Imageshack Anti-Sec hack?

Imageshack seems to have just shit itself insofar as every imageshack image now displays this:

Daybreakers: Vampire Sam Neill

You bred raptors? Vampire Raptors? That's so COOL!

Emma Watson in Leather

Huffington Post, that bastion of journalistic integrity, has a "story" which is little more than a picture dump of Emma Watson attending the premiere of 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' wearing a leather halter dress.

I can't think of a comment at the moment. I can't think of much of anything, actually.

Emma Watson is hot. And a good actress. And hot. And she has that accent. And the hot. And she over-pronounces everything. And the being hot.

To bedevil -J-

Sadly, this is a well done edit... man, I hate Haruhi

ITT we locate Truth

Two options:

1) Truth is a thing already existing in reality which is discovered.
2) Truth is a thing created by beings who create truths.

Which would you say is the case?

If 1:
If truth is a thing discovered then it is impossible to discover truth absent epistemology and ontological metaphysics. To discover a thing in that which exists one must determine both what exists and how one knows anything about that which exists. It makes no sense to maintain that truths are discovered in reality yet maintain that one need not discern what is reality and how one knows anything about said reality.

If 2:
If truth is a thing created then just fucking create a truth. If truth is not beholden to anything except one's intentions and capacity for creation then just fucking make something up and move on.

If 1 & 2:

If it is the case that truth is both 1 and 2, that truth is both discovered and created, then I think both sets of criteria apply. One needs to understand both the process of discovery and the process of creation.

However, there is an obvious conflict here. If truth is discovered then any created truth must be beholden to those things discovered. If truth is created then there seems to be some flexibility with regard to that which is discovered.


My guess is that a person would want to say that truths are created based upon what is found. Except there is an obvious heirarchy or sequence here. First one finds what there is. Second, one makes something out of that which is. This would put "what there is" primary and, so, primordially true whereas the second step would not be truth qua truth but rather would be a creation which, to some degree, involved truth as an ingredient.

Thoughts?

A Second Funny Achewood

Following the tradition of Prophesy Fulfilled: A Funny Achewood I would like to present A second funny Achewood strip.

We're up to two funny Achewood strips! Stay tuned for the third funny Achewood, foretold in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the prophesies of Nostradomas.

And remember, if we get to 5 Funny Achewood Strips you get a free sub!

Global Climate Change: Pascal's Wager

The above video is a guy using the argumentative style of Pascal's Wager to explain Global Climate Change. I suggest watching the video.

The question I have, though, is that while the video seems to be compelling it follows the same argumentative structure of Pascal's Wager. So if one finds the above argument compelling for action with regard to Global Climate Change would it not follow that one must also find Pascal's Wager a compelling argument for action with regard to belief in God?