61
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
62
General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!
« on: May 16, 2011, 02:32:29 am »absolutely not.I assume that isn't a reference to a nasty cheap beer here called that.Speaking of beer, does anyone have any recommendations?Question: What's your favorite Beer?
Answer: COLD!
63
General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!
« on: May 15, 2011, 07:49:07 pm »Speaking of beer, does anyone have any recommendations?Question: What's your favorite Beer?
Answer: COLD!
64
General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!
« on: May 13, 2011, 04:03:52 am »
I have a hard time with fiction.. I'd be better off blowing all my money on smack so I could write the millionth+1 autobiography on what it's like being a poor drug-fiend in a band.
you write short stories?
you write short stories?
65
General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!
« on: May 13, 2011, 02:45:39 am »
Buck ass naked after a shower, bout to throw on some clothes when a dark figure between the slivers of my window's blinds caught my eye. The dark figure moved closer, then bolted off after realizing his cover was blown. I quickly threw on some clothes and ran out after him, but he was long gone. Probably some sick fuck caught a glimpse of my luscious locks and thought it was his lucky night. I hope he was chokin' the chicken when he realized I have a dick! bawk bawk bawk!
66
Entertainment District / Re: dubstep?!
« on: May 11, 2011, 05:21:37 pm »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSeNSzJ2-Jw
Skrillex is dubstep master.
Quote
my speakers just turned in to robots and starting fighting... anyone else?
Skrillex is dubstep master.
67
General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!
« on: May 11, 2011, 02:36:15 am »Mill explicitly rejects that utilitarianism is a form of hedonism. Because it posits that the happiness of any person is exactly as important as the happiness of any other person, it is very different from hedonism, which posits that one should only be concerned with their own happiness.I don't know if we disagree so much; the phrasing of my [since edited] last post was unclear.
Utilitarianism is a sort of extension of hedonism. Hedonism is "do whatever makes you happy". Very roughly, utilitarianism replaces "you" with "everyone".
I think that I've come to the opposite conclusion -- intentions matter, but not as much as consequences. I'm definitely not a pure consequentialist, though.
68
General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!
« on: May 10, 2011, 07:34:03 pm »I'll agree with your last claim, although I think one should qualify "should", because it seems to imply an existing moral standard when, on some level, you're trying to define one.I agree.
I'm not sure there's such a thing as altruistic hedonism -- at least not with the way I'm meaning to use the word hedonism. A hedonist does what maximizes his happiness. A purely altruistic action doesn't take into account the happiness of the doer.
...
Yeah -- although I don't really know what you mean by altruistic hedonism. Maybe you could clarify?
I prefer the term altruistic hedonism because, as well as helping others directly, it implies cultivating personal happiness in order to maximize the sum total of happiness. I propose that effectively helping others is rather difficult without first effectively helping oneself, and I follow by proposing that the highest quality of happiness arises independently from the external environment, e.g. being content. This is crucial if you take into consideration Hedonic Calculus, and is even more-so relevant considering that you are external to every sentient being, with yourself as the only exception. I also find this analogy relevant:
Quote from: Dalai Lama
Developing the mind depends upon a great many internal causes and conditions, much like a space station depends on the work of generations of scientists who have analyzed and tested even its smallest components. Neither a space station nor an enlightened mind can be realized in a single day. [...] However, unlike the space station, which is constructed by many people working together, the mind must be developed by you alone. There is no way for others to do the work and for you to reap the results. Reading someone else's blueprint of mental progress will not transfer its realizations to you. You have to develop them yourself.Labels aside, I hope the concept has been sufficiently articulated.
TL;DR: What about intentions? They probably matter too.
The first two of Mill's examples seem to be extreme examples of practical occurrences. Intention and consequence go hand in hand with moral planning and moral judgement respectively; it is the same phenomena in different tenses of time. All one can do while attempting to accurately anticipate the consequences of one's actions is to infuse right intention with right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, and then hope for the best. I propose wrong intention to be immoral planning, and any beneficial consequence to be irrelevant.
Mill's third example seems more realistic. I feel it's wrong to kill the one patient without his consent. It is his choice to live or not to live an altruistic life. No matter how selfless the intention, imposing our will upon others is rather arrogant and leaves plenty of room for moral confusion. I prefer the saying: "If possible, you should help others. If that is not possible, at least you should do no harm."
70
General Discussion / Re: Klondike bar sexist/homophobic commercials
« on: May 05, 2011, 04:06:34 pm »Fucking feminists.
71
General Discussion / Re: Bin Laden down
« on: May 02, 2011, 07:48:46 pm »This is the kind of the thing where if Republicans do it, people are ECSTATIC. (e.g. Saddam Hussein). If Obama does it, people go... hmm, whatever, lets find a way to criticize him for telling us this, because we don't like Obama. It's because the "we want revenge" people are mostly Republicans (or against Obama anyway), and they will not like Obama no matter what he does. They can take a piece of news that would normally make them really happy, and find a way to criticise it terribly if Obama's name is attached to it. There's also the fact that Republicans are brilliant at PR and Democrats are not. I am just speculating though, it will be interesting to see the general reaction.All of this is plainly human nature, and republicans and democrats are equally human.
72
General Discussion / Re: Bin Laden down
« on: May 01, 2011, 11:30:01 pm »Meaningless, but I predict this will be a big++ deal.big++ deal. prepare to stomach every shithead's interpretation of this meaningless peace of news.
Conspiracy theories initiate.
"I wonder how much this little Obama re-election sideshow just cost the American people."
oh world, please spare me this time.
73
General Discussion / Re: Noise-Cancelling Headphones
« on: April 29, 2011, 06:05:37 pm »
What Newby said. Get a good pair of headphones in your price range with both good sound quality and noise cancellation.
74
General Discussion / Re: Noise-Cancelling Headphones
« on: April 27, 2011, 03:30:47 pm »oh hah, I totally missed this. Yeah, Bose are overpriced.Ah, okay. In a recent topic on another form, the OP was asking for headphones he could swim with. Sorry for the confusion.Hahaha. Why on earth would you want to swim with headphones on? That sounds super uncomfortable, unless you got wireless ones and left the receiver+ipod on the tiles.
Fair enough, I suppose. There are companies that will build you IEMs that are molded to your ear, so it probably wouldn't hurt.
Also, Shure makes some with memory foam... probably wouldn't hurt either.
Bose is overpriced, IMO. The earbuds I have now have unbelievable sound quality (especially in the bass range -- it feels like I'm in a rice rocket with a $10K sound system), and they're cheaper than the Bose earbuds, which have noticeably worse sound quality.
Interesting, because I'd imagine you'd have to order those online--how would they know how to mold them?
I do agree Bose is overpriced and overhyped. Still, I'm not really looking for audiophile-quality stuff here. My needs are moreso "Shit's loud, need to ignore people and study" than "I want this to sound perfect." I'm not going to buy Bose and then come back here and start praising their amazing sound quality.
I think they get waterproof MP3 players that you can clip onto your swimsuit. Probably not so uncomfortable. Sounds pretty nice, actually. Probably not much different from wanting to listen to tunes while jogging.
I'm not sure how they work, but it's what you see professional musicians wearing during concerts (maybe Armin can pipe in?). I also think they might be out of the 200-300 range, but they're probably about as comfortable as you can get since they're tailored to your ear.
Haha, fair enough. I'm tellin' ya, though... these earbuds completely block out sound. It's like I've gone completely deaf except for whatever song is playing (and it doesn't have to be dramatic and loud; even mozart works.)
I've never had a molded pair of IEMs myself, but I know you need to find a local audiologist to make the molds, and they usually recommend a brand of IEM to go with it.
I would still recommend using this guide whether or not you go the IEM route.
http://www.head-fi.org/wiki/buying-guide-headphones-by-price-range
75
General Discussion / Re: Noise-Cancelling Headphones
« on: April 27, 2011, 05:30:49 am »
http://www.head-fi.org/wiki/buying-guide-headphones-by-price-range
These guys know their headphones. They're all audiophiles.
These guys know their headphones. They're all audiophiles.