feels like you're reading that into his argument because you disagree with it. All he's saying is that conservative parties are successful because they appeal to a wider space of moral concern; if anything, he's suggesting liberal parties do the same to capture more of the vote. There's no real reason why liberal parties wouldn't be able to do this, to snag more conservatively minded independents, and maybe even conservative voters themselves.

I'm not so sure. It seems leftists, and especially these neo-new-age-leftists, are forever doomed to be unable to consider the foundations of authority and sanctity. As much as I shill for Jill, her extreme Gaiaism is a slight put-off. It's good to be an environmentalist, but to go religiously overboard with it is just kinda gross, and I think that's part of why people tend to distance themselves from the Green Party, if they don't overtly disagree with it: they're really just a bunch of zealous hippies.

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2733377535

85% Jills
69% Hills
60% Who's this guy?
44% Gary "Reddit" Johnson
23% Trump
17% Darrel Castle this guy seems like a massive cunt

im starting to think there are way more people who complain about "stoner culture" than there are stereotypical stoners

No shit there are. Point?

Quote from: Verbatim on October 21, 2016, 04:41:03 PM

Quote from: Azumarill on October 21, 2016, 04:38:31 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 21, 2016, 03:56:29 PM

Eat a salad.

oh man what a zinger

It's not a zinger, it's friendly advice.

Fat people are disgusting--especially when they're stupid.

kill yourself

Eat a salad.

Quote from: Verbatim on October 21, 2016, 03:56:29 PM

Eat a salad.

oh man what a zinger

It's not a zinger, it's friendly advice.

Fat people are disgusting--especially when they're stupid.

Is anyone else amused by the fact that Nintendo is totally side-stepping the VR race?

i wonder why

Nah don't worry about it. You might still be able to do it, but I don't know.

Why did you think you couldn't?

I was just never really taught what to do if you see an officer abusing their power, I guess. I know you can report officers, of course, but I didn't know you could specifically ask for information about the officer that they just dispatched. Like, they keep track of that shit? And you can just receive that information on demand?

It makes sense that they would, but I dunno, that seems a little too convenient. I'll stop by the station later and see what I can do, though.

The point is that conservatives tend to have a wider degree of moral concerns than liberals; this doesn't mean better.

How do do you figure? If you have a wider degree of moral concerns, how is that not better by default? I just don't think that stands to reason.

Even if you're right, is that not what Haidt is implying?

You could, after all, convincingly argue that the moral foundations conservatives care about are bad things to care about.

Absolutely. I'd say half of them are bullshit--and I don't think I need to clarify which ones.

Neither are you. You should know that outliers, such as you might be, are not especially important in a statistical sense. The fact that you specifically exist and disagree with the way Haidt is making his argument means very little.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that I, as an outlier, have no reason to think that Haidt by any means knows what he's talking about. Because I would argue that I'm not an outlier. Most liberals have a broader moral scope than conservatives--that's what I'd argue.

It's hard to argue that conservatives have a broader moral scope when they're slaves to self-interest. They don't act based on what they believe is right--they act based on what'll wank their dicks harder, whether they'd like to admit it or not.

You should also know that a Guardian article is a jumping off point for further discussion and investigation; not rigorous canon of social psychology. Tearing down the article doesn't equal tearing down the theory.

Fair enough.

Speaking of, I had to call the police on someone for the first time the other night. Some dude was just blaring music in his truck at 3:00 AM, and that was the one night where I didn't feel like depriving myself of sleep. But I wouldn't have done anything had I not noticed that he was also tweaking the fuck out--which sealed his fate for me. Where I live, there are swaths of methheads that only come out at night--but this one was over-the-top obnoxious.

So, I watched as the cops came and told him to fuck off--but not before the tweaker asked where the call was coming from. And for some bloody ass-fucked reason, the officer actually answered him, pointing his flashlight directly at my house--something he literally can't do, but did anyway. The little miscreant slithered off, but now he knows where the guy who called the police on him lives. Thanks, officer!

I still can't believe he did that shit, but it's been two weeks, and nothing has really happened since then. Still, it's hard not to be a little paranoid over having some tweaked-out loser skulking around my neighborhood at night with a bone to pick. Fucking creeps.

Quote from: Onion on October 20, 2016, 09:33:49 PM

What went wrong?

The fact that it just sucked the original Dark Souls dick with "DUDE REFERENCES LMAO" and blended it with some aspects of Bloodborne instead of trying something new like Dark Souls 2.

Really, Dark Souls 1 or Bloodborne are infinitely better choices over Dark Souls 3. Hell, Dark Souls 2 is more fun.

I've yet to play 2 or 3, but it's uncanny how this model mirrors the original Castlevania trilogy on the NES.

Castlevania & Dark Souls--beloved games generally regarded as benchmarks for their era.
Castlevania 2 & Dark Souls 2--disappointing installments that failed to capture what made the original so good.
Castlevania 3 & Dark Souls 3--great games that went back to the franchise's roots, but sacrificing some innovation.

That seems to be the general impression I get from people, anyway.

What a stupid reason to disagree with the thrust of the article.

The thrust of the article is retarded on its own--I just think it's funny how he's using such a weak analogy to substantiate it. That's how you know he's reaching, and proving his own point that people will go to great lengths to believe whatever they want to believe.

He's using an incredibly common concept to explain the idea of differing moral concerns.

No, not just differing moral concerns--his claim is that conservatives tend to have broader moral concerns (which is a weasel word for "better"). That was the point of his dopey analogy. Because apparently, leftists are only concerned about "sweet," which he analogizes as the poor and the infirm.

In sum, the left has a tendency to place caring for the weak, sick and vulnerable above all other moral concerns.

[citation needed]

When all I have to do to prove his point wrong is... exist, he's not making a very robust argument, is he?