The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I've never really known or been around anyone with money. I grew up in Jackson, MS for God's sake. That kid rock song aint about the pearl river folks, that's blood.
Lawyers and doctors have money there, and businesses that cater to lawyers and doctors. That's about it.
I grew up po as shit. But I'd like to think if I had money (technically I make good money but it's tied up in a mortgage and insurance clusterfuck from hell.) I'd do noble things with it.
I'd go to fancy places and take pictures and post them on the forums with a price tag.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also any time people go "well no because of x, y, and z it actually does apply to you" you just outright refuse to concede the point and continue going "it doesn't apply to me, and is therefore untrue"
Except that Styrofoam really just said "Nuh uh, everybody wants more money always unless they're filthy rich".
money is a prime motivator of everyone's lives
i uh
this isn't even an arguement here
and just because you say that it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. it just means you think it doesn't apply to you
The term "moral" implies universality I would've thought.
If my personal morality can't be considered universal, then it's of no use.
The implications get caught up in pedantry rather often, but I would generally agree that the idea of "morality" as a function of reality instead of an agreement between a limited number of people is silly and absurd.
Codes of behavior are certainly very valuable, but I guess people tend to cling to "morality" more because it carries the weight of mysticism with it.
is the stupidest fucking rhetorical device on the internet
honestly its more irksome than Godwinning because at least there theoretically are some things that could be fairly compared to Nazism and Hitler
it basically says to everyone else "yeah, I know we could have an actual discussion here, but my ideas are more in the cultural mainstream than yours, so fuck you."
it's a good sign of who to not take seriously though
you will reach a point in your life when being lectured about the theory of things, unleavened by life experience, by college freshmen is irritating and embarrassing, not least because you remember doing the same thing yourself
Also any time people go "well no because of x, y, and z it actually does apply to you" you just outright refuse to concede the point and continue going "it doesn't apply to me, and is therefore untrue"
Except that Styrofoam really just said "Nuh uh, everybody wants more money always unless they're filthy rich".
money is a prime motivator of everyone's lives
i uh
this isn't even an arguement here
and just because you say that it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. it just means you think it doesn't apply to you
Ah yes, the old "you don't know how you feel, but I do" argument.
Carrot, does not your bemoaning your lack of employment indicate you are not happy with your financial situation even though you certainly aren't starving or homeless?
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited February 2011
Podly will tell you that morals are based on axiom-esque concepts of good and bad. Basically you have to be religious to be able to call yourself moral, because you have to believe that there are such a thing as objective laws of conduct of good behaviour.
Whereas ethics are laws of conduct based on reasoning.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Jacob, I have to say, I greatly enjoyed being able to do one of the classics last night.
I'm glad, Thom. I was worried it was a bit slow and unfortunately my stepmom had a minor emergency down at my folks' house so we didn't get to end on the plot beat I had hoped to reach, but I've been wanting to let you do that since day 1.
Jacobkosh on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
my major point, CC, is this is your prime argumentative tool- "It doesn't apply to me, so is by extension an untrue statement"
you've done it with me a lot, I see you do it here a lot
I'm just trying to give you some advice because tbh dude it's p annoying
you will reach a point in your life when being lectured about the theory of things, unleavened by life experience, by college freshmen is irritating and embarrassing, not least because you remember doing the same thing yourself
To be fair, much of that comes out of laziness and an unwillingness to change. See: Old people getting grumpy about social and technological progress.
There is a lot of discussion out there about whether morals are expressions of taste or preference, or whether they necessarily imply a claim of some kind of objectivity or universality.
Personally I think the latter is true; if you say something is right or wrong, that's different from saying "I don't like that." you can say it while accepting that you might be wrong, but it's still an attempt to describe factual reality.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Also any time people go "well no because of x, y, and z it actually does apply to you" you just outright refuse to concede the point and continue going "it doesn't apply to me, and is therefore untrue"
Except that Styrofoam really just said "Nuh uh, everybody wants more money always unless they're filthy rich".
money is a prime motivator of everyone's lives
i uh
this isn't even an arguement here
and just because you say that it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. it just means you think it doesn't apply to you
Ah yes, the old "you don't know how you feel, but I do" argument.
this isn't even a fucking arguement! I'm just saying that you saying it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it's necessarily true. You are not the prime arbiter of truth, things you believe might not be true in reality
this is all i mean
Jesus christ i don't even have a dog in this race, stop being confrontational to me
Rent on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I think most people would take more money if it came their way easily enough, but that is different from actively seeking more money (and the route to such). I know I could earn more with a fair bit of work but no career change or location shift, but I don't because I like where I am in life (or enough that I don't see fit to change anything).
Kalkino on
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
Podly will tell you that morals are based on axiom-esque concepts of good and bad. Basically you have to be religious to be able to call yourself moral, because you have to believe that there are such a thing as objective laws of conduct of good behaviour.
Whereas ethics are laws of conduct based on reasoning.
Podly is also deeply religious and that colors a lot of his philosophizing.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There is a lot of discussion out there about whether morals are expressions of taste or preference, or whether they necessarily imply a claim of some kind of objectivity or universality.
Personally I think the latter is true; if you say something is right or wrong, that's different from saying "I don't like that." you can say it while accepting that you might be wrong, but it's still an attempt to describe factual reality.
I think it reaches a strong point of nitpicking but I reluctantly agree.
Though that means to me that in the end, morals is just a useless word and ethics are what people really mean to be talking about.
The term "moral" implies universality I would've thought.
If my personal morality can't be considered universal, then it's of no use.
The implications get caught up in pedantry rather often, but I would generally agree that the idea of "morality" as a function of reality instead of an agreement between a limited number of people is silly and absurd.
Codes of behavior are certainly very valuable, but I guess people tend to cling to "morality" more because it carries the weight of mysticism with it.
i think it depends what your definition is and what baggage you're attaching to it
semantically, morality judgments generally take the form of a material claim about reality
"X is Y"
It's the same whether it's
Copper is conductive
or
Murder is wrong
It's just that in the first instance, the terms are clearly defined, and testable, and there is an agreed-upon standard of proof for the test
but intrinsically, moral statements are structured as reality-claims, not subjective claims
a subjective claim would be "Killing makes me feel bad"
The "subjectivity" in morality is really just the enormous ambiguity and variety in the definitions of good/bad, right/wrong, and so on.
But, arguably one could parse those definitions down to their constituent components and attach a scientific methodology to them.
Personally I'm of the opinion that everyone actually has identical morals on a fundamental level, because I think it's impossible to make a moral claim without first accepting a particular sort of hedonic principle -- a fairly encompassing but also fairly strictly defined one. But that's honestly a whole OP worth of argument to make that point
my major point, CC, is this is your prime argumentative tool- "It doesn't apply to me, so is by extension an untrue statement"
you've done it with me a lot, I see you do it here a lot
I'm just trying to give you some advice because tbh dude it's p annoying
When a statement purports to apply to everyone, and in fact does not, that statement is not true. Now, if Sammich had said "Most people want more money", I'd say "I don't", but I wouldn't be disagreeing with Sammich.
Also, I want a job not so much because of money but because I would like to be more independent, I'm getting a bit tired of just entertaining myself every day, and I need to build up my resume for being paid to do things like political research that I would actually enjoy.
Jacob, I have to say, I greatly enjoyed being able to do one of the classics last night.
I'm glad, Thom. I was worried it was a bit slow and unfortunately my stepmom had a minor emergency down at my folks' house so we didn't get to end on the plot beat I had hoped to reach, but I've been wanting to let you do that since day 1.
I was very busy doing math trying to see if I could do it. But doing the save the plane in an emergency is such a classic that I would have tried it even if the math didn't work.
Podly will tell you that morals are based on axiom-esque concepts of good and bad. Basically you have to be religious to be able to call yourself moral, because you have to believe that there are such a thing as objective laws of conduct of good behaviour.
Whereas ethics are laws of conduct based on reasoning.
Podly is also deeply religious and that colors a lot of his philosophizing.
just enough for a nice manhattan penthouse, a chauffeur, and a parade of high class prostitutes
Elendil on
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited February 2011
That doesn't change it though. Because that's pretty much the only way you can believe that something is objectively good - it's defined by a higher power.
Which means that from my point of view there can be no morals, and ethics is the only relevant thing.
I just reject "morals" outright and stick to a personal ethical code based on my personal values developed through empathy and whatever triggers were drilled into me as a child which do not conflict with that empathy. They carry way too much baggage conceptually and linguistically.
When a statement purports to apply to everyone, and in fact does not, that statement is not true. Now, if Sammich had said "Most people want more money", I'd say "I don't", but I wouldn't be disagreeing with Sammich.
Do you always take things so literally? If the DJ says the roof is on fire do you run out in a panic? Its a common thing to say "everyone" to mean "most". FFS, I even acknowledged there were exceptions in the original post.
Posts
I'd go to fancy places and take pictures and post them on the forums with a price tag.
pleasepaypreacher.net
money is a prime motivator of everyone's lives
i uh
this isn't even an arguement here
and just because you say that it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. it just means you think it doesn't apply to you
The implications get caught up in pedantry rather often, but I would generally agree that the idea of "morality" as a function of reality instead of an agreement between a limited number of people is silly and absurd.
Codes of behavior are certainly very valuable, but I guess people tend to cling to "morality" more because it carries the weight of mysticism with it.
Man, [chat] is like the fucking weather.
Like, it's either Gaming, Sex, philosophy, or splitting hairs about how we argue philosophy.
We're like on of those desk toys where it's about how momentum is conserved or something.
you will reach a point in your life when being lectured about the theory of things, unleavened by life experience, by college freshmen is irritating and embarrassing, not least because you remember doing the same thing yourself
Ah yes, the old "you don't know how you feel, but I do" argument.
Whereas ethics are laws of conduct based on reasoning.
I'm glad, Thom. I was worried it was a bit slow and unfortunately my stepmom had a minor emergency down at my folks' house so we didn't get to end on the plot beat I had hoped to reach, but I've been wanting to let you do that since day 1.
you've done it with me a lot, I see you do it here a lot
I'm just trying to give you some advice because tbh dude it's p annoying
To be fair, much of that comes out of laziness and an unwillingness to change. See: Old people getting grumpy about social and technological progress.
Personally I think the latter is true; if you say something is right or wrong, that's different from saying "I don't like that." you can say it while accepting that you might be wrong, but it's still an attempt to describe factual reality.
hopefully
like, i plan on blocking away the weekend, but i'm not sure what my obligations are gonna be
any chance you're gonna be around before or after the con?
also he had a beautiful bong and lent me one his baby ones to watch
this isn't even a fucking arguement! I'm just saying that you saying it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it's necessarily true. You are not the prime arbiter of truth, things you believe might not be true in reality
this is all i mean
Jesus christ i don't even have a dog in this race, stop being confrontational to me
I was a classic the day I was born, yo
as any number of the attending nurses will attest
Podly is also deeply religious and that colors a lot of his philosophizing.
I think it reaches a strong point of nitpicking but I reluctantly agree.
Though that means to me that in the end, morals is just a useless word and ethics are what people really mean to be talking about.
i think it depends what your definition is and what baggage you're attaching to it
semantically, morality judgments generally take the form of a material claim about reality
"X is Y"
It's the same whether it's
Copper is conductive
or
Murder is wrong
It's just that in the first instance, the terms are clearly defined, and testable, and there is an agreed-upon standard of proof for the test
but intrinsically, moral statements are structured as reality-claims, not subjective claims
a subjective claim would be "Killing makes me feel bad"
The "subjectivity" in morality is really just the enormous ambiguity and variety in the definitions of good/bad, right/wrong, and so on.
But, arguably one could parse those definitions down to their constituent components and attach a scientific methodology to them.
Personally I'm of the opinion that everyone actually has identical morals on a fundamental level, because I think it's impossible to make a moral claim without first accepting a particular sort of hedonic principle -- a fairly encompassing but also fairly strictly defined one. But that's honestly a whole OP worth of argument to make that point
When a statement purports to apply to everyone, and in fact does not, that statement is not true. Now, if Sammich had said "Most people want more money", I'd say "I don't", but I wouldn't be disagreeing with Sammich.
Also, I want a job not so much because of money but because I would like to be more independent, I'm getting a bit tired of just entertaining myself every day, and I need to build up my resume for being paid to do things like political research that I would actually enjoy.
I was very busy doing math trying to see if I could do it. But doing the save the plane in an emergency is such a classic that I would have tried it even if the math didn't work.
no idea
I'm guessing you don't want to see how many nerds can fit in your place at once
Seriously?
If so I had no idea.
"How many guys with cat ears do I have to trade for some normal people who can dress properly?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
just enough for a nice manhattan penthouse, a chauffeur, and a parade of high class prostitutes
Which means that from my point of view there can be no morals, and ethics is the only relevant thing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
and I stepped out, tiny martini glass clutched in my fist
tiny top hat on my still-soft skull
I agree. In fact, I'm taking off for the night for a measure of both.
Also, people should check out the Secret Santa thread. Elki got me a 3DS for Secret Santa.
Really.
Really.
--
I just reject "morals" outright and stick to a personal ethical code based on my personal values developed through empathy and whatever triggers were drilled into me as a child which do not conflict with that empathy. They carry way too much baggage conceptually and linguistically.
that costs extra
Do you always take things so literally? If the DJ says the roof is on fire do you run out in a panic? Its a common thing to say "everyone" to mean "most". FFS, I even acknowledged there were exceptions in the original post.