the unpenetrable barrier beetween my mind and yours is bad
penetrate it, join it, erase loneliness
paradise
anyone who prefers the other extreme to this one? Total isolation? Not just that you're not party to anyone's mind but your own but that you wouldn't even interact with other minds at all?
BOEHNER: I made it clear I am not going to compromise on my principles, nor am I going to compromise the will of the American people.
STAHL: What are you saying? You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t.
BOEHNER: When you say the word “compromise,” a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh oh, they’re gonna sell me out.” And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense. ...
STAHL: “Why won’t you say ... you’re afraid of the word.”
what about people who hold that morality proceeds from god's will? this is a common belief in lay christianity.
that is to say that rape is immoral because it is contrary to god's will
Then god's will is arbitrary etc etc
or it proceeds along a higher wisdom or morality that isn't necessarily intuitive or even comprehensible by human brains and it is our lot to follow the will of our creator and master etc
why does it matter if god's will is arbitrary or not? Serious question.
I mean it's god what're you gonna do, politely disagree?
if god's will is arbitrary, then so is morality, and if God were to command us to murder and torture, then murdering and torturing would be absolutely moral.
this is a pretty twisted view of the universe and of morality, one which conflicts with pretty much every moral scheme, even the evangelical theistic ones.
incidentally, i have been feeling pretty positive about the idea of moral facts lately.
all views conflict with all other views that are not the same
anyway it is logical though
where does the "rules" for morality "come from" if not god?
they come from people discovering a set of rules that allow for the best overall progress of the species.
that's an argument for it, anyway
rules made by people are infinitely more arbitrary than rules hard-coded into the universe, methinks
I'm talking to somebody on Facebook who insists that her friend turned down a second job because the extra income would have pushed her up into a new tax bracket and the extra taxes would have wiped out the extra income.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
what about people who hold that morality proceeds from god's will? this is a common belief in lay christianity.
that is to say that rape is immoral because it is contrary to god's will
Then god's will is arbitrary etc etc
or it proceeds along a higher wisdom or morality that isn't necessarily intuitive or even comprehensible by human brains and it is our lot to follow the will of our creator and master etc
why does it matter if god's will is arbitrary or not? Serious question.
I mean it's god what're you gonna do, politely disagree?
if god's will is arbitrary, then so is morality, and if God were to command us to murder and torture, then murdering and torturing would be absolutely moral.
this is a pretty twisted view of the universe and of morality, one which conflicts with pretty much every moral scheme, even the evangelical theistic ones.
incidentally, i have been feeling pretty positive about the idea of moral facts lately.
all views conflict with all other views that are not the same
anyway it is logical though
where does the "rules" for morality "come from" if not god?
they come from people discovering a set of rules that allow for the best overall progress of the species.
that's an argument for it, anyway
rules made by people are infinitely more arbitrary than rules hard-coded into the universe, methinks
also, what kind of progress
I believe John Locke's Leviathan explains the theory in depth, but I could be getting it confused with another work
the unpenetrable barrier beetween my mind and yours is bad
penetrate it, join it, erase loneliness
paradise
anyone who prefers the other extreme to this one? Total isolation? Not just that you're not party to anyone's mind but your own but that you wouldn't even interact with other minds at all?
I've had my "fuck everyone else I want to have absolutely no say in anyone else's life and I don't want them to have any say, even the smallest, in my own" moments. But I've come to realize that this is a negative reaction to loneliness, and it seems that uncompromising unity would be the more honest and fulfilling extreme.
I'm talking to somebody on Facebook who insists that her friend turned down a second job because the extra income would have pushed her up into a new tax bracket and the extra taxes would have wiped out the extra income.
And a hive mind will be death to the species. Say good bye to innovation.
1. why would innovation be gone?
2. and why is that a bad thing?
A culture needs new input to thrive, otherwise it stagnates. A gene pool needs to bring in outside material or it gets faulty. If you remove the individuality and press our species's consciousness into one large entity all this will be impossible. We'll run out of steam unless we exist at the most basic level of necessary functions.
Because innovation is always going to be required.
I'm talking to somebody on Facebook who insists that her friend turned down a second job because the extra income would have pushed her up into a new tax bracket and the extra taxes would have wiped out the extra income.
Is it because Obama is Hitler?
There has to be more to this.
Because tax brackets
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm talking to somebody on Facebook who insists that her friend turned down a second job because the extra income would have pushed her up into a new tax bracket and the extra taxes would have wiped out the extra income.
Is it because Obama is Hitler?
There has to be more to this.
Because tax brackets
This is theoretically possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.
If I were philosopher-king of America, I would require everyone to read both Marx and Rand, and watch both Fox News and MSNBC. Economics and Finance would be required subjects up to the 12th grade.
And I would have a harem, of course.
June 1 would be steak and blowjob day.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Bohener is being smart because Americans are just THAT anal about terminology.
I'm talking to somebody on Facebook who insists that her friend turned down a second job because the extra income would have pushed her up into a new tax bracket and the extra taxes would have wiped out the extra income.
Is it because Obama is Hitler?
There has to be more to this.
Because tax brackets
This is theoretically possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.
Yeah.
It's an oft-repeated meme that makes me twitch a little.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
I liked the raging stallion into remote control anal penetration move myself.
Millions of people do that every year. I mean look at American Idol.
pleasepaypreacher.net
the best magazine was PC Accelerator, though
it was like EGM, and Maxim pulped together in a blender and then massaged onto your testicles
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
loneliness, is bad
the unpenetrable barrier beetween my mind and yours is bad
penetrate it, join it, erase loneliness
paradise
anyone who prefers the other extreme to this one? Total isolation? Not just that you're not party to anyone's mind but your own but that you wouldn't even interact with other minds at all?
Does not want.
Suddenly I want to stab somebody with a fork.
I want them to make it and then to lose millions as it flops horribly.
rules made by people are infinitely more arbitrary than rules hard-coded into the universe, methinks
also, what kind of progress
are... are you sure? /flinches away reflexively
I'm listening.
I think Stahl would help you.
And a hive mind will be death to the species. Say good bye to innovation.
1. why would innovation be gone?
2. and why is that a bad thing?
I'm talking to somebody on Facebook who insists that her friend turned down a second job because the extra income would have pushed her up into a new tax bracket and the extra taxes would have wiped out the extra income.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Is it not a good book?
I haven't read it, but it sounded kind of interesting.
Or maybe I'm thinking of something else?
Kind of edwardian low magic kind of thing?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468500/
Apparently the script is being written.
I really hope it's a wonderful movie, but that sort of book just can't really be turned into a screen play
LotR gave me some hope though!
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I believe John Locke's Leviathan explains the theory in depth, but I could be getting it confused with another work
I've had my "fuck everyone else I want to have absolutely no say in anyone else's life and I don't want them to have any say, even the smallest, in my own" moments. But I've come to realize that this is a negative reaction to loneliness, and it seems that uncompromising unity would be the more honest and fulfilling extreme.
It's one of my favorite books of all time
(right next to The Unbearable Lightness of Being / The Great Gatsby / Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close / ... Atlas Shrugged)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Is it because Obama is Hitler?
There has to be more to this.
A culture needs new input to thrive, otherwise it stagnates. A gene pool needs to bring in outside material or it gets faulty. If you remove the individuality and press our species's consciousness into one large entity all this will be impossible. We'll run out of steam unless we exist at the most basic level of necessary functions.
Because innovation is always going to be required.
Because tax brackets
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
seriously?
Why would it be awful?
A hivemind would serve as a replacement of the social contract structure of society.
Because we don't have perfect potency to ease the suffering of others.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I hated it pretty thoroughly.
This is theoretically possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.
And I would have a harem, of course.
June 1 would be steak and blowjob day.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Its a brilliant book. One of the greatest books that has been written in many many years. I mean that without any hyperbole.
But it would make a terrible movie. Its long, and complicated and the writing style is one of the greatest things about it.
Yeah.
It's an oft-repeated meme that makes me twitch a little.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
no one should watch fox news
why the fuck did I spread tabasco sauce on my grilled cheese sandwich with the finger I've cut
fuck I'm stupid