Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Internet: 1 Cat Abuser: 0Follow

#127 Feb 17 2009 at 1:16 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

It doesn't matter whether I know, my point was based on your implicit acknowledgement of the fact by quoting Pensive and subsequently Shakespeare.

#128 Feb 17 2009 at 1:17 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Seems to me that if you're okay with placing your cat's life over some random person's human child, based on your relationship to each subject, then you indeed are also being emotional about it, so I wouldn't point fingers at katie.


I'm not faulting katie at all, just showing how it's not inconsistent to believe in an ethic like that. That doesn't mean that katie IS being inconsistent either, it is merely an accessory reason for throwing my weight behind her.

***

You really think that sucha decision is emotional?

Something brings me more joy. It would be objectively stupid of me to sacrifice that joy for some minor empathetic happiness I would get for choosing someone else's child. Perhaps the decision is informed by emotions but the process is anything but.

Edited, Feb 17th 2009 4:19pm by Pensive
#129 Feb 17 2009 at 1:20 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
It's because you're moderate about a lot of stuff. You get confused easily with the opposition, whoever it may be. Tricksy ******* you are.


Maybe I should fill my posts with more vitriol, so my posts are easier to distinguish.

Or go back to what I used to do, pick a side that's in the middle of the other two but in a different way - e.g. the time I argued, using the evidence from the left side (that nukes did more damage than an invasion would have), that the US was right to nuke Japan (conclusion of right side) because it killed as many Japanese people as possible, and that the Japanese people deserved to suffer because they supported their Emperor's attacks on the US. No one else is likely to make a similar argument, so I should be OK. Probably best not to try it IRL, though.
#130 Feb 17 2009 at 1:22 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Pensive wrote:
You really think that sucha decision is emotional?

Something brings me more joy. It would be objectively stupid of me to sacrifice that joy for some minor empathetic happiness I would get for choosing someone else's child. Perhaps the decision is informed by emotions but the process is anything but.

Under those guidelines, every single decision ever made is emotional.

#131 Feb 17 2009 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
No one else is likely to make a similar argument, so I should be OK. Probably best not to try it IRL, though.

Actually, I just realised we have Varrus on this forum. Nevermind.
#132 Feb 17 2009 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Or go back to what I used to do, pick a side that's in the middle of the other two but in a different way - e.g. the time I argued, using the evidence from the left side (that nukes did more damage than an invasion would have), that the US was right to nuke Japan (conclusion of right side) because it killed as many Japanese people as possible, and that the Japanese people deserved to suffer because they supported their Emperor's attacks on the US. No one else is likely to make a similar argument, so I should be OK. Probably best not to try it IRL, though.



I was invited by my grandmother to attend what I believe is going to be a very conservative and republican talk about world war 2. The brochure didn't say much, but I'm really not sure if I should go. It might embarrass grams if I ask any questions.
#133 Feb 17 2009 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Under those guidelines, every single decision ever made is emotional.


So we agree that my decision is not emotional, glad to hear it.

***

Or, that my decision is emotional but it's fine for it to be so. One or the other.

Edited, Feb 17th 2009 4:24pm by Pensive
#134 Feb 17 2009 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
I was invited by my grandmother to attend what I believe is going to be a very conservative and republican talk about world war 2. The brochure didn't say much, but I'm really not sure if I should go. It might embarrass grams if I ask any questions.


You should ask them if they think Hitler knew about the holocaust.
#135 Feb 17 2009 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Pensive wrote:
I was invited by my grandmother to attend what I believe is going to be a very conservative and republican talk about world war 2.
Topic: How FDR Made WWII Worse With His Dirty Liberal Policies.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#136 Feb 17 2009 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Pensive wrote:
I was invited by my grandmother to attend what I believe is going to be a very conservative and republican talk about world war 2.
Topic: How FDR Made WWII Worse With His Dirty Liberal Policies.


WWII would have lasted under a year if not for France sucking.

Edited, Feb 17th 2009 4:41pm by Kavekk
#137 Feb 17 2009 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
Under those guidelines, every single decision ever made is emotional.


So we agree that my decision is not emotional, glad to hear it.

***

Or, that my decision is emotional but it's fine for it to be so. One or the other.

/rolleyes

Yes, we cancelled out the equivalencies from both sides of the equation and reduced it to: 0 = 0

Nice job.


ETA: No, it is not necessarily "fine" for it to be so. You may reduce all decisions to emotion but that does not make both sides equally "fine."



Edited, Feb 17th 2009 3:54pm by trickybeck
#138 Feb 17 2009 at 1:58 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kavekk wrote:


Maybe I should fill my posts with more vitriol, so my posts are easier to distinguish.

Or go back to what I used to do, pick a side that's in the middle of the other two but in a different way - e.g. the time I argued, using the evidence from the left side (that nukes did more damage than an invasion would have), that the US was right to nuke Japan (conclusion of right side) because it killed as many Japanese people as possible, and that the Japanese people deserved to suffer because they supported their Emperor's attacks on the US. No one else is likely to make a similar argument, so I should be OK. Probably best not to try it IRL, though.
Or maybe you should not make everyone of your posts a Logic 101 homework assignment, as it almost never applies to RL.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#139 Feb 17 2009 at 2:00 PM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Or maybe you should not make everyone of your posts a Logic 101 homework assignment, as it almost never applies to RL.


Look, you got served. Accept it, move on and stop tugging at my trouser legs like an attention-starved infant.
#140 Feb 17 2009 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
On Topic:

Kenny got his Myspace Hacked!

Screenshot

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#141 Feb 17 2009 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Or maybe you should not make everyone of your posts a Logic 101 homework assignment, as it almost never applies to RL.


Sure, it's much better to let our intuitions and random whims govern our discussions and behaviors.
#142 Feb 17 2009 at 2:08 PM Rating: Decent
It's not like I'm using complicated logical constructs or anything. I'm just suggesting people examine their deep held, unjustified beliefs.

Edited, Feb 17th 2009 5:10pm by Kavekk
#143 Feb 17 2009 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
Or maybe you should not make everyone of your posts a Logic 101 homework assignment, as it almost never applies to RL.


Sure, it's much better to let our intuitions and random whims govern our discussions and behaviors.


See, to me, it's funny that you say that. Since your "intuition" or "random whim," as the case may be, would be to save your cat's life over the life of a random child.
#144 Feb 17 2009 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Kavekk wrote:
I'm just suggesting people examine their deep held, unjustified beliefs.



Just you try that 'round here and see how far you get with it......../also rollseyes

Edited, Feb 17th 2009 10:34pm by paulsol
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#145 Feb 17 2009 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
See, to me, it's funny that you say that. Since your "intuition" or "random whim," as the case may be, would be to save your cat's life over the life of a random child.


I'm not sure why you see it as an intuition or random whim. I've explained this already. Do you need clarification?
#146 Feb 17 2009 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
I need you douches to stop ******* up my thread with "logic".

ED wrote:
As noted by academics at Harvard:

It is difficult to predict the outcome of the court in matters like this however the online community is easier to predict. The outrage of the community is inversely proportional to the punishment he receives by the State. That is to say, if he is only fined $500 and given a “slap on the wrist” the same mob that tracked him down will demand justice in other ways.

Should he register an account with any service they will be there to “out” his past actions. Kenny Glenn, and all those around him, will be haunted by his cruelty for a long time by any means the community can muster. Hate mail, prank phone calls, and possibly even visits in person are not out of the question.

One thing is for sure. Dusty will be avenged.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#147REDACTED, Posted: Feb 17 2009 at 3:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) A one year old who's been hunting for four years? Ooo, you really got me with that one.
#148 Feb 17 2009 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent
paulsol wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
I'm just suggesting people examine their deep held, unjustified beliefs.



Just you try that 'round here and see how far you get with it


I think most people here are perfectly happy to examine their deeply held and unjustified beliefs.

They just have no intentions to change them.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#149 Feb 17 2009 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
A one year old who's been hunting for four years? Ooo, you really got me with that one.


Jesus christ you just can't get the point.

I'm not spelling this out for you; go read.
#150 Feb 17 2009 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,053 posts
Except for a few allafemes Tricky and Joph, most of you fail on trying to defend your views of how pet or humans are of greater value.

Jonwin reply to my answer to what I was going on now and posting, on is "Anyone who has to argue about this "Fails"."

Also I finally remember what started my feud with Elinda and the reason she felt she needed a ratebot.

I really don't have time to go rate down folks, every time they say something stupid or illogical.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#151 Feb 17 2009 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Fortunately, no one here has argued that pets are of greater value than humans.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 237 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (237)