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 - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 123124125 126127 ... 306
3721
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:50:01 PM »
I'd probably just ask which of her ex's has the best dick.
3722
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:26:08 PM »
> thinking I know what to do with this
3723
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:22:54 PM »
> Watching GoT, but not House of Cards.
Verb, I'm disappointed.
3724
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:20:49 PM »
my alternate banners script fixes it
give me this script.
3725
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:20:19 PM »
After Kingdom Hearts 2, I gave up following the story seeing as they made like 40 hand held games I couldn't care less about.
Eh. I could write a synopsis if you'd like.
3726
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:01:57 PM »
Kingdom Hearts just looks like Deviantart made into a videogame
Don't start coming in here and trashing a game when you know damn well that you would not like it to happen in a Metal Gear Solid thread.
3727
« on: September 24, 2015, 06:43:20 PM »
Been wanting to try this series out for awhile. Love the idea and gameplay looks fun. 1.5 remix is $15 on amazon, worth it?
For $15, yes. Do not watch the movie for 358/2 days until you get 2.5 remix and play through Kingdom Hearts 2 though.
3728
« on: September 24, 2015, 06:42:25 PM »
looks more lively then the US Congress.
Ah, the good old days.
Of course South Carolina had to ruin it.
3729
« on: September 24, 2015, 06:13:52 PM »
I feel like I'm watching a reality show.
3730
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:38:14 PM »
But the world is objectively better off with us running shit.
Absolutely not.
Would you rather see Russian or Chinese hegemony?
Look at the other world powers and ask yourself how life would be if they had the influence the US has.
I'd rather see none of the above.
And I'd rather see us in a world with no governments at all, but we have to play with the hand we're dealt and right now the best combination we have is one with the US, or at the very least the collective "west", at the head of the pack.
The United States needs to focus on our growing plethora of problems internally.
We can't keep ignoring those to play Freedom Squad.
For every problem solved a new perceived problem will prop up.
Meanwhile, Rosija is invading the baltic states and China controls Taiwan.
We don't have to ignore internal problems to keep the wolves of the world in line.
We also don't need to start a conflict with Russia and China.
It is not our responsibility to be the Worlds Police and get involved in every conflict, aside from humanitarian aid.
Actually it is. You can thank Theodore Roosevelt for that
Ew.
3731
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:35:24 PM »
But the world is objectively better off with us running shit.
Absolutely not.
Would you rather see Russian or Chinese hegemony?
Look at the other world powers and ask yourself how life would be if they had the influence the US has.
I'd rather see none of the above.
And I'd rather see us in a world with no governments at all, but we have to play with the hand we're dealt and right now the best combination we have is one with the US, or at the very least the collective "west", at the head of the pack.
The United States needs to focus on our growing plethora of problems internally.
We can't keep ignoring those to play Freedom Squad.
For every problem solved a new perceived problem will prop up.
Meanwhile, Rosija is invading the baltic states and China controls Taiwan.
We don't have to ignore internal problems to keep the wolves of the world in line.
We also don't need to start a conflict with Russia and China.
It is not our responsibility to be the Worlds Police and get involved in every conflict, aside from humanitarian aid.
>start
Start, engage, join - We do not need it.
3732
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:32:08 PM »
But the world is objectively better off with us running shit.
Absolutely not.
Would you rather see Russian or Chinese hegemony?
Look at the other world powers and ask yourself how life would be if they had the influence the US has.
I'd rather see none of the above.
And I'd rather see us in a world with no governments at all, but we have to play with the hand we're dealt and right now the best combination we have is one with the US, or at the very least the collective "west", at the head of the pack.
The United States needs to focus on our growing plethora of problems internally.
We can't keep ignoring those to play Freedom Squad.
For every problem solved a new perceived problem will prop up.
Meanwhile, Rosija is invading the baltic states and China controls Taiwan.
We don't have to ignore internal problems to keep the wolves of the world in line.
We also don't need to start a conflict with Russia and China. It is not our responsibility to be the Worlds Police and get involved in every conflict, aside from humanitarian aid.
3733
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:15:25 PM »
But the world is objectively better off with us running shit.
Absolutely not.
Would you rather see Russian or Chinese hegemony?
Look at the other world powers and ask yourself how life would be if they had the influence the US has.
I'd rather see none of the above.
And I'd rather see us in a world with no governments at all, but we have to play with the hand we're dealt and right now the best combination we have is one with the US, or at the very least the collective "west", at the head of the pack.
The United States needs to focus on our growing plethora of problems internally. We can't keep ignoring those to play Freedom Squad.
3734
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:11:41 PM »
But the world is objectively better off with us running shit.
Absolutely not.
Would you rather see Russian or Chinese hegemony?
Look at the other world powers and ask yourself how life would be if they had the influence the US has.
I'd rather see none of the above.
3735
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:09:40 PM »
1.) What would you change
2.) Why
3.) What do you think would change in modern day
3736
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:07:45 PM »
But the world is objectively better off with us running shit.
Absolutely not.
3737
« on: September 24, 2015, 04:47:57 PM »
Driving currently
Is that a Nissan altima?
> steering wheel says Ford > Nissan Altima
3738
« on: September 24, 2015, 04:26:12 PM »
What on Earth is that?
3739
« on: September 24, 2015, 04:18:34 PM »
I'm a CIS white male.
3740
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:46:17 PM »
No, I'll have ABC on.
What the fuck is on ABC at that time?
Gay soap operas.
Much better than a meh sci-fi show that was rebooted due to a network failing at everything else.
Heroes' finally canceled
3741
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:44:47 PM »
Me - Dicks.
3742
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:34:52 PM »
No, I'll have ABC on.
What the fuck is on ABC at that time?
Gay soap operas. Much better than a meh sci-fi show that was rebooted due to a network failing at everything else.
3743
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:29:52 PM »
Evolution, or at least micro-evolution, is something that can be, and has been, observed. And while extensive evolution (Such as humans evolving from ape-like ancestors) has not been viewed by scientists, skeletal remains do show this. Just to point this out: there's literally no difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Creationists pretty much invented the concept to give themselves some wiggle room when the science began buttfucking them.
Terminology aside - the point being that people who decry that evolution is a lie have been proven wrong. It's a poor example to use. Just because people don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean it isn't true. Science is absolutes - morals are not.
My point was that disagreements do not prove subjectivity.
If a dictatorship and democratic nation both were successful, it's people happy and prosperous, which nation's government is morally correct? Not from your opinion Meta, from a moral stance.
3744
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:27:03 PM »
No, I'll have ABC on.
3745
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:26:33 PM »
Can you test them in a scientific lab to say "Person A's morals are the correct ones?"
Yes, if you identify the best basis for morality.
Explain.
3746
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:26:09 PM »
but killing in war is apparently okay to some, while to others it isn't.
And some people don't believe in evolution.
Evolution, or at least micro-evolution, is something that can be, and has been, observed. And while extensive evolution (Such as humans evolving from ape-like ancestors) has not been viewed by scientists, skeletal remains do show this. Just because people don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean it isn't true. Science is absolutes - morals are not.
3747
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:23:29 PM »
Tell me - if a lion kills a zebra, is the lion morally right? Do any species, outside of humans, have morals to even live by? they lack the ability to reason, so obviously not
So, humans are the only species that have morals? Then where does this idea that what we believe as morals is absolutely correct? Absolutes only should occur in fields such as science - you can test it, prove it, and repeat the scenarios again and again until it's become a fact. Morals are not subjective. What people in western culture believe (Such as democracy) is different than what people in African or East Asian cultures believe. Some people believe that killing is never allowed, while others believe it should only be in war or self defense. The scenario's go on and on - homosexuality, drug use, abortions, finances, etc. Who is right in any of these scenarios? Can you test them in a scientific lab to say "Person A's morals are the correct ones?"
3748
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:15:15 PM »
Take killings for example. We all preach that killing should be wrong - but killing in war is apparently okay to some, while to others it isn't. What about killing for self defense? Is that morally acceptable, when you are still taking another life?
the fact that we can debate moral principles does not make it subjective
we debate scientific principles ALL the fucking time
i guess science is subjective now
Tell me - if a lion kills a zebra, is the lion morally right? Do any species, outside of humans, have morals to even live by?
3749
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:09:54 PM »
Morality, and immorality, are both subjective. What is moral is not, for the most part, concrete.
this is wrong, though
Except it isn't. Morality, what we consider to be moral, is entirely a human concept. Go out into the wilderness of, say, the rainforest. Or attempt to test it in a scientific lab. You aren't going to get any results, because outside of our species, it does not exist. Take killings for example. We all preach that killing should be wrong - but killing in war is apparently okay to some, while to others it isn't. What about killing for self defense? Is that morally acceptable, when you are still taking another life?
3750
« on: September 24, 2015, 03:06:53 PM »
Also, the concept of "Fuck it, if you want to do it then do it!" is fucking stupid.
Um, no. It's literally the basis of morality. It's your body, and if you want to improve or destroy it in any way, that's your choice.
the basis of morality is stupid, is the point
if i had it my way, no one would ever be able to make bad choices
ever
That's evil. You have no right to make that decision for someone else, period. We all have our time on this earth, and you can't tell someone they have to change the way they're living their life if they're only hurting themselves. Again, that would be an extremely immoral thing to impose and enforce.
One could also say it's evil to allow someone to destroy their body and life, on the basis of "I can do what I want."
One would be wrong. It's immoral to stop a consenting individual from doing anything to his own body. It's just your emotions that are blinding you here. No one has a say in what happens to your body but you.
Morality, and immorality, are both subjective. What is moral is not, for the most part, concrete.
Pages: 1 ... 123124125 126127 ... 306
|
Show Posts