Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 84
Like Tree49Likes

Thread: The mouth breathing youtube media uh stars own crappy thread

  1. #31
    International Captain Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    6,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Good listen. Nice reference of the memory hole at the end there.

    I hope you youtube haters enjoyed your ride home with Katy Perry and Kyle Sandilands.
    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

    Too many bones, not enough CASH!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEHMbJ_FVfA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5oGJTUpbpA

    RIP Craig

  2. #32
    International Coach zorax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    14,253
    Came here for YouTube videos and found walls of text instead

    Disappointed
    straw man likes this.
    Check out The Cricket Web Podcast!

    The Cricket Web Podcast #33 - I Just Wanna Talk About Vernon Philander

    iTunes
    SoundCloud

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    If only Kane Richardson had played some HK domestic cricket before his ODI debut.
    Quote Originally Posted by S.Kennedy View Post
    The Hong Kong Blitz is better than the IPL.

  3. #33
    International Captain Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    6,689
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    Came here for YouTube videos and found walls of text instead

    Disappointed
    That's what they want you to post. Fight the power man!

  4. #34
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Holland/North Zealand
    Posts
    25,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    i meant more that had the calvinists won control over the country, then they would have instituted a similarly tyrannical government across the country. The South was a hotbed of state sanctioned terrorism even as it was. I'd say the western settler spirit was a product more of geography more than anything else.
    That I can agree with. But I think there were enough cults out west too (free church people from Northern Europe, Latter-Day Saints) who would also see themselves as subscribing to this freemen-on-the-land idea..

    In the end they all end up making laws and government. Because, as you say, people want it.
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
    Member of ESAS, JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS


  5. #35
    Cricketer Of The Year straw man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    l
    Posts
    9,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    We implicitly accept that the government has the right to tell people who they can marry as much as they can tell priests who they'll accept at the altar. Obama and the SC are making a moral judgement (homosexuality is ok), it's just the side that you agree with.
    There's an absolutely essential difference between the legalise/don't-legalise positions though. This is because:
    - Things are legal unless it's explicitly stated that they're not.
    - The loosening of legal bounds still allows everyone in this case (for or against) to act within their own morality. But, the converse is not true.
    Therefore the symmetry you or Shapiro are claiming between the two positions does not exist. It would only exist if the law was somehow forcing anti-same-***-marriage people to marry against their wishes. Seeing as it's not, I don't see the equivalence.

    Whether bakers have to bake cakes for gay couples or religious institutions should have to marry gay couples are two separate issues from same-*** marriage itself. These are both less clear cut and I think a range of views are reasonable and I don't really disagree with yours (I have less sympathy for the cake-bakers though - what's a market good for if you're not open to all?). The separate idea that government need have no role in marriage fits in there too. None of those were what I was talking about though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    "Representing the argument as it really is" is frankly a really dangerous reduction of what is an extremely complex issue. You're projecting your own prejudice on to the argument (ie. the only reason to oppose SSM is if you're a fundamentalist idiot) to dismiss a much more complex point (the government shouldn't be involved in dictating religious practice).
    There are many many complex issues out there but I really find it hard to see that this is one of them. The core of it seems remarkably simple to me. The only complexity is that it's pushing against cultural and religious tradition.

    Don't know where the bolded came from - seems unusually grumpy from you .
    Again, there's nothing in the legalisation of same-*** marriage that involves 'dictating religious practice'. You're talking about a different issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    The god/government thing depends on how you've constructed god. If you're looking at god as the literal, white bearded spiritual being who sent his son to be crucified a couple of thousand years ago then there's very little resemblance. If you're looking at god as the moral arbiter of society, the monolith that bestows providence alongside human free will, the defender of the weak and smiter of the unjust then it's extremely similar. Having to explain to people that there's a difference between legality and morality is a good example of the phenomenon. To the question of whether I'd prefer a government or a god to be these things, I'd answer neither.
    I get the argument that when people feel something is unjust or unhandled or are at their wits end, then they may look around for some all-encompassing entity for their recompense - something bigger and other that had perhaps fallen short and should be responsible for making things right, in their minds. This might be god or the government or (the common one when I was growing up) 'the system', or some other higher power. My reaction to that is a great big meh, if anyone thinks the government is going to solve all their problems, they're fairly soon going to find they're out of luck.
    Last edited by straw man; 03-08-2017 at 05:24 AM.
    Uppercut and Anil like this.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    44,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    Sure, but the process isn't top down. If humanity deems homosexuality to be acceptable (and I'd argue that battle's already been won) what right does a government or religious entity have to impose that as a right, either in the affirmative or negative?
    I don't understand how the affirmative or negative parts of this equation are remotely equal.
    do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
    who's going to make the violins?

    forever 63*

  7. #37
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    27,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The point at which I departed from his thinking was when he argued that the definition of 'law' should be chosen based on which definition most 'advances our moral deliberations'. I'm a linguistic descriptivist; I think language means what most people generally understand it to mean. Since I think most people distinguish law from morality, this makes me a positivist.

    But I don't even think that natural law is the most useful framework for deliberating. The core difference in our thinking is that he seems to consider the word 'criminal' so uniquely powerful that it's a travesty if horrendously immoral people escape that label. This forms the crux of his argument for natural law, but I just don't feel that way. There are good criminals, and there are evil people that aren't criminals. OK, this means that people in power potentially can't be criminals. But the solution isn't to redefine the word "criminal", the solution is to create institutional frameworks where everyone can be held to account.
    Prince EWS and Anil like this.

  8. #38
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    Look the title is inflammatory, but the main thrust of the article is saying that there's no inherent morality built into our biology and that society needs some sort of moral framework to function. Good for goodness sake is a meaningless term. Throw in the case that our consciousness is more than a set of chemicals reacting to stimuli and that's basically the article. There's no conflation of religion and politics, there's no demonisation of individual atheists (he expressly atheism is fine for individuals). Why that would get anyone worked up is beyond me.

    I think it's stupid that so many in the US think that an atheist politician is not able to be trusted, it's equally stupid to think the same about a religious person.
    you have sanitized the extremities of his arguments quite nicely in your post but his language and his posture in that article are significantly more aggressive and judgemental than your summary...the thrust of his argument is that religion is the only thing that can provide a moral framework, a fundamentally untrue position...and the kind of rubbish argument that i have seen religious loons make...there is nothing profound about his throwaway comment that atheists can be moral and religious people can be immoral, he is just stating the blindingly obvious and it makes his overall commentary slightly better than that of those religious fanatics, that's about it...

    also nobody distrusts religious politicians in the u.s just because they are religious, this country is full of them, there is however a pervading mistrust of atheists in the political arena which is why the few politicians who seem to be not overtly religious pretend they are...so whatever scenario is being suggested doesn't exist here...
    Last edited by Anil; 03-08-2017 at 09:17 AM.

  9. #39
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    25,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    The point at which I departed from his thinking was when he argued that the definition of 'law' should be chosen based on which definition most 'advances our moral deliberations'. I'm a linguistic descriptivist; I think language means what most people generally understand it to mean. Since I think most people distinguish law from morality, this makes me a positivist.

    But I don't even think that natural law is the most useful framework for deliberating. The core difference in our thinking is that he seems to consider the word 'criminal' so uniquely powerful that it's a travesty if horrendously immoral people escape that label. This forms the crux of his argument for natural law, but I just don't feel that way. There are good criminals, and there are evil people that aren't criminals. OK, this means that people in power potentially can't be criminals. But the solution isn't to redefine the word "criminal", the solution is to create institutional frameworks where everyone can be held to account.
    Yep, this. Was a huge (and good) build-up to rush through saying not very much at the end. I mean, picking on Nazism and slavery is low-hanging fruit, why not really test the boundaries of what he's saying with something modern and far more consequential, say, corporate malfeasance? Let's hear more about objective criminality, victimhood and who the 'sovereign' really is in the age of Google and Uber, pls.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 03-08-2017 at 11:31 AM.

  10. #40
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Holland/North Zealand
    Posts
    25,568


    i guess this is more the youtube style that appeals to me. A clear, cogent argument about the difficulties of governing, and striking a good balance between generalization and domain-specific ideas.

    It's a little too much a child of the slatestarcodex memeplex, but I prefer that to people who knock down straw men.

    (and this is kinda the thing I mean when deriding TYT's sub count. CGP has three million, and the only real-world institution to really give him any boost is the University of Nottingham.)
    Last edited by Samuel_Vimes; 03-08-2017 at 12:01 PM.

  11. #41
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    44,637
    Minutephysics has 4m. Minutephysics is also great.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    52,700
    This Ben O'Neill fella looks like the archetypal 20-something career political adviser.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  13. #43
    International Captain Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    6,689
    Quote Originally Posted by straw man View Post
    There's an absolutely essential difference between the legalise/don't-legalise positions though. This is because:
    - Things are legal unless it's explicitly stated that they're not.
    - The loosening of legal bounds still allows everyone in this case (for or against) to act within their own morality. But, the converse is not true.
    Therefore the symmetry you or Shapiro are claiming between the two positions does not exist. It would only exist if the law was somehow forcing anti-same-***-marriage people to marry against their wishes. Seeing as it's not, I don't see the equivalence.

    Whether bakers have to bake cakes for gay couples or religious institutions should have to marry gay couples are two separate issues from same-*** marriage itself. These are both less clear cut and I think a range of views are reasonable and I don't really disagree with yours (I have less sympathy for the cake-bakers though - what's a market good for if you're not open to all?). The separate idea that government need have no role in marriage fits in there too. None of those were what I was talking about though.
    For me the problem is the entire argument is framed in a way that implies Government should have anything to do with marriage in the first place. I don't think the Government should even be part of the discussion At this point I'd vote yes if it was put to me ftr.

    Whether religious institutions will be forced to perform gay weddings is less clear. The first amendment would suggest they won't but once sexual orientation becomes a protected class (I was surprised it wasn't already tbh) then you could well argue that a church refusing to serve a gay couple was legal discrimination. At that point you'd think it ends up in the Supreme Court and who knows where the chips fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by straw man View Post
    There are many many complex issues out there but I really find it hard to see that this is one of them. The core of it seems remarkably simple to me. The only complexity is that it's pushing against cultural and religious tradition.

    Don't know where the bolded came from - seems unusually grumpy from you .
    Again, there's nothing in the legalisation of same-*** marriage that involves 'dictating religious practice'. You're talking about a different issue.
    Not grumpy Perhaps a bit harsher than intended due to rushing a post out at the end of a work day. Still, I'm really not a fan of heavily reducing a complex argument and claiming that reduction is the only legitimate perspective. You see this all the time with the abortion issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by straw man View Post
    I get the argument that when people feel something is unjust or unhandled or are at their wits end, then they may look around for some all-encompassing entity for their recompense - something bigger and other that had perhaps fallen short and should be responsible for making things right, in their minds. This might be god or the government or (the common one when I was growing up) 'the system', or some other higher power. My reaction to that is a great big meh, if anyone thinks the government is going to solve all their problems, they're fairly soon going to find they're out of luck.
    As much as I agree with all of this, this reality isn't something we should take for granted. The pull for a high power (be that god or government) to solve our problems for us is very real, likely to be with humanity for as long as we exist in our current form and at the root of the darkest things humans have done to each other.
    straw man likes this.

  14. #44
    International Captain Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    6,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    I don't understand how the affirmative or negative parts of this equation are remotely equal.
    They're equal in the sense that they're both possible outcomes in a paradigm in which Government has the capacity to tell people who they can and can't make a life commitment to.

  15. #45
    Cricketer Of The Year straw man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    l
    Posts
    9,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    For me the problem is the entire argument is framed in a way that implies Government should have anything to do with marriage in the first place. I don't think the Government should even be part of the discussion At this point I'd vote yes if it was put to me ftr.
    I'm undecided on this, though I don't think it's a unreasonable question.

    AFAIK a lot (all/most/some? lawyers may correct me) of law will treat a de facto couple as if they are married, even if they legally aren't/weren't. So that weakens the case for the govt's involvement in actual marriage a bit.

    Though really, it just shifts the question to whether the government or legal system should have to sometimes decide yes/no whether this couple was involved in a 'legal relationship' or not, whether we call it 'marriage' or something else. I don't think it's possible to get away from having to define and decide that, seeing as a whole lot of stuff hangs off that definition e.g. property ownership, tax, welfare, divorce, probably lots of other stuff.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Podcasts, Radio, YouTube and other Media
    By Pratters in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-06-2017, 11:41 PM
  2. Youtube thread
    By Spinksy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-08-2008, 01:07 AM
  3. Wcc Media Thread
    By bugssy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 07:44 PM
  4. Crappy run chases
    By thierry henry in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 18-12-2003, 10:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •