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 - eggsalad
Pages: 1 ... 373839 4041 ... 84
1141
« on: November 07, 2015, 12:26:48 AM »
I feel really unsure about it. I am aroused by the heterosexual act, and homosexual acts repulse me. But at the same time I can feel attracted to men when I imagine myself being female. And the same is true vice-versa. I guess I'm technically bisexual but I feel like that ignores some important context.
Sexual orientation gets so fucky with non-binary gender.
1142
« on: November 05, 2015, 09:25:25 PM »
lol these are great
a STORK?
what a scumbag
I bet the stork liked it
1143
« on: November 05, 2015, 08:29:24 PM »
Hulk. I wanna be used as a condom.
1144
« on: November 05, 2015, 04:14:05 PM »
What happens when societal reaction to violence is minimal? Statism. Again, strong objection to violence is a prerequisite for anarchy to exist in the first place. The society we live in reacts comparatively minimally to violence by my standards. If nobody sees a problem with "might makes right", we go back to where we started. Who enforces the idea that no one should be attacked if no one cares for owner A because of something arbitrary like his race, sexuality, religion, etc.
Nobody enforces anything. That's the point. owner A has a right to defend himself from assault, lethally if need be. If owner A is killed and his killer is not rejected and ostracized, society has failed to reject violence and a new state probably isn't far from being established.
A society doomed to collapse when presented reality.
1145
« on: November 05, 2015, 04:09:46 PM »
The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?
Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching?
Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.
Government exists BECAUSE people can't be expected to be moral and considerate in behavior.
They can to a good degree, if the social consequences are steep enough and the community largely shares values.
Any outliers who decide to aggress risk getting themselves killed in defense. It would be a very poor decision.
Except social stigmas and community values can be largely arbitrary and as history has shown, dangerously bigoted.
Well yeah, that's human nature.
These values will exist with or without a state. They'll exist in any setting with one or more humans interacting.
Would you prefer a state exist to back these values up with organized thugs?
Representative democracy weeds out some of the more retarded and radical beliefs in virtue of statesmen and professional politicians being well educated.
1146
« on: November 05, 2015, 04:02:47 PM »
I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.
Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river.
He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.
Those downstream have some options.
They can build a filter to keep his shit out.
They can talk to private owner A and ask that he cease his activity. From here they can agree to go to an independent conflict-resolution organization and figure it out from there.
If private owner A refuses to cooperate, they will do what they need to to keep his shit out of their segment of the river, maybe dam it up.
Violence isn't necessary here and if anyone downstream assaults owner A he is right to defend himself.
It would be smart for everyone who controls a segment of the river to sit down with the others and write out a contract addressing these matters.
So basically owner A is allowed to detriment others and everyone as a whole has to play around it?
Why exactly should those downriver not violently solve this problem if owner A refuses to compromise? It seems that leaving owner A alone causes a lot more net suffering than confiscating his land and detaining him. Sure breaking owner A's consent may be a negative consequence, but so to is everyone having to deal with a toxified river.
What I want you to explain is why you think that owner A's consent is inherently more valuable than the quality of life of others.
The non-aggression principle is something that should be used reasonably, not dogmatically. You've not made it clear what's happening to the river here. Is owner A pissing and shitting downstream or is he dumping toxic waste? If what he's doing is endangering or damaging other people or their property, they can do what they have to to protect themselves after diplomatic options are exhausted or made impossible. If he's doing something trivial, it would be outrageous to assault him. Whatever solution you follow, you are going to have to go out of your way. Building a dam or shooting owner A both take effort. But the social consequences of shooting owner A will likely outweigh the cost of damming up your segment of the river- not even addressing the inherent dangers and chance you'll get yourself killed.
I don't take the NAP to its logical conclusion- if I did I'd be saying you could attack someone for projecting light waves onto your yard or something. I'm not.
Further, net suffering or net happiness is a retarded metric irrelevant to people who aren't utilitaricucks.
What happens when societal reaction to violence is minimal? Who enforces the idea that no one should be attacked if no one cares for owner A because of something arbitrary like his race, sexuality, religion, etc.
1147
« on: November 05, 2015, 04:00:20 PM »
The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?
Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching?
Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.
Government exists BECAUSE people can't be expected to be moral and considerate in behavior.
They can to a good degree, if the social consequences are steep enough and the community largely shares values.
Any outliers who decide to aggress risk getting themselves killed in defense. It would be a very poor decision.
Except social stigmas and community values can be largely arbitrary and as history has shown, dangerously bigoted.
1148
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:39:21 PM »
The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?
Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching?
Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.
Government exists BECAUSE people can't be expected to be moral and considerate in behavior.
1149
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:35:04 PM »
I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.
Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river.
He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.
Those downstream have some options.
They can build a filter to keep his shit out.
They can talk to private owner A and ask that he cease his activity. From here they can agree to go to an independent conflict-resolution organization and figure it out from there.
If private owner A refuses to cooperate, they will do what they need to to keep his shit out of their segment of the river, maybe dam it up.
Violence isn't necessary here and if anyone downstream assaults owner A he is right to defend himself.
It would be smart for everyone who controls a segment of the river to sit down with the others and write out a contract addressing these matters.
So basically owner A is allowed to detriment others and everyone as a whole has to play around it? Why exactly should those downriver not violently solve this problem if owner A refuses to compromise? It seems that leaving owner A alone causes a lot more net suffering than confiscating his land and detaining him. Sure breaking owner A's consent may be a negative consequence, but so to is everyone having to deal with a toxified river. What I want you to explain is why you think that owner A's consent is inherently more valuable than the quality of life of others.
1150
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:29:18 PM »
Ostracization. It may not be a crime to cheat on your partner, but you will face significant social consequences if someone finds out. Nobody has the right to imprison you for cheating, and most people recognize that, but they can exercise their right not to interact with you. But that doesn't happen in our current model anyways, we don't need to drop government to make this happen. The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?
1151
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:21:11 PM »
I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.
Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river. He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.
1152
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:18:05 PM »
You can have societal standards and rules without the existence of a violent territorial hierarchy imposing those rules using threats or open violence. How do you enforce anything without the eventual fallback to using force?
1153
« on: November 05, 2015, 01:05:29 PM »
I find it kind of laughable that you try to assert with moral authority that there is no moral authority.
1154
« on: November 05, 2015, 12:58:09 PM »
Houston voted down HERO.
Good. Trans people are mentally unstable.
they only kill themselves when they meltdown unlike straight white cis men
1155
« on: November 04, 2015, 11:45:18 PM »
Some people won't care until you do it.
1156
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:16:06 AM »
I hope coding is fun for you. I came in with zero knowledge of syntax and there is some innate satisfaction I get when things compile.
1157
« on: November 04, 2015, 08:44:45 AM »
budwesirr
1158
« on: November 02, 2015, 09:26:02 PM »
Yes, we get our cheap labor from them, but we could very easily get it from India and Latin America as well. Why the fuck are we still supporting China's shitty government? Why the hell haven't we formed a massive Indo-American alliance to deal with China?
It's objectively better to live in China than India.
1159
« on: November 02, 2015, 04:12:54 PM »
RTS. I always try to build that epic late game army for a massive battle but just get fucked.
1160
« on: November 02, 2015, 01:46:02 PM »
now kiss
1161
« on: November 02, 2015, 01:44:02 PM »
I had a money management class where we had to write a ton of mock checks.
Eventually it just becomes a bunch of fucking scribbles and loops.
1162
« on: November 02, 2015, 01:42:53 PM »
Bad Company could do with another spin off though.
While Bad Company 2 had a really stellar and unique feeling multiplayer that was then reversed and ruined in BF3, I don't think BC3 would go well at all. The story was bland, lifeless, and merely an obligation to justify an updated engine. The game lost pretty much all the BC personality.
1163
« on: November 02, 2015, 01:40:05 PM »
Sonic. Good answer, surprised no one else has mentioned it yet.
I really don't understand how it's even made it this long. Like, what is even the strength of the IP?
1164
« on: November 02, 2015, 01:38:39 PM »
Assassins Creed.
Sonic.
Dark Souls needs to end within 2 titles.
Halo.
1165
« on: November 01, 2015, 07:52:43 PM »
I completely agree.
All other instances of Protestantism were founded almost baselessly, purely due to the desire of people to be different or stand out.
It never after had as much importance as when roman culture was finally overthrown in the Germanic states.
God Tier: Orthodoxy
Good but Wrong Tier: Catholicism
Acceptable Tier: Lutheranism
Shit Tier: All Others
And below that: Anglican.
1166
« on: November 01, 2015, 02:19:42 PM »
Everyone works in accordance of their own values and beliefs, in the end the difference is how those things effect others.
1167
« on: November 01, 2015, 02:10:16 PM »
>women minority in people's sci-fi libraries
this is a problem guys!
>men minority in people's romance libraries
huh?
1168
« on: October 30, 2015, 10:27:33 PM »
Theatre butter is pretty bleh
but always at home
so much
im a fat ass
1169
« on: October 30, 2015, 10:10:03 PM »
Not impossible, it's just something that I have no experience with and so I don't understand it. I was raised primarily by my mum while my dad spent most of his time working, and this was the case for everyone I know (provided their dad's were still in their life), so this is the kind of setup that I can relate to, whereas one in which the roles of the mother and father are reversed is not. Was your father an awful parent simply because he wasn't able to be there all the time? Can't you infer that if a father had the time he would parent just fine? I hadn't considered a wedding dress, but to paraphrase an earlier post of mine about marriage, it's entire purpose is to unite a man and a woman (for the purpose of raising kids, not mindlessly fucking eachother), where tradition states that the woman wears the dress. I think it's understandable that if you're going to go through with marriage then you follow the traditions of it. I don't really intend to talk about marriage right now, I think traditionalism is arbitrary, but the point was about clothes. The point is that  this is acceptable while  this isn't So much that a lot of places will actively prohibit crossdressing, like schools. The policies explicitly target male crossdressers because all clothes are considered fair game to girls, but boys are confined to strictly masculine clothes. A girl cross-dressing is not even easy to imagine because of how this has been conditioned to us. Because the scientist in me believes that our biology is the fundamental starting point of who we are. It's why one chemical is chosen for the use in synthesizing another (eating food to physically grow) and why one set of interactions is chosen over another (co-operating with your family instead of antagonizing them). Evolution is like a sieve, anything that doesn't work dies, so whatever is left over has to either be good for survival, or not detrimental enough to be removed; and I see the masculinity in men and femininity in women as behavioral patterns that have evolved like anything else. I don't see them as outdated ways of living anymore than I see eating or drinking or breathing as outdated ways of living.
As an empiricist you have to recognize that given the complexity of the brain, not all individuals are suited to fit that narrow criteria. What leads you to think that the deviants are dangerous other than the fact they aren't the norm?
1170
« on: October 30, 2015, 07:29:12 PM »
The lock-on combat is a crutch that patches up a clunky combat system.
Wat
slow and methodical =/= clunky combat
Use spears without lock on.
It doesn't have to be hard for you to realize it's clunky.
I've learned that playing Dark Souls without lock on is actually superior. I'd actually say that you're right. Lock on is a crutch. And I never really noticed it until I started experimenting without it, both in pvp and pve.
Spears can be tricky to use even with lock on. If you're not facing your target you won't connect, obviously.
The game does get a lot funner when you get the hang of free camera combat, given you're using a weapon with a well suited moveset.
Pages: 1 ... 373839 4041 ... 84
|
Show Posts