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 - Elai
Pages: 1 ... 359360361 362363 ... 633
10801
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:58:12 PM »
I think you should separate what Verbatim says from what he does.
Just because he tells users to kill themselves after a lengthy amount of "debate" doesn't mean he'd ban them out of frustration given the opportunity. I mean, we've seen him exercise a high-level of self-control in the past, like when he gave up swearing for a few months at a time.
I just hate this notion that mods aren't allowed to have personalities or get into heated debates. That's what makes LC so unbearable for me.
10802
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:52:45 PM »
Human rights aren't decided by governments, they're mulled upon by philosophers. Their very nature leads to debate and speculation. So aside from freedom of expression and opinion, what are some other unalienable rights?
10803
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:50:10 PM »
How is it not canon?
10804
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:48:56 PM »
Once others are aware that you hold that opinion, and make it known that they don't want you to continue to harass them with it, freedom of speech would allow you to do so anyway. I'm not sure about the U.S., but in Canada, we have something called the "Reasonable Limits Clause" embedded in our constitution. For harassment specifically, it is defined as "any act that is known or reasonable ought to be know to be unwanted." Anything that defies that clause could be viable for legal prosecution, including freedom of speech. Does the U.S. have something like that? Because if it doesn't, and freedom of speech is an unalienable right, then it is clear that some unalienable rights can be immoral when exercised. But since you don't believe in freedom of speech, hit me with some of your other "unalienable rights". Though I hope you understand how much I'm pandering to your arbitrary definition of "unalienable".
10805
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:40:10 PM »
Class, don't respond to him. He's heard the answer to this question at least a million times.
10806
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:38:34 PM »
Wait, what?
10807
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:37:59 PM »
I don't believe in freedom of speech, I believe in freedom of expression and opinion. What if it was my opinion that my daughter was a whore? And I expressed that to her everyday? If you could clarify on the difference between speech and expression, that would help, too.
10808
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:35:39 PM »
Find another example if you don't want to support the one you've made, because if you can't defend your argument you're admitting that you're wrong. Fair enough. Hmm... like I said to SecondClass, would there not be certain times where exercising one's right to speech/opinion be considered morally wrong?
10809
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:33:52 PM »
I just fucking said I have no use for this argument. If you want to start another thread for it, by all means. But that is not what this thread is for. As it stands, we're derailing it enough. Jesus fucking Christ.
10810
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:32:32 PM »
If you're only affecting yourself (physically, not emotionally), then what you're doing can't be moral or immoral. Ahh, I see. All of the effects of suicide are emotional, but if you don't care about those, then there's nothing I can do for you. Would you not concede that there are times where exercising your freedom of speech/opinion, while maybe not immoral, could be considered unethical or just a 'dick move'? Like, if I was to verbally abuse my daughter every day, would that not be immoral?
10811
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:29:59 PM »
You would only be right if eating animals was wrong. It is wrong, and if you could exercise a little reading comprehension, you'd acknowledge that I'm not interested in the ethics of animal consumption at this moment in time. If you're not one already, you'll never be one. You're a nihilist -- any argument I make is going to go through one ear and out the other.
10812
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:28:11 PM »
Eating animals is a need. And I don't want to argue whether or not eating animals is indeed morally wrong.
10813
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:26:46 PM »
Solonoid is talking about permissions, not unalienable human rights. So, no.
Under his definition, I'm right. But I'm not interested in his definition, so respond to my other post.
10814
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:26:01 PM »
I don't use the word "right" unless I'm talking about an unalienable right. Your definition isn't what I'm talking about, because it's so pedantic. You're talking about permissions, I'm talking about human rights.
So now the question becomes, "What are your unalienable rights?" Depending on your answer, we can find out if there are indeed unalienable rights that can be considered immoral when exercised.
10815
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:24:16 PM »
Oh, okay. So I'm right again.
Suicide can be both immoral and a right. Gotcha.
10816
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:22:13 PM »
12/22/2015
I beat King Dodongo. Well, "beat" is a bit of an understatement. I slaughtered Dodongo. I didn't even get hit once. I figured out that you have to throw the bombs right into his mouth. After that, I was aces.
Big Brother gave me the second spiritual stone, and I was tasked with making my way up to Death Mountain to talk to the Great Fairy. Once up there, I was granted a new sword ability (the spin-thingy from Smash Bros.) The Owl guy took be back down the mountain.
I had a hunch that I would have to get a water-themed stone next, so I went back to that river I discovered before. I ran out of bombs and I'm pretty tired, so I saved there and called it a day.
10817
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:18:23 PM »
It's okay, I'll just beat the game on my N64. I'll suck it up.
10818
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:17:43 PM »
And I don't want to argue whether or not eating animals is indeed morally wrong, so for the sake of the argument, can you just pretend that it is?
10819
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:16:39 PM »
Well, it's more of a commodity, but since nothing either bars you from or compels you to do so, the ability is considered a right.
The ability to eat animals could be considered a right, yet it is morally wrong. Am I understanding this correctly?
10820
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:12:24 PM »
Because I hate playing games on my 3DS.
10821
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:10:08 PM »
Eating animals isn't a right.
Define "right", then.
10822
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:09:06 PM »
I believe that human beings should have the right to kill themselves. But I still don't think they should.
My stance on suicide is the same as my stance on drugs: it should be legal, but we should censure the people that do it.
10823
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:06:45 PM »
The two are mutually explicit because for something to be a human right it must be morally inconsequential.
If it were morally upright, then it would be a duty, and if it were morally illicit, it would be unacceptable in society, and therefore not a right.
This is a better explanation. So what constitutes a "right"? Because eating animals appears to be a right, yet it is clearly a moral atrocity.
10824
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:04:46 PM »
Because rights mean by definition, something that everyone can do at any time free from persecution. If something is morally wrong, then it's disdained and evil. That is a poor explanation that does nothing to change my mind. I still fail to see how it is possible that exercising one's rights couldn't be immoral.
10825
« on: December 22, 2015, 08:55:09 PM »
lol, something can't be immoral and a human right Why not?
10826
« on: December 22, 2015, 08:15:43 PM »
Troy/Pierce was a failed pairing that the writers pushed for in early S1, only to get sidelined completely for Troy/Abed. Troy/Britta, on the other hand, is an absolutely classic pairing, from S2 onwards. I haven't watched the earlier seasons in a while, in all honesty. So yeah, I'll concede on that point.
10827
« on: December 22, 2015, 08:14:22 PM »
Specifically Ocarina of Time. I can't stand the N64 controller and want to continue my play session on my Wii-U, but I'm not sure if the controls are any better or if there are missing features.
10828
« on: December 22, 2015, 08:03:13 PM »
I was substantiating my claim. That you and her were essentially the same person, and that that is not a compliment.
10829
« on: December 22, 2015, 08:00:33 PM »
If you could please get a life and not resort to personal attacks, that would be great.
10830
« on: December 22, 2015, 07:59:21 PM »
Ross > Chandler > Joey > Phoebe > Monica > Rachel
Pages: 1 ... 359360361 362363 ... 633
|