|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 6, 2019 14:49:39 GMT
As horrifying as this is....
It isn't too far from the truth.
See this little monster?
Nassarius is a common type of carnivorous cone snail. I had dozens in my aquarium before I realized what they do. See that little elephant trunk? It is FILLED with razor sharp teeth. The Nassarius sidles up to other snails and uses that trunk to bore a fucking hole in the shell and then liquefy the meaty interior and vacuum it out. It does all of this while the prey is still alive.
They are fearless, breed like rabbits, and if they were land-based and about the size of dogs we'd be in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Nov 10, 2019 5:05:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 10, 2019 12:15:37 GMT
For an eye-opening experience, find and then attend any Women's Drug Rehabilitation graduation in America. There will be dancing. There will be kids. There will be twerking... by the kids... the one I saw was around 8. The 8 year old kept trying to "back up' on people. Just like mommie.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 11, 2019 16:55:20 GMT
GUYS, DON'T FORGET! TODAY IS A VERY IMPORTANT DAY! A DAY WHEN WE PAY HOMAGE. A DAY WHEN WE SHOW OUR APPRECIATION.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Nov 11, 2019 17:11:31 GMT
GUYS, DON'T FORGET! TODAY IS A VERY IMPORTANT DAY! A DAY WHEN WE PAY HOMAGE. A DAY WHEN WE SHOW OUR APPRECIATION.
I've platinumed this game twice and dumped probably a good 500 hours into it. Even though I bought it twice I still feel like I more than got my money's worth out of it.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Nov 11, 2019 18:56:09 GMT
Over the weekend I watched this video. I found myself in complete agreement with this week's guest, George Will. His argument was that social and political conservatism does not require theology. His basic principle is that we have a collective sense of morality because of observable factors rather than strictly a mandate from a higher being.
So I stated in the comments: "I don't need theology to be conservative."
To which a YouTube commenter by the name of dooglitas came back with: "You need it for your conservatism to be logically consistent. Atheism eventually leads to totalitarianism."
Let's start with the failed assumption that I've been used to getting my entire adult life, even as far back as my teenage years. Because I am not religious (particularly when I do not claim to be a Christian) I must be an atheist. Let me go ahead and dispel that notion. I am not an atheist. The closest approximation if you must classify my beliefs into a collective agreed upon idea would be that I am more akin to agnostic on one end of the spectrum and deism on the other. Something of a hybrid of those two ideas.
So I replied back: "Who said I was an atheist? I do not require someone else telling me about my spiritual connection to the universe and how I may or may not be doing it wrong, not to be socially or politically conservative and certainly not in general."
To which he returned: "Well, that was confusing. In view of the topic of the video and the wording of your original post, it is reasonable to assume you are an atheist. The rest of your second comment is confusing. I have no idea what you're talking about."
See the broken logic. "...it is reasonable to assume you are an atheist." How exactly? Because I said I am not religious I must be anti-religious? I had a friend back in high school pull this one on me when I told him I don't claim to be a Christian. He said "Oh so you're an atheist then." Totally matter of fact like that. As though there aren't literally thousands of religions in the world to choose from. If I say I'm not Christian I must be the complete opposite end of the spectrum and have no belief in anything spiritual at all. It's not my fault that people wrongly conflate religion and spirituality. Even Ben Shapiro did it in the video.
So I continued: "Except it is not reasonable to assume someone is an atheist simply because they don't hold with organized religion. But then I've been dealing with that gross generalization my whole life as soon as I tell someone I'm not a Christian. Always straight to the assumption that I must be a God denier."
And he followed up with: "You make a good point. However, you were responding to a video about being "without God." Your original statement was vague as to where you stood. If you are vague, then don't blame people for misunderstanding. Perhaps you should clarify where you stand and what you believe."
How was I vague, exactly? I said: "I don't need theology to be conservative." Theology is the study of God and religious belief, i.e. religion. So the essence of my comment was that I don't need religion to hold conservative values. Lack of religion does not equal lack of a belief in God or spirituality. It means I don't follow someone else's dogma and doctrine. Nothing vague about that statement. Also not my fault that the video is kind of wrongly worded. The point being made in the video is that conservative ideas exist without the need of religious mandate. The video should be titled Can Conservatism Exist Without Religion, since that was actually the argument being presented.
And so I responded with exactly that: "I said I don't need theology to be conservative. Theology is the study of God and religious belief, i.e. religion. Ben starts the video by making a statement that some of the premises of conservatism require a footing in religion. Ben is conflating religion with belief in God or spirituality. Obviously religion requires belief in God and spirituality. Belief in a higher power or the possibility of a higher power does not; however, require an adherence to religion. Religion is structured and formulaic, a set of doctrine and dictates. One can be spiritual and not religious. One can also be atheist and a conservative since neither belief in God nor adherence to religion is required in order for someone to have beliefs that align with social or political conservatism. It's also the very point that George Will makes in this video starting at about 1:40. He even states exactly what I did in my initial post at 2:28, "It does not require theology."
So how exactly am I being "vague" or "confusing" when I'm simply reiterating the same point made by the guest in the video? Unless he's just arguing off the title of the video and didn't actually watch it... then this whole back and forth makes a lot more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 11, 2019 19:24:05 GMT
Over the weekend I watched this video. I found myself in complete agreement with this week's guest, George Will. His argument was that social and political conservatism does not require theology. His basic principle is that we have a collective sense of morality because of observable factors rather than strictly a mandate from a higher being. So I stated in the comments: "I don't need theology to be conservative."
To which a YouTube commenter by the name of dooglitas came back with: "You need it for your conservatism to be logically consistent. Atheism eventually leads to totalitarianism."Let's start with the failed assumption that I've been used to getting my entire adult life, even as far back as my teenage years. Because I am not religious (particularly when I do not claim to be a Christian) I must be an atheist. Let me go ahead and dispel that notion. I am not an atheist. The closest approximation if you must classify my beliefs into a collective agreed upon idea would be that I am more akin to agnostic on one end of the spectrum and deism on the other. Something of a hybrid of those two ideas. So I replied back: "Who said I was an atheist? I do not require someone else telling me about my spiritual connection to the universe and how I may or may not be doing it wrong, not to be socially or politically conservative and certainly not in general."
To which he returned: "Well, that was confusing. In view of the topic of the video and the wording of your original post, it is reasonable to assume you are an atheist. The rest of your second comment is confusing. I have no idea what you're talking about."See the broken logic. "...it is reasonable to assume you are an atheist." How exactly? Because I said I am not religious I must be anti-religious? I had a friend back in high school pull this one on me when I told him I don't claim to be a Christian. He said "Oh so you're an atheist then." Totally matter of fact like that. As though there aren't literally thousands of religions in the world to choose from. If I say I'm not Christian I must be the complete opposite end of the spectrum and have no belief in anything spiritual at all. It's not my fault that people wrongly conflate religion and spirituality. Even Ben Shapiro did it in the video. So I continued: "Except it is not reasonable to assume someone is an atheist simply because they don't hold with organized religion. But then I've been dealing with that gross generalization my whole life as soon as I tell someone I'm not a Christian. Always straight to the assumption that I must be a God denier."
And he followed up with: "You make a good point. However, you were responding to a video about being "without God." Your original statement was vague as to where you stood. If you are vague, then don't blame people for misunderstanding. Perhaps you should clarify where you stand and what you believe."How was I vague, exactly? I said: "I don't need theology to be conservative." Theology is the study of God and religious belief, i.e. religion. So the essence of my comment was that I don't need religion to hold conservative values. Lack of religion does not equal lack of a belief in God or spirituality. It means I don't follow someone else's dogma and doctrine. Nothing vague about that statement. Also not my fault that the video is kind of wrongly worded. The point being made in the video is that conservative ideas exist without the need of religious mandate. The video should be titled Can Conservatism Exist Without Religion, since that was actually the argument being presented. And so I responded with exactly that: "I said I don't need theology to be conservative. Theology is the study of God and religious belief, i.e. religion. Ben starts the video by making a statement that some of the premises of conservatism require a footing in religion. Ben is conflating religion with belief in God or spirituality. Obviously religion requires belief in God and spirituality. Belief in a higher power or the possibility of a higher power does not; however, require an adherence to religion. Religion is structured and formulaic, a set of doctrine and dictates. One can be spiritual and not religious. One can also be atheist and a conservative since neither belief in God nor adherence to religion is required in order for someone to have beliefs that align with social or political conservatism. It's also the very point that George Will makes in this video starting at about 1:40. He even states exactly what I did in my initial post at 2:28, "It does not require theology."
So how exactly am I being "vague" or "confusing" when I'm simply reiterating the same point made by the guest in the video? Unless he's just arguing off the title of the video and didn't actually watch it... then this whole back and forth makes a lot more sense. I agree with you. You do NOT need religion to be conservative. Religion, however, kind of relies on conservatism. The core of conservatism is to Conserve. In other words, to Preserve... a status quo. There's a reason conservative brains have larger amygdala, the area associated with Fear. Conservatives really do not like change. (Not saying Conservatives are cowards) Nothing wrong with that. Most creatures prefer stable patterns. It's a good environment where one can anticipate all dangers due to knowing what to expect. That also makes Conservatives beings of Tradition. Traditions are maintained by the Conservative elements of society. So it stands to reason that Religion, which is ultimately dependent on Tradition, needs Conservatism. Not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Nov 11, 2019 19:58:34 GMT
Over the weekend I watched this video. I found myself in complete agreement with this week's guest, George Will. His argument was that social and political conservatism does not require theology. His basic principle is that we have a collective sense of morality because of observable factors rather than strictly a mandate from a higher being. So I stated in the comments: "I don't need theology to be conservative."
To which a YouTube commenter by the name of dooglitas came back with: "You need it for your conservatism to be logically consistent. Atheism eventually leads to totalitarianism."Let's start with the failed assumption that I've been used to getting my entire adult life, even as far back as my teenage years. Because I am not religious (particularly when I do not claim to be a Christian) I must be an atheist. Let me go ahead and dispel that notion. I am not an atheist. The closest approximation if you must classify my beliefs into a collective agreed upon idea would be that I am more akin to agnostic on one end of the spectrum and deism on the other. Something of a hybrid of those two ideas. So I replied back: "Who said I was an atheist? I do not require someone else telling me about my spiritual connection to the universe and how I may or may not be doing it wrong, not to be socially or politically conservative and certainly not in general."
To which he returned: "Well, that was confusing. In view of the topic of the video and the wording of your original post, it is reasonable to assume you are an atheist. The rest of your second comment is confusing. I have no idea what you're talking about."See the broken logic. "...it is reasonable to assume you are an atheist." How exactly? Because I said I am not religious I must be anti-religious? I had a friend back in high school pull this one on me when I told him I don't claim to be a Christian. He said "Oh so you're an atheist then." Totally matter of fact like that. As though there aren't literally thousands of religions in the world to choose from. If I say I'm not Christian I must be the complete opposite end of the spectrum and have no belief in anything spiritual at all. It's not my fault that people wrongly conflate religion and spirituality. Even Ben Shapiro did it in the video. So I continued: "Except it is not reasonable to assume someone is an atheist simply because they don't hold with organized religion. But then I've been dealing with that gross generalization my whole life as soon as I tell someone I'm not a Christian. Always straight to the assumption that I must be a God denier."
And he followed up with: "You make a good point. However, you were responding to a video about being "without God." Your original statement was vague as to where you stood. If you are vague, then don't blame people for misunderstanding. Perhaps you should clarify where you stand and what you believe."How was I vague, exactly? I said: "I don't need theology to be conservative." Theology is the study of God and religious belief, i.e. religion. So the essence of my comment was that I don't need religion to hold conservative values. Lack of religion does not equal lack of a belief in God or spirituality. It means I don't follow someone else's dogma and doctrine. Nothing vague about that statement. Also not my fault that the video is kind of wrongly worded. The point being made in the video is that conservative ideas exist without the need of religious mandate. The video should be titled Can Conservatism Exist Without Religion, since that was actually the argument being presented. And so I responded with exactly that: "I said I don't need theology to be conservative. Theology is the study of God and religious belief, i.e. religion. Ben starts the video by making a statement that some of the premises of conservatism require a footing in religion. Ben is conflating religion with belief in God or spirituality. Obviously religion requires belief in God and spirituality. Belief in a higher power or the possibility of a higher power does not; however, require an adherence to religion. Religion is structured and formulaic, a set of doctrine and dictates. One can be spiritual and not religious. One can also be atheist and a conservative since neither belief in God nor adherence to religion is required in order for someone to have beliefs that align with social or political conservatism. It's also the very point that George Will makes in this video starting at about 1:40. He even states exactly what I did in my initial post at 2:28, "It does not require theology."
So how exactly am I being "vague" or "confusing" when I'm simply reiterating the same point made by the guest in the video? Unless he's just arguing off the title of the video and didn't actually watch it... then this whole back and forth makes a lot more sense. I agree with you. You do NOT need religion to be conservative. Religion, however, kind of relies on conservatism. The core of conservatism is to Conserve. In other words, to Preserve... a status quo. There's a reason conservative brains have larger amygdala, the area associated with Fear. Conservatives really do not like change. (Not saying Conservatives are cowards) Nothing wrong with that. Most creatures prefer stable patterns. It's a good environment where one can anticipate all dangers due to knowing what to expect. That also makes Conservatives beings of Tradition. Traditions are maintained by the Conservative elements of society. So it stands to reason that Religion, which is ultimately dependent on Tradition, needs Conservatism. Not the other way around. This EXACTLY. Religion absolutely breeds and requires a conservative mindset. But conservatism does not need one to be religious.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 14, 2019 23:35:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 16, 2019 16:15:57 GMT
Hey Dorbs, turns out not all college coursework is liberal slanted, eh?
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Nov 16, 2019 23:01:36 GMT
Hey Dorbs, turns out not all college coursework is liberal slanted, eh?
I’m not sure how she’s demonstrating that “All Lives Matter.” Is she at a demonstration? Is the kid hers and this is showing an example of mixed race relationships? Is this an indictment or promotion of her being a police officer? I’m not getting the context here.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 17, 2019 12:29:00 GMT
Hey Dorbs, turns out not all college coursework is liberal slanted, eh?
I’m not sure how she’s demonstrating that “All Lives Matter.” Is she at a demonstration? Is the kid hers and this is showing an example of mixed race relationships? Is this an indictment or promotion of her being a police officer? I’m not getting the context here. Oh, in context this is a snub at the whole pushback that All Lives Matters is racist; that by saying it you somehow lessen the worth of black lives.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Nov 17, 2019 13:41:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Nov 25, 2019 17:32:06 GMT
Starting at 1:05. This argument right here. Berlinski's on to something with his premise. Society NEEDS to enforce certain taboos. Ben being a libertarian of course tries to steer the conversation toward this leading to tyrannical government but that's not what Berlinski is talking about. He's talking about the idea that people have a collective of majority agreed upon socially acceptable and socially unacceptable ideas and practices. That people who engage in the socially unacceptable practices should not be lauded and praised and given platform to force those ideas into the public collective. Do whatever you want in your own castle. Conduct yourself as you wish (within the bounds of the law obviously). But we need to stop letting people try to gain public praise for their proclivities.
This is some wisdom: "The health of the whole demands, in many respects, the fact that certain individuals cannot satisfy all of their desires."
|
|
|
Post by Katzenbalger on Nov 27, 2019 13:12:51 GMT
The other week at work we got a brand new printer/scanner. Our old one was ancient and giving us issues, so we got a new one that can do all this new fancy stuff, like separate scanned files into multiple PDFs and automatically collate and sort massive documents as they're printed into different trays and there's even a little pull-out keyboard so you can write emails on it.
It's absolutely amazing and i'm in awe of this machine - it's like Christmas has come early - and I've horrifically realized that I've been an office drone so long that I've actually become excited for a new printer. Like, i'm not excited about Star Wars or the Christmas Break or going on vacation or anything else. The biggest, most interesting thing that's happened in months is that work got a new printer that does all this stuff that slightly saves time.
It might be a decade early, but is this the sort of thing that triggers a midlife crisis? Have i become a character from The Office?
Seriously though, I love this new printer. Only issue is that now everybody comes to me to ask printer-related questions because I was the only one who talked to the guy installing it about what it can do. Which is bad, because I've got work to do, but also good because now i wield a tremendous amount of power due to my vast knowledge of which button does what. So, basically, yeah; I've become a character from The Office.
|
|