User Controls
Posts by Common De-mominator
-
2019-04-25 at 5:23 PM UTC in The Pakistan versus India thing was anticlimatic, disappointing
-
2019-04-25 at 5:21 PM UTC in The Pakistan versus India thing was anticlimatic, disappointing
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny hes a coward.
No such thing as cowards or heroes in geopolitics. Just winners and losers. On the world stage Modi demonstrated India's bloodthirst while Khan demonstrated Pakistan's reasonability. Pakistan came out on top. That's really the long and short of it. -
2019-04-25 at 3:21 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
Originally posted by Sudo you're a faggot who would get robbed by the littlest nigger and knows nothing of what you're doing. Please start selling drugs for the greater lulz
I have no need to sell drugs but I would have been good at it. Only people who don't know how to operate get robbed. I know how to operate. -
2019-04-25 at 1:47 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
Originally posted by CASPER Yeah you seem detail oriented and stuff. Park 9f it is a poker game… customers bluffing you to front otherwise they'll go to someone else. Bluffing your penis to get lower prices. Deciding who to deal with and who not to, etc.
A lot of it is willfully ignoring the major consequences.
But yeah you seem pretty put together. How's ur Dope Wars?
Never played Drug Wars lol.
I always found drug dealing to be as much of a business as anything else, minus market regulations, and avoiding the legal repercussions seems to be a matter of having good systems and ample consumer trust.
I guarantee I'd take over wherever I was dealing, and I'd definitely use technology to make my operation virtually airtight and fly under the radar of LEAs at the same time. -
2019-04-25 at 1:06 PM UTC in The Pakistan versus India thing was anticlimatic, disappointingImran Khan is a semi rational person and deftly defused the situation.
-
2019-04-25 at 4:34 AM UTC in I wish we had one true Terrorist on this forumScron or MrAsbestos get on it
-
2019-04-25 at 3:57 AM UTC in On Math, Matter and MindPiet Hut (IAS), Mark Alford (WashU), Max Tegmark (MIT)
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188
Could the universe in its entirety simply be a Platonic object? -
2019-04-25 at 3:43 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
Originally posted by CASPER Been there, done that. Not my proudest moment.
Met her online. Transferred the BTC to me. I told her to wait on a particular corner near a park. everything would be wrapped Inside a styrofoam cup, and I'd drop it out the window as I drove past.
Ended up meeting her more often. Turned out 3 blocks away "her house" was actually the sober house where she was staying. No one there seemed particularly interested in the "sober" part.
I hear stories like these from you and others, and I always think I probably would have made a good drug dealer. -
2019-04-25 at 12:21 AM UTC in Will China ever have a new democratic revolution?Chairman Xi
-
2019-04-24 at 9:47 PM UTC in I'm in the doghouse at workLmao at least you didn't mention the jedis in it.
-
2019-04-24 at 9:11 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Nil This seems counter intuitive, Every individual has a different perspective… there is no one "above" so to speak taking a birds eye view of the various dealings and actions of people. Vested interests abound but somewhere there's an "objective" position? I don't agree with moral relativism though…. it's either absolute or non-existing.
In a rigorous logical sense, there's no such thing as an objective morality: you cannot derive a moral ought from any set of "is" facts. You have to include an ought in your axioms, whatever logical structure you want to set for your moral system, to say what you should do in a given situation.
What I'm saying is that whatever you derive your moral oughts from, if you set it then you can dialectically resolve it to either prove it's logically inconsistent/incoherent/doesn't preserve our moral intuitions (i.e. your initial ought or logical structure is not actually a good description of your basis for morality) or it will neatly fit into a resolvable logical meta structure where we can definitively hammer it down to what is or isn't right.
So yes, dialectically there is always a moral fact of the matter, whether we know it or not: whatever ought you define in your axioms, whatever axioms you define, if they're logically consistent then it can be logically resolved. -
2019-04-24 at 8:21 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-24 at 7:13 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe This entire time I've been saying that the goodness/badness or quickness/slowness of something is relative, but that there are objective values we can measure and use to "make a case", and obviously those objective values are not objectively good/bad/quick/slow.
Holy shit are you legitimately retarded? Of course whether something is fast or slow is relative to a given frame of reference, but that is literally objectively determinable and translateable to any frame of reference. In your example of cock in the ass, I already demonstrated that the moral fact was the standard by which whether it is good or bad is parallel to the concept of slow as fast as well as the objective measures of speed.
You are literally conceding my argument over and over while insisting it's not the case. -
2019-04-24 at 5:40 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-24 at 4:55 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatWhether something is fast or slow relative to the speed of another object is 100% objectively determinable.
In any reference frame, speed of object 1 and speed of object 2 give you the answer. If the speed is greater, it's faster, if the speed lower then it's slower. How are you still not grasping this very basic concept? What doesn't exist is absolute speed, just relative speed, but that doesn't stop us from objectively determining which object is slow or fast. It's derived from an objective general principle that is applied to the special case.
That's exactly how good and bad is. For example with cock, if you don't want a cock in the ass then a cock in the ass is bad and vice versa by the very premise of your example. It translates to both frames of reference. -
2019-04-24 at 4:20 PM UTC in Will China ever have a new democratic revolution?A true government of the people?
Is there an existent Anarchist's Gookbook for their people to use and rise up? -
2019-04-24 at 4:17 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe You're wrong. Judgement of somethings goodness or badness is relative, exactly like the way we judge quickness or slowness.
The standard by which it is determined is absolute, exactly like the way we judge quickness or slowness. I've already expanded this like 18 different ways. Please offer a moral example that illustrates your assertion. -
2019-04-24 at 4:14 PM UTC in WALL STREET MARKET IS EXIT SCAMMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
2019-04-24 at 3:25 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe Someone's goodness or badness is relative to their frame of reference, but their real value is something objective and transferable to all frames of reference. Speed is analogous to this: what is quick or slow is relative, but there is a real and objective value we refer to as speed which is transferable to other frames of reference. However this objective speed is not objectively quick or slow, similarly the person's objective value is not objectively good or bad.
No, the standard by which goodness or badness is judged, is absolute. The analogous example would be that if something is moving at a greater speed than you then it is faster, if it's moving at a slower speed than you then it is slower. You have a value and apply it to the fact of your speed and the object's speed in a given reference frame. However, regardless of the reference frame, the object will be going faster than you in that direction in every reference frame. That's why it's faster than you regardless of the reference frame. It might be slower than a person moving at any even greater rate, but that is judged by the same standard.
This is no different than the 8 inch cock in the ass being good for one person and not for the other: both are derived from the same principle. You literally cannot make either assertion without these assumptions. The fact that the speed is relative to the reference frame doesn't change the fact that something is objectively faster than the other, regardless of reference frame. -
2019-04-24 at 1:34 PM UTC in WALL STREET MARKET IS EXIT SCAMMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Well in fairness they are risking spending the rest of their lives in prison just for running the site.
... And if their plan is to scam people out of millions of dollars then they should.
I have sympathy for DNM operators who are simply trying to provide a service and taking a cut for it. It's illegal but I don't think it is immoral. Whereas if you're planning to steal money, you can get fucked.
