User Controls
Posts by playingindirt
-
2018-09-22 at 7:31 PM UTC in Why did I get a sinking feeling in my gut, and only feel pity?
Originally posted by Rock_N_Rollover Cocaine killed my brother in law. Not directly.
The stupid ass doctor at the E.R. give him something to bring him down.
Then they gave him some more.
They brought him down alright. Down to his death.
why didn't they monitor him is what I'm wondering. my heart goes out to you about your brother. <3 -
2018-09-22 at 7:24 PM UTC in Pawn shop people are dicks
Originally posted by mmQ You should open a pawn shop where you pay people the exact value of something and make no profit for yourself, because you're a good person and you don't want to take advantage of people in their hard times.
And OP said 'jedi trickery.'
I understand they need to make a profit to stay in business. and I didn't say they should give you the exact value for what you have. but if what you have is worth $500.00 and you are seriously injured and you missed some work $25.00 is not a fair or reasonable price for something worth $500.00.
I also understand it depends on the demand for what you have can make a difference too.
they literally take advantage of people in desperate situations. It's better to come out of the pawnshop with at least enough to make a payment on whatever is due (say your lights) so you either take the money and make a payment on what ever is due or off goes your lights.
you know someone that runs a pawnshop? -
2018-09-22 at 7:05 PM UTC in Woodworking project thread
-
2018-09-22 at 7:02 PM UTC in Pawn shop people are dicks
Originally posted by mmQ Lol why do THEY suck? They're offering a service for people who are desperate. It's not like you HAVE to accept their offer. If you have options, dont be retarded and don't pawn shit off when you know you're gonna get a poor value.
There's no trick involved. If you can sell your thing for more, then sell it for more. If you can't, then you pawn it. That's not magic.
that's just it. they make a profit off people in desperate situations. that makes them nice? no. it makes them a fat profit.
it's like if your paycheck was shorted and you have to wait for your money but your lights are due. or you've been injured and you didn't get to work as many hours as you normally do. and I didn't say there was a trick involved.
they suck. -
2018-09-22 at 6:03 PM UTC in Pawn shop people are dicksthat's how they make a fat profit. and yes they do suck. If you want what you have is worth never go to a pawnshop.
-
2018-09-22 at 6:01 PM UTC in Woodworking project threadwood is really nice to work with. I do some wood carving but nothing like what you're doing.
you didn't show how it turned out when you finished. -
2018-09-22 at 5:51 PM UTC in Why did I get a sinking feeling in my gut, and only feel pity?
Originally posted by Technologist We had a heroin addict come in the other day for treatment on her abscesses, (puss filled pockets in the skin, due to shooting up). She was covered in track marks everywhere. Said she’d been addicted for 10 yrs.
Here’s my question….
Why did my coworkers think she was disgusting instead of feeling sympathy for her?
I don't mean her but what's happening to her is disgusting. it is painful and it is mean and nasty because it can spread through your entire bloodstream and kill you.
more than anything it's heartbreaking. I'd also feel a little angry and feel like shaking some sense into her.
it's beneath most people to allow that to happen to them or to understand how that can happen. so it may be difficult for them to feel compassion for someone like that, that believe could never happen to them.
it doesn't have anything to do with how moral you are, where you come from or anything like that. given just the right circumstances it could and does happen to every walk of life.
the best way for it to not happen is to never even try it no matter how bad your circumstances become. that is much easier said than done under just the right circumstances. -
2018-09-22 at 10:11 AM UTC in What are you thinking about?sunrise
-
2018-09-22 at 9:55 AM UTC in What's the last TV show/movie that sucked you in?X-files
-
2018-09-22 at 1:50 AM UTC in THE PLOT THICKENSLOLz
-
2018-09-21 at 7:24 PM UTC in You are all mentally illI don't imagine being normal as much fun.
-
2018-09-21 at 7:20 PM UTC in I was just at a barI glad you enjoyed your outing. riding around town on a bicycle can be a lot of fun.
-
2018-09-21 at 6:22 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny
It really doesn't seem like factory farming can be called a "fairly decent improvement in comfort" over an existence in the wild, especially when we look at animals which are kept in conditions where they literally can not move when farmed for meat. Are you actually contending that the life of something like a battery hen is better than that of a wild chicken?
No answer my ass. I don't think anyone has seriously argued we should just release all current livestock to run amok over the country side.
Again, "no one wants to do that" my ass. We could simply stop breeding lifestock. I think the most ethical thing to do would be to care for all existing livestock in as dignified as possible until they died of natural causes without reproducing, with the possible exception of allowing some to be taken in as pets if anyone cared it, and allowing that to be the end of the domesticated species which are not viable in a natural environment. But if that's not economically possible I'd still support slaughtering all currently living livestock for their meat and ending our society's massive industrialized suffering machine.
You seem to think just because someone thinks animals are morally considerable that they'll get teary eyed at the thought of an animal dying, but that's simply wrong. It seems like a number of people have confused ethics with some collection of emotional states but as I've pointed out repeatedly: most academic systems of ethics and divine command ethics are rule based systems where moral conclusions are reached through reasoning. Most moral realists would probably hold that a sufficiently sophisticated computer lacking all emotional states could engage in moral reasoning. Emotions really has next to nothing to do with it.
Sure, I agree with this 100%. It does seem like there's pretty conclusive evidence in support what you've just said.
Well I do agree that deforestation is a real issue, but the issue is more about the consequences for humans and other animals than for the plants directly.
To bring it back to ethical veganism, we can agree that plants are wholly capable of responding to stimulus and have "sense" in the way we have visual or olfactory senses, while still maintaining that plants don't have the cognitive faculties that are necessary for moral considerability. For example, we don't seem to have good evidence to suggest plants have the ability suffer or experience subjective well being (which is not to say that plants can't be harmed or "nourished", but that they don't have subjective experiences that are like our experience of pain and pleasure).
I read just about everything the internet could provide that was based on "scientific evidence" as possible and then some. lol
I found that most of what was said about plants learning and remembering were theory based on experiments that would appear to be behavioral complexities but not necessarily fact.
but what I learned about plants in the past few days is absolutely fascinating. it was good reading. it was worth it. lolz
and after reading it I really think people need to reconsider how they see plants because they play such an important role for life on earth. -
2018-09-21 at 5:15 PM UTC in Oldest known animal identified (no not cupocheer)
-
2018-09-21 at 5:13 PM UTC in How many holes in your underwear...not wearing any solves that problem.
-
2018-09-21 at 5:12 PM UTC in Oldest known animal identified (no not cupocheer)I could be wrong but I thought plants were older.
-
2018-09-21 at 5:09 PM UTC in Does mikeyagains avatar frighten anybody else?
-
2018-09-21 at 5:05 PM UTC in Does mikeyagains avatar frighten anybody else?what do you have against mickey? he's just a grown up county boy.
have you looked at your avatar? evil grin dude that looks like some version of joker in batman only black.
you may not consider mine much better if I ever figure out how to post one. lolz -
2018-09-21 at 4:32 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny
That's a reasonable question to ask, but unfortunately it doesn't have a single direct answer. There are a number of moral positions that fall under the heading of "moral realist", and they each have different ideas about ideas about where we get the basic moral propositions that we build moral systems upon. You can read about Kant's categorical imperative for one of the most famous examples of a realist metaethical argument.
But even if you are wholly unconvinced by the arguments put forward by any moral realist, the point I was trying to make to DietPiano was that ethical claims made by realists, structurally, do not depend on consensus e.g. they are either true or false in fact, regardless of what people think about that matter in the same way the proposition "the earth is round" has a truth value that's not contingent upon people's opinions. And also that collecting empirical evidence is not the only way we go about learning things, and there are things which are widely believed to be true (even by DP) which have no empirical support.
I don't claim to know everything, and I'd say that I have significantly less confidence in my concrete ethical position that eating meat is morally unacceptable than I do in these structural points about moral propositions in general, and evidence supporting them. I'd prefer to reach a common understanding on these points before venturing into specific moral propositions. There's not much point in trying to make the case that "we ought not to eat meat" is a moral truth if we don't have a shared understanding of what is meant by "moral truth".
I never said you promised me anything. Where did you get that idea?
No, you did more than link a national geographic video, you made the claim that plants "feel" in a comparable way to humans. If you don't think this is the case I can link your post where you do it (see how that went? I claimed something (that you made a particular statement about plants) and offered to present evidence in support of that claim).
If you want to back away from your claim then that's fine. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and all of that. But don't keep claiming that the natural of plant experience is well understood by "science" and then refuse to provide any evidence in defense of that claim.
I should have been much more specific with my choice of words. how I worded it did make it sound as you say.
I should have said,
plant have plant "senses." that's how I describe them.
plants "sense" and process a huge amount of environmental information with the ability to sense and adjust to their environment. plants process information but for the most part much more slowly.
this doesn't mean plants are intelligent in the same sense used for humans and other animals. they don't have nervous systems, let alone brains.
whatever intelligence plants have, it’s nothing like ours but our entire life is dependent on plants and they are vital to all life on earth.
our agricultural practices and in our daily lives we treat them as though they are just organic machines for producing food, lumber, fuel, and so forth. this implies that "feeling" is a requirement, making it okay to bulldoze a forest indiscriminately and without care. sure they plant new seeds but they cut trees down faster than trees grow.
I think if people have as much concern for plants as they do for animals people would see plants and our world in a whole new light. -
2018-09-20 at 4:52 AM UTC in Thread for me to reflect back onyou'll be alright.