Newscaster: And right now it's time for athletics, and over to Brian Goebells in Paris.
Goebells: Hello, well you join us here in Paris just a few minutes before the start of today's big event: the final of the Men's-Being-Eaten- By-A-Crocodile event. I'm standing now by the crocodile pit where- AAAAAAHHHHH!
(FX: Crocodiles eating, French exclamations and sirens)
Newscaster: Ah. Well I'm afraid that we've lost Brian. While they're sorting that out, we have a report from Barry Loothesom in Lughtborrow on the British preparations for this most important event.
Loothesom: Here at Lughtborrow are the five young men chosen last week to be eaten by a crocodile for Britain this summer. Obviously, the most important part of the event is the opening 60 yard sprint towards the crocs. And twenty-two year old Nottingham schoolteacher Gavin Watterlow is rated by some not only the fastest but also the tastiest British morsel since Barry Gordon got a bronze at Helsinki. In charge of the team is Sergeant Major Harold Duke.
Duke: Aww, well, you not only got to get in that pit first, you gotta get EATEN first. When you land in front of your croc, and 'e opens his mouth, I wanna see you right in there. Rub your 'ead up against 'is taste buds. And when those teeth bite into your flesh, use the perches to thrust yourself DOWN his throat...
Loothesom: Duke's trained with every British team since 1928, and it's his blend of gymnastic knowhow, reptilian expertise and culinary skill that's turned many an un-appetizing novice into a crocodilic banquet.
Duke: Well, our chefs have been experimenting for many years to find a sauce most likely to tempt the crocodile. In the past, we've concentrated on a fish based sauce, but this year, we are reverting to a simple bernaise.
Loothesom: The British team are worried because Olympic regulations allow only the competitor's heads to be sauced. Gavin Morolowe...
Morolowe: Yes, well, I mean, (clears throat) you know, four years ago, everyone knew the Italians were coating the insides of their legs with bolinaise, the Russians have been marinating themselves, One of the Germans, Biolek, was caught actually putting, uh, remolarde down his shorts. And the Finns were using tomato flavoured running shoes. Uh, I think there should either be unrestricted garnishing, or a single, Olympic standard mayonnaise.
Loothesom: Gavin, does it ever worry you that you're actually going to be chewed up by a bloody, grey crocodile.
Morolowe: The only thing that worries me, Jim, is being the first one down that gullet.
Loothesom: Well, the way things are going here at Lughtborrow, it looks as though Britan could easily pick up a place in the first seven hundred. But nothing's predictable in this tough, harsh, highly competitive world where today's champion is tomorrow's crocodile shit. And back to you, in the studio, Norman.
Awesome.
And yeah, leaving a kid to be killed like that is pretty fucked up.
this guy in the state capitol shot a girl through a window of an old chicago while she was performing with a band
now that's some dinner theater
One of my brothers was there and had to chase off the press so the employees could go home
he also gave a rather graphic explanation of what went on when he called the other day
Apparently that guy didn't really care if he got caught or not. He's (ex-)military with sniper training and she was shot in the head through a window from across the parking lot with a rifle. It's like he was just trying to show-off.
this guy in the state capitol shot a girl through a window of an old chicago while she was performing with a band
now that's some dinner theater
One of my brothers was there and had to chase off the press so the employees could go home
he also gave a rather graphic explanation of what went on when he called the other day
Apparently that guy didn't really care if he got caught or not. He's (ex-)military with sniper training and she was shot in the head through a window from across the parking lot with a rifle. It's like he was just trying to show-off.
The Wyoming National Guard is hardly miltary
just a bunch of ex oilfield workers chasing antelope around with sharp sticks
this guy in the state capitol shot a girl through a window of an old chicago while she was performing with a band
now that's some dinner theater
what about the guy in colorado who called himself the emperor and attempted to storm the capitol building
shit, whenever there's an event downtown i miss it
i'm really surprised we didn't hear about that while we were at meps. I mean the building is real close to the state capitol, and it was happening while we were there
Mister Longbaugh on
0
Options
Agent VesagoHalf Iago. Half Fu Manchu. All Bastard.Registered Userregular
this guy in the state capitol shot a girl through a window of an old chicago while she was performing with a band
now that's some dinner theater
One of my brothers was there and had to chase off the press so the employees could go home
he also gave a rather graphic explanation of what went on when he called the other day
Apparently that guy didn't really care if he got caught or not. He's (ex-)military with sniper training and she was shot in the head through a window from across the parking lot with a rifle. It's like he was just trying to show-off.
It was a good shot.
Agent Vesago on
0
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
I always thought that moral relativism simply meant that the morality of a particular action is determined by its context. For example, in some situations, the act of lying is bad, such as lying to your spouse about cheating on them, whereas in other situations, the act of lying is good, such as if you were protecting people from being killed by telling the potential killers that you don't know where they are.
I always thought that moral relativism simply meant that the morality of a particular action is determined by its context. For example, in some situations, the act of lying is bad, such as lying to your spouse about cheating on them, whereas in other situations, the act of lying is good, such as if you were protecting people from being killed by telling the potential killers that you don't know where they are.
From what we were told in the class, there are different levels of moral relativism; what you suggest is merely a less extreme version. The really extreme ones suggest that it is impossible for us to judge a culture's moral truths because we have no reason to suggest that they're better/worse than our own.
Meta-ethical is the latter, and descriptive is the former, if I remember right. Been a while since I took the class, though, so I'm not 100% sure on either.
well isnt that interesting see i think arguing against moral relativism is one of the worst things a person can possibly do
no no
the worst
Even meta-ethical relativism? See, I have no problem with descriptive relativism. There are people there who just deserve a good killing, and even though it's an action that would be improper in another situation, in that specific situation it's justified.
Meta-ethical relativism, though, suggests that we can't EVER argue against another culture's moral beliefs because it's all relative. That's the kind of position that leads to things like saying the Holocaust may be wrong from our point of view, but from the Nazi Germany point of view it was okay because they're a different culture and we have no right to argue against them.
Now if you really do mean that arguing against moral relativism, including meta-ethical relativism is the worst thing a person can possibly do, then I disagree completely.
I always thought that moral relativism simply meant that the morality of a particular action is determined by its context. For example, in some situations, the act of lying is bad, such as lying to your spouse about cheating on them, whereas in other situations, the act of lying is good, such as if you were protecting people from being killed by telling the potential killers that you don't know where they are.
From what we were told in the class, there are different levels of moral relativism; what you suggest is merely a less extreme version. The really extreme ones suggest that it is impossible for us to judge a culture's moral truths because we have no reason to suggest that they're better/worse than our own.
Meta-ethical is the latter, and descriptive is the former, if I remember right. Been a while since I took the class, though, so I'm not 100% sure on either.
I've never heard anyone advocate the later, extreme position, only the former one, wherein the context is the measure of what is moral, not the action itself.
I always thought that moral relativism simply meant that the morality of a particular action is determined by its context. For example, in some situations, the act of lying is bad, such as lying to your spouse about cheating on them, whereas in other situations, the act of lying is good, such as if you were protecting people from being killed by telling the potential killers that you don't know where they are.
From what we were told in the class, there are different levels of moral relativism; what you suggest is merely a less extreme version. The really extreme ones suggest that it is impossible for us to judge a culture's moral truths because we have no reason to suggest that they're better/worse than our own.
Meta-ethical is the latter, and descriptive is the former, if I remember right. Been a while since I took the class, though, so I'm not 100% sure on either.
I've never heard anyone advocate the later, extreme position, only the former one, wherein the context is the measure of what is moral, not the action itself.
I doubt you'll see it advocated too strongly in society as a whole, although I would disagree I've never seen it brought up. It's a debated philosophical position, though, because it's a lot easier to argue about something like this when you're not having to bring the human factor into things.
I always thought that moral relativism simply meant that the morality of a particular action is determined by its context. For example, in some situations, the act of lying is bad, such as lying to your spouse about cheating on them, whereas in other situations, the act of lying is good, such as if you were protecting people from being killed by telling the potential killers that you don't know where they are.
From what we were told in the class, there are different levels of moral relativism; what you suggest is merely a less extreme version. The really extreme ones suggest that it is impossible for us to judge a culture's moral truths because we have no reason to suggest that they're better/worse than our own.
Meta-ethical is the latter, and descriptive is the former, if I remember right. Been a while since I took the class, though, so I'm not 100% sure on either.
I've never heard anyone advocate the later, extreme position, only the former one, wherein the context is the measure of what is moral, not the action itself.
I doubt you'll see it advocated too strongly in society as a whole, although I would disagree I've never seen it brought up. It's a debated philosophical position, though, because it's a lot easier to argue about something like this when you're not having to bring the human factor into things.
Oh, I imagine it is debated in philosophical circles, I've just never heard of anyone trying to seriously enact it in the real world. It seems clear to me that it would inevitably lead to an absurd situation, wherein harmful ideologies would have to be given free reign simply because we aren't allowed to judge them. I generally reject absurd ideologies, so I see no value in such extreme relativism.
Posts
this makes no sense whatsoever.
Now is the season of evil!
Yeah, unfortunately the girl didn't have a grapple hook on her belt and/or a watch laser and daringly escaped while the mastermind sauntered off.
She got eaten. Alive.
Awesome.
And yeah, leaving a kid to be killed like that is pretty fucked up.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
well yeah but still
Apparently that guy didn't really care if he got caught or not. He's (ex-)military with sniper training and she was shot in the head through a window from across the parking lot with a rifle. It's like he was just trying to show-off.
Yeah, if your culture says that it's OK to feed people to alligators, what right do I have to judge?
Oh, wait, I have every right to judge.
And it's entirely proper for it to be judged as such.
The Wyoming National Guard is hardly miltary
just a bunch of ex oilfield workers chasing antelope around with sharp sticks
It doesn't even sound like they ate her. I mean, I assume you don't find the bodies of eaten people, aside from a few boney chunks.
Knawed to death, then spat out. Killed and insulted at the same time.
i'm really surprised we didn't hear about that while we were at meps. I mean the building is real close to the state capitol, and it was happening while we were there
It was a good shot.
Rank
Rank
I remember in my Philosophy class when we discussed it.
Then we had to break into groups, one side for it and one side against it.
Arguing against it was the easiest thing I ever did in University.
no no
the worst
From what we were told in the class, there are different levels of moral relativism; what you suggest is merely a less extreme version. The really extreme ones suggest that it is impossible for us to judge a culture's moral truths because we have no reason to suggest that they're better/worse than our own.
Meta-ethical is the latter, and descriptive is the former, if I remember right. Been a while since I took the class, though, so I'm not 100% sure on either.
Even meta-ethical relativism? See, I have no problem with descriptive relativism. There are people there who just deserve a good killing, and even though it's an action that would be improper in another situation, in that specific situation it's justified.
Meta-ethical relativism, though, suggests that we can't EVER argue against another culture's moral beliefs because it's all relative. That's the kind of position that leads to things like saying the Holocaust may be wrong from our point of view, but from the Nazi Germany point of view it was okay because they're a different culture and we have no right to argue against them.
Now if you really do mean that arguing against moral relativism, including meta-ethical relativism is the worst thing a person can possibly do, then I disagree completely.
how you gonna say a whole culture was shit
I've never heard anyone advocate the later, extreme position, only the former one, wherein the context is the measure of what is moral, not the action itself.
I.. I don't know how to respond to this.
I doubt you'll see it advocated too strongly in society as a whole, although I would disagree I've never seen it brought up. It's a debated philosophical position, though, because it's a lot easier to argue about something like this when you're not having to bring the human factor into things.
I saw this thing on the television about a guy named Hitler? Somebody should stop him.
Oh, I imagine it is debated in philosophical circles, I've just never heard of anyone trying to seriously enact it in the real world. It seems clear to me that it would inevitably lead to an absurd situation, wherein harmful ideologies would have to be given free reign simply because we aren't allowed to judge them. I generally reject absurd ideologies, so I see no value in such extreme relativism.