New Testingstan

He's just a sad little man who wants to be big

He's not even unusual

Flagg wrote:Timothy C is a psychopath, which is hilarious to me. He admitted as much to me once a few years ago.

self diagnosed psychopathy?

Flagg wrote:Timothy C is a psychopath, which is hilarious to me. He admitted as much to me once a few years ago.

You're not the only one.

Zod wrote:

Flagg wrote:Timothy C is a psychopath, which is hilarious to me. He admitted as much to me once a few years ago.

self diagnosed psychopathy?

That's the coolest kind right

He cool! He fly!!!

No, he said his doctors diagnosed him. And the thing is, I called it like 5 years ago.

what the fuck

that's...fucked up

i don't know what to say

i bet he got a little form too

that says

PSYCHOPATH

in sweet gothic letters

no really i believe it all

Well he claims he's "borderline", but he once owned a white panel van, so I call full psycho.

i'm glad all i really have to worry about is borderline ocd (self-diagnosed)

Flagg wrote:When people post math my eyes bleed and I run from the thread like someone posted a goat.se pic.

goat.se

goat.se

what you got against fatty social democrats :

i'd say "can execute 70 children" is not a "nearly normal" level of emotional functioning

but then i'm not from hpca

hay Bakustra, Brooklyn is posting again

got them fat jokes ready :3

Phantasee wrote:what the fuck

that's...fucked up

i don't know what to say

It's probably bs.

anyone feel like stirring up a shitstorm on teo?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 ... 19473.html

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The frightening thing is how many backers the measure had before it ultimately failed.

More troubling is the bill to allow the US military to operate domestically.

i just threw the repugnant conclusion into a thread on utilitarianism

what you call repugnant i call righteous


now what's really fun there is throwing that kind of thing - even if not brought to a conclusion - into the birth control threads. especially with guys liek ad

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:i just threw the repugnant conclusion into a thread on utilitarianism

Odds TEO attempts to rebut by attemtping to break or purposely misunderstanding the scenario...?

RedImperator wrote:

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:i just threw the repugnant conclusion into a thread on utilitarianism

Odds TEO attempts to rebut by attemtping to break or purposely misunderstanding the scenario...?

trending high

i bet that it will start with somebody talking about physical resources. what do you say?

edit: nope, just with a misunderstanding of whether adding people was moral in the scenario

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:i just threw the repugnant conclusion into a thread on utilitarianism

Odds TEO attempts to rebut by attemtping to break or purposely misunderstanding the scenario...?

trending high

i bet that it will start with somebody talking about physical resources. what do you say?

The over-under on somebody who doesn't understand what you're saying calling you a fucking idiot is 3 posts.

2:1 odds it's FOrmless.

(tho I'm on the phone with Meta, who knows way more about philosophy than I do, says there are other ways out of it. I am trying tot alk her into poasting about this)

oh since i have yall here let me ask you something

is murdering teenagers justified?


so i was riding somewhere on thanksgiving and some teens were kicking the shit out of someone's nativity scene in their yard

punting the baby jesus

spin kicking the wise men


just awful behavior. if i had a weapon i might have killed them

but i'm a moral coward who had some place to be so i just looked the other eway



ANYWAY


suppose i was armed. would it be wrong to kill them?


1) they are obviously terrible people who bring sadness to others

2) it'd bring me happiness to kill them

3) does future potential even count ethically?

4) i guess the counter is i know your mamma's crying

but ice t answered that for me. fuck her. besides who isn't ahppy to be rid of teens?


#3 is where i would turn it into an abortion troll


ok so murdering unborn babies is ok because they aren't people. they're just potential people.

well why doesn't apply to EVERYONE? the future doesn't exist yet; it's all merely potential...

feel free, meta, because i'm just an interested amateur and all that and i'd love some corrections and expansions

as I understand it a lot of the ways to avoid it generally lead to their own contradictions within the framework of the utilitarian, because they mess with valuing and that can lead to stuff like childbirth becoming an immoral act at the crudest levels

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:feel free, meta, because i'm just an interested amateur and all that and i'd love some corrections and expansions

as I understand it a lot of the ways to avoid it generally lead to their own contradictions within the framework of the utilitarian, because they mess with valuing and that can lead to stuff like childbirth becoming an immoral act at the crudest levels

She mentioned that problem (the absurd conclusion, she called it). Unfortunately I'm ont he edge of my expertise here. I'm just a low-level heath care bureaucrat, not a philosophy dude.

I can tell you the difference between a coinsurance anda copay thought! That's something, right guys?

RedImperator wrote:

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:feel free, meta, because i'm just an interested amateur and all that and i'd love some corrections and expansions

as I understand it a lot of the ways to avoid it generally lead to their own contradictions within the framework of the utilitarian, because they mess with valuing and that can lead to stuff like childbirth becoming an immoral act at the crudest levels

She mentioned that problem (the absurd conclusion, she called it). Unfortunately I'm ont he edge of my expertise here. I'm just a low-level heath care bureaucrat, not a philosophy dude.

I can tell you the difference between a coinsurance anda copay thought! That's something, right guys?

I'm at the edge of my expertise here too, and I'm formulating it on the grounds of the end result not being better than the initial so much as it being not worse, because I think that's stronger as an attack. I'm wondering if anybody will end up reaching the Sadistic Conclusion (whereby it eventually becomes better to add more lives in misery than lives in happiness) on their own though.

i threw together a couple crude critiques

i figure if i start off with over-simplified versions i'm more likely to get some bait