User Controls
Posts by Lanny
-
2016-05-22 at 2:45 AM UTC in How do you fancy my new distro?[greentext]>notepad++[/greentext]
learn2vim noob
Also is that KDE? Ubuntu has shipped with gnome for ages. -
2016-05-21 at 9:11 AM UTC in I go to the 3rd interview on Monday
To first gain capital you must work. This is why I don't have an LSD lab yet, its only a few thousand dollars to cook a kilo of pure LSD worth $1million dollars.
Plus the contacts to acquire precursor which are worth significantly more than a few thousand dollars. -
2016-05-21 at 4:50 AM UTC in Anyone here ever had near death experience / out of body experience?I experienced a near drowning as a kid. No crazy visions or anything but the memory is pretty interesting, very non visual but the experience of, uhh, like the way the water felt, being enclosed on all sides, like I was the only solid thing in an endless universe of molasses is extremely vivvid. It was almost tranquil despite the physical struggle.
-
2016-05-21 at 4:17 AM UTC in Laying down in your dad's bed with the windows closed withdrawing from MucinexI genuinely didn't know you could abuse mucinex recreationally
-
2016-05-20 at 5:46 AM UTC in I'm a pedophile, not a monster
Which one of you sick fucks is this?
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/im_not_a_monster_a_pedophile_on_attraction_love_and_a_life_of_loneliness/
Honestly, can you find a real moral fault with the guy? I can't say his preference is aesthetically pleasing to me but the idea of someone being guilty of psychological states seems... well it's not strictly incomprehensible but it seems really dumb -
2016-05-18 at 4:03 PM UTC in i got attacked at work again
you're not a real person, you're a fat faggot and a coward
-
2016-05-17 at 4:47 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
*ahem*
https://www.reddit.com/r/RCSources/
I went around to the vendors I've used in the past, a couple of new ones, none seem to have MXE although I do seem to have one with 5-MAPB in stock which I've been keeping an eye out for for a while so that's nice. The only Chinese vendor (as in ships-from, I assume most vendors are selling Chinese stuff) I ever used has closed shop, but the ban is still in place so I don't know why they'd have it again. -
2016-05-17 at 3:59 AM UTC in Timbre is what we say when we run out of words to describe sound
Lanny you're a beautiful soul but hasn't the language suffered enough?
It's wordy and obnoxious (I was shitfaced when I wrote that) but I think it's a valid construct. -
2016-05-17 at 12:23 AM UTC in i got attacked at work again
and the fucking cops wanted nothing to do with the situation, yet they will arrest someone for jay walking or anything like that but a homeless nigger isn't worth their trouble they let him go
One self-destructive, undereducated, impulsive prole getting their ass kicked by another. The police don't concern themselves with cats fight over dumpster scraps, why on earth would they care about you? It's only when real people get involved that the police care. -
2016-05-17 at 12:12 AM UTC in Got attacked at work
kek, when did i ever strike a customer? are you talking out of your asshole again?
As I recall it was when some guy wanted to sign a receipt on your car and you decided somehow that was just going too far so you slapped his hand to get him to stop. No you might say "slapping isn't striking" but I want you to think long and hard about wether or not that makes you look like any less of a retard. -
2016-05-16 at 6:14 AM UTC in A giant penis urinating on childrenPretty sure that's not arms
-
2016-05-16 at 6:09 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first editionYeah, give it a go. Kinda like with stims I think you need a certain kind of personality or at least a certain headspace to enjoy dissociatives. I don't think I fit the bill, I could never see myself really craving that feeling. On a total level it's kinda distant and cold although there's a certain charm in that too. No way to know until you try though.
-
2016-05-16 at 3:45 AM UTC in Got attacked at workSo a whole group of people each independently decided that you getting assaulted is a good thing, so much so that they actually hugged the assailant afterwards?
Are you sure these people didn't just have a legitimate reason to hate your dumb guts? Like we already know you've been scolded for pissing off customers multiple times, one time going so far as to actually strike a customer.
I have a hard time believing all this really came out of nowhere, especially when contrasted with the possibility that you're just so self absorbed you don't realize you're a laughing stock or simply reviled. -
2016-05-15 at 7:51 PM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrong
If morality were an absolute "fundamental law", something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.
That's not true. Consider utilitarians: they're generally realists (the believe in an objective morality) and yet human feelings are the only subject of moral inquiry under such a system. Yes, human mental states, well being, is "subjective" in that it is contingent upon individual minds but that doesn't mean we can't make objective statements about subjective states. For example, it's pretty uncontroversial that beauty is subjective, but we can say objectively that beholding beauty is a positive experience. Likewise the nature and causes of happiness may be contingent upon and variable between moral agents but that doesn't mean we can't coherently and objectively express a duty to maximize it.Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality? I suspect that they’re actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral.
Aside from the fact that most philosophers pursue an objective ethics simply because they believe such a proposition is true, there are also practical concerns as well. Subjectivist moral theories serve as very poor foundations for things like laws, governance.Correct,, it is an opinion, a perspective, a consideration, something we deem.
But there are true opinions. "The sky is blue" is an opinion, but it's also an objective fact.If we were not around to deem the world to be right or wrong the world would not be right or wrong, it would only be the world.
That was exactly the point of the example, we consider a world of completed genocide to be bad even though there would be no on in such a world to have moral judgements about it. We can posit a world without and still call it bad, meaning the "bad" we're talking about in such a case is not wholly dependent on moral subjects.Our moral sense is one of a number of systems developed by evolution to do a job: the immune systems counters infection, the visual system gives us information about the world, and our moral feelings are there as a social glue to enable us to cooperate with other humans.
That's not what I was talking about. Most constructivist systems posit a world where we had evolved without moral intuitions would still be bound by the same moral mandates, that reasoning populations, regardless of an evolved intuition, would discover a moral theory through inquiry.I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. How can an abstract object be objective? What does this have to do with morality?
An abstract object is non-subjective because it's properties are not subjective. We naturally consider arithmetic theorems to be factual, but their existence* is still dependent on minds. Constructivist morality is similar, it owes its ontological status and the truth of its propositions to moral agents and yet is not subjective. The analogy is supposed to illustrate that things can be mind-dependent but non-subjective.
*or whatever quality you believe they possess as to distinguish them from things like, say, unicornsWhat would "objective morality" even mean? Yes, humans have an intuition about it, but that intuition was programmed for purely subjective and pragmatic reasons, and thus is a hopeless base for establishing absolute morality.
That generally why philosophers don't take moral intuition to be a sufficient base for moral systems on its own.When asked, the advocate of absolute morality explains that it is concerned with what one "should do", regardless of human opinion or desire. When asked what "should do" means they’ll replace it with a near synonym, explaining that it is what one "ought to do". But if you press further they’ll simply retreat into circularity, explaining that what you "ought" to do is what you "should" do, and thus beg the whole question. They can’t do any better than that, though they’ll likely appeal to human intuition, which won’t do for the reasons above.
There's a difference between using human intuition to characterize a fundamental idea like "ought" and trying to use intuitions as evidence for normative propositions. At some point any description of a thing, if pressed, must regress towards experiential analogy. -
2016-05-15 at 7:04 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongIf some nigga was like "here, come not worry about any survival pressures and just chill the fuck out taking it easy and straight up DGAFing for the rest of your life" I'd be all over that shit, zoo like if the tits
-
2016-05-15 at 6:23 AM UTC in Mathematics
don't even get me started on youre grammer
infinitesimally complex mathematical concepts?
I chuckled -
2016-05-15 at 2:14 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrong
I don't see how anything could be right or wrong without someone there to subjectively considering the thing to be right or wrong.
Two easy ways to disagree with that are that moral laws are fundamental to our universe. It's generally uncontroversial that unaware things can do wrong or be bad (plague is bad, yet plague has no consciousness or moral agency). For plagues to be bad we may need moral agents to exist but that doesn't mean they're subjective or that their badness is. Similarly mass extinction of complex life would result in a world where nothing is around to subjectively experience the wrongness of it and yet we can consider such a world and most of us would deem such genocide to be wrong.
The other would be to claim moral laws are emergent from conscious populations but not subjective: regardless of the beliefs of such populations their constituents' obligations to one another remain unchanged. Something in the nature of certain types of consciousness brings about morality inevitably. So we can look at abstract objects, regardless of what ontological status you grant them, as a similar example of something which is objective, or minimally non-subjective, and yet which owe their status entirely to subjective perception in a similar way to how we might propose a constructivist model of ethics.
It would seem like you need to refute both those major branches of moral realism before you can justify moral subjectivism. -
2016-05-15 at 1:59 AM UTC in Mathematics
Mathematics deals with quantity, multitude and magnitude, and the relationships between various quantities. So yes, arithmetic recognizes prime numbers, which are qualitative properties of quantities, but the quality of being prime is one concerned with the relationship between quantities. Circles are curves with many unique qualitative properties, but all that I can think of are expressions of relations between quantities.
So yes, number theory will always deal with quantities but mathematics is not number theory. It's not uncommon to talk about non-quantitative qualities however. We might talk about the set of all black ravens, formalize what we mean by black and raven, and investigate the relationship between the quality of "blackness" and "raven-ness". That might seem like a goofy example but it's actually a necessary move in non-trivial arguments like Hempel's ravens.But the essence of an oak tree is not able to be expressed quantitatively. I don't see how you could use mathematics to describe it. You could use it to describe its shape, project its growth, etc.
What would it mean to describe "the essence of an oak tree"? Can you do it in natural language? Do you know what the essence of an oak tree is? It's a whole mereological quagmire as far as I'm concerned.
Put another way, if you can list sets of necessary and sufficient conditions for being an oak then we can trivially quantify the essence of an oak. But if you can't then there's nothing that will serve you better than mathematics. Even things like species membership are ambiguous (google ring species for some fascinating reading).
There's kind of this toy problem you see in phil 100 classes where you ask "when does a puddle become a pond?" and it's like we find things which are obviously ponds and not puddles and conversely we can find thing that are obviously puddles and not ponds but there are some values between the two that are fuzzy, fundamentally so, there's no prescribed volume that a puddle must take on to become a pond. It reveals that language isn't always susceptible to modeling, not because our techniques of modeling are flawed (indeed it would be trivial to model pond vs. puddle status if we had more rigorous definitions of the terms) but because language is ambiguous, we have a lot of constructs for talking about classes of things we don't really have robust classification criteria for. -
2016-05-15 at 1:04 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Lanny,about the bit of MXE you have left and don't want to use because of the drought after the China ban. Well, it's coming back (The power and resilience of capitalism over the state!),
Was the ban lifted or did the labs move? Link?but what I wanted to know was what you usually did on it. I've seen multiple reports that it can greatly increase immersion while playing games or viewing something, which sounds like an awesome effect.
It was fun for games but I wouldn't really say it improved immersion. Mostly programming or reading. I have mixed feelings about it, never really got any of the euphoria people talk about. Mostly it made me feel emotionally very neutral, calculating. Like it got me in the perfect headspace for minmaxing which is something I usually don't enjoy. Just really focused but not really caring. -
2016-05-15 at 12:59 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongwho did then?
