The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Dr McBeefington3,287 pages

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I understand that religion does not contradict science, but still, the advanced branch of quantum physics would insinuate that the basic laws of science are simply ignored when dealing with such high physics. I don't follow religion because I see no reason to; there is no evidence contradicting it, like the 'Matrix' example I supplied, but there is simply not reason to believe in it, at least for me. But if it makes you happy, then who am I to tell you not to follow it?

Dude, there is no basis for Hawking's study. You don't get to choose which laws get ignored and which don't. Now if the scientific community comes out and backs Hawking, then I will have no choice to accept it. Seeing as how every scientific argument I've ever heard discusses the fact that the universe wasn't created out of nothing, I have no inclination to believe Hawking just because he made a statement.

Well, Nazism didn't exactly have anything to do with the lack of religion. Stalin took Marx's beliefs and 're-interpreted' them (I'm trying not to say 'perverted'😉 into a fascistic and totalitarian ideology. Communism as a purely financial ideology, while I personally disagree with it, isn't all that bad.

Of course you'd think it wasn't that bad. It didn't destroy the soviet union, kill 22 million russians, destroy countless lives all because of the government. And Communism was put in place of religion. Nazism was as well. Both had a lack of religion, and both nearly destroyed the world. Now of course religion did have its fair share of destruction(Crusades, Inquisition), but i'm talking about the 19th and 20th centuries.

Alright. Good for them. That being said, though, I do not believe discipline to be a very treasured value.

Which is sad. I firmly believe in discipline, character, and good moral values.

Look at the world today and look at how the world was back then. People like Einstein and Hawking work at a level of science that exists beyond the intelligence and scientific grasp of the people back then. Studies also show rising IQ levels throughout the ages.

Show me studies showing IQ levels rise through the ages. There's no basis for this, especially since IQ wasn't measured back then. And I could give you Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Egyptians that did things and made inventions 2,000 years ahead of their time. I think we have more technology today and because of that, we rely more on it than people of other generations, that had to use more of their mind. This is why I think my generation wasn't particularly smart, and the new generation of teenagers are basically morons, eating up anything they learn in school, then regurgitating it, playing with their iphones and sitting on the computer, etc.

I don't need to derive my moral standards from an external source. Instead, I believe I'm smart or competent enough to create them myself, based on my form of logic and philosophy (liberalism, atheism, relativism, humanism, whatever). However, I do understand that my moral code is not universal; it's my subjective opinion. I don't need there to be a high being to 'verify' it.

I don't believe humans are capable of forming their own morals and standards because then motive comes into play, and the death and destruction of the past 4,000 years shows us what humans are capable of.

Throughout the course of our extremely long political debate, I've explained, to be the best of my ability, why I think that my ideology, if implemented, will lead to a better world. But I still understand that it is my ideology and not some sort of divine, all-powerful one.

For the same reason I believe religion will make a better world. But both our ideologies have failed, as seen in the Crusades, Inquisition, Nazism, and Communism.

Edit: Just curious, what do you consider 'liberal arts'? Do you mean things like cinema and the like? Because I think the world would be a shitty place without philosophy and intellectua stimulation, which includes the realm of art.

As I mentioned to veneficus, I think philosophy is a meaningless form of mental masturbation, only used by many pseudo intellectuals to compensate for their low self esteem. It has no practical uses in this world. English majors, philosophy majors, etc. While I feel that some classes should be part of the core curriculum, those majors are utterly useless. You can recite to me any ancient philosophy mentioned by Marcus Aurelius, but you're going nowhere with your life when you graduate with those majors. Economics, business, science majors. Those all have their practical uses. I don't need someone to tell me everything is equal and nothing is better than anything else because that philosophy doesn't work in the real world. And that's my main problem. Philosophy deals with utopias.

If you feel compelled to respond, you can, but I won't be back until Sunday morning so if you do respond, I'll get to it then.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Dude, there is no basis for Hawking's study. You don't get to choose which laws get ignored and which don't. Now if the scientific community comes out and backs Hawking, then I will have no choice to accept it. Seeing as how every scientific argument I've ever heard discusses the fact that the universe wasn't created out of nothing, I have no inclination to believe Hawking just because he made a statement.

I don't think I agree with Hawking's theories, but it sounds rather reasonable. I don't think we can, with our current scientific knowledge, verify what happened before the Big Bang. But it is certainly a bad idea to create theories regarding it that are not based upon facts, but rather faith.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Of course you'd think it wasn't that bad. It didn't destroy the soviet union, kill 22 million russians, destroy countless lives all because of the government. And Communism was put in place of religion. Nazism was as well. Both had a lack of religion, and both nearly destroyed the world. Now of course religion did have its fair share of destruction(Crusades, Inquisition), but i'm talking about the 19th and 20th centuries.

That was not communism- that was fascism. There is a very distinct difference. In Israel, there are locations called Kibutzes. Now, these villages or cities are not fascist, but they operate upon communistic economic belief. And their people are happy, living a life of a cooperation and contribution. Of course, it's far smaller in scale than anything like the Soviet Union, but that's just to show that communism as a purely economic belief can function.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which is sad. I firmly believe in discipline, character, and good moral values.

Morality being a matter of subjectivity, bla bla bla. Discipline is associated with good because of your religion and your culture, that places the standard of discipline (dare I say 'conformity'?) as a glorious one. It works for you and you see it as good. I, however, think that listening to orders and having respect for institutions simply because they are ones is a very dangerous thing.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Show me studies showing IQ levels rise through the ages. There's no basis for this, especially since IQ wasn't measured back then. And I could give you Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Egyptians that did things and made inventions 2,000 years ahead of their time. I think we have more technology today and because of that, we rely more on it than people of other generations, that had to use more of their mind. This is why I think my generation wasn't particularly smart, and the new generation of teenagers are basically morons, eating up anything they learn in school, then regurgitating it, playing with their iphones and sitting on the computer, etc.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/F6B33EBD-644E-432A-86EB-4EE4083AFB05/

What do you think teenagers do nowadays? The world is not morally or intellectually degenerating; like it was since the dawn of time, it is in a constant state of progression and development. I talk about subjects like philosophy and politics with my teenage friends all the time. Do you think we would have done that 'back in the day'? Teenagers utilize the more cerebral and electronic age to indulge in intellectually stimulating activities like browsing the Internet. Instead of having physical sports as our primary activity, we now choose more intellectual ones, and the vast supply of knowledge at our easy disposal certainly helps.

Teenagers today are smarter than ever, as strange as it sounds, in my opinion.

And I greatly respect the scientists of old, and they are important for creating the basis for modern science, but the far more complex and difficult to grasp issues (among them quantum physics) are handled by modern scientists. I believe these are the deeper subjects, that require greater intelligence.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I don't believe humans are capable of forming their own morals and standards because then motive comes into play, and the death and destruction of the past 4,000 years shows us what humans are capable of.

So certain moral values lead towards a world that is poor for its populace. That's okay. But you must understand that moral theories were all created by human beings- and I find your lack of faith in humanity's ability to think and reason for itself to be very saddening.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
For the same reason I believe religion will make a better world. But both our ideologies have failed, as seen in the Crusades, Inquisition, Nazism, and Communism.

Quite true. That being said, though, I don't think my ideology was ever tried, in its full nature, within history, and I believe it can work. I don't know what about your's.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
As I mentioned to veneficus, I think philosophy is a meaningless form of mental masturbation, only used by many pseudo intellectuals to compensate for their low self esteem. It has no practical uses in this world. English majors, philosophy majors, etc. While I feel that some classes should be part of the core curriculum, those majors are utterly useless. You can recite to me any ancient philosophy mentioned by Marcus Aurelius, but you're going nowhere with your life when you graduate with those majors. Economics, business, science majors. Those all have their practical uses. I don't need someone to tell me everything is equal and nothing is better than anything else because that philosophy doesn't work in the real world. And that's my main problem. Philosophy deals with utopias.

There is a level that exists beyond what is practical and what works. That is the level that makes us human beings, instead of intelligent animals; the level that desires for some sort of purpose in life aside from reproduction and survival. And that level is the one in which philosophy and arts are born: the desire for intellectual stimulation is one of the most important traits of the human psyche. And so is the desire for utopias. Satisfaction with the status quo is the opponent of change and progression; because only things like the desire for a utopia and 'pseudo-intellectual philosophy' ever led towards a better existence. That's why philosophy is very, very important (and make no mistake: religion also has everything to do with philosophy).

One more thing before I leave. The liberal arts colleges of this generation impart knowledge on their students, instead of imparting wisdom. These students take as much knowledge as they can, and then they spit it out. When it comes to practicality, they have no idea what to do. Wisdom is the ability to interpret data in regards to reality, to know how the world works, not how you think it should work. Your (not you but in general)utopia isn't going to contradict 4,000+ years of human history.

Meh, no student of the arts ever LEARNS wisdom. Needs to be developed through knowledge and experience.

Yeah, it's quite impossible to 'learn' wisdom.

And I trumped your "historical" examples with my historical examples, how the 3 major truths have remained the same after thousands of years.

Your 'major truths' suck. Murder has always stayed the same? Bull. 'It is not a sin to kill an infidel, it is the will of god', Crusades much? Or how about when Masturbation was considered murder? Rape has always stayed the same? Shit. Until the 20th century almost/all major religions considered marital rape to be just and 'logical' (some still might, I don't know religion). And slave girls where the property of their masters a few hundred years ago, and it was considered a sin to 'resist'. And I....... can't remember the other one. Paedophilia? Wrong, girls used to get married at 13. Torture? Lol, wrong. Abuse?
Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

And so this continues; I'm violating my own Aesop and for some reason, continuing this idiocy. Soon people will think I am insane, talking to a dog. I think this will be my last post on this topic. Rant at it all you like DS, perhaps I might notice and give a small chuckle.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yawn. And i believe I told you to quit regurgitating what your philosophy professor taught you. And I trumped your "historical" examples with my historical examples, how the 3 major truths have remained the same after thousands of years.

What historical examples? Where? You have no case DS, none, nothing. Unless you can prove to me, that there is some universal rule book saying that your so called three truths are indeed truth, you have no argument.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington You're the one sounding like a pseudo intellectual buffoon. At least faunus doesn't sit there spouting nonsense from a freshman philosophy class. Guess what numbnuts, learning something in philosophy class doesn't make it true. Now again, stop regurgitating nonsense to attempt to make yourself appear smarter.

I am smarter than you DS, in fact I'm smarter than 99% of the global population. You're barking again, in fact I'm not even sure why I continue to entertain you, it serves no more purpose than holding a conversation with a wall. You mock my education, you mock the fact that I have taken college courses and read the works of some of the most renowned men in the academic world. Am I supposed to consider you anything else but an idiot?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. What I find hilarious is you spouting what you learned in philosophy 101 to attempt to sound intelligent. Guess what big boy, I consider philosophy as retarded as you consider religion. And ask your professor about Hitler and Stalin, and report back to me what bullshit he tells you, instead of calling it a "cop out" you can't refute.

You truly amaze me DS. I am not a liberal. I am a pro authoritarian believer in a Hobbesian flavor social contract. If you actually got some education, you would know what that was. Of course, philosophy is mental masturbation so you have no idea what I am talking about. Go ask MC or Red Nemesis what I'm talking about, I'm sure they would be happy to explain it to you. They would disagree with me, but that's perfectly acceptable, because I know both of them are rather intelligent and simply hold a different viewpoint. They aren't angry conservatives who mock education.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington Perhaps instead of engaging in meaningless mental masturbation to boost your self esteem, you should search out something more practical. I wonder how long it's going to take you to realize that liberal arts is the most useless degree in undergrad.

Ah yes, because I am working towards my AA so I can transfer and finish up my dual BA in Economics and Philosophy. Obviously, I am not perusing a degree in the Liberal Arts. Unless of course, you consider Economics useless, which wouldn't surprise me, since you disdain education.

Autokrat, you seem to be under the impression I have some form of formal philosophical education. I don't. All my knowledge of politics and philosophy stems from hours of boredom and interest spent upon the Internet, so I'm largely aware of most political, philosophical, and moral ideologies. I do know what is authoritarianism, but what exactly is 'Hobbesian flavor'? I'm just curious, so please substantiate if you go the time.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Autokrat, you seem to be under the impression I have some form of formal philosophical education. I don't. All my knowledge of politics and philosophy stems from hours of boredom and interest spent upon the Internet, so I'm largely aware of most political, philosophical, and moral ideologies. I do know what is authoritarianism, but what exactly is 'Hobbesian flavor'? I'm just curious, so please substantiate if you go the time.

As much as I hate to quote wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes), and thus lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).

To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society.

Aha. Well, that's a concept I can definitely get behind (and actually argued for it in the necessity of certain laws and regulations beyond concepts of 'immorality'😉.

But wait! There's more:

Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. However, he also states that in severe cases of abuse, rebellion is expected. In particular, the doctrine of separation of powers is rejected:[11] the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

I've discovered that 'getting behind' a philosophy based on what can be found on wikipedia is dangerous. Find out what it is before you endorse it in any way, shape or form. plz.

But really, you would agree with the first part I posted? Human lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" by default? That goes against what Quinn suggests (and what I believe).

As I mentioned, I'm fairly certain that both of you would disagree with me. Although whether you agree with Hobbes or not, Leviathan does make for an interesting read.

My main point was to emphazise that I am not a liberal, which DS seems to have this strange idea that I am. Sure, I fully support things such as gay marriage and abortion. However, I also support torture, rendition, eugentics, using humans as guine pigs and a strong centralized government.

If DS wants to think that makes me a liberal, than I guess there really isn't anything I can do about it.

Go see.

http://dark-magician.mybrute.com

http://garnecia.mybrute.com/arene

http://your-grandfather.mybrute.com

http://eminence.mybrute.com/

'Tis greatness. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.

(unless you're me, in which case you have eight)

Edit: This is cheap shit.

This too, although it's more badass cuz I was winning.

The hell...

pretty much:

http://locke-5.mybrute.com/cellule

I beat you with this one Faunus

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
pretty much:

http://locke-5.mybrute.com/cellule

I beat you with this one Faunus

lolwut

I swear to God I thought that was you. Bastard. I have the "Master of Arms" ability, which pertains to knives, but I don't have a ****ing knife.

Garnecia's badass, though.

Edit: You jackass. You lost to Dark Magician. I bet you lost twice, cuz I have two pupils.

Add these guys, too:

http://eminence-blue.mybrute.com/

http://eminence-green.mybrute.com/

http://prime-eminence.mybrute.com

I breed for the perfect Eminence.

Also, I would like to share this fight with you all:

http://prime-eminence.mybrute.com/fight/2118507

I pwn.