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 ... 192021 2223 ... 84
601
« on: February 17, 2016, 09:15:58 AM »
For certain murderers though they should be sent to prison or a help center depending on what they did. If you randomly walked up to someone and killed them you should be sent to prison, but if you caught your wife with someone else then you shouldn't. Yes you killed your wife and maybe the person she was with, but you didn't randomly do it though. You ended up catching them in the act which drove you over the edge to do something you wouldn't have done otherwise.
You'll find that this is the case for most murderers. (Not gang related)
602
« on: February 16, 2016, 11:09:45 AM »
99th percentile or bust
603
« on: February 16, 2016, 10:45:38 AM »
Stop playing games to have a good time and start playing them TO GET GOODER THAN THEM ALL
604
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:32:37 AM »
Policy Four: Make it easier for high-skilled immigrants to come, work and live in the U.S.
I don't know if it's just because I'm on a campus with a lot of high skilled immigrants, but isn't it already easy? By all means inform me on the challenges there are please, but is this more a reaction to shit like Trump who want to pointlessly shun large groups of these people because they come from certain regions or are Muslim? Only thing I can think of myself is perhaps giving the DOJ more authority to be reviewing departments and making judgments. State and local departments have proven pretty inconsistent with internal enforcement so maybe federal intervention will shake them into shape. But I don't know a whole lot about how the DOJ works so fuck if my suggestion means anything.
605
« on: February 15, 2016, 09:20:52 PM »
What does being Asian have to do with it
Do you not know the major markets audience for those games? It's the shame with the Shenmue series or Final Fantasy. Most of the interest is from the Asian Market (or weeaboos?).
I would say the major market is towards gamers that enjoy difficult rpg. There's really nothing Asian about them, it's a European setting and you're just being blatantly ignorant.
The controls definitely feel Japanese. ( Clunky and unintuitive ) The stat systems are all also very JRPG in nature.
606
« on: February 14, 2016, 09:58:42 PM »
OT: World at War on Veteran easily. I beat it and I was freaking proud of myself. That game took some determination to beat with those grenades.
It really made Downfall more epic and emotional.
607
« on: February 14, 2016, 01:55:04 AM »
What do you mean by preferable? It is the preferable situation for kids. If the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now. Alternative to what? Gays being allowed to adopt doesn't take away from others ability to adopt, right now there are plenty of kids without homes that aren't being taken up by heterosexual couples. That I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.
Marriage as it stands exists to strengthen the bond of a monogamous relationship to legal status, creating greater mutual obligation and more difficult exit. Barring a group from that, especially if you want couples to be staying together longer, is counter-productive.
608
« on: February 14, 2016, 01:03:58 AM »
On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:
Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.
Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.
Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.
Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.
Monogamous marriages, regardless of sex, are preferable for producing working, tax paying adults. Orphans are a thing. Therefor it's in the state's and society's interest to promote committed monogamous relationships, regardless of sex.
609
« on: February 13, 2016, 07:18:10 PM »
definition of low effort cherry picking reactors
add zero to the discussion and just affirm everyone's beliefs and say it indignantly so people can feel brave vicariously
610
« on: February 13, 2016, 07:12:08 PM »
Russians make the internet great.
611
« on: February 13, 2016, 07:07:48 PM »
What exactly gives axioms authority other than observed consistency? Are logical concepts not formed as a result of whether or not they are consistent within the context of our reality? this is where the conversation gets fuzzy, because what you're doing is questioning that which isn't supposed to be questioned
x = x (the reflexive property of equality) is axiomatic, because it functions axiomatically
if you question that property, you're not going to get a lucid answer--i can't tell you why the reflexive property of equality works; it just does, and i can demonstrate that to you
but as far as the hard reasoning behind it goes, there's literally no way to teach you that--it's just how reality works
so as far as i'm concerned, observed consistency is the only thing that you need in order to demonstrate an axiom
So when we establish that, hypothetically, what we observe as reality is unreliable, what exactly exempts properties like these from scrutiny? That's the thing, what can be proven when you revoke the means of proving things? What differentiates between x = x or x =/= x when there are no avenues with which to verify it? If there is no clear answer, then how can we say with certainty that if something thinks, it exists. Because that is a conclusion that follows as it would in observed reality, but in this scenario, that observed reality is under scrutiny. I'm not sure why you keep using observation as a criterion, either; I should state again that the Dream Argument and Evil Demon Scenario presume that you cannot know anything by means of the senses. You can have observed consistency via logic, something that is not a means of the senses. Aren't all thoughts abstractions made from observations of reality. Would a mind never exposed to our reality be able to formulate basic mathematical principles if it has never even been exposed to concepts such as plurality or oneness, if it has never observed a singular amount of something? Or observed two amounts and identify they are separate?
612
« on: February 13, 2016, 06:36:02 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.
um how can you prove that without observation?
Well, for starters, it's an axiom. It's unquestionable.
Second, our concept of a number represented by a and a number represented by b is just that: conceptual. Numbers are not things seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. They are thoughts.
What exactly gives axioms authority other than observed consistency? Are logical concepts not formed as a result of whether or not they are consistent within the context of our reality?
613
« on: February 13, 2016, 06:00:18 PM »
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
i hope this isn't what you're trying to do
It isn't, I ask to learn.
614
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:27:56 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.
um how can you prove that without observation?
615
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:17:22 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
616
« on: February 13, 2016, 04:00:26 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
617
« on: February 12, 2016, 11:14:13 PM »
I still am not particularly convinced by I think therefor I am.
The conclusion is made using reasoning that is only as concrete as we can observe it to be, which in this context all observation is put in question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that if reality isn't as we observe it now, that it still abides by the same bounds of logic we observe.
Question: can I doubt something if I don't exist? This is, of course, defining "I" as any thought relative to a form of mass, not necessarily "me".
If all of human observation and knowledge is suspect, then there's no way to conclude whether you can or can't.
Which I thought the whole point of "I think therefor I am" is meant that despite all doubt or delusion, one can be sure they are a thing that exists.
But I'd say it isn't sound to assume that the logic that works as we can observe in the "virtual" reality is what applies to the "actual" reality. There's no reason someone could deduce that.
Cogito Ergo Sum is the conclusion; to see if it's sound, you first have to see if the logic of the argument itself is valid.
1. I think ::= Tj
2. Everything that thinks, exists ::= (∀x)(Tx > (∃y)x=y)
C. I exist ::= (∃x)j=x Alternatively, dubito, ergo cognito, ergo sum: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." Doubt is evidence of thought; thought is evidence of an existence.
What I think you're getting caught up on is the I part of the equation; the substitute, "something doubts, therefore something thinks, therefore something exists" is an equivalent without the linguistic issue.
If you're still having reservations, think of it as, "I don't exist, therefore I don't think" or refer to the idea in Decartes' own words:
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, "I am, I exist," is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17). Thought is necessary for his existence (as it can only proven from the first-person) in his argument; if one thinks, one exists.
Actually what I am getting caught on is the premise that "Everything that thinks, exists". That is a conclusion derived from worldly observations and worldly logic, which in this context have no authority. There is absolutely no reason to say that outside our hypothetically false reality, "everything that thinks, exists".
618
« on: February 12, 2016, 09:05:48 PM »
I only got to lvl 5 but scored some triples.
I tilt super hard and get snowballed out
619
« on: February 12, 2016, 09:03:29 PM »
I still am not particularly convinced by I think therefor I am.
The conclusion is made using reasoning that is only as concrete as we can observe it to be, which in this context all observation is put in question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that if reality isn't as we observe it now, that it still abides by the same bounds of logic we observe.
Question: can I doubt something if I don't exist? This is, of course, defining "I" as any thought relative to a form of mass, not necessarily "me".
If all of human observation and knowledge is suspect, then there's no way to conclude whether you can or can't. Which I thought the whole point of "I think therefor I am" is meant that despite all doubt or delusion, one can be sure they are a thing that exists. But I'd say it isn't sound to assume that the logic that works as we can observe in the "virtual" reality is what applies to the "actual" reality. There's no reason someone could deduce that.
620
« on: February 12, 2016, 08:44:59 PM »
 im one of them fam honorable mentions  (prerelease)
621
« on: February 12, 2016, 08:19:38 PM »
>Turning 24 in April
>Have only made $21,000 my whole life
>Father thinks I'm a failure
>Need to invent a time machine and go back in time and become an engineer like him to make 75K a year
everyones an engineer now bra
622
« on: February 12, 2016, 08:12:44 PM »
RNG in gameplay removes all elements of player skill.
>pick Chaos Knight >have to be able to weigh decisions on whether or not this roll is going to go well >make well reasoned cost considerate risks >if you fuck up and go in thinking you can win if roll a 4 second stun but wind up getting a 2 second one, you die <pick invoker <suck for a few games until you can just get the muscle memory of his combos down <win every game from that point onward tbh people who think skill trumps strategy in competitive environments should probably stick to cod
623
« on: February 12, 2016, 08:04:55 PM »
I still am not particularly convinced by I think therefor I am.
The conclusion is made using reasoning that is only as concrete as we can observe it to be, which in this context all observation is put in question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that if reality isn't as we observe it now, that it still abides by the same bounds of logic we observe.
624
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:29:32 PM »
I love how in the first minute I thought the cardboard shitter was just a naive young lad learning the soul-crushing reality, then I realized he's just an idiot.
but anyways I think the soul-crushing reality only exists because people go into it with unrealistic expectations
like learning astrophysics with the expectations you become a real astronaut
625
« on: February 10, 2016, 07:58:50 PM »
why does it matter
like
is your hobby dating or something
get a hobby
626
« on: February 10, 2016, 06:17:20 PM »
Always been horrible at it. I dislike how badly a wiki-game it is.
627
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:00:38 PM »
I don't have suicidal thoughts with any intention. Like sometimes I'll think "holy fuck just kill me now" about something trivial. Nothing serious. I'm not depressed either. No time for it.
I don't like the paranoia associated with "suicide watching," but I understand why it freaks people out.
More often than not, it creates communication problems, like if someone's preoccupied with you not offing yourself they're going to try immediately securing your safety (whatever that means) instead of trying to really get to the crux of your problem.
Seriously though. I've been there. Don't suicide watch someone. It makes everything worse.
628
« on: February 10, 2016, 04:49:19 PM »
Russia and Assad coming out on top with the Kurds being able to just draw borders where they stand now would probably be the best feasible outcome right now.
Too bad Russian escalation couldn't solve anything fast enough thanks to FSA and ISIS being bankrolled. Even if America wouldn't support an insurgency should FSA lose coherency, Saudi sure as hell would keep pouring money into making life hell for anyone and everyone who just wants a clean and safe resolution.
629
« on: February 10, 2016, 04:41:31 PM »
jesus christ how many dicks got sucked for a high-school level author to get a job
professional journalism is a fucking joke
630
« on: February 10, 2016, 04:33:52 PM »
It's really kind of baffling how some people can be so damaged/deficient as to think behavior like that is okay.
At some point you have to fucking snap back into reality and ask yourself what the fuck you're doing.
Pages: 1 ... 192021 2223 ... 84
|
Show Posts