Cis is just a term that is incredibly useful for trans discussions. You could waste time saying "normal gendered people" or "people who identify with their gender assigned at birth", or you could just say "cisgendered people".

Bae wants to move to Sweden, and considering I got a host of medical troubles that living in America is gunna make shit, I'd be up for moving there. I'll miss my home, but my ancestors settled here because it reminded them of home so it shouldn't be that bad.

>not being able to select multiple
TRIGGERED

Easily Downfall. Many sections where enemies will spawn infinitely.

On a scale of 0-100%, your total political bias was 19.44%. Your score suggests you are less biased than about 75% of other test takers. 50% of people get a score between 23% and 58%. The average score is 40.82%.

Quote from: eggsalad on September 11, 2015, 08:39:54 AM

icyhot is a sensual excitement that turns any sexy time into a memory

But has any of it ever went up your dick?

nope

Quote from: eggsalad on September 10, 2015, 06:55:02 PM

Quote from: 外ギン AVIATION on September 10, 2015, 06:50:09 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on September 10, 2015, 06:46:17 PM

I would say this has a lot more to do with levels of aggression and how that influences behavior and passion than intelligence. IQ is shit anyways. A good number of murderers are high IQ or high functioning psychotics. It might also have to do with females tending to be more social, or at least more susceptible to peer pressure, while males tend to be better at developing complexes that defend them from that leveling force.

How is IQ shit? It's the best method we have for measuring systematizing behaviour, if that's what you consider to constitute intelligence.

Doesn't it usually lend itself to mathematical ability?
I haven't taken the test myself so I wouldn't know.

Well if your parameters for intelligence is the ability to systematize and utilize spatial awareness then IQ is pretty good at gauging that.

I feel like, in this discussion at least, those aren't very accurate parameters. A person can be exceptional for a lot of reasons that aren't based on those things.

I would say this has a lot more to do with levels of aggression and how that influences behavior and passion than intelligence. IQ is shit anyways. A good number of murderers are high IQ or high functioning psychotics. It might also have to do with females tending to be more social, or at least more susceptible to peer pressure, while males tend to be better at developing complexes that defend them from that leveling force.

Even more probably why these extremes exist, women are pressured into becoming mothers and raising children, which favors mediocrity, while men are pressured into developing at their field of work, which favors excellence.

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 09:57:10 AM

If there is no God...

God is an entity, so basing morality on a single entity's opinion makes it subjective.

God has access to all information. He would be fully capable of being objectively moral. And if you have the ability to derive absolute purpose like a God would, well heh I don't see any reason not to work towards that end.

Quote from: eggsalad on September 10, 2015, 06:19:38 AM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 10, 2015, 06:15:08 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on September 09, 2015, 10:46:20 PM

Would not an intelligent force with such capabilities not be the most capable moral agent to be making those decisions?

Most capable? Yes. Would they be correct? I'd guess not on the limited knowledge we have on evolution.

Well in the same vein that animals should probably trust our judgement, I'd say we should trust these aliens' judgements.

Except that our judgements are fucking terrible for animals 90% of the time.

Yeah but ultimately better for the pursuit of knowledge. Which is what science is about.
I already said that you can choose to value ethical choices instead if you want, just have to acknowledge the difference.

Quote from: eggsalad on September 09, 2015, 10:46:20 PM

Alright. Let's assume for a second that there is a near omnipresent and invisible alien force in the universe that hunts and makes civilizations disappear. Would not an intelligent force with such capabilities not be the most capable moral agent to be making those decisions? And that we as intellectually inferior beings should have no quarrel when their interests are ultimately more informed and meaningful than ours because we lack the scope and perspective that they do?

Such a social contract already exists on Earth. We control the fates of animals, often without care for their individual needs, but in return we as more intelligent beings can ensure them stable lives, food, and safety from the hardships they endure in the wild. Humans should be trusted to control the fate of Earth. Why shouldn't the masters of the universe be trusted to control the fate of their domain?

Oh I guess Carl Sagan cares more about mah human bean feelings than any moral agent anywhere doing what their knowledge leads them to think is the correct course of action.

But good thing the Fermi Paradox is unscientific bullshit.
you might as well say we shouldn't explore the Mariana Trench because Cthulu might live down there, you'd be equally sound

This is a load of shit. Should animals just lie down and let us hack at their habitats because we're "morally superior"?

Generally yes, if they care about the progress of knowledge. The destruction of habitat has been necessary to achieve what we know now, and what we know now has allowed us to make much more informed decisions on everything.

Also, the Fermi paradox doesn't say we shouldn't go into space. It asks a vital question; stars like our sun number in the billions. A significant amount of them will have planets o similar size of earth in their Goldilocks zone, and probability dictates that at least a fraction of them will have some kind of life.

And that fraction is still a pretty fucking big number. The paradox says that by all rights, alien life should be running rampant in the universe. But it isn't. Because we aren't special. Our star is t special. Our planet isn't special.

Sorry I only bash it because it's only used to justify near baseless fears. The jump to conclusions such as "spoopy killer aliens" is childish. Any number of possible causes for the paradox could exist, inhibiting our outreach into the universe over something not based on any sort of evidence is unscientific and retarded.

Thinking that we deserve anything just because the right mix of chemicals happened to be in the that place at the right time is pretty fucking arrogant.

On the contrary, our intelligence gives us the ability to govern clearly and concisely much better than any animal can. Although it is entirely possible for us to be cruel or not make considerate accommodations, would you say that humans haven't made the most progress towards tecological progress as a result of our rule? Would you say the destruction of habitat to build a launch pad for rockets isn't a net good? Sometimes the interests of lesser creatures are just irrelevant to the larger picture, and more intelligent creatures use their power to abide by the principles of science. To try and upset that order, simply because you care more about your feelings than what knowledge dictates should happen, is working against the interest of science.

I actually have no problem with you holing that belief, as long as you acknowledge that you value ethical behavior over scientific advancement.

I for one support forcing fatties to wear bras

You know I can't really say that I even care enough to bother looking into the research and forming an opinion on this.

it's just a semantic argument.
no one actually believes they're mutually exclusive.

Alright. Let's assume for a second that there is a near omnipresent and invisible alien force in the universe that hunts and makes civilizations disappear. Would not an intelligent force with such capabilities not be the most capable moral agent to be making those decisions? And that we as intellectually inferior beings should have no quarrel when their interests are ultimately more informed and meaningful than ours because we lack the scope and perspective that they do?

Such a social contract already exists on Earth. We control the fates of animals, often without care for their individual needs, but in return we as more intelligent beings can ensure them stable lives, food, and safety from the hardships they endure in the wild. Humans should be trusted to control the fate of Earth. Why shouldn't the masters of the universe be trusted to control the fate of their domain?

Oh I guess Carl Sagan cares more about mah human bean feelings than any moral agent anywhere doing what their knowledge leads them to think is the correct course of action.

But good thing the Fermi Paradox is unscientific bullshit.
you might as well say we shouldn't explore the Mariana Trench because Cthulu might live down there, you'd be equally sound

r/notits