The day I, as a human, start ignoring my own emotions and what I feel, is the day I stop being a human.
This does beg the question though. What good is being human anyway? Shouldn't we strive to overcome our primitive desires and base instincts? Revenge is a silly notion in an enlightened society. Being human is overrated. It's not something special that we should hold onto: this sort of belief is conservatism at its core, that we should hold onto things from the past rather than advance into the future. Our goal should be to shed our humanity and become something greater.
Don't conflate my opinion with Scott's. I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty, except in the case of specific crimes where pragmatically I feel that society at large requires this sort of closure, no matter how barbaric it truly is. I understand that some people require violent catharsis. But I simultaneously wish that people could overcome this need. We already know that the death penalty isn't a deterrent against murder, so what purpose does it serve in a case of murder? If we're saying the person is truly beyond rehabilitation, then why do we not study them, to better understand from where murder derives? What value does the revenge murder have but for the catharsis of the vicims' loved ones?
As for Singapore, you really feel that death is a suitable penalty for smuggling a good people desire into a country? Death. Killing someone for that. That seems a somewhat flippant disregard for the meaningfulness of life. Are drugs really worth killing someone over?
Two points. First of all, the file size of this episode was gigantic. Something close to 128 megs if I recall. Seriously? Secondly, the word whose pronunciation Scott butchered is supposed to be said ta-EEM and means tasty in Hebrew.
Two points. First of all, the file size of this episode was gigantic. Something close to 128 megs if I recall. Seriously? Secondly, the word whose pronunciation Scott butchered is supposed to be said ta-EEM and means tasty in Hebrew.
It better be fucking tasty if you have to wait that long to buy some.
Heh, the eps was entertaining because it devolved into what most of the political conversations with Scott devolve into when we have them with the crew. It's Scott wishing he was all powerful and a god where he just dictates his opinions and everyone cheers because it's so smart and can not fail. The eps was fun, but I usually enjoy the eps where Rym has to deal with a trolling Rubin. (since it reminds me of when we hang out)
Oh and Rubin, I could have discussed this topic, how much of a subject expert do you have to be to have a reasonable discussion on that topic? I spend probably at least 10 hours (probably more like 20) a week reading and discussing Politics, and an additional 3-5 hours running a local political party and thinking about the local elections and issues.
I have been thinking about doing some sort of Political podcast, I just have such trouble speaking (and typing) properly I'd rather not sound like an idiot ^_^ (more then normal)
Oh, this is one of those episodes, huh? See, I think we are just so used to Scott making doofy proclamations during an argument that we have become inured to this specific brand of Scrym WTF. I usually just go for a walk when it becomes too much.
Describe a scenario in which using a nuclear missile will increase safety of the country, and there is no alternative.
That's not his Call. If you'll pardon me for speaking ahead of you, J, I'd say that if he had his way, there would be no need or desire for nuclear weapons, if they even existed as anything more than a curiosity, or a museum piece exampling how we need to improve or destroy ourselves. He was many pay grades below the people that make the decisions about aquiring and maintaining a nuclear arsenal, let alone deciding to put them on nuclear subs wandering about the ocean. He had his job, and he did his job, and that's really the end of the story. He could have argued for or against the nuclear armament of his sub till he had a beard that would make Pai Mei go "Holy shit son" as he soiled his robes with envy, and it is still nothing more than intellectual masturbation, because he has exactly zero place in those decisions, and no matter his conclusion on his sub being armed with nuclear missles, he still has to do his job.
Also, at no point did he endorse nuclear weapons - He simply noted he had to trust in his Captain, the JCOS, and the president to make the right call. His point that you quote stands true, even if you want to try and twist the argument into a lovely strawman about nuclear weapons, or start crying morality.
I'm sorry Scott, but im going to have to admit to being the so called evil person you talk of.
Don't be sorry, laugh it off. There are many things Scott does not, and possibly has no hope of understanding, and they colour what he calls evil. He can cry "Objective standpoint" and "Logical Morality" as much as he likes, but the fact remains that he lacks the knowledge and understanding of far too much to be able to make any judgements which are worth even a thin streak of piss. This doesn't make him a bad person, mind you - Just a terribly misinformed and clueless one, with a very loud mouth.
I usually just go for a walk when it becomes too much.
I think if Scott said the contents of this to me in person, I would very likely simply brush him off and do the same. While I'm not yet finished my inoculation against this as you guys are(as exampled by my primary response to this thread, which was driven that sort of anger you get when you lose a good chunk of respect for a person) whereas here, I can take the time and make a considered response - Stop laughing, Rym, Despite what you probably think(if I've got a decent read on you, anyway) I'm not angry all or a majority the time, I simply write as I speak, and I have what you'd probably consider a peculiar manner of speaking - however when speaking in person, I might need to take a moment to keep myself in check and think, if not simply walk away because I can't respond at that time in what I'd consider a reasonable fashion.
I pretty much laugh endlessly watching anyone here reacting to Scott. If you guys could hear the conversations about these threads outside of them... ;^)
Here, this will make you feel better. Whenever Scott says something ludicrous and is very sure of it, I remember that he once tried to argue that he could jump hurdles even if the ground was moving like a treadmill. This is being friends with Scott, so some of his worse ideas come tempered with the notion that he has argued sillier points.
Also, when he makes you angry, just picture him trying to prove that he could lift two cans of beans up and down "forever" while jogging. You will feel better.
I pretty much laugh endlessly watching anyone here reacting to Scott. If you guys could hear the conversations about these threads outside of them... ;^)
Oh, I meant Laughing about me making considered responses in general, not about people being Scott-trolled. It's just a spot of friendly ribbing, mostly. I honestly couldn't blame you for thinking I was one of the more emotionally driven people on the forum.
Whenever Scott says something ludicrous and is very sure of it, I remember that he once tried to argue that he could jump hurdles even if the ground was moving like a treadmill.
Call me crazy if you want, but I really want to try to do that now. I don't care that much about the outcome, I just think it'd be a right laugh.
Also, when he makes you angry, just picture him trying to prove that he could lift two cans of beans up and down "forever" while jogging. You will feel better.
To be fair, he rarely makes me angry, and has so far never really made me severely angry, Mostly just a bit cross and frustrated. Mostly because There are very few situations which getting angry could assist with, and Scott doesn't credibly fit into any of them. But that does make me feel better, I very much appreciate it.
You're both wrong. I bet you all thought I'd say X. Well, that's not the case because I'm a member of this offshoot crazy third party who's smarter than absolutely everyone else.
You're both wrong. I bet you all thought I'd say X. Well, that's not the case because I'm a member of this offshoot crazy third party who's smarter than absolutely everyone else.
Ah, you're right, I didn't spend enough time trying to find a third option.
Ah, you're right, I didn't spend enough time trying to find a third option.
There are few things more annoying than someone trying to prove how clever they are by Kobayashi Maru-ing a morality question. I do, however, admit that using Kobayashi Maru as a verb may be one of them.
First off, I think that if Scott was about to be beheaded, made as an example in front of a video camera, he would fight to the death to escape if the opportunity was presented.
Also, I think you guys may have even discussed this on an episode and I forgot, but how do you stand on killing in the wild? Predators kill other animals all the time in order to live. Do they get a pass because they are lower lifeforms and work on instinct?
First off, I think that if Scott was about to be beheaded, made as an example in front of a video camera, he would fight to the death to escape if the opportunity was presented.
Success is another matter. I'll give him credit - I think if pushed hard enough, he would fight, you're correct.
Damn, I couldn't finish this one. I'm used to Scott occasionally talking out of his ass, but this episode seems to just have a steady stream of more bullshit than I can handle.
I don't think discussing politics is necessarily a bad place for Geeknights to go, just please bring some one else from our reality onto the show next time.
Comments
Don't conflate my opinion with Scott's. I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty, except in the case of specific crimes where pragmatically I feel that society at large requires this sort of closure, no matter how barbaric it truly is. I understand that some people require violent catharsis. But I simultaneously wish that people could overcome this need. We already know that the death penalty isn't a deterrent against murder, so what purpose does it serve in a case of murder? If we're saying the person is truly beyond rehabilitation, then why do we not study them, to better understand from where murder derives? What value does the revenge murder have but for the catharsis of the vicims' loved ones?
As for Singapore, you really feel that death is a suitable penalty for smuggling a good people desire into a country? Death. Killing someone for that. That seems a somewhat flippant disregard for the meaningfulness of life. Are drugs really worth killing someone over?
Differs with you.
Also, at no point did he endorse nuclear weapons - He simply noted he had to trust in his Captain, the JCOS, and the president to make the right call. His point that you quote stands true, even if you want to try and twist the argument into a lovely strawman about nuclear weapons, or start crying morality. Don't be sorry, laugh it off. There are many things Scott does not, and possibly has no hope of understanding, and they colour what he calls evil. He can cry "Objective standpoint" and "Logical Morality" as much as he likes, but the fact remains that he lacks the knowledge and understanding of far too much to be able to make any judgements which are worth even a thin streak of piss. This doesn't make him a bad person, mind you - Just a terribly misinformed and clueless one, with a very loud mouth. I think if Scott said the contents of this to me in person, I would very likely simply brush him off and do the same. While I'm not yet finished my inoculation against this as you guys are(as exampled by my primary response to this thread, which was driven that sort of anger you get when you lose a good chunk of respect for a person) whereas here, I can take the time and make a considered response - Stop laughing, Rym, Despite what you probably think(if I've got a decent read on you, anyway) I'm not angry all or a majority the time, I simply write as I speak, and I have what you'd probably consider a peculiar manner of speaking - however when speaking in person, I might need to take a moment to keep myself in check and think, if not simply walk away because I can't respond at that time in what I'd consider a reasonable fashion.
Also, when he makes you angry, just picture him trying to prove that he could lift two cans of beans up and down "forever" while jogging. You will feel better.
Also, I think you guys may have even discussed this on an episode and I forgot, but how do you stand on killing in the wild? Predators kill other animals all the time in order to live. Do they get a pass because they are lower lifeforms and work on instinct?
I don't think discussing politics is necessarily a bad place for Geeknights to go, just please bring some one else from our reality onto the show next time.