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 ... 585960 6162 ... 502
1771
« on: June 14, 2016, 07:19:45 AM »
Many a'times have we found a stray bud in a person's room. Many a'times have we lost bags of recently purchased marihuana.
Still, ever since a friend of mine coughed like five lines of ketamine into the air I don't really care about losing weed. It pales in comparison.
1772
« on: June 14, 2016, 07:14:55 AM »
I'm genuinely surprised you three find that to be an incredulous proposition. Clinton is widely acknowledged as something of a zombie candidate.
1773
« on: June 14, 2016, 07:11:03 AM »
1774
« on: June 14, 2016, 07:09:48 AM »
that's the most incorrect thing i've read all month
Clearly not.
1775
« on: June 13, 2016, 10:24:04 PM »
People say the election was rigged on the Democratic side. Not really, just heavily biased in favor of Clinton.
It doesn't help that you have a corporate news media, where some including Time Warner (CNN's parent company) gave money to Clinton. The way the Associated Press declared Clinton the presumptive nominee before the California primary is just one example of corruption in media and their influence on the way people vote.
Clinton has received the most negative news coverage of any candidate this cycle.
1776
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:57:35 PM »
Thinking
The central point we're making is that soldiers do precisely none of that in such a situation, and that this is the problem. We just differ from you in that we'd rather not run around calling soldiers sexist for acting as their instincts tell them to in the middle of a fucking combat situation. Have you ever spoken to a solider? Most of them will tell you that being in a fire-fight is like a drug; we don't train soldiers to think properly because nobody can think properly in a combat situation.
1777
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:54:06 PM »
They did warn us that Ramadan would be a month of terror.
1778
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:28:54 PM »
It's not some unavoidable problem that the soldiers we're choosing to enlist are sexists.
In what universe is men going beserk to protect women sexist?
1779
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:11:16 PM »
and apparently part of that is thinking you need to protect women.
No, he's saying that this is going to be a part of most male soldier's mindsets whether we like it or not. I really don't think Challenger considers going beserk in order to protect women a good thing, in that it improves soldier performance. If you don't understand this point by now, you have no business discussing the topic with him.
1780
« on: June 13, 2016, 04:54:48 PM »
Training and experience is what turns you into that
No, it isn't.
You need grit. One of the primary functions of boot camp is to weed out people who just can't do it.
Grit =/= thinking women are beneath you
How is that relevant to what I said?
1781
« on: June 13, 2016, 04:39:29 PM »
We can rest easy knowing the Green Party won't hit that threshold, though.
1782
« on: June 13, 2016, 04:38:31 PM »
Johnson is polling at 12 percent nationally, son.
THIS IS OUR YEAR TO WIN THAT FIVE
This drops to around 4-6pc when Jill Stein is considered as a candidate, and there is an average margin of error of ~3pc. That being said, there was a poll by NBC news with the biggest sample size I've seen for this cycle that put him at 9pc with a margin of error of 1.4pc.
1783
« on: June 13, 2016, 01:22:31 PM »
where the fuck u been m8
Most days? Avoiding sobriety.
1784
« on: June 13, 2016, 01:20:24 PM »
A) don't understand how anybody can seriously be shocked by an act of Islamic terrorism anymore. It's like car accidents on the highway at this point. Yeah, it's unfortunate, but it happens all the time now. Literally nobody who has been paying attention is shocked by this. Because it happened to "my countrymen" or whatever?
Uh. . . Yeah. At least in part. Parochialism is actually pretty useful. EDIT: We should feel the weight of the situation because it happened to our 'countrymen', not necessarily respond emotionally. I had almost no emotional response to this shooting, but it doesn't stop me appreciating the tragedy of the situation.
1785
« on: June 13, 2016, 11:18:05 AM »
So stop trying to debate me please.
Something about this thread makes me think you find it easier to just try and tell people what to do, rather than actually reflect on your own actions.
1786
« on: June 13, 2016, 11:03:31 AM »
It was hours after the fact, only hours.
We knew by the fourth comment that the shooter was a Muslim of Afghan heritage.
Having a discussion about whether or not America has a problem with gun control or with Muslim integration seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do after we've discovered that a Muslim shot a bunch of people. What speculation are you referring to, specifically?
You don't like what I said? Tough shit.
I'm trying to ascertain exactly what speculation you have a problem with in this thread. If you just want to sit there and repeat what you said, as if it gives your position any legitimacy, then fine. But at least be honest with yourself. You've come into this thread, grossly misrepresented the opinions expressed within and then called out some speculation which you're yet to identify. And you did all of this pages after we knew that the mass shooting was perpetrated by a Muslim.
1787
« on: June 13, 2016, 11:00:05 AM »
It was hours after the fact, only hours.
We knew by the fourth comment that the shooter was a Muslim of Afghan heritage. Having a discussion about whether or not America has a problem with gun control or with Muslim integration seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do after we've discovered that a Muslim shot a bunch of people. What speculation are you referring to, specifically?
1788
« on: June 13, 2016, 10:44:13 AM »
If you want to call me a hypocrite at least have a decent reason.
How is misrepresenting the political views expressed in this thread, specifically to suit your narrative of "Shut up and pay your respects" anything but politicisation? You may disagree with it, but you're contributing to the problem you yourself identify when you make stupid generalisations (the second of which is almost entirely incorrect) about the positions people are expressing.
1789
« on: June 13, 2016, 10:32:48 AM »
Of course you can debate about the topic. But when I made that post news about what happened was just starting to get detailed and automatically people were debating about this shit.
The problem is that you can't seriously claim to have represented what was said in this thread. Need I remind you of your comment? trying to push your agenda of MOAR GUN CONTROLZ or GIT RID OF ALL DA MUSLIMS. If you're going to criticise people for politicising a tragedy, literally the least you could do is not be a hypocrite.
1790
« on: June 13, 2016, 09:40:23 AM »
Awful. You clearly can't know it's an awful list given that you didn't properly read the OP: I'm just going off my own books, so feel free to suggest additions. The whole point of this thread is reciprocity.
1791
« on: June 13, 2016, 09:34:14 AM »
God damnit people. 50+ people just died because some idiot with a gun decided he didn't like gay people.
And you all are acting like fucking politicians trying to push your agenda of MOAR GUN CONTROLZ or GIT RID OF ALL DA MUSLIMS.
Honestly, stop and mourn for the people who just died and pray/cross your fingers for the people who are critically injured from this. Even if you don't fucking know them.
I know right. How terrible of us to be concerned with the implications for policy from this event! You can act as if the people who want to have meaningful discussions after tragedies are at fault--not that all people discuss such things appropriately--but equally it's sanctimonious fucks who insist we shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from this, and that we should just sit around feeling bad for the victims for a while.
1792
« on: June 13, 2016, 09:28:57 AM »
Training and experience is what turns you into that
No, it isn't. You need grit. One of the primary functions of boot camp is to weed out people who just can't do it.
1793
« on: June 13, 2016, 06:01:32 AM »
1794
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:54:35 AM »
1795
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:35:49 AM »
When everything is a religion, nothing is a religion.So one critique of these accusations is that “religion” is a broad enough category that anything can be mapped on to it:
Does it have well-known figures? Then they’re “gurus” and it’s a religion.
Are there books about it? Then those are “scriptures” and it’s a religion.
Does it recommend doing anything regularly? Then those are “rituals” and it’s a religion.
How about just doing anything at all? Then that’s a “commandment” and it’s a religion.
Does it say something is bad? Then that’s “sin” and it’s a religion.
Does it hope to improve the world, or worry about the world getting worse? That’s an “eschatology” and it’s a religion.
Do you disagree with it? Then since you’ve already determined all the evidence is against it, people must believe it on “faith” and it’s a religion.
1796
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:33:00 AM »
1) I never said right ir wrong. They simply exist. You thinking they are right or wrong is one set of morals viewing another. Morals just are. I never said you said right or wrong. I'm pointing out that offering us differing opinions on any subject matter doesn't induce subjectivity. 2) About science. Science exists separate from morality. Science also lies apart from humanities, does this mean there are no correct answers in history? For there to be a universal morality, it would have to come either inherent in our genes, or externally, say from a god or gods. Universal =/= objective. We can speak objectively about ontologically subjective facts; we do the same in medicine. I have no idea why you think it's any different here. Sadly, the only true thing even close to a universal moral code is preserve your life and the life of your family. That's really it. While we live among technological marvels, we've not made it past tribalism. States, Nations, Religions... They're all nothing more than tribes. We still fight over resources, land and power. I would ask you, then, whether or not you find it interesting that there appears to be a moral rule which transcends culture? Because that, to me, would hint that there's something non-arbitrary about the ways in which we could prevent unnecessary suffering. The fact that we are tribal creatures is a modifier to any system of 'objective' morality we want to discover, not a refutation. All that tells is is that there is probably some legitimacy to values like loyalty and parochialism. To perhaps make it a little easier, let me phrase it another way: ignore the word "objective". This is my argument: there exist courses of action which, when taken, encourages Eudaimonia (or human flourishing/well-being/lack of suffering). My point is that when we are discussing what we ought to do, the Eudaimonic answer is the only rational one. It's the only moral code that actually makes sense.
1797
« on: June 12, 2016, 06:33:03 PM »
 A topless woman decked as a bird hovered above actors representing the nine construction workers who died during the building of the tunnel what the fuck
1798
« on: June 12, 2016, 06:27:25 PM »
bring it rudeboy
1.3
young bugout
1799
« on: June 12, 2016, 06:26:51 PM »
Except we don't have the luxury of always doing the (hypothetical) first-best option.
Exactly. And in some situations, doing the first-best option is the moral option. But the world can be shitty, and humans can be shitty, so the moral option isn't always the one that makes the most pragmatic sense.
All this is is a disagreement in terms. We're thinking about the same concepts and the same ideas, but you have a more precise definition of morality. I don't think your definition is particularly useful, or enlightening, but I can see why you use it separately to 'pragmatic morality' or whatever term you want to use.
1800
« on: June 12, 2016, 06:25:10 PM »
bring it rudeboy
Pages: 1 ... 585960 6162 ... 502
|
Show Posts