Assume Nothing

I don't want to be the type who creates off-topic discussions, but could you really have a meaningful relationship at that age?

You're not obsessive-compulsive enough, so no.

She's cray cray, yo. Good thing it happened before Christmas.

Are you suggesting that atrocities can't be justified, whatever the likely outcome? I'm pretty certain consequentialist views would take into account the likelihood too, so if it was just a stroke of luck - it would still be deemed a bad action. I don't think killing off the old arguments takes into account the scope of the consequences, since that would put the young into fear of aging too. It reminds me of the 'kill the traveler' arguments against utilitarianism, which doesn't even work as a rebuttal.

Going to any religious organisation for any cause for any duration. I don't think atheistic groups count as religious organisations, so I wouldn't amend this post.

... you don't want to know the things I'm into.

I think my display name caused some confusion. It seems to be a literal expression rather than a reference to me.

Banned for not clarifying what a community really entails.

Uh, I should have been more clear. Premise 1: Human rights are universalized Premise 2: Universalized human rights are silly because they lack exceptions - sometimes very obvious ones Premise 3: They lack a good hierarchy to function properly - e.g. abortion Premise 4: It's difficult to establish human rights in the first place, unless we agree that its for a common cause Premise 5: It has a tendency of being completely trivial in ethical arguments Do note that I'm talking purely in the context of ethical arguments though. EDIT - well, it honestly depends on what level we're talking at. If we're talking mainly about micro-level ethical arguments, then sure. I'd like to see human rights to operate well in an argument like Truman's dilemma. If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty much deontology.

Banned for being clothed.

And never underestimate the anger that comes with incorrectly prepared ones. :evil: Cod + batter + chip with salt. What is there to prepare incorrectly. You forgot love. But really, using the right type of oil and the cooking time is important, I've had chips that were orange that didn't taste very good because they used a weird oil, and somewhere else I've had cod that was encased in so much batter that eating it felt like a mining operation. It's not difficult to do it right, but I've seen lots of chippies still mess it up. Yeah - there's a lot of things that could go wrong. It varies on oil temperature, to the starchiness of the chips (and whether they've been pre-fried to create its unique crisp fluffiness), to the saltiness of the batter, to whether they contain MSG or not, etc. It's a lot of things for consideration. On the topic of scotch eggs - it's an acquired taste really. I wouldn't say I crave them, but I wouldn't mind eating one. As others have said, the quality varies greatly on where you buy your produce.

You...don't believe in human rights? Care to elaborate? Do you mean that these rights are not predetermined by nature, or do you actually mean that humans shouldn't have these rights? And yes, obviously they will conflict with each other, that's not unusual. You have to choose which one is more important then. This of course can sometimes be difficult. I say 'I don't believe in human rights' as to suggest that I don't believe they serve the purpose they are intended to serve, and they tend to be rather meaningless/trivial when it boils down to its effectiveness in resolving ethical dilemmas - especially when applying non-basic human rights. It may be useful on a micro level, but on the grander scale - it doesn't do its job very well. What determines which rights we should have, and why should we have them? Could you apply exceptions? I dislike the concept of universalized laws when situations that arise are so complex - it's unclear whether my right to freedom of expression should inhibit your right to privacy/not be offended or whathaveyou, and if so, to what extent. They're not perfectly compatible to create a hierarchy either - it's difficult to establish set values for each human right. It cannot be said that the right to life is 5 times greater than the right to liberty, for example. It's difficult to apply in practice to provide a strong argument in ethical dilemmas, e.g. abortion, or perhaps gun control. Good efficiency does not imply good efficacy - it's important to be aware of the distinction. I do agree on the notion of common goals though - that's what I believe to be the objective of morality.

I don't believe in human rights, though. It's impractical in that there's far too many conflicts, like in the abortion arguments we've had on this board.

Anything from Japan.

Banned for blaspheming.

The crick in one's neck when waking up. I think I need new pillows.

That's the entire premise of the thread. I don't see how morality is largely subjective though - whilst individual acts can be valued, morality itself is pretty hardwired if we define it under consequentialist views.

Call me a narcissist, but here's my list: me, myself, and I.

... I think we should dive into the morals of the sex industry once again. Does it matter how the sexual gratification is achieved, e.g. through images, or video, or audio - if not physical contact? Would it be any more moral to hire a stripper than to hire a prostitute?

I admire the sentiment, but the pragmatics of it makes this law laughable. Good luck enforcing it - perhaps this should be charted up when putting together policies next time; intentions are not results.

Is that really going to become a meme now? ._. I've found a Boss-key extension for Chrome. Fyeah.png

Banned for singing like a quivering seal on a boat of sadistic love.

No. Lokie

I don't think that was the point - the point was, the video could be improved. You could say you like it, or dislike it - but does that discredit the argument that the video is not at its best? The reluctance of striving to be - seemingly out of apathy just irks me.

Banned for the sexual connotations.