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 ... 171819 2021 ... 212
541
« on: January 29, 2016, 12:05:40 AM »
They made a sequel in 2013 :^)
542
« on: January 28, 2016, 11:08:21 PM »
Halo games generally, despite that I keep buying all of them.
Used to be Battlefront 2015, too, but not nearly as much since the balance patch.
Fighting games, very easily.
543
« on: January 28, 2016, 11:04:12 PM »
"liquorice"
544
« on: January 28, 2016, 11:03:40 PM »
Why do people continue to put up with EA?
I don't know man. All of those free DLC packs, bug fixes, and balance changes are pretty aggravating.
>Shilling this hard
>being midge
Lick my balls
ew
Do it, faggot
nooo
Yes, do it, they're ready
stop
545
« on: January 28, 2016, 10:54:56 PM »
Why do people continue to put up with EA?
I don't know man. All of those free DLC packs, bug fixes, and balance changes are pretty aggravating.
>Shilling this hard
>being midge
Lick my balls
ew
Do it, faggot
nooo
546
« on: January 28, 2016, 10:47:43 PM »
Why do people continue to put up with EA?
I don't know man. All of those free DLC packs, bug fixes, and balance changes are pretty aggravating.
>Shilling this hard
>being midge
Lick my balls
ew
547
« on: January 28, 2016, 10:43:45 PM »
Why do people continue to put up with EA?
I don't know man. All of those free DLC packs, bug fixes, and balance changes are pretty aggravating.
>Shilling this hard
>being midge
548
« on: January 28, 2016, 06:46:37 PM »
Also, anyone who's been to a Reach game night can tell you I'm laughing my ass off at the dumbest things. It's about as pleasant as my personality gets.
549
« on: January 28, 2016, 04:41:01 PM »
Slash getting high as fuck and laughing at everything
the discrepancy between verb's real life persona and his internet persona
the forced 'people named Dick thread' humoUr
550
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:41:09 PM »
I mean, sure, you technically can have science without ethics, but that's fallen out of fashion decades ago. It does not exist today as legitimately recognized science by any reputable organization. The standards science to which science is held have factually changed.
Conflating the scientific method with science is not correct in any universe, you pseudointellectual oaf.
This entire time you have been failing to comprehend the very definition of a word and instead think that it depends upon the current year's interpretation of it.
This is the most elementary kind of logic conceivable, this is toddler level "here's what an apple is" and yet you've been incapable of understanding it. I'd say that your head is too far up your own arse to even use the word pseudo-intellectual but this is quickly running up against the rules the board.
Never have I said such a thing. You're the only person with a problem here, failing to understand that science is not the simplistic, elementary definition you thought it was.
551
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:29:31 PM »
Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".
Arguing that science isn't concerned with ethics because a 5th-grader's flowchart of the scientific method doesn't say "ethics" is incredibly facile.
Since you and him both have failed to understand the dictionary definition of the word, of course I'm going to have to resort to simpler means. What part of "Let me make this real fucking simple for you" don't you understand?
Seeing as this apparently isn't clear enough, the dictionary definition of science does not encompass the standards of science.
552
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:27:16 PM »
No that's called "the definition of the thing we are discussing". The scientific method is what it is precisely because it's so simple. It works because it's nearly impossible to misinterpret it.
See my edit:
not to mention that the scientific method is not the same thing as science itself. That you're conflating the two shows how little you actually know about the subject.
Posting an image macro doesn't make you intelligent either.
I'm conflating the two because that is the entire point of definitions, the fact that you have to prefix science with "ethical" is because you can have science without ethics, because they're optional.
I mean, sure, you technically can have science without ethics, but that's fallen out of fashion decades ago. It does not exist today as legitimately recognized science by any reputable organization. The standards to which science is held have factually changed. Conflating the scientific method with science is not correct in any universe, you pseudointellectual oaf.
553
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:19:38 PM »
It's irrelevant that the idea is old, it originated in ancient Greece and has worked ever since.
The definition of science is distinctly different from the qualifications and evolving standards of it.
554
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:16:28 PM »
No that's called "the definition of the thing we are discussing". The scientific method is what it is precisely because it's so simple. It works because it's nearly impossible to misinterpret it.
See my edit: not to mention that the scientific method is not the same thing as science itself. That you're conflating the two shows how little you actually know about the subject.
555
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:12:28 PM »
1. defining a new term doesn't change the meaning of the old definition
2. science does not give a damn about the age of an idea, only it's validity proven by experiment, that's what makes it science
3. Dysgenic evolution is technically evolution, but you're bordering on misusing that world completely.
God, you are so fucking retarded.
Let me make this real fucking simple for you:
 Literally the very definition of science in picture format. Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".
Now answer the question: can you read?
That's a disingenuous oversimplification of science, not to mention that the scientific method is not the same thing as science itself. That you're conflating the two shows how little you actually know about the subject. Also, see my edit: tl;dr the only real defintion of science is the systematic study of the universe. The qualifications for science have demonstrably changed over the course of human history.
I have no clue how you arrived at #2 from what anything that I said.
556
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:02:31 PM »
1. defining a new term doesn't change the meaning of the old definition
2. science does not give a damn about the age of an idea, only it's validity proven by experiment, that's what makes it science
3. Dysgenic evolution is technically evolution, but you're bordering on misusing that world completely.
oy, vey read the stickytl;dr the only real defintion of science is the systematic study of the universe. The qualifications for science have demonstrably changed over the course of human history. I have no clue how you arrived at #2 from what anything that I said.
557
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:55:51 PM »
hide roman threads
ignore roman posts
do not reply to roman posters
558
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:46:02 PM »
Modern, Eurocentric science is not that. Ethics may as well be a prerequisite.
Nobody said "Modern Eurocentric", the claim is that Science is not concerned with questions of ethics because the scientific method makes it very clear that that kind of thinking is optional. Presenting a case where that option was taken is just answering a question that wasn't asked.
And I'm telling you that science has evolved from that old-fashioned definition.
559
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:41:33 PM »
So, uh, yeah. I don't think there's anymore Grizzled Ancients left at Bungie.
damn
560
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:40:15 PM »
he's locked himself in the closet, if you know what I mean
561
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:36:12 PM »
Ethics is a question of philosophy/morality, not science. The very first sentence of the wiki article makes that clear; "applying ethics to science" not "applying science to science"
It really should go without saying, given that I'm talking about science, that I'm not referring to junk data, but useful statistically and scientifically valid information.
But to make things crystal clear: Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses so as to inform theories that allow for the collection of more data, repeat ad infinitum.
Modern, Eurocentric science is not that. Ethics may as well be a prerequisite.
562
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:08:05 PM »
Why are you equating adverse effects of these hypothetical experiments to 'some margin of error'?
I'm equating our mis-selection of individuals to be experimented upon as a margin of error. If we agree convicts should be the ones experimented on (originally Salad's point, I don't agree with it) then there has to be some flexibility when people are wrongly prosecuted. It doesn't seem particularly convincing that we should not pursue something designed to facilitate our making better-informed decision on the chance that just one wrongly-convicted individual could be subject to such experiments, and if you agree with that then the conversation changes to regard what margin of error is acceptable.
The wider point regarding Commando's "How would you like it?" argument is that I don't find it particularly convincing; there will be people mistreated in any kind of society, and I think basing our values and political prescriptions from behind some Rawlsian veil of ignorance isn't particularly enlightening.
So, uh... because some people face mistreatment in the world, it's okay if we have a little more of that, so long as we do it with noble intentions? (Intentions aren't the same as results, you know.) Can't say I'm a fan of this ends-justify-the-means attitude. pursue something designed to facilitate our making better-informed decision
Science isn't about getting as much information as possible
I would argue that that is the only purpose of science; hypothesis -> evidence -> theory -> repeat.
Why would you think science was anything but that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics
563
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:16:01 PM »
FINISH IT
564
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:14:00 PM »
It was actually started by Achronos, but if other users want to wrongly believe I'm Isara they're more than welcome to.
you're doing the Isara thing I'll wrongly believe that, then.
565
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:07:14 PM »
Man, I wish I'd seen that sooner. Thanks for making up my mind.
but you don't think video games are art (lmao)
and?
566
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:54:32 PM »
567
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:53:37 PM »
Don't like it, don't support the artistry and let the free market do its job better than any government mandated censorship will ever achieve.
Why is this such a difficult concept to people.
/thread
Man, I wish I'd seen that sooner. Thanks for making up my mind.
568
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:43:28 PM »
reply to a quote above said quote
a quote you're doing the Isara thing
569
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:42:51 PM »
Well maybe not.
If it were non-arbitrary, it stands to reason that we cannot say anything epistemically meaningful about the state of human well-being.
...um, well anyway, live testing is the sort of issue that keeps me up at night once I start thinking about it. In plenty of cases, there really isn't a way around it at our current level of advancement. In the meantime, it's worthwhile to make it as humane as possible. Turkey explained my feelings about it pretty well, emphasis mine. Are we talking Nazi gas chamber stuff or innocuous traffic surveys? Clearly there's a spectrum that can't be answered with a yes or no. The only reason utilitarianism works for the military is because it's dealing with a volunteer service fighting enemy combatants; experiments on citizens a la MKULTRA are certainly unethical, and with no exceptions I'm aware of, largely fruitless.
Regarding simply the practicality of 'classified experimentation on humans,' I can't see it flying in a progressive-minded West. Before we even get to the human rights arguments, the only real way of avoiding inevitable excesses or abuses in such a program would be a transparent process monitored by some sort of oversight group. And a classified program would never stay secret forever, because at least someone who would know about it would eventually have a crisis of conscience. Congress would guarantee that agency heads would roll when the outrage goes public. I can at least rest easy at the thought that unwanted human experimentation would never happen in my country in the foreseeable future, however logical or illogical it may be.
570
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:13:38 PM »
I get tired of Cleveland's voice pretty quickly.
though I chuckled once when he pronounced the 'p' in psoriasis
Pages: 1 ... 171819 2021 ... 212
|
Show Posts