Lurker > Sinroth
LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
| Board List | |
|---|---|
| Topic | How is it that 1x1 = 1? |
| Sinroth 09/14/17 5:44:20 AM #53 | Zom3ie_Paul posted... TLDR: It's an axiom of abstract algebra. Wrong. The identity is [12], and most day-to-day maths occurs in a Field. Why should I trust anything you have to say on the hideously broken orthodoxies of mathematics? Life Sympathy posted...
Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling me that (-2)^2 proves that you can have negative area. MuayThai85 posted... 1x1 literally just means 1 group of 1. 2x1 is 2 groups of 1, etc. One thing isn't a group, isn't it? --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | How is it that 1x1 = 1? |
| Sinroth 09/13/17 7:50:42 AM #18 | So literally nobody can tell me? Figures --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | How is it that 1x1 = 1? |
| Sinroth 09/13/17 7:25:21 AM #1 | How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told its two, and that cannot be. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Stephen Daedalus is pretty obsessed with going to hell for all eternity. |
| Sinroth 09/13/17 6:10:12 AM #11 | Sunhawk posted... Sinroth posted...Kineth posted...Sunhawk posted...What people? Anyone currently on Page 1 of CE can see this topic. cool bro --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Stephen Daedalus is pretty obsessed with going to hell for all eternity. |
| Sinroth 09/13/17 5:50:12 AM #9 | Kineth posted... Sunhawk posted...What people? Anyone currently on Page 1 of CE can see this topic. a character in books written by James Joyce --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | What was your life like in: 2017, 2012, 2007,2002, 1997, 1992? |
| Sinroth 09/12/17 8:12:23 AM #33 | 1992: conscripted into army 1997: living on streets 2002: huffing paint in Romania 2007: married with kids 2012: Vladimir Putin's bodyguard 2017: lying on GameFAQs --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Daily Schedule |
| Sinroth 09/11/17 2:53:25 AM #3 | 5am: wake up, exercise 5.05am: get dressed, brush teeth, cold shower 9.00am: skateboard into city 9.30am: shoplift muesli for breakfast 11.00am: arts and crafts class 1pm: sneak into local community college and sit in on lectures 5pm: quick nap in library 5.30pm: cigarette 5.35pm: cheeseburger 5.40pm: pint 6.30pm: practice krav maga in the park 8pm: skateboard home 8.30pm: meditate standing up 8.50pm: briefly reach higher consciousness 9pm: bangers and mash for dinner 9.30pm: calibrate grandfather clock 9.45pm: bedtime --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Is your boss a woman or a man? |
| Sinroth 09/04/17 8:35:16 AM #3 | It is a m'lady --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | do you ever think north koreans look at this and go "comrade..." |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 6:12:57 AM #10 | Itachi157 posted... Zikten posted...North Koreans don't have access to the internet. and like hell would the State TV broadcast south korean propaganda music. THey have never heard that song you posted I remember hearing that in certain parts you can tune radios and TVs to south Korean radio stations and TV stations. Some NK refugee was talking about it in a video, I think the one where a bunch of NK refugees try American BBQ. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Which is better rice or noodles? |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 4:13:47 AM #11 | I reckon noodles, they feel a lot more bulky than rice --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | What was the most recent, completely luxury item you bought recently |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 2:44:09 AM #16 | I bought some clothes from the second-hand shop, even though I don't strictly need them. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 1:49:35 AM #57 | Dyinglegacy posted... I severely doubt a staunch pro choice person would accept, or give a shit, if the personhood of a fetus were somehow proven. Right, but the argument that "we should allow abortions because it would be convenient for me and I don't know or care if the foetus is a person" holds far less currency than "we should allow abortions because a foetus is probably/definitely not a person and I have a right to my body". Something like the second is really what any credible pro-choice argument needs to establish. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 1:13:49 AM #54 | Dyinglegacy posted... The pro abortion argument more or less boils down to "my body, my choice.". Despite the pseudo intellectual ravings, that's really the nitty gritty of it. I think it's relevant, because if two rights come into conflict we have to weigh up which takes precedence. If we hypothetically agreed that a foetus has moral personhood, it seems fair to call life a more essential right than bodily autonomy. It's much harder to make a sound pro-choice argument when you acknowledge that the foetus is a person with all the rights we endow people. On the other hand, if a foetus is definitely not a person, then there's no real question; the situation permits abortion. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 12:23:03 AM #51 | BaronessaRolab posted... Sinroth posted...BaronessaRolab posted...Sinroth posted...BaronessaRolab posted... It's a pretty short (and simple, I think) post, but if you don't want to respond to it then that's algood. Your argument supporting abortion changed between posts, so I just asked some simple follow ups to clarify what you meant. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 12:14:49 AM #48 | BaronessaRolab posted... Sinroth posted...BaronessaRolab posted... Your argument has changed now. Initially it was "able to feel pain", but now it is "has ever had a human brain". Are you now talking about being human, or being a moral person? Because a foetus is unequivocally human, but what we're debating is whether or not a foetus qualifies as a moral person. A corpse has had a human brain. Does that mean it is deserving of the same protections as a full-grown human? A corpse has less human functionality, present or future, than a foetus. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/03/17 12:07:50 AM #46 | BaronessaRolab posted...
If your argument against the moral personhood of a foetus is that it can't feel pain, then you can apply the same reasoning to conclude that human beings in comas and human beings with congenital analgesia also lack moral personhood. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 11:57:50 PM #43 | Dyinglegacy posted...
Sentience is quite vague though. What characteristics make you sentient? BaronessaRolab posted...
Is it OK to kill people with congenital analgesia? Is it OK to kill people asleep or in a coma, so long as you do it quickly so they don't feel it? --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 11:21:08 PM #28 | BaronessaRolab posted... Sinroth posted...BaronessaRolab posted...No, it is biological. A fetus is an un-feeling cluster of cells, and personifying it is a laughable concept. But by saying that certain characteristics qualify or disqualify you from having certain moral rights, you are making a philosophical argument. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 11:02:14 PM #20 | BaronessaRolab posted... No, it is biological. A fetus is an un-feeling cluster of cells, and personifying it is a laughable concept. That is a philosophical argument. This is saying that being an unfeeling cluster of cells is sufficient grounds to say you aren't worthy of moral considerations. It also needs more nuance. Flowers and animals and so on are feeling clusters of cells, yet clearly don't have the same moral considerations as humans. A full explication of why this specific characteristic is sufficient to justify abortion goes well beyond mere biology. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 10:44:40 PM #13 | BaronessaRolab posted... Sinroth posted...BaronessaRolab posted...1. Thats nice, but their opinions are irrational and based in bronze-age mythology (and therefore should be ignored) The question of whether a foetus is deserving of moral consideration is a philosophical one. It is not inherently religious or scientific. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | I think abortion should be taught during school sex-ed. |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 10:41:03 PM #11 | BaronessaRolab posted... 1. Thats nice, but their opinions are irrational and based in bronze-age mythology (and therefore should be ignored) The pro-life case isn't necessarily a religious one. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | when did communism become so popular amongst the young and uneducated? |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 9:46:55 AM #97 | I think the online interest in communism is actually an online interest in social democracies with strong welfare states, not any actual serious opposition to capitalism as a system --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | What is the yummiest vegan food |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 9:43:30 AM #7 | pakoras with tamarind sauce --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | What race/ethnicity are you? |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 6:08:42 AM #29 | pakeha (NZ european, scottish & english) maori (muaupoko, kahungunu tribes) --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Guy gets out of doing a speech in school by running away |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 6:04:33 AM #1 |  --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Which of the following is how you HOLD a PEN/PENCIL?? |
| Sinroth 09/02/17 4:47:51 AM #17 | I had to look it up, mine is "lateral quadrepod grasp", which is a variation on I (lateral tripod grasp) where one of those bottom fingers is in a different position. The head of the pen rests against the end of my ring finger, and I have a big callous there. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Is it cheating if you develop feelings for a person, while dating another? |
| Sinroth 08/30/17 6:34:54 AM #7 | There's flirting and then there's longing. I think you can decide for yourself when it's gone a bit too far. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/30/17 6:28:50 AM #270 | Hexagon posted... The second is specific to plants, the third is figurative, the forth is specific to materials. Not only that, but neither of those definitions preclude trisomy 21 as a disease. Are you going to plead ignorance now? I didn't see the "plant" in that second definition, but now that you seem to be agreeing there isn't a single, universal definition of "disease" for all circumstances, will you admit that a more precise distinction is sometimes drawn between "disease" and "disorder", as in the Farlex medical dictionary? P4wn4g3 posted... Are you arguing that Downs isn't a disease of the brain? Because using the classical definition of disease I think it is. Originally, hexagon compared down syndrome to cancer (among other things). I argued there are important differences between the two. Down syndrome is intrinsic and genetic; you're born with it. Cancer is something you develop over your life, and has extrinsic causes (smoking, infections, etc.). People with down syndrome, despite having a harder time, are perfectly capable of living happy and meaningful lives. People with cancer live short lives in tremendous pain. These all seem like pretty important differences, and don't think the two should be equated so easily, so I challenged the comparison. hexagon has yet to respond to this point. If you use "disease" in the most general sense, then cancer and down syndrome are both diseases. But we shouldn't be misled into thinking that because both are disease that we should prevent down syndrome at all costs, as we prevent cancer at all costs. There are real differences in cause and severity between the two. To stop ourselves sanding over these differences, we ought to use more precise language in our discussion, for example by distinguishing between "disease" (extrinsic, pathogenic etc. ailments) and "disorder" (intrinsic, genetic etc. ailments). I'm not really bothered by what terms are used, I just think the differences between cancer and down syndrome are significant and should be acknowledged. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/29/17 10:20:30 AM #266 | coolboy11 posted... most countries and societies treat people with (severe) disabilities so terribly, is choosing to not bring a child through abortion really all that morally unfit? Wouldn't you say that aborting a foetus because it has down syndrome is reinforcing that poor treatment? A better solution seems to be to invest the time and resources into providing for and supporting such people, as individuals and communities, rather than aborting them because they're a perceived economic net inconvenience. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/29/17 10:12:51 AM #263 | You've just listed four different definitions of "disease", so it's hardly a word with an objective, universal definition (as in, the same single definition used everywhere by everyone). It's fair game to talk about which is the most relevant or useful to our discussion. One of these definitions is even the exact, more precise, "extrinsically-caused ailment" usage of the word that I'm talking about. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/29/17 9:18:33 AM #260 | This has nothing to do with anything. It means that "disease" does not have an objective or universal definition, and how we use it depends on context, which medical association we belong to, and so on. In many contexts, there is a distinction in the usages of "disease" and "disorder" which should be recognised in any moral argument making use of these terms. Nothing you posted has showed this. Nothing you posted says "disorder is used of an intrinsically or genetically caused ailment". Nothing you posted shows that "disease is used of an extrinsically caused ailment". Read a medical dictionary, or any reputable source of knowledge relating to science and health like a textbook. I have already quoted the Farlex medical dictionary which, among other more general ways of using the word "disease", affirms that "disease" connotes an ailment which is extrinsically or etiologically caused. The definitions you posted DID show that etiological agents are a definition of a disease, but that doesn't in any way mean the converse is true. You expect people to listen to your "arguments", but you're showing you can't understand basic logic. Every heard the phrase all trout are fish, but not all fish are trout? First of all, I don't think what you've said is quite true in the strictest sense. Definitions are equational. But I think I understand what you're getting at. If you assent to the more general usage of "disease", then what you've said is fine and we're not in disagreement: disorders are diseases, but diseases aren't necessarily disorders. If you assent to the more specific definition of "disease" --- that of an extrinsically-caused ailment --- then by using the word "disease" you are connoting that the ailment has some extrinsic cause. You compared cancer and down syndrome, suggesting the two are diseases and should therefore be prevented and cured where possible. This argument somewhat depends on a rhetoric trick: using the widest possible definition of "disease" to hint at a similarity between the two, while ignoring real differences in cause and severity. All I have said is that we should affirm a distinction between diseases and disorders (extrinsic and intrinsic) as this is relevant to our moral argument. Nothing you posted says that all diseases are of etiological agents. First you were wrong, but you just keep digging a hole deeper and deeper. I didn't say that "disease" can't be used as a catch-all, or that it can only refer to ailments with extrinsic causes. I am merely acknowledging differences in usage and meanings of the two words, in that "disorder" connotes an intrinsically-caused or genetically-caused ailment (as in down syndrome), and by juxtaposition that "disease" connotes an extrinsically-caused ailment. This is an important distinction in our moral argument, because down syndrome is an intrinsic ailment (a genetic disease, a disorder, whatever you want to call it) and cancer is an extrinsic ailment. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Should nazis have the right to free speech until they commit a crime? |
| Sinroth 08/29/17 7:51:02 AM #62 | This debate honestly reminds me of that "should paedos who don't molest kids be locked up" kind of debate --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/29/17 7:40:04 AM #258 | The definition of disease is not some scientifically-established piece of knowledge like evolution or gravity or germs theory or whatever. You can grok that immediately by just looking at the definitions I gave you. In addition, these definitions acknowledge a difference in usage between disease and disorder, with the term disorder often being used of an intrinsically or genetically caused "ailment", vs. a disease being used of an extrinsically caused "ailment". We should respect that the two words have different connotations, lest we run into absurd comparisons between down syndrome and cancer. I mean, they're different words. Of course they have different usages. So you search laughable websites like "healthwriterhub" and tell me there is no scientific definition. You wanted a source where people weren't using disease and disorder interchangeably and I gave you the first thing that came up on google. Here's a neat thought. Don't assert objective statements like suggesting an absolute difference between a disorder and a disease only to then come back and say "this shows that, really, it's all too muddy and no one is really correct." I said there was a linguistic difference between the two: Sinroth posted... That one definition is to be preferred over another is a linguistic argument, not a scientific one. So we should respect the different meanings, uses, and connotations of the two words when they are employed for our moral arguments. In using a single word for every condition we ignore morally relevant differences between, say, down syndrome and cancer (disorder and disease; genetic disease and etiological disease; call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter). I would respond, and I could have read your entire post,but the unfortunate circumstance for you is that you were wrong at the start of your post and over something factual nonetheless. This is a very big deal, because you're trying to make a convincing argument over things that are either in the future or hypothetical. But now you've set a precedent. Why on earth would I believe you about any moral or social argument? Either you're wrong so there's reason to believe nothing you say is right, or you're intellectually dishonest and can't even own up to being wrong. In that case why would I further waste my time with you? My distinction between disease and disorder is a counterpoint to your argument that down syndrome is, like cancer, a disease which is always to be cured and prevented. Such a broad use of the word disease paints all ailments, be they intrinsic or extrinsic, lethal or benign, with the same strokes, ignoring the meaningful and morally relevant differences between them, as exist between down syndrome and cancer. Future people having moral considerations is a separate point. Aborting a foetus because it has down syndrome when it otherwise would have been loved and carried to term being discrimination is a separate point. I'm sure there are other points hidden in there somewhere. These are all stand-alone, back-and-forth arguments between us, with really no intersection. I would be grateful if you actually responded to any of the numerous points I've made, instead of objecting to the different ways in which people use "disease" and "disorder" and having a cry that I'm being intellectually dishonest (lol). --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | How do you get over depersonization? |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 10:24:55 AM #9 | Skin crawling with bugs? Damn man, you tell your doc about it? Maybe there's something you can change to help you sleep better, like sleeping with the light on, or playing some relaxing music, or changing the bedsheets more often, etc. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 10:07:10 AM #256 | Hexagon posted... Sinroth posted...but some make a clear distinction between diseases having explicit, extrinsic causes (disease vectors). A source for what? That people use disease and disorder to mean slightly different kinds of abnormalities? That one definition is to be preferred over another is a linguistic argument, not a scientific one. If you google "difference between disorder and disease" you'll find all sorts of examples. Here's one link I skimmed which seems to affirm that there is (at least to layfolk) a difference: https://www.healthwriterhub.com/disease-disorder-condition-syndrome-whats-the-difference/ After a quick search and scan: Miller-Keane dictionary defines disease as a "pathological process with a characteristic set of signs and symptoms" and disorder as an "abnormality of function". Farlex has several definitions for disease basically covering every use without a single precise definition, but has a disease has characteristics like "recognised etiological agents" (i.e. extrinsic causes), "identifiable signs and symptoms" (so vague as to not really be helpful), "consistent anatomic alterations" (has to change the ordinary function of the person). Another definition of disease is that it is a disorder, which it defines as "a disturbance of function, structure, or both, resulting from a genetic or embryonic failure" (i.e. an intrinsic defect, compared to something like, say, the flu). These are only two medical dictionaries. I'm not going through all of them, but I hope you see these are hardly scientific terms. They basically affirm common sense and usage, and some of these definitions are even circular if you click enough of them (disease is recognised by etiological agents <--> etiological agents are those which cause disease). Not all medical organisations agree on the distinction, but we should use the more precise language because it is often relevant in practice. The point of all this is not to dilly-dally, but rather to highlight a weakness in your thinking. If you cast your definition of disease wide enough, then sure, down syndrome and cancer are diseases. And we try to cure and prevent diseases like cancer, so why not down syndrome? Cancers, flus, etc. have extrinsic causes and interrupt usual functioning, while being down syndrome, autistic, etc. is intrinsic. People with terminal-stage cancer live excruciatingly painful, short lives, while those with down syndrome do not. Such wide definitions sand off meaningful differences between different kinds of "diseases", which is why we should distinguish "disease" from disorder" to be more specific. But again, you should respond to the real point, which is that having a particular disorder, or being part of a marginalised group, does not necessarily prevent you from having a happy, meaningful, fulfilling life. And down syndrome is such a disease where the afflicted can have good lives. So why is down syndrome a sufficient reason to abort what would otherwise have been carried to term and loved the same as any other person? --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | How do you get over depersonization? |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 8:51:02 AM #7 | _Goggalor_ posted... Sinroth posted...Cut back on drugs/alcohol and also too much takeaways/unhealthy food if you're into those I reckon Aww man, not sure you should cut back on those, I was meaning more like weed and stuff. Hope you're good man, talk it out on here if you need to --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | If you want to be lean as fuck and have fun getting there, join a boxing gym! |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 8:46:06 AM #11 | Nothing like the boxing gym man --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Have you ever or do you feel like you don't fit in with anyone? |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 8:44:39 AM #14 | I dunno how old you guys are, but if you're young (like teens or young adult) I think it does get better as you age, just gotta stay busy, make sure you're working or studying or doing something with your time and thoughts --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | How do you get over depersonization? |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 8:42:40 AM #4 | Cut back on drugs/alcohol and also too much takeaways/unhealthy food if you're into those I reckon --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Be honest, how do you feel when strangers speak foreign language near you? |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 6:51:13 AM #28 | You see it occasionally where I'm from so I'm kinda used to it. If it's a language I've never heard before I like eavesdropping because it's cool. faizan_faizan posted... TheVipaGTS posted...i don't even notice it. why this even bothers people I'll never understand. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Muslim bus driver returns $10,000 to Jewish man who had lost it. |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 6:34:18 AM #54 | "Good on ya mate" --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/28/17 6:12:43 AM #253 | Hexagon posted... Sinroth posted...Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, not a disease. There is no universal medical definition of the terms "disease" and "disorder". Often they are used interchangeably, but some make a clear distinction between diseases having explicit, extrinsic causes (disease vectors). We aren't making medical diagnoses, but moral and social arguments, so these connotations are in play. A moral argument made on the basis of down syndrome being a disease akin to cancer is unsound; we must be clear about the terms involved, and how they apply to the scenario. For the same reason that you like to be nitpick on topics that you don't fully understand I'm not even going to bother wasting my time with reading the rest of your posts. I think my last post made my point well enough you can just reread that if you want. I've highlighted why your last post contained several flawed arguments, but if you don't want to respond then no worries. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Fastest way to get over her? |
| Sinroth 08/26/17 3:10:35 AM #15 | I'd agree with Hoth, focusing on yourself and restoring your self-esteem and self-worth is the most important thing, and doubling down on your hobbies, or finding new ones, is an easy way to do that and stay busy/occupied so you don't sit around in self-loathing introversion. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Boxing is trashy and barbaric. |
| Sinroth 08/26/17 3:00:36 AM #13 | There is a lot wrong with the boxing institutions who don't look after the welfare of their fighters, but it involves a tremendous amount of skill and athleticism, and partaking in it is incredibly humbling. Some of my closest friendships were forged in the gym. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/26/17 2:30:00 AM #250 | ThyCorndog posted... Xelltrix posted...I mean, if you can abort for literally no reason, I don't see the problem. If your reason for aborting comes from a place of discrimination (people with down syndrome aren't capable of living happy, meaningful lives), then it does. Actions don't take place in contextual vacuums. The purposes, desires, and intentions informing actions must also be taken into account. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/26/17 2:25:19 AM #248 | You are still drinking that same thirst quencher as the nazis and you don't even realize it; it's hilarious. The irony is that with your slippery slope argument, it's actually you that is the nazi moral sympathizer. You are putting words in people's mouths and accusing them of something that is not happening. Discrimination is discrimination, full stop. A racist who doesn't go around lynching their object of hatred and ignorance is still a racist. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/26/17 2:24:34 AM #247 | You are saying that people should be restricted from bodily autonomy because they carry a non-person mass of human matter in their body. I never said any such thing. You're conflating my declared pro-life position (which isn't under discussion) with the argument about whether it is OK to abort a foetus, who would otherwise be carried to term, on the grounds that it has down syndrome (which is under discussion). You are equating disease to biological diversity such as ethnicity How can you misinterpret an argument this badly? The point being made in support of Iceland is that it is just to abort a foetus if it is going to have a life of undue misery and adversity. But people with down syndrome don't have such lives. If the adversity of having down syndrome means it's better off you never existing, then a comparable point, based on the same argument, can easily hold for minorities. For example, the suicide rate of transgender people is something absurdly high like 30-50%, depending on what studies you look at. These are people that face tremendous adversity in life. But if we could diagnose a foetus as being transgender, would it be OK to abort them? A better thing to do is just not discriminate against transgender people, nor against those with down syndrome. This is a pathetically hilarious argument. I wonder how many millions of times people have caused someone to not exist by not being promiscuous, or wearing protection or maybe because somebody's uterus was too high in pH and conception didn't occur. If only you didn't use that hygienic product. Or you decide you don't want to raise a family but you know you are able to. The possibilities are endless. Every example you've given is not an action taking in knowledge of the outcomes. They are either actions taken in total ignorance of the outcomes, or inactions. If your inaction leads to some event X (the life of a person with down syndrome), and your action directly causes X to not happen, then you (and other people relating to the cause) are the agent who is morally responsible for it. FYI climate change, economic policy and the works are all matters of convincing people of doing the right choice, not to punish them so you should rethink that. As a second matter, I can argue that willingly bringing a diseased person into the world as being equivalent to willingly contributing to climate change, or willingly make economic policies that will make people's lives difficult. Poor argument. Why is it the right choice? One reason, which I'm sure most would agree with, is because it directly affects the welfare of future people, who don't yet exist, but will. You are free to say whatever you want, but this choice of words is wrong. Personhood is already defined unless the it's argued to be amended then you are being non sensible. We're discussing the ethics of aborting a foetus on the grounds of it having down syndrome in a pro-choice framework, so my personal disbelief in such a framework isn't relevant and only distracts from the major premises at hand. So let's not go there. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/26/17 2:24:15 AM #246 | Hexagon posted... No because diversity is not a #$@$% disease that's why. If you can't see the difference that doesn't mean that no one can. That's why we have professionals that study these things and are educated on the matter. Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, not a disease. But your point isn't really that people with down syndrome are better off being aborted because they have a "disease". Many diseases, genetic or whatever, are (in terms of living a meaningful, fulfilling life) innocuous and do not prevent a person from living a full, satisfying life. Down syndrome is the same. This is not to deny the greater adversity they will face, but the adversity they face isn't really sufficient to say their life is certainly going to be miserable and is better off never happening, just as we wouldn't say the extra adversity a minority endures makes them better off never existing. What's that? You were diagnosed with terminal cancer? There is no need to go to a treatment facility, as long as you live your life meaningfully and happily until you die of your vastly reduced life span then that's all that matters. Down syndrome isn't a flesh-eating bacteria, a blood-eating parasite, malaria, or cancer. It's honestly ridiculous that you think it's some kind of certain death sentence. Have you ever stepped out of your own head and met or talked to anyone with down syndrome? Back home there used to be a guy with down syndrome who did the trolleys at the supermarket, and we'd grumble about the weather, work, and rugby, the same as any two people in polite company would. He had a job, and presumably went home and did whatever people do when they go home. His disability wasn't lethal. This isn't a single case either. People with down syndrome are perfectly capable of having meaningful, fulfilling, happy lives, if only people didn't compare them to fucking cancer and treat them like dogshit. No one cares of the hypothetical "what you could do or what is possible or what could be". The argument is to have the choice. The choice to get medical treatment and not the choice to do nothing, but stay happy. If I have the knowledge I'd be bringing a person with an objectively real disease into the world and I know can conceive again and raise a healthy individual I'll do so if I wish to do so. Your own misapplied argument from before applies here: aborting a foetus isn't curing a chromosomal disorder, it is acting to prevent it from ever actualising. But is it just to act to prevent that person from ever existing? A person who would, except for their down syndrome, have been carried to term, and loved and nurtured? It's tricky. It could be just if they had some truly horrifying condition which condemned them to a miserable existence and a short, certain death. But that isn't the case with down syndrome. This attitude is either prejudice against people with down syndrome, or total ignorance about them. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Topic | Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome |
| Sinroth 08/24/17 9:13:57 AM #235 | Hexagon posted... Horrendous is in the eye of the beholder. Subjective argument. In a world where manual labor jobs are being rapidly replaced by machinery, I consider a disease that significantly impacts intelligence a horrible thing to have inflicted on you. I would also definitely abort a fetus that will be blind because of the true adversity they will face, which is not comparable to bigotry. Being blind or having down syndrome doesn't impact your quality of life to the point where you're incapable of living a happy, fulfilling, meaningful life. If your argument is that these people have greater adversity to overcome, then very well, but by the same logic we should have aborted any gay, stupid or black foetus, or any other kind of foetus from a marginalised or challenged group, because they have greater adversity to overcome. Do you think it fine to abort a foetus on the grounds of it being black, or gay, or stupid? I'm sure most people would, but in that case what is it about a black or gay or stupid person that entitles them to existence where a person with down syndrome is not? Nazis drink water. Abortion health consultants also drink water. They must share similar ideologies. The point isn't to say that everything Nazis do or believe is bad, so therefore this is as well. The point is that both are bad for the same reason --- they are morally equivalent --- and to illustrate this by a clear and obvious comparison to the Nazis, who we all unequivocally agree are evil. No person is being aborted. Of course people are happy they are alive, who can conceive their life not being alive? But removing the existence of a person isn't the same as never existing. In weighing whether you ought to do an action, morally, you must consider how your actions will change the world and the future. It is completely sensible to talk about having harmed future generations because of climate change, or bad economic policy, or to consider a more serious kind of wrong to have been committed when a pregnant woman miscarries because of an assault on her person, than if she had not been pregnant. If the non-existence of someone is a direct, positive consequence of your actions, you are the morally responsible agent for the matter. I believe strongly in the pro-life argument, so to me, these are people being killed. But even if you don't believe in that, the moral status of a foetus who would have been carried to term except for their having down syndrome is not an obvious or immediate consequence of the pro-choice position, and an argument (or at least a clarification from your moral framework on abortion ethics) is required either way. The only argument being presented appears to be that people with down syndrome suffer greater adversity, so it is OK to abort what would have otherwise been carried to term. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. |
| Board List |