|
On a completely unrelated note, I'm surprised that I'm not able to find a PYF relentlessly smug contrarian thread.
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
It's pretty dumb to ask a question where the only sensible answers* are "mu," "I don't know, and I can't assign a meaningful probability to either answer," and "gently caress off." * Assuming you haven't literally partaken in such an experiment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Okay so the strange thing I'm looking at right now is how super sure you are of what I would have gone for had WWN actually answered my question, and how super wrong you are. Maybe if you wanted people to understand you you'd manage to respond in something other than one line nonsense. You elucidate your points terribly, and I still have no idea what you were getting at with the Milgram question.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I believe his point was "you'd like to believe you're special, but in the end you're statistically likely to be guilty of the thing you claim to not be affected by, as proven by Milgram's experiment." I considered that idea, but dismissed it, because he seems well-educated and generally knowledgeable, and that's not how that works. Cingulate posted:I know you don't, and then, you're not giving me the impression that you care either way - it seems you're convinced I was going to make a stupid point, because I'm stupid and/or horrible. I appreciate you putting it on two lines just for me. I don't mind being wrong. Actually, I hate it a lot, but I have the decency to burn with shame and self-hatred when it's demonstrated, rather than whining. Just make your goddamn case rather than dancing around it. Say what you mean to say. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Which is true, but not necessarily something that disproves the assertion that the person doesn't tie their self-worth to an arbitrary definition of 'masculinity.' It doesn't even provide evidence in favor. This is prototypical ethical reasoning, i.e., "what is the nature of excellence in X?" Some men attach their self-worth to their idea of the nature of excellence in man qua Masculine Man, some don't. "Almost all men do" is an affirmative claim, and requires evidence. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
That $5 was money that could have gone to charity, or to humiliate even worse posters (jrod), or could have been put in a checking account for later purchases of cocaine. One day I hope to be one of you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Okay this may sound unfair, but: answer the question, then. In the Milgram study - what's your guess for how far you would have gone? If you've just read up on the details of the results, what was your guess before that? I know it's not towards me, but it's a thoroughly bizarre question. I guess that I forget what I know about the Milgram study for the purposes of my response so that I don't prejudice the answer. Do I also forget any knowledge of medical ethics that I might have? Do I forget my own independent study of ethics? How old am I supposed to be, here? Because at 15 or 16 I might well have just gone "gently caress you, dad." My concept of authority and obedience has (irl demonstrably) fluctuated over the years. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Nietzsche.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I thought of the ultimate philosopher of liberal modernity (which ironically means he is anticipating the philosophy of many forms of contemporary conservatism). Even better he's one of the few writers who is still genuinely scandalous enough that a lot of people will become angry or judgement simply knowing you've read him: De Sade. The guy had some... interesting... beliefs. For instance, he was a strong opponent of the death penalty but believed that murder should be legal. What the heck does this have to do with anything?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
De Sade's pornographic writings are so terrible that one wonders whether it was deliberate. He could write, when he wanted to.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
wiregrind posted:Isn't that rubbish just based on (or an interpretation of) Nietzsche's "master-slave morality"? To be explicit, contra GunnerJ, he came a bunch of years before Nietzsche.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 07:16
|
|