3 [chat]s till Diablo 3
Is a very good game.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi
Disagree?
Annie's Victory Dance gif.
Annie's Booyah / HAHA gif.
Such a good episode.
If you disagree, you are a holocaust denying 911 pedophile.
Posted by _J_ at 3:59 AM 4 comments
Labels: Community
Type Zerg Rush into Google.
Things happen.
Posted by _J_ at 3:56 AM 1 comments
Labels: video games
Mitt Romney can suck the cock of Jesus Christ, and then shit on his face.
Posted by _J_ at 3:41 AM 1 comments
Labels: Obama
Posted by Mike Lewis at 9:31 PM 63 comments
Labels: Daily Show
Stuart Chaifetz
has an autistic kid. Stuart Chaifetz
sent his autistic kid to school wearing a wire.
Stuart Chaifetz listened to the recording of what his son's teachers
said throughout the day. Stuart Chaifetz
got mad.
So, he released a
Youtube video in which he tells the story, plays parts of the audio recording,
and articulates his angry.
Posted by _J_ at 1:05 PM 40 comments
I realize that most people don't empathize with marine life to the same degree I do. Over time, I've come to accept this fact, in the same way that I accept all the other things about which persons disagree with me: I am correct, because I am awesome, and everyone else is just plain fucking wrong.
It's a coping mechanism.
Regardless of the degree to which you appreciate the wonders of marine life, I think we can probably agree that the BP oil spill causing Gulf Coast Shrimp to evolve-away their eyes is pretty damn fucked up.
article one:
"SCOTT EUSTIS: We have some evidence of deformed shrimp, which is another developmental impact, so that shrimp’s grandmother was exposed to oil while the mother was developing, but it’s the grandchild of the shrimp that was exposed grows up with no eyes."article two:
The dispersants are known to be mutagenic, a disturbing fact that could be evidenced in the seafood deformities. Shrimp, for example, have a life-cycle short enough that two to three generations have existed since BP’s disaster began, giving the chemicals time to enter the genome.It is not the case that oil was spilt, some seagulls died, and now we've cleaned it up and we're good. Rather, the shit has entered the ecosystem to such a degree that the fucking shrimp fucking don't fucking have fucking eyes.
Posted by _J_ at 1:41 AM 54 comments
Labels: environment, rant
Having filled my philosophy bookshelf, I am presented with the need to reorganize it in order to find room for more books. Obviously, texts shall be first organized by philosopher (Plato, Spinoza, etc.) and then by the philosopher's date of birth. The problem is that I have to decide what counts as a philosophical text.
Currently, the texts of Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes are on my shelf. Since I purchased these texts for philosophy classes, I placed these texts upon my self within the Greek philosophy section. Yet now I wonder if they deserve a spot on my philosophy shelf at all, given that they are not technically philosophy.
My main dilemma is that I want to include Aristophanes, because I really like The Clouds. Since Socrates is a character in his play, I could categorize Aristophanes' work as philosophical. But if I include Aristophanes, I am obligated to include Sophocles and Euripides. If they are included, I probably ought to include Ovid as well. And then Gilgamesh, and the list goes on and on as I continually add more literary works from antiquity.
The question is further complicated when I try to assess the works of Dante. I took a seminar on Dante in which we compared his works to Aquinas. While Dante does not articulate a philosophy, he does invoke themes from Aquinas when crafting his narrative. Additionally, I have the Lectura Dantis texts that touch upon the philosophical tones of the plays. Do these count as philosophy, philosophical, or some third thing?
This seems to be a tension I could use in order to make this decision: We distinguish philosophers from those who utilize particular philosophical ideas as components of a story or some larger project.
However, if I make a distinction between those who do philosophy, and those who use philosophical ideas, how then do I organize my books on mathematics? My books on infinity and zero utilize philosophical themes, but is mathematics philosophy proper, or an outgrowth of philosophy? If it is merely an outgrowth, that makes it akin to Dante and Aristophanes, who seem to not merit space upon my shelf.
Further complicated the mathematical issue is the text 'Geometry and Chronometry in Philosophical Perspective'. It has "philosophical" in the title, and yet it is about mathematics. Does it get a spot?
I'll probably lose some sleep trying to figure this out. If the internet has any suggestions I'd be happy to read them.
Posted by _J_ at 11:52 PM 4 comments
Labels: philosophy