checkymcfold

well shit, that explains why i was never left satisfied.

i agree with that to some extent, but i think that it still begs BG's original question--that if we abandon all a priori ground for morality, morality itself ceases to have meaning and our moral appeals to one another really can't hold any weight due to their relativistic nature.fwiw, my personal opinion on this is that it is in fact the "easy" moral issues that lead to the development of more general moral frameworks that are then used to negotiate more difficult moral terrain. for instance, the hot button abortion issue is cast on the left as an issue of free will and on the right as an issu

i could read that paragraph a couple of ways--first, that our transcendence of rape-as-procreation is a good thing, and possibly even the foundation of what we call morality in the first place; and second, that he's trying to illustrate a weird version of the nietzschean point that morality is a self-imposed societal force that is meant to alter our "natural" or "proper" instincts.i'm honestly not clear on which he means there.that said, i generally find the authors of the contemporary atheist movement to be pretty intellectually wanting, at best, and some combination of dishonest and vindicti

i think that i might still be a little unclear on what you exactly mean by morality.like, do you mean a system so detailed that it would be able to say "it is morally better to eat blue jellybeans than red jellybeans on a wednesday?" or are you talking about one that is only able to say "rape, murder, and theft are wrong," or something similar to that?

is there really a difference between "rape is wrong because god said so," "rape is wrong because it inhibits the free will of another," and "rape is wrong, period."?when it comes to the "easy" moral questions, i think that it's clear that any sort of semi-reasonable prescriptive moral framework is going to say that rape, murder, etc. are wrong, and i might be even tempted to argue that it's the easy moral questions that lead to the development of such frameworks in the first place.

doesn't this require an insanely complex utilitarian calculus? i guess my personal stance is that it's just not feasible to answer this question very often when we're talking about the issues that lead to intense moral debate, and that we need to look elsewhere in order to negotiate the tough issues.

i really don't do enough drugs anymore. sigh.

i guess that what i'm getting at is that sometimes we might achieve a positive result through base motives, or do something "bad" for the "right reasons." if either of these situations occur, are we acting morally or immorally?generally, i'd say that if we're following the model by which we're evaluating moral action in terms of results, we end up with some sort of utilitarian calculus, and that anything resembling absolute moral truth (as in religion) wouldn't really need to play any sort of part in the game. if we're talking about motivation, though, then i think that your initial argument h

this whole discussion is quite interesting, but i'm not sure if we're talking about prescriptive (motive-based) morality or descriptive (action/results-based) morality, or both.i don't think that we can really talk about the cause or root of morality until we really get at what we're dealing with when we make a moral decision, is all.

bolded 1: bdmg has used this term with me before, and i kind of forget what it means as an "ism." help?bolded 2: yes, precisely.bolded 3: i'd be afraid of cracking the beautiful, fleeting e-crush i've developed on you through our shared love of girls-that-look-like-little-boys, words, grammar, and radiohead, of which i'm reminded 2-3 times a year or so. that said, i don't really get high too much anymore (real job, ahem), but i do spend at least 5-6 album-length stoner sessions to get acquainted with any highly anticipated release, radiohead or otherwise. thus, we wouldn't need to talk much i

nah, if it was foreplay, i'd yell "sasquatch" instead of "monkeys." also, just to remind you, the safety word is "postmodernity."

beyond wittgenstein, jean francois lyotard is a good start for the philosophical side of things.his just gaming is good on language and semiotics, i think. it's been a long time since i've read that, though.the differend is a good example of what he does with linguistics. it's the most complicated philosophical text i've ever read, fwiw.i'll think on some more for you. i just know that a lot of the linguistics kids in my program were all up on lyotard's dick for at least a year or two, and i didn't find him all that silly, myself, which i don't often say about people who work with semiotics an

i understand that you're focusing on the differences we have with animals. i'm saying that choice is an arbitrary one. i'm arguing that they are of philosophical interest. you seem to have an odd view of our rational capacity. people can and do make relatively logical arguments for all sorts of absurd shit. you're doing this with objectivism right now, for instance.the definition of irrationality is not nazism. the definition of irrationality is me running up to mcgee, putting a rabbit on his head, yelling "rainbows! monkeys! imaginary numbers!" and running away, naked for good measure. ah, ok

similar to my sometimes-instinctual nature, i also share a characteristic with most mammals in that i have two eyes. that's not an insult or a complement. it's just a fact.sure, i'm more rational than a snake or a dog or whatever. i also get aroused when i see a hot chick thirteen year old boy, and i can't control that. ayn rand gets hot when she fantasizes about rape. meh. first, what information are you talking about? there are other ways in which i differ from a dog or snake--why not glorify those and make some grand, silly philosophy about how being bipedal is the greatest thing ever?secon

you'll know when you get the call telling you that your daughter has left her fiancee for me.shouldn't you be on the putting green, so that you might break 80 before you, well, turn 80?

it's entirely correct. rand is of the view that you have complete control over everything that goes on in your own mind, which simply isn't true. she may not use that word, because it makes her sound kind of stupid, but it's fairly obviously what she means. yes, i am part animal. i am also part "rational being," or whatever terminology you want to use. denying one or the other would be kind of retarded. i mean, honestly, if i was born 100% rational in the sense that you seem to mean it, i'd be god. look, rand just falls into the same trap that basically every premodern philosopher does--she un

ayn rand thinks that you have control over everything.nietzsche understands that this is not true, and that you only have control over how you interpret what you experience.aristotle never gave a shit about control.kant doesn't think that the human will has any import outside of the realm of morality.done. that took me nearly a full minute.or, if you like, the easy version: sometimes i both cry and have orgasms without thinking things through. this is a good deal of what makes me human.

hi, i'm ayn rand. i read nietzsche when i was in high school, got it wrong, and started fucking up his understanding of the world in book form and got rich doing it.shit, that would have been better as a joke account. damn laziness.

holy shit, doug. i'm glad you made it (relatively) ok! heal well!

we do not congratulate the other teams, rookie. we talk trash.NICE LUCKBOX PHIL

i would 5b to like 120/fold predraw, or possibly even fold to the 4bet. you don't really have a redraw is the problem. even if you catch a 4, your hand strength doesn't change very much. you're much better off deciding if you're good on predraw info when you hold 910 type hands, especially 7910 and 8910.that said, i think that if you 3bet bigger predraw, you can more safely fold to a 4bet and probably save yourself money.finally, if you have a big edge, don't play big pots with tens.

at those limits, def cap the flop kingjames. no monkey business.

i do not think it unfair to expect that literally every public official in congress or the executive branch be able to name a news periodical that s/he reads regularly, at the very least.

oooh oooh question time!1. what is the difference between a government bureaucrat and a corporate (private) bureaucrat?2. is any form of impingement upon a hyperbolically free market bad? if not, which sorts of constraints are to be considered valid, and which aren't?3a. what are the criteria by which one ought to judge the health of the economy?3b. how are those criteria linked to the public good?3c. what exactly do we mean by the public good? is this strictly an economic term?

the best part about my dreams is that you never talk.and, most of the time, don't even exist.