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 - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 757677 7879 ... 212
2281
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:52:10 PM »
Becaise
FYI when you left for a week everyone thought you died
i remain unsurprised
welcome to sep7agon
2282
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:51:13 PM »
wow I haven't been able to post all day
Konami's fucking stupid.
I remember around the time of Warface's announcement when the Super Yerli Bros. announced that Crytek was going to stop AAA development after Crysis 3 and only make free-to-play games, because it's 'the future' or some shit. Obviously it didn't work out, because they're back to AAA games, and apparently things haven't been well at the company. It's kind of scary when executives embrace industry hype so excessively.
i do hope things turn around for konami
but i also hope they bomb and have to sell the rights to their ips and engines back to the good people
They'd sooner keep the IPs so nobody can profit off of them. Only way they'll give them up is if they go into bankruptcy and have to liquidate their assets.
2283
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:48:00 PM »
Becaise
FYI when you left for a week everyone thought you died
2284
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:47:03 PM »
wow I haven't been able to post all day Konami's fucking stupid. I remember around the time of Warface's announcement when the Super Yerli Bros. announced that Crytek was going to stop AAA development after Crysis 3 and only make free-to-play games, because it's 'the future' or some shit. Obviously it didn't work out, because they're back to AAA games, and apparently things haven't been well at the company. It's kind of scary when executives embrace industry hype so excessively.
2285
« on: September 18, 2015, 08:38:27 PM »
No.
Gays can't get married.
go away
2286
« on: September 18, 2015, 01:59:27 AM »
2287
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:23:22 PM »
>beer
>not drinking piss
choose one
My father makes some pretty kickass brews. Have you not tried craft beers?
nope >.>
There's your problem.
Hmm, thanks.
2288
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:23:02 PM »
cars don exits
OT: I have a strange feeling it probably got scrapped ages ago because nobody recognized what it was, but still... where did it go?
2289
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:20:18 PM »
you sketchy motherfucker
Why in the world would any rational person want tinted windows on their car?
in az its required to have all the windows to be tinted
Really?
2290
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:19:57 PM »
>beer
>not drinking piss
choose one
My father makes some pretty kickass brews. Have you not tried craft beers?
nope >.>
2291
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:16:50 PM »
what
the
fuck
I'm legit scared yo
2292
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:15:56 PM »
>beer
>not drinking piss
choose one
2293
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:14:30 PM »
you sketchy motherfucker
Why in the world would any rational person want tinted windows on their car?
HEAT REDUCTION YOU KIKES
roll down ya windows
I can't when I want to take a nap in my car at university
hobo motherfucker Spoiler that's a decent enough reason I guess, but still
2294
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:11:17 PM »
you sketchy motherfucker
Why in the world would any rational person want tinted windows on their car?
HEAT REDUCTION YOU KIKES
roll down ya windows
2295
« on: September 17, 2015, 07:07:02 PM »
My general feelings:
Difficult to say who won. If I were to guess, I'd have to say Fiorina won mostly likely, or at least she'll have the best polling results. Rubio, Jeb, and Carson performed up to expectations. Trump's success is unknowable by mere mortals. As for who lost, I'd like to say Rand Paul turned things around, but I really think his campaign is DOA at this point, and Kasich disappointed.
Going into more detail here:
Slash and I felt like Rand Paul redeemed himself from his last performance, but I really can't see him making a comeback. Dominated the stage when drug reform and sentencing discrimination came up, in particular.
Carson didn't get to say as much but he was charismatic as usual.
Jeb seemed a bit more up to par this time. Really kept his composure by not letting Trump get to him. Although I worry that he's a bit too soft-spoken, like Kasich, whom I felt had underperformed this time.
Trump was... not quite as ridiculous as last time. He got a kick out of trying to make Jeb snap and did a polite little handshake thing with Carson. Both Jeb and Carson have been less focused on Trump as of late, and it may help both of them in the long run. They're both soft-spoken types who don't really like shit-flinging, and they both got their points across well.
Chris Christie put brand new nails in his coffin, right next to the old ones from the previous debate. He really doesn't understand how to do this stuff. Scott Walker didn't do himself any favors, either. Huckabee had his idea of charm, and his usual mix of good and bad, but he and Cruz were otherwise unremarkable.
Carly Fiorina went on the offensive and hit Trump where it hurts. This was a good night for her.
Rubio was the most consistent performer from the last debate. He gave his standard performance, which is to say he did very well. Very knowledgeable on foreign policy.
2296
« on: September 17, 2015, 06:38:55 PM »
It's time to begin, isn't it?
I get a little bit bigger but then I'll admit
I'm just the same as I was
Now don't you understand
That I'm never changing who I am
2297
« on: September 17, 2015, 06:36:43 PM »
you sketchy motherfucker
Why in the world would any rational person want tinted windows on their car?
2298
« on: September 17, 2015, 02:39:40 PM »
This statement in particular stood out to me:
It's an inherent property of... sentient life. Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.
Because that sounds almost like something I would say in favor of morality being subjective...? Not quite. A similar statement—Without sentient beings to create them, there are no cars.
Cars, I think we can agree, exist objectively. We've created them. Just because there weren't any cars before we made any doesn't make the existence of cars subjective. It's not even up to interpretation, really, unless you're a solipsist or something.
Hmm, I see. I'm going to screw this all up by using the car analogy, so try to bear with me. I'm stuck at the part where they wouldn't exist if we didn't create them. They objectively exist as a concept, but that's because we created that concept. (But I'm not disagreeing that cars exist.) Well, I just thought of Gestalt psychology (you mentioned humans as a gestalt). A bunch of nuts and bolts, a few wheels, an engine, a steering wheel, and something for a driver to sit on are generally what we consider to be a 'car'. But a car is a concept because that's just how we as humans perceive things. If we didn't come up with the concept of a car, wouldn't it just be a bunch of parts arranged in a particular manner? But no, I'm definitely not a solipsist. The car and its parts aren't just part of my imagination. The concept exists too, because, well, it does. But it didn't exist until someone created it...? tl;dr I can't help but feel the same way about morality, that it didn't exist until it was created. But is that necessarily a requirement of objectivity? edit: brb, I'll see the other replies when I return.
2299
« on: September 17, 2015, 02:17:28 PM »
EDIT: my grammar is sloppy right now I mean that as more of a "I don't have time to account for everything." The point is you're still assuming the validity of certain preconditions such as empiricism, physicalism, probability, et cetera.
other than whatever you've decided upon. Which is exactly the point. Deciding upon the definition allows you to reach objective conclusions according to that definition. The only way we reach objective conclusions in any other area--health, physics, economics--is by assuming the value of certain tenets within the definition.
The thing that's driving me nuts here is because I feel like your argument is starting sound like mine...? I got the same feeling reading Verbatim's posts. To me at least, sounds like your argument can only logically conclude that morality is subjective because otherwise we wouldn't need to assume anything, because we would just know it. It's starting to sound like what I would say (we as people define objectivity, so that makes it subjective). But... it's not that simple...? I'm still stuck on the hurdle that somehow there's an inherent morality to the universe. I can't see any other way it could exist outside of 'higher power is the only objective force' or 'we humans decided it's objective' which would inherently be subjective...? years of evolution and sentient life have hammered out the 'right' morals necessary for survival?
Well, no. It's good for survival to kill your competition, which obviously isn't moral.
I'd think that'd be an exception, because beings that have to kill for survival don't have the luxury of doing otherwise. Morality wouldn't apply to them because they don't have the intellectual capacity for them...? And morality is only a concept with those capable of understanding it and deciding their own morals? My brain right now: 
2300
« on: September 17, 2015, 02:00:54 PM »
he is the sole dictator of morality in the universe. Have you at all read my exchange with Jim earlier on in this thread? I posited that we, the human race, as a gestalt, are taking the role of god when it comes to making moral distinction. We make the rules. We are the sole dictators of morality in the universe. What do you think about this?
Because if you agree, it logically follows that we ought to find the best interpretation of morality there is.
I got the gist of it, and I just read the first few pages again. Although, I'm not necessarily sure how it argues that morality is 'objective,' because I would have thought it argues the opposite. Unless the point is that it's subjectively objective...? This statement in particular stood out to me: It's an inherent property of... sentient life. Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.
Because that sounds almost like something I would say in favor of morality being subjective...? Horseshoe effect maybe, but.. Is it something like, uh... hmm, I'll try my best here: years of evolution and sentient life have hammered out the 'right' morals necessary for survival? Because if they've worked for so long, that must be proof of their validity? I don't know if I got any of that correct, but it seems to make enough sense. I'll have to go think about that for a while. (No guarantees that I'll agree, but it sounds like the strongest case I've heard so far.)
2301
« on: September 17, 2015, 01:29:06 PM »
Assuming EXACTLY.
I mean that as more of a "I don't have time to account for everything." Easier to just take a shortcut rather than say something less than to avoid some inane, out-of-the-blue wrench toss like 'but what if I'm wearing rocket shoes'. Wrong question; assumptions lead to objective facts, assumptions don't prove the existence of objectivity. The key is finding the best definition of morality--not the right one--and my contention is one which fundamentally minimises negative consequences is the most sane and most rational. But there's nothing in a godless universe that dictates 'sanity and rationality' other than whatever you've decided upon. The problem I have with this is that it requires you to understand the nature of a supernatural being, which I don't find to be a convincing claim. If you ask a Christian "Would it be moral if God ordered you to rape and pillage?" they will most likely say "No". They'll then try to justify it with some rather flimsy claim that God wouldn't order such a thing in the first place, which requires nothing short of substantial knowledge of his nature.
But they reach that conclusion through reason. The presumption that God is a moral being leads them to conclude he wouldn't order such things; so why not cut out the middle man and go straight to reason in the first place? I don't know if understanding the nature of the being is necessarily a requirement. If God were to say that 'raping and pillaging is good,' then it would be good, because God said so, and he is the sole dictator of morality in the universe. Folks can reject it as much as they want, but then they'd find themselves on the new wrong side of the argument. But when we take that away, what is left to dictate what is right or wrong? The only logical conclusion would be that morality is a human construct. Sure, animals may show kindness or cruelty towards one another, but it could be argued that it's just because that's what they feel like doing, because they have emotions. They may have instinctive 'cultural' norms that work in the interest of survival, but they don't have the capacity to follow or create a defined 'moral code' of sorts. Never mind that humans have their own ideas of morality that they also believe to be objective fact. Let's substitute morality for religion here, because they're basically different versions of the same thing. Imagine ardent believers of various religions, each belief with views that will eventually conflict with one another, were to debate over which religion is the 'right' one? It wouldn't get anywhere--there's simply no factual basis for a 'winner.'
2302
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:20:26 PM »
1337.666.8008.69
2303
« on: September 17, 2015, 10:46:31 AM »
try refreshing the page-chan
no fuckface, if i press the back button i expect the FUCKING SEND BUTTON TO WORK UGH I HATE YOU THAT REQUIRES MORE WORK-CHANS
calm your tits-chan
2304
« on: September 16, 2015, 10:27:53 PM »
Christie won easily
muh NINE ELEVEN
fuck you
how Chris Christie thinks this works
2305
« on: September 16, 2015, 10:16:58 PM »
To be honest, Cruz looks the most "presidential" of them all.
his birth certificate doesn't
jesus fucking christ
his citizenship is no more in question than Obama's
the man is fucking eligible.
I know. Cruz doesn't meet his own standards for eligibility though, lol
2306
« on: September 16, 2015, 10:15:36 PM »
To be honest, Cruz looks the most "presidential" of them all.
his birth certificate doesn't
Why is he even allowed to run? That info is right out there in the open?
IIRC it's usually left to Congress to decide, and historically they've interpreted 'natural born citizen' as including those with a US parent(s) rather than solely being born within US borders. Even if Obama were born in Kenya like Cruz says, he'd still be eligible for the same reason as Cruz--having an American parent. But, you know, it's hilarious because Cruz doesn't even meet his own standards for eligibility.
2307
« on: September 16, 2015, 10:09:45 PM »
did you create pherlazil to directly compete with zerlaphil?
Wha- um yes.
ha yes called it
2308
« on: September 16, 2015, 10:07:20 PM »
To be honest, Cruz looks the most "presidential" of them all.
his birth certificate doesn't
2309
« on: September 16, 2015, 09:51:51 PM »
Rand just barely ventured into anti-vaxxer territory, holy shit, NO
just let the neurosurgeon talk about vaccines mmkay? PLEASE
EDIT: wait, I just remembered Rand's an eye doctor. SHAME ON HIM
2310
« on: September 16, 2015, 09:37:24 PM »
OMG Rand pulled that off so well. Redemption!
Even brought up the stuff about drug laws disproportionately punishing the poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Not even Hillary Clinton was pointing that out till he put pressure on her, back when he was the GOP front-runner >.>
BOOM
O
O
M
Pages: 1 ... 757677 7879 ... 212
|
Show Posts