You're off you're rocker if you think they'll have school-house nuclear reactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That'd be awesome though. Like 1500 heavy uranium atoms hitting a chain reaction.
Printable View
You're off you're rocker if you think they'll have school-house nuclear reactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That'd be awesome though. Like 1500 heavy uranium atoms hitting a chain reaction.
My science teacher left a dome shaped crater in the concrete just outside class when he showed us how to make thermite. The same science teacher who demonstrated that surface area is a critical factor when it comes to combustion by throwing a handful of magnesium powder at the bunsen burner. If he had access to depleted uranium, I'd have cancer by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yeah because having a gun for protection means I can't stockpile supplies.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
If I had land, and a gun, I'd also have supplies, which include ammo, gunpowder, and tins of ravioli, which, incidentally, usually contains beef. At least they call it beef.
So my mom's going back to school or whatever, almost all online classes with a local community college, and she needed a TI-85. I hooked her up with an emulator situation, but I'd never used one before (though I use console emulators all the time), and I didn't realize how cool they were.
it's not even gun control they want, it's only government with guns they want. if they really did believe that guns are the problem, they would be calling for the police to also not have guns.
So what does everyone here do?
I'm trying to find topics other than the usual 3-4 that we cycle through.
It's been a while since I saw you say something that struck me as sexist, to be fair spoon.
I've had more than one complaint about me spitting hard truth, so I just said fuck it and stopped doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
behind the scenes complaints? jesus i hate that noise.
if somebody is wrong, confront them in the arena and beat up their ideas for everybody to see. if not, accept that your understanding of the veracity of your own position is shaky and stfu
lol @ the thought of anyone here pming spoon privately to chide him about his sexist remarks.
This is a pretty awful strawman. The police and military personal should have background checks and some sort of psych screening just like everyone else. Different people should have different clearances with regards to types of weapons. A police department doesn't need an M1 Abrams, and a civilian ftmp doesn't need access to belt-fed heavy machine guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You refuse to allow nuance to be part of your view, and so it seems you defensively strawman the nuance out of the opposition's stance.
I didn't say that "if they believe guns in the wrong hands are the problem...". I said "if they believe guns are the problem".Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
What you're getting at is something else, that there is ALSO a position where it is believed that guns in the wrong hands are the problem. My statement doesn't disagree with your assessment of that particular situation.
BTW, your position is already a more rational position than the mainstream gun control position. You're looking for causes and effects. That's much more than the mainstream position, which is pretty much nothing other than gun=bad. One way of seeing this in action is how the mainstream left is categorically against any civilian solutions that involve guns. The mainstream position today is along the lines of guns being inherently bad but also not applying that logic to the government.
Another way to see that my statement was not a strawman of the gun control advocacy is how their concerns are irrelevant and stem from emotional reactions. For example, whenever the media covers a big shooting, it doesn't matter what type of weapon was used (usually handguns), the gun control crowd calls for the same thing: some level of assault rifle bans. Another example is that when it is shown that more stringent background checks would not have deterred any of these shootings, they still call for the same thing: more stringent background checks.
Fixed your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And now I realize that some people won't get it, but I changed "assault rifle" to "assault weapon" because "assault weapon" is a made-up term that politicians have used as something to target and ban when it's primarily a cosmetic issue. Here's an example:
http://monachuslex.org/wp-content/up...n-300x203.jpeg
This helps to demonstrate how these people (and most people chiming in on it) have no idea what in the fuck they are talking about because they would call the second an "assault weapon."
Also a fun piece of information: Iraqi families are allowed to keep a fully automatic rifle in their homes. This continued under American occupation. It says a lot about how much our own government wants us to be armed.
That's happened a few times from a few people in the past year. You can imagine my response after laughing my fucking ass off.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
I'll just point this out for entertainment purposes since I'm well past it, but a certain moderator complained about me with a new thread in the moderators' forum once inside of the past year or so. He took the angle that my misogynistic, sexist comments were hurting the image of FTR.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In honor of the less-than-ideal choice that particular moderator made, I'd like to recommend viewers check out the Slut Justice sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/SlutJustice
Whenever I sing songs to myself I replace the word 'you' with 'jew'.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It has become compulsive.
I'm thinking about other words to replace, but I'm having a creative block atm.
Honestly on the one hand I can see his point. I don't even know what mod it was, but I could guess. As a mod, and in particular a respected writer for the forum, you represent FTR more than the likes of me. That said, you kept that kind of stuff to the commune, so I don't see what the problem was. Poker is an adult's game, and the commune is the place for casual chat. I don't see why the site should pander to cry babies. Get off the fucking internet if spoon's crap makes you angry.
There are two parts of it to me. The first part is that I'd prefer someone come to me directly if they have issues with something I've said instead of playing the victim culture card and trying to rally people behind the perceived slight to half (or more) of the human race. The second part is that there's a clear disclaimer that nothing said by anyone (including moderators here) represents the opinions of FTR or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Anyway I don't want to carry on a discussion about that, I just wanted to point out that shit like that happens.
Try changing "nigger" to "weiner".Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I lost my updog in the laundry the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hey, mine is deracism. I'm trying to clean up hip hop here.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'll try to complete a successful triple post by quoting myself and answering my own question.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm a full-time writer and content manager in the online gambling industry. It took me about three or four years, but I might be the top guy in the world right now. I'm at least top two or three, and I've gotten job offers on the back of this that would have required me to move to three different continents in the past year. BRAGBRAGBRAGBRAG
I live with a couple of chicks in north-west North Carolina. The town I live in where Andy Griffith was from (the house he grew up in is like a mile from me), and it was the real-life inspiration for Mayberry. Here's some info for people who might be interested in some of the shit that goes on here:
http://www.autumnleavesfestival.com/
http://www.surryarts.org/mayberrydays/index.html
http://budbreakfestival.com/
These are the three biggest events down here each year. The Autumn Leaves Festival is actually this weekend, and I'll be going to it for the first time.
People are regularly not allowed to be police because their IQs are too high.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...story?id=95836
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/ny...iq-scores.html
Quote:
NEW HAVEN— A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores.
Quote:
Ever wonder why cops yell “quit resisting” as they beat a person who’s not resisting? Or why they shoot people who pose no threat? Maybe the answer is right in front of us.
My personal favorite:Quote:
Jordan, a 48-year-old college graduate with a degree in literature, had scored 33 points when he took the Wonderlic Personnel Test in 1996, giving him an IQ of around 125. His score was well above the 21 to 22 points that officers score on average, which reflects a slightly above-average IQ of around 104. (Interestingly, the Wonderlic test recommends that insurance salespeople score at least 22 points and that police officers score at least 21 — meaning that at least according to the test, it requires more intelligence to sell insurance than to solve crimes.)
If we follow this logic, then it's not discrimination if you just have a policy of not hiring black people. However, if you have a policy of not hiring black people, and you hire exactly one black person, then it is discrimination.Quote:
However, the courts sided with the lower police department. In its ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the city did not discriminate against Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test. In other words, no one who was deemed “too smart” for the job after taking the intelligence test was hired.
Wake up sheeple.
I don't remember who said it, but the most compelling suggestion I've heard to stop school shootings was to give the killer a ridiculous nickname. No more Unabombers and Beach Killers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why not fartboy or chubby tubby. If you really want to deter people from becoming mass murderers, don't elevate them to antihero status. Talk about them like the self involved pieces of shit they are.
More along these linse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
I just want to say that one more time:
Wake up sheeple.
Im an almost lawyer, struggling to find a job. In 3 days, I find out if I have to pay $1000 to re-take the bar exam or not. The exam I took apparently has the lowest pass rate since 1988.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...int-in-decades
Optimistically, my law school brags about having a pass rate in the 80s, and my bar exam course a pass rate in the 90s. So theres that.
------------------
I also like cooking, and just learned what a 'roux' is and how to make it. I also spend way too much time playing league of legends.
This is an issue with protected classes and such. Race is, so anything that discriminates based on race needs both a compelling governmental interest, and the discrimination needs to be necessary for that interest. But intelligence isnt protected (not even low intelligence), so such a policy can exist so long as it is rationally related to a legit state interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Its dumb.
Suspect class designation is like the court saying its measurements have so much uncertainty that they must rely on assumptions and these assumptions include the assumption of guilt before proven innocence.
That does change some things. I don't have an opinion on it, just want to point out that my comment is directed at people who themselves get offended. Being offended and using back channels to dispense justice is all one needs to know that he/she is in the wrong. It leaves ideas untested and thus perpetuates bad ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I get what you're trying to say, but I just can't agree with it. Here's what I think's going on:Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
There's Point A and Point J. Our participants are tasked with driving from Point A to Point J. They engage then after the results are in, we evaluate. We find that our outcomes distributed to mainly two different subgroups. Group 1 consists of people who drove in a relatively straight line, hitting Point B and/or Point G along the way then landing on Point J. Group 2 consists of people who drove to Point B then C then H then D then C then E and finally landed on Point F and declared they're on Point J. When Group 1 was asked why they chose the route they did, the explanations were simple. When Group 2 was asked why they chose the route they did, the explanations were complex and convoluted and intellectual.
Then we run another experiment where we show the results (only the explanations, not the facts) to a different group (Group 3). We ask them which group appears to have succeeded in its endeavor more effectively, and a majority of Group 3 declare that Group 2 succeeded because Group 2's explanations were more complex and intellectual and justified while Group 1 didn't have much explanation for their decisions in the first place.
Transplant this into the American narrative, and it fits the view that the right-wing is full of retards and the left-wing is full of elitists. When you do something that is correct and concise, it's easy to look like you're doing it wrong because there isn't much to it. When you show complexity and a depth of explanation, it typically doesn't matter if you're correct because you'll still look smart and like you know what you're doing.
It's like how Sowell once said (paraphrasing), "Socialism has such a track record of failure that only an intellectual could justify it". It's common to think of retards with the visual of overalls and sucking on a straw, but the fact is the amount of retards who got a good GPA in literature classes is pretty damn high. One of the main skills people develop from their education careers is how to express and justify things regardless of veracity. One of the last skills people develop when they work with their hands for a living is how to justify wrong things. When you justify things that are wrong in literature classes, you get good marks, but when you justify things that are wrong when working carpentry, you lose digits. Our society has at large called the former smart people and the latter dumb people.
Brilliant fucking idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Nice! http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...whitemen-tweet
Quote:
A student diversity officer who came to prominence in a race row after allegedly tweeting the hashtag #killallwhitemen has been charged by police with sending a threatening communication.
That's an empty looking face right there. Hard to imagine there's much going on behind those eyes.
Also: that's a white bitch in the photo. Is that one of those: my grandmother fucked a mexican so now I have a rich heritage - cases?
So, it certainly is possible that you have a better grasp on the reality of the opposing sides, but I'm highly skeptical. There's a wuleftwugy (you several years ago possibly?) who would claim that the vast majority of 2nd amendment supporters are gun nuts who think the solution to school shootings is arming every kindergarten teacher with at minimum a drum fed AR15 and a side arm with an extended clip.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My view is that this, as well as your characterization of the gun control camp are caricatures. But the damage isn't in the libel, it's self inflicted in that you cheat yourself of the opportunity to see an opposing group as humans who have real concerns that are, if not as a group, as individuals nuanced and worth taking into account.
I'm pretty sure you responded to a post I didn't make. You seem to think that I'm championing the status quo.. or maybe my post just inspired you to bring up this sort of related egregiously bad policy.. idk.. *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Here's the thing, both Group 1 and Group 2 claim they have landed on Point J. It's interesting that the group that more or less correlates with your ideology is given to actually have landed on Point J in your allegory.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Further, I think that you're implying some sort of intuitive problem solving skill among Group 1, yet I'd posit that it's more likely that they are in fact retarded but just happen to have a correct opinion. Patting these people on the back when they're right by way of being wrong is just as bad as patting the literature ace (lol) on the back when they are eloquently wrong.
With that being said, I think your final paragraph is a great critique of liberalism, and liberal arts education in this country. Having spaces in which "there is no wrong answer" are great, and important to certain types of learning and expression, however, I think the caveat is rarely if ever offered by these educators that this creed doesn't apply to everything, and more importantly that it is a recipe for disaster in most instances outside of the given space.
And with that being said, J. R. R. Tolkien hates allegory, and I called the illustration you made an allegory, so therefore J. R. R. Tolkien hates you, the 2nd amendment and everything you stand for.
I skimmed some Tolkien a few years ago. That's enough for me to have formed an unshakeable opinion on this matter. It is truth that he hates you, the 2nd amendment, and everything you stand for.
Attack my argument, not my character.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Outside of that, you do have a point in that it seems I'm caricaturizing and slanderizing. The degree to which I am is marginal, but I do recognize that this stuff upsets me quite a bit. It's tough to keep a smile on when in the face of the great popularity of such destructive ideas.
I expressed no ideology. I am an intellectual and an elitist by nature and by habit. The group I would mostly be found in is Group 2. The distinction is that I don't see the nature of Group 2 as inherently smart the way that I think most others do. Which participants utilize which type of reasoning depends on what the topic is. For example, on economics, the left-wing is Group 2, but on creationism, the right-wing is Group 2.Quote:
Here's the thing, both Group 1 and Group 2 claim they have landed on Point J. It's interesting that the group that more or less correlates with your ideology is given to actually have landed on Point J in your allegory.
What does this look like? It's a popular sentiment. I'm just unsure what it actually entails.Quote:
when they're right by way of being wrong
The ability to learn and overturn your wrong convictions is a badge of honor.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
FWIW I never thought that about the 2nd. I mostly just never cared about it because I felt it was a non-issue. But I did have similar sentiments on other issues. What changes the sentiments is rationality and soundness of argument.
I have come to understand just how important the 2nd really is. It's about who has the responsibility for your security: you or a government?
I think you're seeing monsters where there are only shadows; I did not attack your character.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yeah, I know how that feels. Good on you for being able to own up to this-- but just be careful, this stuff can be insidious and the more embedded it becomes, the more natural it is to rationalize and downplay it. I hope this doesn't seem like condescending advice, I really don't mean it that way.. you've provided an example in this instance, but it's something I recognize in myself and pretty much everyone.Quote:
Outside of that, you do have a point in that it seems I'm caricaturizing and slanderizing. The degree to which I am is marginal, but I do recognize that this stuff upsets me quite a bit. It's tough to keep a smile on when in the face of the great popularity of such destructive ideas.
You really don't see yourself as an ideologue? Aside from the right and wrong of the sentiment, just a handful of posts back you advocated for every person's right to build and deploy a nuke. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire outlook on the organization of man can be directly traced to a list of tenets that could easily fit on a single page in large face print.Quote:
I expressed no ideology. I am an intellectual and an elitist by nature and by habit. The group I would mostly be found in is Group 2. The distinction is that I don't see the nature of Group 2 as inherently smart the way that I think most others do. Which participants utilize which type of reasoning depends on what the topic is. For example, on economics, the left-wing is Group 2, but on creationism, the right-wing is Group 2.
Like, you realize that Lenin was an intellectual (and arguably an elitist), right?
If you mean to say that in this very instance you expressed no ideology.. well, what are we having, a discussion or a series of remarks that must be replied to as if they exist only in a vacuum?
As for your addendum to your allegory-- I don't think it really fits, but it's your allegory, and it's you who Tolkien hates.
It means that because you won a hand of blackjack, it doesn't make your profitable. If you keep playing, you're going to go bust. You claim to be an intellectual, you surely should understand the danger of fools who have the power to make decisions and the false confidence to do so early and often.Quote:
What does this look like? It's a popular sentiment. I'm just unsure what it actually entails.
Implicitly. Explicitly you attacked how I characterized my argument instead of the argument itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
What I think would happen if you attacked my arguments exclusively is eventually you might no longer think I'm wrongly characterizing the opposition. It's easy to hold positions when they're not tested on merits.
The last thing I am is an ideologue.Quote:
You really don't see yourself as an ideologue?
First off, the same is true of everything, even physics. Is gravity no longer a thing because, descriptively, most of it can be boiled down to just a couple lines?Quote:
Aside from the right and wrong of the sentiment, just a handful of posts back you advocated for every person's right to build and deploy a nuke. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire outlook on the organization of man can be directly traced to a list of tenets that could easily fit on a single page in large face print.
Second, there is nothing dogmatic about why I hold the position I do. I have come to all the beliefs we have debated on through reason and I do not hold them uncompromisingly. It perhaps appears to you that I am dogmatic since you haven't challenged me. You've only stated that you think what I'm saying is dogmatic, but you haven't explained how or why.
Yes.Quote:
Like, you realize that Lenin was an intellectual (and arguably an elitist), right?
I haven't ascribed a higher quality status to intellectualism. On the contrary, I have argued for how dangerous intellectualism is. Actually, I haven't presented my arguments for that here so much as alluded to the existence of them. Intellectualism is not inherently bad, but it is at the root of many horrible ideas. The Thomas Sowell quote I earlier presented is one aspect of how. Intellectualism wields an uncanny ability to justify things that are wrong, which ends up making it in some ways more powerful at being wrong. Another aspect is something called the "herd mentality of individual thought". This isn't to say that individual thought is or gravitates towards herd mentality, but that those who at large are described as champions of progressed, intellectual, individual thought curiously herd together to the most uncritical, collective positions. It's an irony and a phenomenon, where a majority of critical thinkers end up being among the least critical of thinkers. Instead of real revolutionary, individual thought, intellectuals typically form a populist herd.
Gimme something more apropos. That's an example of known quantities and basic math. I'm not sure how the sentiment translates to social and political issues.Quote:
It means that because you won a hand of blackjack, it doesn't make your profitable. If you keep playing, you're going to go bust.
That's what I've been saying. It's an extremely important point.Quote:
You claim to be an intellectual, you surely should understand the danger of fools who have the power to make decisions and the false confidence to do so early and often.
Yeah, that was a silly question, seeing as it's a disparaging term, I guess no one sees themselves as an ideologue.
Yeah, I guess we can take a relativistic view of dogmatism and say one man's dogmatic views are another man's well reasoned and carefully reached position. I'd be curious to know if you think your level of confidence in having reached your positions through a sufficiently thorough amount of due diligence differs significantly at all from the next man? (to be sure, this isn't a counter argument at all, just an aside that popped into my head-- I just want to be clear that I'm not attempting to devolve this into some sort of debate about gnosticism)
I like your critique of intellectualism-- it's a weird cycle of a system that leads to correct answers (if not always in reality, then in theory) which breeds confidence, which detracts from the ability to detect one's biases, which leads to less accurate answers. Ha, stupid smart people.
Why are you dismissing the blackjack example? This is a clear example of being right by way of being wrong. If you don't like the blackjack example, you can plug in whatever series of decisions you want. If it helps, try to plug it into some position on the left that you don't agree with, maybe you'll have any easier time of it.
that last line is a great "gotcha!", but not much more.
Nah, I was just throwing it out there because I thought you guys would think it was interesting. It was related to this you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'm just pointing out how ridiculously bad the current process is for choosing police (and largely agreeing with some of your points in the process). It's a pretty complicated topic with a lot of implications in itself, and I think it's pretty interesting.Quote:
The police and military personal should have background checks and some sort of psych screening just like everyone else. Different people should have different clearances with regards to types of weapons.
Doubling back to the gun rights debate, I want to point out a couple of things that might affect how people argue those points.
1. The second amendment did not come up with the right to bear arms. That right was already there. Instead, it made sure that the government would not violate that right.
2. Sometimes people will claim that the 2nd amendment came too far before our current levels of weaponry to be relevant. However, repeating rifles were available at the time the 2nd amendment was written. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
just want to post the full Tolkien quote on allegory here because it's badass:
“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
man after my own heart. the allegory portion of my elementary school library lessons always rubbed me the wrong way -- this is probably why.
Also, I know someone who refers to intellectuals as "ineffectuals" which I find hilarious. I think intellectualism turns sour (aka: ineffectual) when you don't actually get your hands dirty with some life field experience.
I thought Frodo was Jesus tho. Actually, I don't remember. But I feel like there was some serious Christian allegory going on
I hated all of his work.
i'm actually not a big Tolkien person and never read LoTR in full, but I knew the quote, and I like it on its own. However, yes, I've heard that Christianity is a big part of LoTR lore. If we're to take his quote at face value you could make the argument that he was aware of this influence but didn't specifically write any element of the story to be rigidly correlated with the bible.. that being the difference between applicability and authorial domination.
did a quick google, this short piece seems to shed more light on it: http://writingishardwork.com/2013/06...n-on-allegory/
Btw - I love that you loved the volcano short before Inside Out that much to make it your avatar.
I read about three pages of LotR. What a load of shite.
Serious question:
Is tolkien praised for actually making good work...or is he praised because he made some 1930s nerds orgasm? Its not like there was a lot of fantasy writing going on at that time.
I mean, I read the first 3 chapters of the Fellowship. After 50 pages of Bilbo describing his lame ass birthday party in excruciating detail, I threw it away.
As I understand it: the whole fantasy world of ogres, trolls, elves, dwarves, etc. was really nothing but random folk tales until Tolkien wrote those books. He is credited with creating that genre of fantasy fiction, AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
In a way, he is the father of D&D, since that game was heavily influenced by Tolkein's work. It's kind of hard to find any concept of a dangerous medieval setting with monsters and men and man-like creatures that doesn't draw heavy influence from Tolkien's work.
EDIT: My brothers think I'm insane for not giving those books another chance. Neither of them is impressed with petty works. The wide range of writers and creative people who have been influenced by his work does lend a lot of credit to the idea that it is, in fact, quality writing.
Same... except it was "The Hobbit" in 8th grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
He really brought together a lot of disjointed parts of folklore into one narrative for the first time, and it really established the fantasy genre for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Ah, right, yeah, I think I was caught off guard and thought it was a direct response and possibly a rebuttal of my post, but it didn't make sense as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah, I completely agree with you in that the process is awful and that the issues encompassed in this topic are so nuanced and intertwined that it's hard to know where to start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah, I'm not sure where I heard it first and I'm sure I'm butchering the line, but I always liked the claim that he was at best a mediocre author, but he was exceptionally good at compiling encyclopedias.
If anyone wants to dip their toes into the water of professional wrestling, you should do so in WWE's NXT product right now. They've eliminated a lot of what's wrong with professional wrestling today (compared to three decades ago).
Here's a good example. Bayley is the lovable loser type who has had to really claw tooth and nail to get a women's title shot, and Sasha Banks is the super over-the-top snob.
Tolkien is like the literary equivalent to Wagner. Awesome substance packed between lots and lots of lard.
Tolkien really did conjure an entire other world though, he's like the granddaddy of world building. And he was a philologist and linguist -- dude literally created another language. Elvish is legit. You could write your diary in that shit to be extra secure.
@aubrey: I recommend you check out the video game "The Beginner's Guide."
It's less than $10 on steam, or you can watch a play through on youtube if you don't want to buy it. It takes about 90 minutes to complete. It's more of an interactive story than a game.
I think the theme of the game and the depth of its exploration on isolation and obsession are exactly what you'd enjoy writing a wall of text post / essay about. I want to be clear that I'm not saying you will "enjoy" the game. Rather, I think you'll be inspired to contemplate these themes and how they resonate among the (quirky) artistic types.
In short, the story has significant content. It has layers. It's not a "fun" game, but I can't stop thinking about it.
I was reading your post about it in the game thread last night. I'm sufficiently intrigued, I'll check it out. thanks!
Yeah, I've read LotR and the hobbit more than once each
I'm sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luco
If that was the case, I would say that my beliefs are based in sufficient evidence and others' beliefs aren't and that's what makes me more probably right than them. However, the actual case is that the robustness of some of my beliefs emerge from knowing I could never have sufficient evidence for them, and the oftentimes mendacity of peoples' beliefs arises from the assumption that sufficiency of evidence has been achieved.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'm not trying to discard it, but to understand it. I can't argue with myself, so I wanted to know what you think it looks like on the social and political level. I'm not sure I would choose to describe anything that way, so I don't even know where to start.Quote:
Why are you dismissing the blackjack example? This is a clear example of being right by way of being wrong. If you don't like the blackjack example, you can plug in whatever series of decisions you want. If it helps, try to plug it into some position on the left that you don't agree with, maybe you'll have any easier time of it.
Great article
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/...just-wont-die/
The concealed carry stuff is important. It never gets popular media attention, but there is a reason why concealed carriers are so rarely victims of mass shootings. This spills over greatly since concealed carriers tend to stop people around them from being victims as well. There's even more spillover in that criminals avoid places with higher rates of concealed carry.
There are fewer better ways to deter mass shootings than by encouraging responsible concealed carry, and there are few better ways to increase mass shootings than by creating gun-free-unless-you're-a-criminal zones.
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
At a routine traffic stop a cop shoots a man because he reached into his pocket. The man had a gun in that pocket and died gripping it with his finger on the trigger. Did the cop do the right thing? Did he do the wrong thing? Or do we need a more nuanced description of how, thankfully, he was able to go home to his family, but also he(and his colleagues) should not be encouraged to react in this way in this situation?Quote:
I'm not trying to discard it, but to understand it. I can't argue with myself, so I wanted to know what you think it looks like on the social and political level. I'm not sure I would choose to describe anything that way, so I don't even know where to start.
I would say the latter, and I think an apt way to put it is "he was right by way of being wrong."
oh i see what you were getting at. you were talking a results orientation view.
i think i was confused because i was giving an example of how people could be right yet appear wrong, not so much be wrong and get an accidentally right result.
I drop unexpectedly like bird shit.
I passed the bar exam!
57% pass rate in my state. /brag
https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1...e-cork-pop.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/022...rande.jpg?6331
Congrats.
Which type of lawyer are you going to be?
A: http://www.bet.com/content/dam/betco...00x675x20.dimg
B:
https://plasticbunnies.files.wordpre...perchicken.jpg
BTW, I've done extensive research and these are your only two options.
Nah, you forgot one.
https://d1ai9qtk9p41kl.cloudfront.ne...0/homeless.jpg
But now im just like every other 20-something. Looking for a job, and out of excuses.
Step 1: A Lawyer. Step 2: A Judge. Step 3: The Law.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/...movie-2012.jpg
Speaking of the most protected group of people on the planet (Islamic terrorists)
https://i.imgur.com/S3wtJfw.jpg
Congrats JKDS on passing the bar. Care if I ask how many hours of study specifically for the exam it took?
5-6hrs a day for 2 months. That didnt feel like enough either, but I burn out quickly when the task is pointless memorization.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thanks for all the congrats guys. TBH, I thought I failed. The day before the exam I was a complete wreck, got very little sleep for both test days, and was completely surprised at how hard the questions were. Everyone I talked to after the exam felt similarly too. Finding out that the last obstacle to me practicing law is out of the way, and that its out of the way for my friends too is an incredible relief.
Feels good.
Walk tall, man. I know the legal department at my company all rake in 100k+ starting and they each take the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. Hop into the world of big engineering contract disputes and make that sweet cash. Our former CEO was from Legal.
well done. pretty sure the 300s is low for passed bar study hours.
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116
No brain, 120 IQ. It's too good to keep tucked-away as an internet diss.
That's crazy. With all the studies relating to brain damage and it's effect on intelligence, this is absolutely shocking.
He touches on this, but it's the best deep-cover point to be made.
I'd argue there is no soul because you are carried by your brain - if you damage your brain, you change your consciousness, who you are, and how you present yourself.
Well, what if you could still be you with something that really doesn't look like a brain?
congrats!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
This just screams 'urban legend' to meQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I did some internet on this, and it seems that the cited article is disputed and John Lorber, the author, has never published this particular case to a peer reviewed journal. There's no name of the patient and wikipedia says he might have misinterpreted the cat scans. Other sources on patients with hydrophallus and severely reduced brain mass comment on how incredible it is that the patient is able to respond to stimuli. Surprisingly responsive vegtables, if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luco
Less sceptical sources claim that "science" likes to sweep the unexplainable under the carpet and similar babble.
This particular case is so obscure not even snopes or the straight dope have tried to refute it.
Wow, thanks for doing the legwork there for me :heart:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I would like to claim that I misspelled hydrocephalic for comic effect, and not because dumb.
Why isn't that word used more. Like: suck a dick you hydrocephalic cunt.
brilliant.
Damn. I take it back.
CANNOT UNSEEQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
why the fuck am I rewatching episodes of sex and the city. can someone please come here and put me out of my misery?
what are y'all doing for halloween?
Two girls at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
touching.
so, anyway, I love this channel:
An hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
you know that means he should kill himself right?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I couldn't decide if he knew that (which would make sense coming from him as a joke in that context) or if he was referring to the cop and is one of those weird asses who actually uses an before h- words.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i just realized that fresh prince had a butler. i mean, i always knew he was a butler, but id never thought about it. how does a butler happen in the 90s?
My brother's ex-boyfriend's family had a butler.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy