Takerial Posts
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
animefreak_usa wrote...
Take-kun are you a dual wielder?Are you asking if I use two hands when I drive?
Usually in town, especially this town because the roads are very narrow and I prefer the feeling of control for that reason.
I usually switch to one hand when I'm on highways and such when I'm going to be on a long trip because it's more relaxing.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Depends on where you live.
Often times, depending on income level, you can qualify for a reduced medical charge or even a payment schedule so its not one large upfront cost through the hospital itself.
And even if not through the hospital, there are programs and institutions that run credit programs for that to help people with medical expenses that many medical places take.
But again, it really depends on where you live.
Often times, depending on income level, you can qualify for a reduced medical charge or even a payment schedule so its not one large upfront cost through the hospital itself.
And even if not through the hospital, there are programs and institutions that run credit programs for that to help people with medical expenses that many medical places take.
But again, it really depends on where you live.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Why would any of you ever think that stopping in the middle of the road with oncoming traffic blocking the only path to ever be a good idea?
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
BigLundi wrote...
Takerial wrote...
No, you TRIED to explain what you think it would mean to be objective in morality.
I said you were wrong because you aren't taking into account that it is a social attribute.
Seriously, do you read what you're saying? "You're wrong about objective morality because you fail to take into account that it's purely subjective."
Honestly you're being rediculous here. You'r ebeginning from the basis of objective morality being wrong, instead of trying to deconstruct it from the inside out. You're not presenting a coherent argument against anything I've been saying.
You can't compare health to morality because health has physical aspects to it, you can measure portions of it by measuring the physical aspects as in body care and such.
And moral actions aren't physical? I can't measure how much an action affects someone either negatively or positively? We're going to have to heavily agree to disagree on that point.
Morality cannot be measured in such a way because it is purely a social attribute. You HAVE to take into account other viewpoints because of this fact.
No I dooooooon't. For the thousandth time, you're startig from the point that subjectivity is the only true morality, and then attacking my morality based off of that. Your argument is fundamentally flawed from the beginning.
If you ignore others in trying to create an objective point of view in what is a social aspect, you aren't being reasonable and you are ignoring facts because you are failing to take into account things like the social norms and so on.
So not contradictory, you are just failing to understand what social means.
So not contradictory, you are just failing to understand what social means.
You're failing to understand anything I've been saying. Here are my basic points, broken down.
1. My definition of morality is subjective to me.
2. The way I define moral actions is done so intentionally in an objectively measureable way.
3. Because it's an objectively measureable thing, I don't have to take into account anyone else's viewpoints on the matter, either something promotes health and well being, and diminishes suffering, or it doesn't. This is an easily measureable scale.
4. Having an objective morality doesn't mean everyone has to follow it, someone might very well come up with a better definition than mine, but they'd still be doing the same thing as me, and completely ignoring other viewpoints, because they do not matter in an objective morality.
So you're saying that your 'objective' morality is based solely on how you define things. Based solely on how you want to measure them?
Do you not understand what subjective means? Honestly not understand it? Because you are describing the exact definition of subjective as you being objective.
And again, you are ignoring the social aspect. How do you expect to ever be objective about something if you completely ignore one of the biggest chunks of it?
All you're trying to do is arbitrarily install your own subjective sense of morality on others until it is the only viewpoint.
Essentially, all you're doing is mimicking the religious mindset except you're trying to put yourself in the deity position.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
There are a few key points that make a good universal blowjob. Using your tongue, avoid using your teeth at all costs. Actually suck it when you're bobbing.
Other than that, the little things are mostly up to him. Try to see what his reaction to little things are. It is also a good idea to look up at him. A lot of guys like it when a girl looks up at him while she's sucking him, kind of a power thing.
Other than that, the little things are mostly up to him. Try to see what his reaction to little things are. It is also a good idea to look up at him. A lot of guys like it when a girl looks up at him while she's sucking him, kind of a power thing.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
BigLundi wrote...
Takerial wrote...
No, I understand objectivity quite alright.The reason you can't be objective about morality, is because you have to take into account everyone else, you can't just go based on what you think is right. In fact, going by what you think is right is one of the most subjective ways to go about it.
You seem to be confused about the fact that morality is purely a social trait. It has no realistic way of measurement.
And the other point is that what is considered a benefit is also a social trait. If you want to look at it from a selling point of view, a feature is what something has, a benefit is what makes it worthwhile to a person. Which is also a very subjective person.
So essentially, to force objective morality, you would have to use morality that completely benefits everyone. Which doesn't exist because benefits are subjective.
And in terms of objective morality, selfishness IS immoral simply for the means that you are thinking in purely subjective terms.
Your first two sentences contradicted eachother. I'm sorry, but in no way does an objective morality have to take into account...ANYONE'S viewpoints. That's what objective is. I've explained this using the health example, and you still fail to grasp the concept. Sorry. And morality only can't be measured if we define it to be such that cannot be measured. I have succeeded in creating a specific measurement system by which you can live by, and judge individual actions by. I never said that the decision to define moral actions as moral isn't subjective. You seem to be misunderstanding both me and objective as a concept. I'm sorry, but when you make the argument, "Objective morality has to benefit everyone" you not only display a complete lack of understanding of what objective means, but you also don't even understand what I've said. Re read my post and try and get a better understanding.
No, you TRIED to explain what you think it would mean to be objective in morality.
I said you were wrong because you aren't taking into account that it is a social attribute.
You can't compare health to morality because health has physical aspects to it, you can measure portions of it by measuring the physical aspects as in body care and such.
Morality cannot be measured in such a way because it is purely a social attribute. You HAVE to take into account other viewpoints because of this fact.
If you ignore others in trying to create an objective point of view in what is a social aspect, you aren't being reasonable and you are ignoring facts because you are failing to take into account things like the social norms and so on.
So not contradictory, you are just failing to understand what social means.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Sounds like bitch be a tease and you be lame.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
No, I understand objectivity quite alright.
The reason you can't be objective about morality, is because you have to take into account everyone else, you can't just go based on what you think is right. In fact, going by what you think is right is one of the most subjective ways to go about it.
You seem to be confused about the fact that morality is purely a social trait. It has no realistic way of measurement.
And the other point is that what is considered a benefit is also a social trait. If you want to look at it from a selling point of view, a feature is what something has, a benefit is what makes it worthwhile to a person. Which is also a very subjective person.
So essentially, to force objective morality, you would have to use morality that completely benefits everyone. Which doesn't exist because benefits are subjective.
And in terms of objective morality, selfishness IS immoral simply for the means that you are thinking in purely subjective terms.
The reason you can't be objective about morality, is because you have to take into account everyone else, you can't just go based on what you think is right. In fact, going by what you think is right is one of the most subjective ways to go about it.
You seem to be confused about the fact that morality is purely a social trait. It has no realistic way of measurement.
And the other point is that what is considered a benefit is also a social trait. If you want to look at it from a selling point of view, a feature is what something has, a benefit is what makes it worthwhile to a person. Which is also a very subjective person.
So essentially, to force objective morality, you would have to use morality that completely benefits everyone. Which doesn't exist because benefits are subjective.
And in terms of objective morality, selfishness IS immoral simply for the means that you are thinking in purely subjective terms.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tired of anime? Watch hentai instead http://www.megaporn.com/video/?v=U0I1YF4H !
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
gizgal wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Nude apron in the kitchen. It is when a woman is at her best.My kitchen is only used by women.
;3;
His kitchen, not yours. Show up unannounced by surprise. Break in if the door is locked.
And don't worry about friend-zoning. That's only a problem if you're a guy. As a girl, if a guy is friends with you it is because he wants to fuck you.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
If it's the one I think it is, what the one who was his sex slave a loli?
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Nude apron in the kitchen. It is when a woman is at her best.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
You can't ever become objectively moral because it doesn't matter how you slice things, things won't ever be 100% benefit and 0% disbenefit to the people involved.
Every action someone takes will have some sort of benefit involved as well as some sort of disbenefit.
And because what someone sees as a benefit and disbenefit is changes from person to person, from situation to situation.
And that's the thing, for you to be able to be objective, you would have to know of an action that would satisfy EVERYONE'S viewpoints. Which is beyond any person to ever accomplish.
This applies to everyone. Not a single person can be objectively moral because it is beyond understanding.
However, everyone can strive to be objectively moral. The reasons for it are just funny.
Which actually makes it funny, because trying to find a reason to do so, ultimately makes it even more subjective because you are thinking in how it benefits you.
In any matter, morality is one of those things that if you try thinking about it too much, you tend to create a self-defeating concept in which you either make yourself think it is useless, or you make yourself think you are more moral than you are which in turn will make you less moral because you are becoming more selfish.
Every action someone takes will have some sort of benefit involved as well as some sort of disbenefit.
And because what someone sees as a benefit and disbenefit is changes from person to person, from situation to situation.
And that's the thing, for you to be able to be objective, you would have to know of an action that would satisfy EVERYONE'S viewpoints. Which is beyond any person to ever accomplish.
This applies to everyone. Not a single person can be objectively moral because it is beyond understanding.
However, everyone can strive to be objectively moral. The reasons for it are just funny.
Which actually makes it funny, because trying to find a reason to do so, ultimately makes it even more subjective because you are thinking in how it benefits you.
In any matter, morality is one of those things that if you try thinking about it too much, you tend to create a self-defeating concept in which you either make yourself think it is useless, or you make yourself think you are more moral than you are which in turn will make you less moral because you are becoming more selfish.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
artcellrox wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Since you sound like you're 12 I'd say no.Do you have to be this mean and blunt to EVERYONE in this section of the boards?
Doctor's Orders
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Ban Circumvention
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Since you sound like you're 12 I'd say no.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
pello wrote...
1. She tried to prove it, the results is false. Then she told me a whole lot of story meaning that it wouldn't work sometimes.
2. According to her speech, it is a collective bond.
She's either conning you or crazy.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
If you want a technical point of view. There is no evidence supporting any form of telepathy or mental ability. In fact, when faced with the task to produce the results in a controlled setting, no one has been successful with such a thing.
This leaves a mental issue. If she is lying then that is one form of mental issue.
If she isn't lying about things, then she most likely has schizophrenia. And it could be a pretty severe form if she's experiencing strong auditory hallucinations.
This leaves a mental issue. If she is lying then that is one form of mental issue.
If she isn't lying about things, then she most likely has schizophrenia. And it could be a pretty severe form if she's experiencing strong auditory hallucinations.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Love is indeed selfish. It is one of the most selfish emotions you can have in fact. Because love is a very primal emotion.
If you haven't realized, people start out as selfish when we are born. It's one of the first emotions we know as infants because that is how we survive. It's about needing others to survive.
That is what love reflects. The selfish want of someone you need to survive.
And it is a glorious feeling when you have it.
If you haven't realized, people start out as selfish when we are born. It's one of the first emotions we know as infants because that is how we survive. It's about needing others to survive.
That is what love reflects. The selfish want of someone you need to survive.
And it is a glorious feeling when you have it.
