Things I Love

[Spazz]

Actually, autistic people can read emotions and feel empathy. They have greater difficulty navigating the world using logic and reason. I'd argue that idealists have traits that could put them on the autistic end of the spectrum, were we to take psychiatry seriously.

"This link between ASD and reduced non-monotonic reasoning can be seen in the suppression task. In this test, people have to finish a reasoning task (such as our car with its key) while confronted with new information (such as the cold weather outside). People who don’t suffer from ASD often change their conclusions in the light of this new information, while people with ASD often stick to the original conclusion."



Autistic people stick to their conclusions, new evidence be damned! Sounds more like pixletwin and friends, if you ask me.

(On a side note, GG Allin would definitely be Schizoid/Obsessive, again, if we were to take the pseudo-science seriously)

 

[RIDDICK]

Anyway, back to things I ****in' love.
Live recording for one of my most beloved Godzilla film:



Seein' Ifu_kube conducting melts my heart...
Requiescat in pace.

 

[hockeyflow33]

Prime example of someone who received a word of the day calendar and inserts a big word where it doesn't fit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake Plissken]

 

[Spazz]

Prime example of someone who received a word of the day calendar and inserts a big word where it doesn't fit

I think one of you deleted a post... What word was misused?

 

[WellCQCaboutthat]

I really do believe that name spaz fits you due to all the friggin Bibles that you're writing that I have to read through. Please kindly **** off, thanks. You're burning out a good thread buddy. Have a good day.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[WellCQCaboutthat]

Didnt read!!!! Yesssss.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[batfan08]

No, just one account for me. The hilarious thing is, I don't really have to troll people. The culture is so irrational, all you have to do is falsify the value of things that emotional people care about, and they freak. The punchline: Value doesn't exist, so you can falsify the value of EVERYTHING. Cue emojis and moral condemnation. It's great practice, and fun.

Value does exist, though. Whether or not it’s an objective reality or an individual’s personal conception, by virtue of being, it exists, does it not? It may not be quantifiably measurable, but, frankly, that’s inconsequential. It’s like Tinkerbell, or God, or morality, or any other idea; if someone thinks of it, if someone acts on it, it exists. You don’t have to prove it; the burden of proof falls on you to disprove it, and, quite honestly, it does not stop existing simply because you deem it a falsified construct of society.

I’ll be honest, I think Allin was full of **** (quite literally, apparently). Not because of the feces, though, or the self-mutilation, or, even, the ****, for that matter, but because he was just like anyone else behind all that show. You can’t call yourself a “messiah” and a “prophet” of nonconformity and expect people to conform to your idea of what being a nonconformist is and still be able to preach the virtues of being a nonconformist. Allin was a conformist whether he liked it or not. He was nothing more than an overgrown, petulant child, wallowing in his own filth and thumbing his nose at society, and, in doing so, he was still allowing himself to be influenced by all of society’s norms and mores. If you tell me to go left and I go right, intentionally, to defy your prior instruction, am I determining my own actions or am I allowing you to determine them for me?

 

[hockeyflow33]

The reason not to write gigantic posts is because no one reads that nonsense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[batfan08]

Hey batfan08. Thanks for the respectful criticism. Admittedly not what I came for, but appreciated. Here's my take:

Semantics aside, I don't believe in value as "intrinsic worth". People subjectively desire things, but beyond feelings there is no "essence" to things that makes them important. It's very consequential when you consider that normative statements regarding morality, Justice or universal pragmatism, which are theories involving obligation, depend on the existence of intrinsic value in order to make sense. If I think an omnipotent pink unicorn exists, that doesn't mean it exists. The concept exists, but it's an abstraction that doesn't represent an actual omnipotent pink unicorn.

In terms of what we know and what we don't, that's a complex and controversial issue. I believe that science describes the only sound proof regarding what exists: by creating an abstract "logical" model that relies on falsifiable empirical evidence. That's controversial. I'd argue that everyone has a burden of proof when they make a claim about the world, and in the absence of falsifiable evidence, there's no reason to believe in something. You have no obligation to agree or appeal to science, but my view is that all other epistemology is problematic. There is no "apriori" knowledge.

As for GG, I agree that he was damaged and needed help. I also think he was irrational in many of the ways you describe. I agree that being reactionary is inadvertently allowing your behavior to be controlled by an external agent. However, I think it's fair to say that he was openly and willfully disobedient, priding himself on breaking the law, getting arrested, habitually disregarding cultural mores and morality. That in and of itself isn't what interests me. I like that he turned disobedience into performance. He didn't just sing about disobedience, but actually performed acts of disobedience publicly. While his culty schtick and empty suicide threats were lame, his singing was horrible, his songs were idiotic, all of that is overshadowed by his wilfull, primal display of hatred for societal constraints. I wouldn't ever see it live. I'm not saying it was sophisticated or well articulated, but it was definitely well executed as a performed act of defiance that stands out, and sets the benchmark in it's depiction of contempt. Should you like it? I'm not saying that, of course. I could see why people wouldn't. But it's art, and I find his act is compelling in many ways when you consider the context. His performances were retribution.

But what defines intrinsic worth? What about something like, say, maternal instinct? A mother values her cubs; she protects them, she feeds them, not because it’s “the right thing to do,” but because she’s a mother. Isn’t it fair to say that morality is simply a way to intellectualize these protective instincts into something tangible that operates within the confines of our capacity for thought?

I would argue that morality has objective value as an evolutionary component of survival instincts inherent to most every species. Why do we have “good” and “bad?” I believe it’s an evolutionary advantage; a way to weed out the foxes, if we happen to be hares. After all, what is deviant behavior if not an indicator of that which poses a viable threat to our being? Morality gives us a benchmark by which to identify danger, so, in that respect, I feel that to define it as “irrational” is a flawed premise, in that it’s simply an extension of our base survival instincts.

 

[GeneralZodLives]

 

[Snake Plissken]

 

[Plastic Bateman]

...who let WWEJedi back in?

 

[hoodonit00]

Where is devilof76? Banned? He would have fun with this guy.

 

[The Ween]

Where is devilof76? Banned? He would have fun with this guy.

He's around. Mostly in the Star Wars section.

 

[Rambler]

...who let WWEJedi back in?

This!!!

 

[Spazz]

So, when are you turning yourself into a pickle?

Was that a compliment? Pickle Rick!

 

[Snake Plissken]

Muh nihilism.

 

[ArtDamage]

Your philosophy is filled with contradictions and the premise of your hypothesis rests completely on an anecdotal view of who makes up this board's demographic.

You can't say there's no such thing as value and then proceed to rank people based on your own value system.

You can't say there's no such thing as value and then say you get something out of posting.

You post from a perceived moral high ground and then state there's no such thing as morality.

I agree with those that have stated wrong time,wrong place and disagree that the negative reaction here is particular to a demographic. You have no statistics that give you wages, IQ, age, or anything that would give you any indication on who is posting other than what their hobby may be.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Nihilists wouldn't do that sort of thing. What would the point be? We're more likely to exploit weak people for personal gain...