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 ... 909192 9394 ... 502
2731
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:32:15 PM »
It's only because of people like you Yes, damn me, it's my fault not everybody loves each other. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we're basically no better than chimpanzees biologically. . . Yay, worthless hypotheticals.
Philosophy, what is it? I'm pointing out the stupidity in a principle you're trying to establish deontologically. Because deontological morality is stupid.
2732
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:26:36 PM »
And by the way, if you value progress more than peace, you're a shitty person.
Not really; if going to war with Iraq and having 100,000 civilians die at whoever's hands meant we could cure cancer, I'd pick up a rifle and start shooting myself.
2733
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:25:49 PM »
If you recognize that humanity's greatest threat is itself, and then go onto say that love for everyone wouldn't solve a thing, then you're just retarded.
I didn't say it wouldn't solve anything. . . I said it's a stupidly unrealistic thing to shoot for. We aren't wired to love everybody, never mind all the social technologies like religion and political ideologies that you're not going to get rid of any time soon. My entire moral matrix is based on the expansion of human well-being, so don't pretend like I'm being deliberately obtuse and supporting the status quo out of some apish desire to have people keep on dying.
2734
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:20:55 PM »
You're using a lot of strong terms--"power," "strong," "weak"--very divisive terms, and I just think you mean something else when you say those words.
I lose substance otherwise. What am I supposed to use in their place? "Those predisposed to gaining influence will always govern those not predisposed to gaining influence". Yeah, great, but that's a fucking sterile way of saying it.
2735
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:19:11 PM »
Nice one! Maybe actually formulate some kind of argument next time, though?
See, I would, but I can't. You're just saying shit and passing it off as substantial. What the fuck am I meant to say to utter platitudes like "Humanity's greatest threat is itself" which literally everybody has known since the 40s, and then conclusions somehow drawn from that like "What we need is more love". You haven't said anything worth responding to. It's just the same bullshit New Age-esque talking points that don't get anybody fucking anywhere.
2736
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:17:18 PM »
They're a joke now. Look at Trump. That's somebody nobody would've voted for 10 years ago.
I don't know man, the Republicans got Barry Goldwater in in the '60s. Maybe not Trump-tier, but still pretty out there. I don't know what Trump is playing on, because it's clearly more substantial than people hating political correctness, but there's no way in hell he's going to get the nomination. There seems to be a political crisis in both the U.S. and the U.K. revolving a rejection of the established political class. Pretty much nobody likes our current politicians, and then you get shit like Trump, Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.
2737
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:13:45 PM »
The thing that we need the most in our leaders right now isn't strength, it's love.
 Far out, man.
2738
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:11:38 PM »
Republican party has been on its way out for a while now.
People said the same after Watergate, and the same about the Democrats until the DNC pulled Clinton out of its ass. The GOP will find a way to come back, new and improved. It's just in the nature of political parties. Survival comes first.
2739
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:10:39 PM »
If you think it is untrue that the strong ultimately rule the weak, and always will, then you're not anchored to reality. The goal is to I) make sure the strong have the right values and II) mitigating their power so they don't shoot you for disagreeing. Why the fuck else would we come up with a system where the lawmakers are accountable to the general population? The thing about true power is that it's unmitigable. If you're mitigable, you're not powerful. So, I'd use a different term.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think power can be graded. But, whatever, use "influence" instead. The content of my point remains ultimately the same.
2740
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:08:09 PM »
 Well, that and it makes you look cool.
2741
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:07:20 PM »
Yes, the Galactic Empire was not secular.
Other than that, yeah the Rebels were pretty much terrorists.
2742
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:05:24 PM »
I don't think that last bit was meant to be taken literally.
At least, I hope not.
Of course it is. I'm not saying it should be that way, simply that it is and good fucking luck trying to change it.
2743
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:04:43 PM »
Oh my god, fuck off. This is the kind of thinking that's caused the state of the world today.
I'm speaking descriptively. The solution is to get somebody strong with your values in power. That's the ultimate aim of the political game; compassionate and feminine people are simply not good at government. It doesn't make for effective governance. This is true of both feminine men and women. If you think it is untrue that the strong ultimately rule the weak, and always will, then you're not anchored to reality. The goal is to I) make sure the strong have the right values and II) mitigating their power so they don't shoot you for disagreeing. Why the fuck else would we come up with a system where the lawmakers are accountable to the general population?
2744
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:01:19 PM »
The sexist majority would never vote in a feminine, compassionate woman. Even though that's exactly what the world needs right now.
Right, the world just needs to link hands around a tree and fucking sing Kumbaya. Results? What are those? Self-confidence? God forbid. Compassion gets you nowhere in the real world. Life's a game, and the first rule is that there are no rules. The second rule is that the strong rule the weak.
2745
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:59:04 PM »
This wouldn't be a problem if Republicans started pandering to immigrants.
Latinos have a strong macho culture and are extremely Catholic. They could be a hugely useful social conservative bloc if the Republicans would just stop trying to alienate them.
That's what the Republicans have been trying to do for a while. Unfortunately people like Trump and Cruz keep dragging them back. The GOP establishment has been trying its hand at the modernisation game for a while now--at least since Priebus became chairman of the RNC--but they can't find a way to do it without alienating the base.
2746
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:54:40 PM »
Apply this to all men--all people--and I'll agree.
Your total denial of masculinity isn't particularly admirable or supportable, especially since you display overtly masculine traits such as aggression and argumentativeness. Masculinity and femininity form a necessary balance; like Camile Paglia said, if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
Did you miss the bit where I amended that to "all people?" I even put double hyphens around it...
I did, to tell the truth. Although your anti-masculinity has been a personal gripe of mine for a while.
2747
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:54:15 PM »
Your sexism isn't particularly admirable or supportable.
Camile Paglia is a pretty famous and respected feminist. She just doesn't deny the differences that exist between men and women, and the kind of values masculinity and femininity will inculcate individually. It's no surprise that women politicians like Margaret Thatcher tend to have strikingly masculine personalities. It's not sexist to think men and women are equal but different, and with broadly different proclivities.
2748
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:50:28 PM »
A friendly reminder that this is in serious and personal insults are not tolerated.
Shut up, you have no authority with us.
2749
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:49:41 PM »
LOL This is fucking ridiculous. Fuck America's immigration system.
We should just have a U.S.--Commonwealth--Western Europe free movement bloc with a price of entry. Cultural homogeneity ensured.
2750
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:43:19 PM »
Scott Alexander:Imagine a country called Conservia, a sprawling empire of a billion people that has a fifth-dimensional hyperborder with America. The Conservians are all evangelical Christians who hate abortion, hate gays, hate evolution, and believe all government programs should be cut. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Conservians hop the hyperborder fence and enter America, and sympathetic presidents then pass amnesty laws granting them citizenship. As a result, the area you live – or let’s use Berkeley, the area I live – gradually becomes more conservative. First the abortion clinics disappear, as Conservian protesters start harassing them out of business and a government that must increasingly pander to Conservians doesn’t stop them. Then gay people stop coming out of the closet, as Conservian restaurants and businesses refuse to serve them and angry Conservian writers and journalists create an anti-gay climate. Conservians vote 90% Republican in elections, so between them and the area’s native-born conservatives the Republicans easily get a majority and begin defunding public parks, libraries, and schools. Also, Conservians have one pet issue which they promote even more intently than the destruction of secular science – that all Conservians illegally in the United States must be granted voting rights, and that no one should ever block more Conservians from coming to the US. Is this fair to the native Berkeleyans? It doesn’t seem that way to me. And what if 10 million Conservians move into America? That’s not an outrageous number – there are more Mexican immigrants than that. But it would be enough to have thrown every single Presidential election of the past fifty years to the Republicans – there has never been a Democratic candidate since LBJ who has won the native population by enough of a margin to outweight the votes of ten million Conservians. But isn’t this incredibly racist and unrealistic? An entire nation of people whose votes skew 90% Republican? No. African-Americans’ votes have historically been around 90% Democratic (93% in the last election). Latinos went over 70% Democratic in the last election. For comparison, white people were about 60% Republicans. If there had been no Mexican immigration to the United States over the past few decades, Romney would probaby have won the last election. Is it wrong for a liberal citizen of Berkeley in 2013 to want to close the hyperborder with Conservia so that California doesn’t become part of the Bible Belt and Republicans don’t get guaranteed presidencies forever? Would that citizen be racist for even considering this? If not, then pity the poor conservative, who is actually in this exact situation right now. Thoughts?
2751
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:35:15 PM »
Rubio is the favourite among bookies to win the GOP nomination, and as we all know bookies are more accurate than pollsters. Clinton, however, is expected to get the Dem nomination, and the bookies are expecting a Dem victory 2016. Thoughts?
2752
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:32:42 PM »
Apply this to all men--all people--and I'll agree.
Your total denial of masculinity isn't particularly admirable or supportable, especially since you display overtly masculine traits such as aggression and argumentativeness. Masculinity and femininity form a necessary balance; like Camile Paglia said, if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
2753
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:31:11 PM »
Is doing the right thing not, intrinsically, a pleasurable feeling?
In some sense, but not always. It's possible for people to be totally depressed as a result of constantly acting ethically, and I find it difficult to believe a soldier jumping on a grenade--or a monk performing self-immolation--has any opportunity to feel pleasure in their actions. Especially not if they survive, and come to regret it. I think all actions can be reduced to a form of self-gratification, but to claim all actions are done in the pursuit of some kin of pleasure seems overly reductionist. You can do the moral thing simply because you feel an ethical duty to, not because you derive any good feeling from it.
2754
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:25:09 PM »
Challenger isn't acknowledging that all actions are motivated by the prospect of some kind of self-gratification What self gratification do you get from jumping on a grenade?
It feels like the right thing to do. It's a moral course of action. I'm not implying every act is done in the pursuit of some kind of pleasure, which is obviously incorrect.
2755
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:16:02 PM »
I'm getting off on the fact that everyone is disagreeing with challengerX.
You really are one of the most petty and insecure people I've ever seen.
I don't disagree with either of you; you're both talking past each other. Challenger isn't acknowledging that all actions are motivated by the prospect of some kind of self-gratification; Verbatim isn't acknowledging that self-gratification can be obtained by acts which are otherwise objectively selfless. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is rather uninteresting.
2756
« on: December 23, 2015, 07:58:29 PM »
Every act people commit is motivated by some form of self-gratification. Altruistic acts, such as jumping on a grenade, just come from a form of self-gratification which is selfless.
Selfless acts do exist, we just do them because they feel good, right or otherwise proper to do. That's all there really is to it.
2757
« on: December 23, 2015, 04:27:30 PM »
Article on Salon which appeared first on AlterNet.The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe.
The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now. And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era. Beneath the sound and fury generated by GOP presidential candidates, Fox News, website trolls, police unions and others, white people are becoming aware as never before of past and present racism.
Admittedly, this encouraging development is hardly the dominant view. To the contrary, given the possibility that Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or one of their ilk might become president, white supremacist ideology seems to be digging in harder than ever.
I don’t take this lightly. Once upon a time I foolishly thought that there was no way that Ronald Reagan could get elected president. Lesson learned. Now is the time to start contingency planning for intensified resistance to mass deportations of immigrants, atrocities against Muslims and extreme danger to African Americans.
2758
« on: December 23, 2015, 10:30:05 AM »
What, faggot?
2759
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:54:31 AM »
Can they just like a Facebook post instead? That's much easier than actually doing anything.
IS will go away if they know how much we strongly disapprove. Not hate, though. We don't hate them. That'd be Islamaphobic.
2760
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:32:40 AM »
I'd fight.
Pages: 1 ... 909192 9394 ... 502
|
Show Posts