This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - crypto
1
« on: March 05, 2013, 01:02:04 PM »
Delete All Smilies
2
« on: February 23, 2013, 12:49:12 AM »
tler
3
« on: February 22, 2013, 04:15:40 AM »
Minesweeper
4
« on: February 03, 2013, 05:08:30 PM »
yeah, if it's cheaper than life-preserving treatments then go for it. people spend enormous amounts of money extending the lives of dying relatives, including the very demented and comatose, that could instead be used to save the lives of many people whose cognitive faculties aren't so addled that they might as well be dead.
5
« on: October 27, 2012, 12:35:22 AM »
pbr
6
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:43:25 PM »
depends on how you define morality.
i think there is a considerable amount of awfully objective laws we could develop if we establish maximization of human well-being and minimization of human suffering as the governing principles of our morality.
but if morality is defined as applying specifically to humans and perhaps similarly intelligent simians, dolphins, etc., then morality is necessarily a construct that did not exist prior to the evolution of these species. it results from the cognitive processes of certain sentient organisms, which possess a subjective view of the universe, and not of the universe itself, which is obviously not sentient.
so: there is no absolute standard of morality built into the universe, but there are some ground rules that could conceivably be established on a global scale (if those theocracies, totalitarian regimes, and other sources either of gross misapprehensions w/r/t human well-being or of sheer disregard for human well-being were wiped off the map).
7
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:36:31 PM »
right, so it's not the fault of the charity organization so much as the fault of society for establishing immoral standards. you can't expect the charity organization to just fuck itself in the ass on principle. accepting the donation might result in a drastic reduction in donations in the future on account of morally misguided prudes not wanting to donate to that slimy company that accepted donations from a porn site. i don't know if that's a likely outcome but if komen thought so then i sympathize regardless of my (nonexistent) opinion on komen as a legitimate charity organization.
8
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:32:47 PM »
i wasn't sure what level of irony you were operating on
9
« on: October 14, 2012, 01:25:17 AM »
the Northern Aggressors
good grief
10
« on: October 14, 2012, 01:18:02 AM »
a discussion of how certain taboos hinder charity and what we should do about it might be more productive.
Fine. Morals shouldn't come into play when accepting donations. If a man walks up to me with a fucking joint in his hand (me, being anti-420) and he notices I've been starving half to death, so he decides "HERE'S $15, GET SOMETHING TO EAT!"
Am I going to reject the money because he smokes weed? Fuck no... I don't think image should come into play. Also, Pornhub has been VERY generous with breast cancer awareness for a long time.
i'm not sure if in your feeble attempt to be powerfully polemical you failed to understand literally everything i said or if you just don't care. either way you've made such an idiotic and unrealistic argument bolstered with a horrendously inappropriate analogy that i don't even feel the need to respond substantially.
11
« on: October 12, 2012, 11:38:20 PM »
i'm pretty apathetic about this but by way of reflex i would say, as others have said, that komen has every right to reject whatever donations it chooses to reject. and i don't think you can blame charity organizations (of which, sure, komen may not be a respectable example, but i use the term for argument's sake), like other companies, for feeling compelled to take their public image into consideration. maybe komen judged that backlash in the form of screeds by prudish fanatics with ass-backwards moral compasses about how they accepted "dirty sex money" to fight cancer would result in a decrease in donations and therefore an overall inferior outcome over time.
a discussion of how certain taboos hinder charity and what we should do about it might be more productive.
12
« on: October 09, 2012, 07:36:41 PM »
Death penalty is something I support but I can see why you would think otherwise.
imho, it's good to be able to see why one might think otherwise about the institutionalization of murder. props
13
« on: October 07, 2012, 04:46:10 PM »
in 2005 the austrian police arrested david irving, a nazi-sympathizing british "historian," for setting foot in the country on the grounds that he was a holocaust denier and, had he been allowed to run wild, might have publicly expressed this belief. this was an assault on his freedom of speech but perhaps for justifiable reasons.
should there be limitations on free speech? (i'm not talking about whether or not shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater should be legal.) or should people who urge bigotry, racism, and violence and postulate harmful falsehoods be allowed to take the podium and say whatever they want to say?
14
« on: October 06, 2012, 01:54:17 AM »
15
« on: October 06, 2012, 01:19:42 AM »
well i don't think anything i've said warrants vampire allegations but if it helps i'm not actually fat. i bet corey feels like a really big idiot now.
ShoutBox!
|
Show Posts
