|
I thought they were feet my whole life but now I've seen that they are actually whole monsters I'll never be able to unsee it.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
It's a monster appendage. Whether you think it's a hand or a paw or a foot is immaterial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Tasia_Jp/status/819229769262841857/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Fake news
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:https://twitter.com/Tasia_Jp/status/819229769262841857/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Thank you. Edit: Pamela Crump?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:不列颠 - Buliedian (Britain) Country that doesn't queue? Are they taking the piss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
^^^LOL if you think that there is anyone still working at Walkers who knows the original intent.Pissflaps posted:Provide some loving sources on this motherfucker. Here you motherfucking go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Munch#Flavours This mentions the two shapes and confirms that the second was 'pink monster shaped' though it says the other still current shape "has long been the subject of dispute over whether it represents a paw or, instead, the eye and lashes of a monster." Far as I recall our logic was "if this shape (pink) is a whole monster why the gently caress would you think the other shape is just a part of a monster?? Rather eat a whole monster anyway." It also mentions the third spider shaped ones (again a whole creature not a part of one) that I'd forgotten about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Country that doesn't queue? Are they taking the piss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:This mentions the two shapes and confirms that the second was 'pink monster shaped' though it says the other still current shape "has long been the subject of dispute over whether it represents a paw or, instead, the eye and lashes of a monster."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No, I mean consequentialism regards "they are my family" is an immoral reason, because the morally correct course is to consider the consequences of one's actions. There's no such thing as an 'immoral reason' in consequentialism, that's kinda the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:^^^LOL if you think that there is anyone still working at Walkers who knows the original intent. Wikipedia. The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It is not a source. Horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Is the point supposed to be that being family does not actually suggest anything about what the person is really worth to you? And therefore to value family because they're family (rather than because you actually like them or whatever) is invalid? I think the idea is that family shouldn't be a factor in your decision-making since prioritising a family-member or friend is inherently selfish. Saving a friend's life over a stranger's (or a prick's) because they're your friend is immoral as you are allowing the sentimental value you would derive from their continued existence overshadow any other, more 'moral' reasons to make said decision. What a moral reason would be I don't know. I am not a philosopher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Having your friends and family's backs is important + good, because they have yours, hth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I have a memory of salt and vinegar and cheese and onion packet colors being opposite when I was a kid, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I have a memory of salt and vinegar and cheese and onion packet colors being opposite when I was a kid, for some reason. That's Walkers loving with you. gently caress Walkers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:This is bad for Corbyn. This is good for Corbyn though:  http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/588790/asteroid-nasa-earth-lord-martin-rees-near-impact-space-rock-doosday (NWS ads)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:This is good for Corbyn though: Finally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
"It may not be the greatest risk or highest profile short term risk confronting earth, but if you make an assessment of what insurance premium it is worth paying in order to reduce impact, you would come up with a figure of several hundred million euros a year – which the world should be spending to reduce this risk." We're not about to be hit by an asteroid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
spectralent posted:"It may not be the greatest risk or highest profile short term risk confronting earth, but if you make an assessment of what insurance premium it is worth paying in order to reduce impact, you would come up with a figure of several hundred million euros a year – which the world should be spending to reduce this risk." I'm astonished that the Daily Star, a bastion of sober and respectable journalism, would exaggerate a story like this. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
I'd rather the government spend on asteroid defense than ~fighting terrorism~
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I have a memory of salt and vinegar and cheese and onion packet colors being opposite when I was a kid, for some reason. you just got displaced into an alternate universe, Sliders-style
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
I remember different shapes in Monster Munch, and also remember flavour shaker crisps where would get little packs of seasoning in your crisps, and not just salt for salt 'n' shake
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Is the point supposed to be that being family does not actually suggest anything about what the person is really worth to you? The (trivial) point was just that "this is my family" is not a consequence at all - you cannot have a rule like "I must put family first" but must try to produce the best result for the world. It's then difficult to think of a good reason for supposing one's own personal sorrow is a worse result than other people's. quote:Also is "immoral" supposed to be the same thing as "not moral"? No. You should be trying to secure the best possible results. Fangz posted:There's no such thing as an 'immoral reason' in consequentialism, that's kinda the point. How do you make that out? Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'd rather the government spend on asteroid defense than ~fighting terrorism~ My ou tutor did a bunch of research in this area and said the main problem was in that as soon as someone can deflect an asteroid away reliably, you can also knock one onto course with a pesky city or subcontinent, and no one wants to start an arms race on that so no one funds anything approaching what would be needed. Which is a shame because using nuclear shaped charge laying bots to ablate volatiles in the rock to propel it directions was pretty rad sounding. You could even theoretically get a nice big rock and hide a mahoosive nuke in it and slam it into the sun real fast and finally stop trump tweeting. Fund science. It solves problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:How do you make that out? I think the idea is that only the consequences are important and the intent is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:This is good for Corbyn though: can i vote for the doomsday asteroid
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:How do you make that out? If consequences are the only thing that matters, then you have no justification to examine the reason why someone else does a thing. It's better to be a lucky madman than an incompetent consequentialist. Consequentialism does not actually provide a framework for advocating consequentialism unless you show it always produces 'better' results. Followers of other moral philosophies are wrong and deluded, but not inherently immoral.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
If you live in stoke or copeland you could write it in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
You never see flaming hot monster munch anymore, has it gone the way of white dog poo and Golden Cup chocolate bars?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:can i vote for the doomsday asteroid https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor/status/750729882020286464
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If consequences are the only thing that matters, then you have no justification to examine the reason why someone else does a thing. It's better to be a lucky madman than an incompetent consequentialist. Consequentialism does not actually provide a framework for advocating consequentialism unless you show it always produces 'better' results. Followers of other moral philosophies are wrong and deluded, but not inherently immoral. There are some strands of Consequentialism that get around this (eg indirect rules Consequentialism). Either way, the frame work that Consequentialism gives for itself is that consequences are the only thing that matters, I don't see what you're trying to say here? I also get the feeling you're using utilitarianism and Consequentialism interchangeably since if you're a 'family first above all else' Consequentialist then this is all a non-issue for you. OwlFancier posted:I think the idea is that only the consequences are important and the intent is irrelevant. Unless you're a motive Consequentialist (an actual thing).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
nuttall status: scuttled, or at the very least rattled https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/16/ukip-leader-paul-nuttall-condemned-for-failing-to-attend-hustings?CMP=share_btn_tw quote:The Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall, has been criticised for failing to turn up at a hustings in Stoke-on-Trent Central, the constituency where he is contesting next week’s byelection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Wikipedia. The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It is not a source. Horseshit. Oh, my deepest apologies Mr Pissflaps but I am afraid that the likelihood of there being a peer reviewed source up to your exacting standards that directly corroborates the way I and my peers considered the various shapes of Monster Munch way back in my distant childhood is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. I have checked both jstor and academia but it appears that the field of Monster Munch taxonomy is an as yet unassailed area of study. You are free to correct me by providing a source you consider adequate. Further apologies for the lateness of my response but I am afraid that I had to attend a community showing of I, Daniel Blake - as should everyone if they get the chance. I now must go and get my tea. In short, gently caress you you bellicose ba'heidded beholder, I know my past and your opinion is (and probably always will be) of absolutely no concern or weight at all. P.S. I am amazed that such a well practised pedant like yourself would fall into the schoolboy trap of claiming "Wikipedia ... is not a source" - Wikipedia is of course a source it is simply one that is not peer reviewed and open to the insertion of misinformation, much like the papers and tweets that you love to quote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
You made it up. You are fake news.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Law_and_policy/status/832340317122723840
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
I miss the days when people called 'fake news' lies and propaganda instead of pretending that this is some new thing that only started like a year ago. Especially when the media complains about it and is just as happy to contrast some scientific report with the 'opinion' of some shithead and pretend like it's somehow equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PhilJenkins86/status/832328951548747776
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/831994382463168513
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You made it up. You are fake news. I await your proof of this baseless accusation with anticipation. This was you wasn't it? some twit tweeted posted:“That Monster Munch *revelation* has taken the wind out of my sails, ruined my annual leave and reduced my will to live by 60%” I'd forgotten that MM were a Smith's snack originally so why are
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
All goons come join us for Glasgow Question Time in #ukgoons on synirc. Should be good and rowdy this week!! And the television programme may be rowdy also!!! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:38
|
|
