Saturday, January 26, 2013

[chat]


Friday, January 25, 2013

Everything does not suck.




It's nice when a dude can say, "I like to suck cock." and be met with a standing ovation, rather than pelted with rocks and hate.

This is progress.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Filibuster Non-Reform; Fuck Harry Reid

So, Piglet and Squirtle reached a deal on Filibuster reform that does not require the "talking filibuster", and so accomplished fuck-all-nothing.

Yes, they reduced debate time following cloture votes from 30 hours to four, but that is not a talking filibuster, so fuck it.  Also, a "filibuster on the motion would be barred if the majority can find eight members of the minority, including the minority leader, to sign a petition" but this is also not a talking filibuster, so fuuuuck it.

There are a few other changes, but none of those are talking filibusters, either.

Here is a link to Senator Harry Reid's contact page.  I encourage you to drop a note congratulating him for being a dickless, spineless twerp.

Here is the list ofCongress person contact information.  Please encourage your congressperson to get its ass in gear over filibuster reform.

Seriously.  Fuck Harry Reid.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

South Park: The Stick of Truth Trailer



This looks epic awesome win.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Monday, January 21, 2013

Ethics is Complicated

Recently, I have been engaged in numerous ethical debates ranging in topics from procreation to drug use to restaurant frequenting.  Throughout these discussions I have noticed a few trends that are pissing me off.  So, I'm going to rant about them.

1:  Fuck your emotive inclinations.

"I want to do X." is not an adequate justification for doing X.  Period.  If a serial killer wants to kill people, or a pedophile wants to fuck kids, we do not accept those base emotive inclinations as sufficient justification for killing and child fucking.  There are additional factors to be considered when discerning whether or not it is right and proper and permissible to do X.  We consider the consequences of X, the impact X shall have on one's self and other's well-being.

So, if you want to smoke a joint, or have a kid, or fuck a kid, or eat at Chick-Fil-A, those are a fine emotive inclinations.  But the discussion of the permissibility and justification for these actions is not limited to merely that emotive inclination.  The emotion is the starting point, not the end.  Rational human beings have to consider other shit than merely the emotive inclination when attempting to discern whether or not one ought to engage in any of the desired actions.

I always thought this shit was obvious.  But, apparently, some people think "I want to kill people" and "I want to eat a cookie" are adequate justifications for killing people and consuming cookies.

By the way, you can't claim that those statements are qualitatively different.  They are both propositions of the form "I want to X."  The method of ethical justification for "I want to X" claims is the same, regardless of what that X happens to be.

That's how systems work, comma damn it.

2:  Consequences, Consequences, Consequences

When you articulate a hypothetical for ethical consideration, don't offer some narrow account such as "I smoke this joint" or "I have this kid".  Joint-smoking and child-having are fucking complicated actions that involve numerous networks of both cause and consequence that need to be discerned and assessed.  One needs to consider where the money spent on the joint ends up, and accept that it probably isn't funding humanitarian efforts.  The same goes for eating shitty chicken sandwiches, or shopping at Wal-Mart.

And just to buck the trend, I'm going to suggest that procreation is a fucking complicated decision that involves numerous ethical and moral considerations.  Is humanity the sort of thing that ought to be continued?  Is life inherently good and preferable?  And what of the consequences for the child, itself?  Is subjecting a being to 70ish years on this planet a morally praiseworthy act?  Different people answer differently, and that's fine, so long as we have the fucking conversation.

When discussing ethics, one needs to provide a fleshed out account of the act under consideration.  We're discussing ethical considerations as they relate to our shared experiences, and hyper-reductive hypothetical don't fucking cohere with the world in which we live.

3:  Ambivalence is not an argument

Declaring an act to be morally neutral isn't an argument for moral neutrality; it's just fucking laziness.  If you don't want to think about ethics, or you don't want to feel bad about being a shitty person, those are fine emotive inclinations.  But, again, RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS assess factors beyond that mere emotive impulse.  We think about shit, and consider numerous factors beyond feelings.

If you don't give a shit about ethics, that's fine.  But if you don't care, then shut the fuck up about it.

4:  Conclusion, or something.

You can do whatever you are physically capable of doing.  I'm not talking about restricting actions.  I'm talking about talking about actions, and the manner in which rational ethical discussions need to occur.  Emotive dispositions are not arguments.  Reductive hypotheticals are not helpful.  And if you don't care, then shut up.

If you want to have a discussion, then engage in those aspects of debate that are required for discussion.  Provide arguments, engaged in reasoned thinking, and take your interlocutor seriously.  Do those things that foster conversation, and act like a rational, reasonable, human being.

Because two jackasses screaming emotions at one another is neither helpful nor interesting.