if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.
Started by Asmodean, March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PMIn Asmo's grey lump, wrath and dark clouds gather force.Luxembourg trembles.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PMAs I said in response to someone coming close to pushing a political narrative (I do not doubt that it was done with the best of intentions, and yet...) I do not have a problem with Muslims. I do have one or two with their religion, but if I have not been wronged by a particular Muslim, directly or otherwise, then I'm happy to stay out of their way as long as they stay out of mine.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PMThe terrorist wanted a civil war. Shall we give him one, and make his victory total?
QuoteMr Erdogan criticised the Anzacs for their role in the Gallipoli campaign and threatened to return anyone who came to his country with anti-Islam sentiment back in coffins.
Quote from: No one on March 19, 2019, 11:42:33 PMHumans are just awful fucking creatures.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 08:33:05 AMI lack the subtlety to be comfortable with this distinction.Am I supposed to be OK with female genital mutilation?No skin off my genitals so none of my business?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PMDid he? I expect he'll provoke Muslim attacks elsewhere.
QuoteAnzacs are us and NZ. I wonder how they'll measure anti-Islam sentiment.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 20, 2019, 09:21:08 AMAre you asking me what you ought and ought not think? I can't tell you that.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 20, 2019, 09:21:08 AMPersonally, I consider myself indirectly wronged by those within my society who would mutilate their children, and so I have a problem with that practice, and even go as far as actively opposing it. Outside my sphere of influence, all I can do is argue my points from a personal perspective. I cannot tell another people how they ought to live while expecting to be left alone by them in turn.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 10:05:25 AMYou can support (or not) the actions of your government/police to stop them doing things.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 20, 2019, 09:21:08 AMPersonally, I consider myself indirectly wronged by those within my society who would mutilate their children, and so I have a problem with that practice, and even go as far as actively opposing it.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 03:25:37 PMDo you? that seems a bit convoluted to me
QuoteDefine convolutedConvoluted: Highly complex or intricate and occasionally deviousI didn't have the "and occasionally devious" in mind when I used it.Redefining in ignorance?Yes, maybe, I don't know.I'd be viscerally appalled. That's the beauty of diversity in action.Yes of course, the beauty of diversity.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 21, 2019, 09:12:31 AMCould you explain the colour coding? Is it like... You arguing against an imaginary you? Or an imaginary me? Or someone else, imaginary or otherwise?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 21, 2019, 09:12:31 AMQuote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 03:25:37 PMDo you? that seems a bit convoluted to meIt's simpler than it sounds. I have some tiny influence on my society's course. If I find certain practices objectionable, I object to them. If enough people agree, then the society itself may be said to agree, and this goes the other way too, like in this case. My society frowns upon female genital mutilation to the point where it's illegal. I agree. Some people do not, but since most of us do, they do not get to do things their way unopposed, sometimes in pretty serious ways. Proper channels, etc. EDIT: Ok, let's go with the example at hand and do some of my infamous "simplifying.""We" object to female genital mutilation. "You," who is otherwise a part of "we," do not. In fact, "you" are in favour of it for cosmic teapot reasons. If "you" would like to practice it relatively unopposed within the "we," you would first have to convince enough "mes" that your view on the matter is more valid, or otherwise somehow "better" than "our," to the point where "we" would agree with "you." If there is no hope in Hell of "you" accomplishing that, and further, if this matter is of supreme importance to "you," then maybe, just maybe "we" does not in fact include you. There are nuances, of course. For example, it may be that in order to change some supremely important (in your opinion) aspect of your society, with which you disagree, first you'd have to change the very "proper procedure" for such a change. Still, at the end of the day, you are back to the above. At some point, you'd have to convince "me" to follow you rather than "them" in sufficient numbers to matter. *END EDIT*Bleh... I'm pretty much explaining social contract here, am I not?
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 21, 2019, 01:08:16 PMSorry mate, the green is a counter me.Replies are slow coming on HAF these days, it's my coping mechanism.If I didn't reply to your post, (and by the way I did like your the monster under the bed allusion) No one would of, it's where we are now. I think everyone should have a counter person for the good of the forum.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 21, 2019, 01:37:45 PMThat sounds awful, I could turn libertarian in reaction.