Quake3World

R00k wrote:

ek wrote:broez b4 hoez, no matter what.

yep, something like that.

maybe i'll post the fucked up drama/soap opera between a couple of my friends later.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:The right to cars is not enshrined in their constitution. The right to bear arms is. This is the crux of why I've changed my opinion on this whole matter. Cars are not a right, they are a privilege.

Nightshade wrote:There are plenty of laws on the books that address this sort of thing. Guns shows need the SHIT regulated out of them, that's one damn thing that needs to change.
The most important thing, and I've said this numerous times, is to start addressing the reasons why people shoot each other in the first place. I never cease to be amazed at people that decry the "war on drugs" for the idiocy that it is, knowing that as long as there's a demand there will be a supply yet can't extend the same logic to gun violence.

Underpants? wrote:Have any of your philosophical paradigms recently died a horrid, cold death, in front of your tired eyes at the midnight hour?

Did you shed a tear as the last breath of an idyllic existence fluttered coldly into space?

Philosophies are paramount to sanity, in my mind. Recently broken was my devout philosophy of always being truthful to people of importance in my life.

I don't want to put another face on this thing, truth is beauty, its' soul is purer than the sublimating mountain snow, and turning your back on it is nothing short of criminal.

I've recently found out that someone very close to me is not being faithful to their signif. other. knowing this would kill the other, literally. I can't be the bearer of that, no matter how I try, and at the same time, I can't avoid situations with either of them.

Anyone else here recently lost a cornerstone philosophy?

Geebs wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:The right to cars is not enshrined in their constitution. The right to bear arms is. This is the crux of why I've changed my opinion on this whole matter. Cars are not a right, they are a privilege.

What, someone making a bad decision in writing somehow makes it OK?

Geebs wrote:

Nightshade wrote:There are plenty of laws on the books that address this sort of thing. Guns shows need the SHIT regulated out of them, that's one damn thing that needs to change.
The most important thing, and I've said this numerous times, is to start addressing the reasons why people shoot each other in the first place. I never cease to be amazed at people that decry the "war on drugs" for the idiocy that it is, knowing that as long as there's a demand there will be a supply yet can't extend the same logic to gun violence.

If you're referring to financial inequality, that shit's never going to get fixed while you have a government system which only lets the super-rich get into office.

Underpants? wrote:

R00k wrote:

ek wrote:broez b4 hoez, no matter what.

yep, something like that.

maybe i'll post the fucked up drama/soap opera between a couple of my friends later.

hey beers and lunch, that's what this discussion calls for.

Foo wrote:your own personal cheeses?

Drön wrote:oops. wrong account.
i mean "really thought this was going to be about depeche mode."

heh.

Massive Quasars wrote:

Drön wrote:oops. wrong account.
i mean "really thought this was going to be about depeche mode."

heh.

Are you living it up in the prairies now?

The idea that there may be relationships between behaviours or thoughts and “peace”, which hold with great strength and apparent universality, may allow us to talk in some cautious sense of potential fundamental moral principles. The virtue of honesty may be such a candidate. This is not an unreasonable idea, even from a properly scientific perspective. If we view life on earth as a highly complex system of interacting parts, and we view “peace” as being a particular class (or family of classes) of dynamical interaction, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that there may be certain parameters that lend well to these particular dynamical states. An obvious parameter would be a range of geologic conditions that are suitable for sustained human life. “Honesty” may be understood in information processing terms, whereby information is transmitted with high fidelity through the system. Perhaps such fidelity is crucial in sustaining the system in certain dynamical states.

Nightshade wrote:What a horribly written essay.