the perceived meaning of words can change over time depending on usage.

I didn't say it doesn't. I'm saying because of the word's historic roots its current usage does not signal any kind of institutionalised sexism, merely path dependence. I'm not opposed to the change, per se, it's just pointless. I'm pretty sure female naval officers have no issue being addressed as "Midshipman" or whatever.

Oh look, people don't understand that "man" has two meanings. What's new?

When I think Sep7agon I think

Verb
Cheat
Challenger
Secondclass
Das
 
+ more i can't think of right now. These are the top ones

Bruv I will fuck your shit up.

People who do drugs & alcohol--AKA, people who voluntarily fuck around with the most important organ in their body, for fun.

LIVE FAST, DIE YOUNG MOTHERFUCKER

People who don't identify as feminists simply because they're afraid of being associated with fringe Tumblrites.

To be fair, Verb, I don't know why you care. Surely the content of a person's ideas are more important; if a person, like me, believes in gender equality while rejecting the label of feminism due to the political context surrounding what's the problem? We fundamentally agree on the philosophical content, I just don't like the connotations of the label.

It's exactly the same reason I don't identify as part of the LGBT "community", despite being bisexual.

People who don't concede collectivism over individualism.

Radical thought: individualism is actually the best way to promote the collective good, with some institutional restraints. It's no surprise that collectivist societies are historically intolerant and poor, while individualist ones are generally open and prosperous.

"Realists," or anyone that doesn't identify as a pessimist; doesn't admit that realism and pessimism are basically the same.

People who are afraid to have their beliefs or opinions questioned; people who fear or actively avoid debate.

People who act personally offended when I insult a broad category of people that they happen to belong to.

Preach it.

OT: My own list:

- People who don't think culture matters.

- People who don't think Western values, loosely defined, are generally superior to "Restern" values and the best hope for the world is the exporting of such values.

- People who have strong opinions about economics while having little knowledge.

- Abstract art. Like, what the fuck? Art is supposed to be reflective and contemplative, that doesn't work when the piece has pretty much no instituted meaning and people can just fucking superimpose whatever interpretation they want over it.

- Heavy metal. . . Like, screaming.

- People who don't have the conviction to stand up for what they believe in, even if I think they are wrong. It's pretty much the main reason why I like Verb. . . He's not a fucking coward.

- Socialism. Like, there's no economic theory or evidence for it.

- Left-wing or Right-wing populists. Get the fuck out of here.

- People who are opposed to large-scale immigration for stupid reasons.

- People who blame the West for all of the world's problems.

Want me to just move this to Flood, Meta? I'm sure there's plenty of other people ready to chime in on what parts of the US you should come visit, but it's not really Serious material. Unless people are actually going to get back on topic, that is.

I'd say leave it here and see how it goes. Hopefully the posts get more relevant. If they don't just lock it.

Quote from: UltimateKidzBopFan08 on January 06, 2016, 02:21:25 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 06, 2016, 01:31:25 PM

Quote from: rc on January 06, 2016, 01:28:04 PM

META COME TO FLORIDA AT SOME POINT SO WE CAN SMOKE WEED

And if you feel like getting depressed by poverty and shit culture you can drop by Pensacola and say hi.

I'm coming to Arizona to smoke some of dat dank kush wit you and drop some e nigguh

after i get fucked with rc in shitfuckistan or whatever that state is called

You limey fuck, Pensacola is in Florida. I don't live in AZ anymore.

Wait you both live in Florida?

it is ON

Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 11:09:53 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 06, 2016, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 03:20:25 AM

I don't know why it became so controversial to say that men and women are psychologically and anatomically different.

It never has been. It is controversial to say that because of these differences some people don't have a right to something as basic as voting.

But there is however, an emerging line of thought which purports that there is absolutely no innate statistical differences between men and women whatsoever, and that gender is a social construct etc.

Hell, it's becoming the law of the land in the hallmarks of British academia.

Do you have any examples of this in academia? And for the record, gender is partially a social construct.

People like Mordo and I accept that gender is partly social, the problem is that the discussion/definition is being shut down in regards to any biological facet completely in some circles.

Quote from: UltimateKidzBopFan08 on January 05, 2016, 02:46:42 PM

Where, if ever, in Friedrich Nietzsche's writings, does he explicitly repudiate nihilism?

I don't doubt that he has--I just need confirmation. I haven't read anything of his.

In Kritische Studienausgabe, which is a posthumously compiled collection of his notes, Nietzsche identifies nihilism with the decline of Christianity--and thus any unified value system to guide us--and the rise of decadence. According to Nietzsche, although Christian morality was a 'weak' form of morality, it nevertheless gave people an intrinsic sense of meaning, morality and the notion of objective knowledge.

Nietzsche thought there were two reactions to this kind of nihilism, which comes about due to a collapse in the acceptance of society-wide value structures. There is a kind of passive nihilism, which he identifies in Schopenhauer's philosophy, claiming his ascetic beliefs constitute a "will to nothingness" whereby life simply turns away from itself.

The second reaction is the kind of existentialist centre of Nietzsche's philosophy. The Ubermenschen, who are fundamentally concerned with the salvation of humanity through culture. They would be, Nietzsche thought, people who made and enforced their own values, were independent from 'the herd', would probably be selfish and would accept that suffering might be necessary for himself or other people in the pursuit of great things, never be envious of the success of others and they'd be gentle towards the weak out of consciousness of their own strength. Nietzsche thought we'd be shocked by his list, as we'd expect the supermen of the future to be incredibly compassionate and deeply egalitarian, but Nietzsche contends that greatness involves qualities which many of us find disturbing.

Common examples of people like Goethe, Frederick the Great, da Vinci, Napoleon, Caesar and Voltaire.

You cannot make a claim to morality while actively engaging in violence and coercion. You just can't. You might be able to say you're less of a cunt than the next guy, but you'd still be a cunt.

So what? Maybe life requires some of us to be cunts in order to function properly.

If you think that's immoral, I can kind of understand it, but saying "You just can't" without any kind of consequentialist basis isn't a very good argument. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from--I used to be an anarchist after all.

But if life requires cunts, it seems to make a lot more sense to navigate in a moral space commensurate with reality, rather than some idealised one.

Also, where in the US?

I hear Indiana's nice.

how long until you're a liberal again? /s

Most conservatives are still liberals in the most pertinent sense of the word, I think, and a vocal minority of today's progressives are in fact not liberals.

Would you ever move to the US?

I'll be living there for a year in 2018/19.

The Fed:

Good or bad?

Better than not having one.

fighting words

Fighting words are when somebody goads you into being physically violent, right?

Surely the person actually being physically violent should be the one held to account.

Which means nothing needs to be done to Iran other than change the regime.

Well. . . Yeah, we agree. I said in the OP I support efforts by the intelligence services; I'm not calling for a war with Iran or even targeted air strikes. That would be dumb.

And America obviously doesn't care about raising tensions in other parts of the world, so it's really not an issue.

Not for the U.S. government; for me it is.  But there are a couple of reasons why relations are so bad with Iran relative to the Pakistanis. For instance, Iran held Americans hostage following the Revolution which is what originally led to diplomatic relations being cut off. The Pakistani establishment has kind of acted like an ally to the U.S., at least on the face of it; most of the support they give to the Taliban is in terms of intelligence, as opposed to Hezbollah which is pretty much a wing of the Iranian government. The fact that Pakistan already has nukes is also a reason we have maintained comparatively close relations, since it (unfortunately) gives them a lot more influence on the world stage. The Iranian government is openly anti-US. And, the largest oil-producing State in the Middle East is the Sunni Saudi Arabia, whereas Iran is diametrically opposed to them.

I'm not saying this justifies our current stance with regards to Pakistan, but it does help explain why things have evolved the way they have.

Sanctions?

I wouldn't be opposed to looking into it; if it could work, then I don't see why not. Although I've never heard of a State giving up its nuclear arsenal due to sanctions.

LOL Come on man. This is such a stretch.

Not really. Two undesirable nuclear States aligning their interests is much more powerful than one nuclear State and one non-nuclear State. Especially when Iran is essentially trying to establish a hegemony in the Middle East.

I'm simply saying who are the Jews to say whether or not another country can or can't have nuclear weapons?

The fact that they are Jews doesn't make them right or wrong; the fact that they are right that it would be bad if Iran got the bomb makes them right. Do they have a vested interest in Iran getting or not getting the bomb? Sure, but that doesn't automatically disqualify their position.

Why weren't they stopped years ago? Why don't they have sanctions like Iran had?

Not a clue; they got the bomb back in '98. I have no idea what Western-Pakistani relations were like back then.

hasn't caused America any real harm

You mean besides the Beirut bombing and giving munitions to insurgencies in Iraq?

Yet the Taliban don't have nuclear weapons.

Because the Taliban is not basically a part of the Iranian government; Hezbollah was founded with funding by Iran specifically to attack Israel, do you really think the Iranians wouldn't give them access to such weapons, even if it's just dirty bombs? I'm not willing to take that chance.