|
Portals posted:why did this poo poo thread get unlocked have to lock it upside down at a crossroads at midnight
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Portals posted:why did this poo poo thread get unlocked Lowtax is a secret gator
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Beneath the moonlight glints a tiny fragment of silver, a fraction of a line... (black robes, falling) ...blood spills out in litres, and someone screams a word. Every inch of wall space is covered by a bookcase. Each bookcase has six shelves, going almost to the ceiling. Some bookshelves are stacked to the brim with hardback books: science, maths, history, and everything else. Other shelves have two layers of paperback science fiction, with the back layer of books propped up on old tissue boxes or lengths of wood, so that you can see the back layer of books above the books in front. And it still isn't enough. Books are overflowing onto the tables and the sofas and making little heaps under the windows. This is the living-room of the house occupied by the eminent Professor Michael Verres-Evans, and his wife, Mrs. Petunia Evans-Verres, and their adopted son, Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres. There is a letter lying on the living-room table, and an unstamped envelope of yellowish parchment, addressed to Mr. H. Potter in emerald-green ink. The Professor and his wife are speaking sharply at each other, but they are not shouting. The Professor considers shouting to be uncivilised. "You're joking," Michael said to Petunia. His tone indicated that he was very much afraid that she was serious. "My sister was a witch," Petunia repeated. She looked frightened, but stood her ground. "Her husband was a wizard." "This is absurd!" Michael said sharply. "They were at our wedding - they visited for Christmas -" "I told them you weren't to know," Petunia whispered. "But it's true. I've seen things -" The Professor rolled his eyes. "Dear, I understand that you're not familiar with the sceptical literature. You may not realise how easy it is for a trained magician to fake the seemingly impossible. Remember how I taught Harry to bend spoons? If it seemed like they could always guess what you were thinking, that's called cold reading -" "It wasn't bending spoons -" "What was it, then?" Petunia bit her lip. "I can't just tell you. You'll think I'm -" She swallowed. "Listen. Michael. I wasn't - always like this -" She gestured at herself, as though to indicate her lithe form. "Lily did this. Because I - because I begged her. For years, I begged her. Lily had always been prettier than me, and I'd... been mean to her, because of that, and then she got magic, can you imagine how I felt? And I begged her to use some of that magic on me so that I could be pretty too, even if I couldn't have her magic, at least I could be pretty." Tears were gathering in Petunia's eyes. "And Lily would tell me no, and make up the most ridiculous excuses, like the world would end if she were nice to her sister, or a centaur told her not to - the most ridiculous things, and I hated her for it. And when I had just graduated from university, I was going out with this boy, Vernon Dursley, he was fat and he was the only boy who would talk to me. And he said he wanted children, and that his first son would be named Dudley. And I thought to myself, what kind of parent names their child Dudley Dursley? It was like I saw my whole future life stretching out in front of me, and I couldn't stand it. And I wrote to my sister and told her that if she didn't help me I'd rather just -" Petunia stopped. "Anyway," Petunia said, her voice small, "she gave in. She told me it was dangerous, and I said I didn't care any more, and I drank this potion and I was sick for weeks, but when I got better my skin cleared up and I finally filled out and... I was beautiful, people were nice to me," her voice broke, "and after that I couldn't hate my sister any more, especially when I learned what her magic brought her in the end -" "Darling," Michael said gently, "you got sick, you gained some weight while resting in bed, and your skin cleared up on its own. Or being sick made you change your diet -" "She was a witch," Petunia repeated. "I saw it." "Petunia," Michael said. The annoyance was creeping into his voice. "You know that can't be true. Do I really have to explain why?" Petunia wrung her hands. She seemed to be on the verge of tears. "My love, I know I can't win arguments with you, but please, you have to trust me on this -" "Dad! Mum! " The two of them stopped and looked at Harry as though they'd forgotten there was a third person in the room. Harry took a deep breath. "Mum, your parents didn't have magic, did they?" "No," Petunia said, looking puzzled. "Then no one in your family knew about magic when Lily got her letter. How did they get convinced?" "Ah..." Petunia said. "They didn't just send a letter. They sent a professor from Hogwarts. He -" Petunia's eyes flicked to Michael. "He showed us some magic." "Then you don't have to fight over this," Harry said firmly. Hoping against hope that this time, just this once, they would listen to him. "If it's true, we can just get a Hogwarts professor here and see the magic for ourselves, and Dad will admit that it's true. And if not, then Mum will admit that it's false. That's what the experimental method is for, so that we don't have to resolve things just by arguing." The Professor turned and looked down at him, dismissive as usual. "Oh, come now, Harry. Really, magic? I thought you'd know better than to take this seriously, son, even if you're only ten. Magic is just about the most unscientific thing there is!" Harry's mouth twisted bitterly. He was treated well, probably better than most genetic fathers treated their own children. Harry had been sent to the best primary schools - and when that didn't work out, he was provided with tutors from the endless pool of starving students. Always Harry had been encouraged to study whatever caught his attention, bought all the books that caught his fancy, sponsored in whatever maths or science competitions he entered. He was given anything reasonable that he wanted, except, maybe, the slightest shred of respect. A Doctor teaching biochemistry at Oxford could hardly be expected to listen to the advice of a little boy. You would listen to Show Interest, of course; that's what a Good Parent would do, and so, if you conceived of yourself as a Good Parent, you would do it. But take a ten-year-old seriously? Hardly. Sometimes Harry wanted to scream at his father. "Mum," Harry said. "If you want to win this argument with Dad, look in chapter two of the first book of the Feynman Lectures on Physics. There's a quote there about how philosophers say a great deal about what science absolutely requires, and it is all wrong, because the only rule in science is that the final arbiter is observation - that you just have to look at the world and report what you see. Um... off the top of my head I can't think of where to find something about how it's an ideal of science to settle things by experiment instead of arguments -" His mother looked down at him and smiled. "Thank you, Harry. But -" her head rose back up to stare at her husband. "I don't want to win an argument with your father. I want my husband to, to listen to his wife who loves him, and trust her just this once -" Harry closed his eyes briefly. Hopeless. Both of his parents were just hopeless. Now his parents were getting into one of those arguments again, one where his mother tried to make his father feel guilty, and his father tried to make his mother feel stupid. "I'm going to go to my room," Harry announced. His voice trembled a little. "Please try not to fight too much about this, Mum, Dad, we'll know soon enough how it comes out, right?" "Of course, Harry," said his father, and his mother gave him a reassuring kiss, and then they went on fighting while Harry climbed the stairs to his bedroom. He shut the door behind him and tried to think. The funny thing was, he should have agreed with Dad. No one had ever seen any evidence of magic, and according to Mum, there was a whole magical world out there. How could anyone keep something like that a secret? More magic? That seemed like a rather suspicious sort of excuse. It should have been a clean case for Mum joking, lying or being insane, in ascending order of awfulness. If Mum had sent the letter herself, that would explain how it arrived at the letterbox without a stamp. A little insanity was far, far less improbable than the universe really working like that. Except that some part of Harry was utterly convinced that magic was real, and had been since the instant he saw the putative letter from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry rubbed his forehead, grimacing. Don't believe everything you think, one of his books had said. But this bizarre certainty... Harry was finding himself just expecting that, yes, a Hogwarts professor would show up and wave a wand and magic would come out. The strange certainty was making no effort to guard itself against falsification - wasn't making excuses in advance for why there wouldn't be a professor, or the professor would only be able to bend spoons. Where do you come from, strange little prediction? Harry directed the thought at his brain. Why do I believe what I believe? Usually Harry was pretty good at answering that question, but in this particular case, he had no clue what his brain was thinking. Harry mentally shrugged. A flat metal plate on a door affords pushing, and a handle on a door affords pulling, and the thing to do with a testable hypothesis is to go and test it. He took a piece of lined paper from his desk, and started writing. Dear Deputy Headmistress Harry paused, reflecting; then discarded the paper for another, tapping another millimetre of graphite from his mechanical pencil. This called for careful calligraphy. Dear Deputy Headmistress Minerva McGonagall, msoever It May Concern:I recently received your letter of acceptance to Hogwarts, addressed to Mr. H. Potter. You may not be aware that my genetic parents, James Potter and Lily Potter (formerly Lily Evans) are dead. I was adopted by Lily's sister, Petunia Evans-Verres, and her husband, Michael Verres-Evans. I am extremely interested in attending Hogwarts, conditional on such a place actually existing. Only my mother Petunia says she knows about magic, and she can't use it herself. My father is highly sceptical. I myself am uncertain. I also don't know where to obtain any of the books or equipment listed in your acceptance letter. Mother mentioned that you sent a Hogwarts representative to Lily Potter (then Lily Evans) in order to demonstrate to her family that magic was real, and, I presume, help Lily obtain her school materials. If you could do this for my own family it would be extremely helpful. Sincerely, Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres. Harry added their current address, then folded up the letter and put it in an envelope, which he addressed to Hogwarts. Further consideration led him to obtain a candle and drip wax onto the flap of the envelope, into which, using a penknife's tip, he impressed the initials H.J.P.E.V. If he was going to descend into this madness, he was going to do it with style. Then he opened his door and went back downstairs. His father was sitting in the living-room and reading a book of higher maths to show how smart he was; and his mother was in the kitchen preparing one of his father's favourite meals to show how loving she was. It didn't look like they were talking to one another at all. As scary as arguments could be, not arguing was somehow much worse. "Mum," Harry said into the unnerving silence, "I'm going to test the hypothesis. According to your theory, how do I send an owl to Hogwarts?" His mother turned from the kitchen sink to stare at him, looking shocked. "I - I don't know, I think you just have to own a magic owl." That should've sounded highly suspicious, oh, so there's no way to test your theory then, but the peculiar certainty in Harry seemed willing to stick its neck out even further. "Well, the letter got here somehow," Harry said, "so I'll just wave it around outside and call 'letter for Hogwarts!' and see if an owl picks it up. Dad, do you want to come and watch?" His father shook his head minutely and kept on reading. Of course, Harry thought to himself. Magic was a disgraceful thing that only stupid people believed in; if his father went so far as to test the hypothesis, or even watch it being tested, that would feel like associating himself with that... Only as Harry stumped out the back door, into the back garden, did it occur to him that if an owl did come down and snatch the letter, he was going to have some trouble telling Dad about it. But - well - that can't really happen, can it? No matter what my brain seems to believe. If an owl really comes down and grabs this envelope, I'm going to have worries a lot more important than what Dad thinks. Harry took a deep breath, and raised the envelope into the air. He swallowed. Calling out Letter for Hogwarts! while holding an envelope high in the air in the middle of your own back garden was... actually pretty embarrassing, now that he thought about it. No. I'm better than Dad. I will use the scientific method even if it makes me feel stupid. "Letter -" Harry said, but it actually came out as more of a whispered croak. Harry steeled his will, and shouted into the empty sky, "Letter for Hogwarts! Can I get an owl? " "Harry?" asked a bemused woman's voice, one of the neighbours. Harry pulled down his hand like it was on fire and hid the envelope behind his back like it was drug money. His whole face was hot with shame. An old woman's face peered out from above the neighbouring fence, grizzled grey hair escaping from her hairnet. Mrs. Figg, the occasional babysitter. "What are you doing, Harry?" "Nothing," Harry said in a strangled voice. "Just - testing a really silly theory -" "Did you get your acceptance letter from Hogwarts?" Harry froze in place. "Yes," Harry's lips said a little while later. "I got a letter from Hogwarts. They say they want my owl by the 31st of July, but -" "But you don't have an owl. Poor dear! I can't imagine what someone must have been thinking, sending you just the standard letter." A wrinkled arm stretched out over the fence, and opened an expectant hand. Hardly even thinking at this point, Harry gave over his envelope. "Just leave it to me, dear," said Mrs. Figg, "and in a jiffy or two I'll have someone over." And her face disappeared from over the fence. There was a long silence in the garden. Then a boy's voice said, calmly and quietly, "What."
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Azraelle posted:Beneath the moonlight glints a tiny fragment of silver, a fraction of a line... Same
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Perhaps Lowtax is similarly mesmerized by how much some people are freaking out over just the possibility people may be discussing Gamer Gate in a not entirely negative way. As if neutrality, even, was alarmingly unacceptable to them. The joke being silencing such is ultimately a futile endeavor that only increases interest in the issue. Those twitter bots still coughing out antigamergate tweets alongside pro ISIS tweets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Perhaps Lowtax is similarly mesmerized by how much some people are freaking out over just the possibility people may be discussing Gamer Gate in a not entirely negative way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ8yLFAvNHQ
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Perhaps Lowtax is similarly mesmerized by how much some people are freaking out over just the possibility people may be discussing Gamer Gate in a not entirely negative way. I don't get why the mods are dismissing this as 'twitter drama' when it's spilled into the MSM and there's rumblings that SNL might be doing a skit making fun of gamergate. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I don't get why the mods are dismissing this as 'twitter drama' when it's spilled into the MSM and there's rumblings that SNL might be doing a skit making fun of gamergate. In their minds they fantasize that SA is important enough to have influence over it (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:In their minds they fantasize that SA is important enough to have influence over it Is "Race Realism" racist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCaxQXVHMp0 Now before we get to the meat of this video, there's something I need to address. Because if I don't, I know that someone's going to bring it up in the comments. Racism. The term has essentially lost all meaning. It's been stretched so widely out of shape that it's now a joke on sitcoms, to say that something is racist. Yes, 'racism' has been stretched out of all semblance of real meaning. But nonetheless we all do have a sense of what the original meaning of racism was. So, instead of getting into a long semantics debate about the evolution of the term, let's just move forward and accept that colloquial definition of racism, meaning irrational unjustified hatred for the sake of hatred. So, race realism. Is it racist? Now this is something I don't like talking about very much. It's come up a couple of times, but as a rule, when it comes to race realism, or human biodiversity theory, or whatever you want to call it, I don't really talk about it for two major reasons. First of all, I'm not very good at statistics. I find social sciences confusing. And when I'm reading something on SSRIs increasing the rate of suicidal ideation, I tend to trust bloggers, other writers, who are generally honest people, to interpret the data correctly, because personally, I am very bad at reading that. Give me calculus instead of stats any day. But the other reason - and this is probably the bigger reason I don't talk about it - is quite simply, it's rude. It's hurtful to say that an entire population of people has an average IQ of 85, while if you're part of that population it's hard not to be insulted, when somebody says that. And I just don't see, with what I'm trying to do, how it would be productive to regularly offend a large population. But that said, the evidence I've seen, certainly does point towards the human biodiversity theorem being true, being heavily supported. And so let's ask the question why is it that the race realists on the Internet, on Youtube, why are they talking about it, and why do I occasionally bring it up? Well, the first reason is simply the cold hard truth. When it comes to violence, there is a very large gap between white and black incidences of violence. According to the "Color of Crime" survey done by the FBI, and they do it every 5 or 10 years or so, it's between 7.5 and 8 times as likely that a black person will commit a violent crime as a white person. That is an absolutely enormous difference. And that fact is something that's important to remember in your day to day life. Just as you avoid high crime neighborhoods, it does make sense to avoid events where there's going to be a predominantly black population attending, just for your own safety. That's a fact... It's not racist, it's a fact. And then there's the matter of the gaps in education. Atlanta City. Between 1985 and 1997 they spent 2.1 million dollars on the education system to try and improve the black-white gap in education. After twelve years they saw absolutely no difference. That 2.1 million dollars was completely wasted on a social experiment that never should have been performed in the first place. Nobody was better off and we wasted a lot of money doing that. And there's a link below to a description of the entire thing from the Cato Institute. The difference in achievement between the black and white populations is, again, a fact. Facts don't have to be nice, they don't have to be pretty, but it is a fact. Now in a sane world these would be unfortunate facts, unfortunate aspects of the real world. But we don't live in a sane society, and so we have to look to egalitarianism. Now egalitarianism, like most of the weird ideas that run society nowadays, is another left-leaning mutation of something that was a pretty good idea to start off with. The original form of equality, of *egalite*, was that every person, regardless of their income, regardless of their birth, regardless of their nation of origin, should be treated equally under the law. That true justice is based upon honesty. That each person should have the same opportunities granted them by the state. The state should not be giving a hand up to some and giving a boot to others. But again, this once noble concept has been absolutely twisted, so now the default hypothesis nowadays is that if you see a disparate outcome between two groups, that there must be something wrong. The egalitarians insist that we are all absolutely identical, black slates at birth [corrects himself] ... ha, blank slates at birth, and that if for some reason, one person makes a million dollars, and another person winds up in poverty, and that there's a systemic demographic pattern of this, that there must be some sort of evil force at play, holding the poor person down. Now the pure fact of the matter is that if you take any two groups, and assign any variable to them that differentiates between the two groups, and measure outcomes, you're going to see different outcomes. If you took something as simple as whether or not someone owns a bicycle and you graphed that onto income, you're going to see a difference there. I don't know what difference you're going to see. Maybe more poor people own bicycles. Maybe more SWPLs with fancy jobs. But you are going to see a statistical difference. Inequality of outcomes is inevitable because we are all unique. And when you put us into a demographic, yes, each demographic is going to have its own outcomes. But it's more than just that. If it was just that, we could simply point out to the egalitarians how ridiculous it is to measure everybody based on their outcomes. But it goes deeper. The fact of the matter is there is no - or at least, there is no *huge* bike-riding grievance industry, [just] a few hippies in this town... The nationally funded, the nationally organized .. these rich grievance-industry government lobbyists are aligning partly on race. You also have feminism as another huge grievance industry that just can't accept the fact that men and women want different things out of life, and this leads men to work harder than women at dirtier jobs, whereas women are more likely to stay home and raise kids, thus earning less income. And so to combat this huge grievance industry, it's not enough to just say the default assumption, that people are different, they have different outcomes, because that isn't one of our foundational myths any more. Our foundational myth is the blank slate. And so if blacks are underachieving in school as a demographic and if they are more likely to go to prison as a demographic, we need to actually to come up with a theory of mind, a theory of evolution that explains these differences between the races. Quite frankly, race realism is pretty boring when you get right down to it. It's pedantic and excessive, except that we are so deeply dishonest about what reality actually is, that the race realist advocates need to say this stuff, to fight this idiotic squandering of funds. A lot of the people that argue race realism are actually pretty sick of the whole bloody thing, and would like to have more important conversation. But so long as these popular grievers are out there, messing with government and stealing public money, it is a necessary argument that needs to get out there. So that's the policy level. This is why race realism matters on a policy level. Because there are differences between races. And that if we keep throwing good money after bad because not all races have identical outcomes, that's just going to send us into a worse and worse place. But it does occasionally devolve into anger, doesn't it. And well why, why is there anger about the whole thing. Why are people getting emotionally involved in race realism. The fact of the matter is that the attack on white culture, the attack on civilized culture, on our history, is very real. Look at affirmative action. Any time I apply for a job, they always ask what your race is. They have this little checkboxes of which races you're allowed to be, and I know as a matter of policy that if they don't have enough people from this recognized group that they'll hire a less qualified applicant over me, because of that. And this is everywhere. This constant, just sneaking... Just knowing the deck is slightly skewed against you, because of some myth of you coming from a dominant, patriarchal, whatever-it-is. So, you're applying for medical school and you don't get it, but a black friend that you had in school did get the job, even though you're pretty sure you're a better student than he is. That does tend to work up some ill will. A good comparison is feminism once again. The fact that we aren't allowed to have men's-only gyms, but Curves, the woman's-only gym, is perfectly fine. That we aren't allowed to have workplaces where men can fart and make off-color jokes, but that any office you go into, you will hear the women making very insulting jokes about men. Yes, it does build up some bad blood. Then there's the widespread attack on civilized values. And you see this throughout the media. Over the past 30 or 40 years, the TV husband keeps getting dumber and dumber, he becomes more... Homer Simpson was bad enough, now we have Peter Griffin, a complete retard. People living in the suburbs are made out to be lame and boring. Meanwhile ghetto culture is glorified. There's a consistent attack on people that obey the law. There's a consistent attack on people that contribute to society. And people are getting sick of it. Our history, European history, is nothing to be ashamed of. We were far less cruel than others. Everybody was cruel throughout history. It's history. It's warfare, it's survival of the fittest. There is no holy tablet that belonged to the one good society. All societies have been vicious and cruel. And yet it's only ever European society, the society that invented the concept of human rights, the society that eliminated slavery in the majority of the world, the society that spread medicine and education, and tried to uplift the poor, is the one that's always denigrated. And so yes, that builds up some bad blood too. And then as I mentioned earlier, there's the level of violence. Let's consider Trayvon Martin for a second. Not what actually happened, but let's consider what people in the black community have been told about Trayvon Martin by our lying media. That Trayvon was a good twelve-year-old kid who was just coming back from the store after buying some skittles, but because he looked like a black kid wearing a hoodie, he got shot by an evil racist neighborhood-watchman. Now we know that that narrative is false. But they don't . Are they not right to be outraged? Would you not be outraged if that were actually what had happened, and then the police covered it up and decided not to charge this card-carrying KKK guy who murdered a 12-year-old kid because he was paranoid? That is an outrageous situation. How do you think whites feel? When we see that the interracial crime rate is even higher than that 7.5-to-8 times as violent. There's actually more black-on-white hate crime than would be predicted by the innate levels of racial violence. And most whites have experienced something where they were subtly threatened or just plain insulted by a group of blacks. And so this does arouse the passions, and in some cases it goes so far as hatred. Now some of you that may have been paying attention... I was talking about, why are white people beginning to get angry about this. You might have noticed that the affirmative action, that the attack on civilized values, this sure as hell isn't good for black people either, is it. Now imagine you're a black doctor. Top of your class. You are absolutely brilliant at your job. but the fact of the matter is that affirmative action is in place. So me, when I'm going to hire a doctor, if I see that you have black skin, I am going to assume on default that you got the job through affirmative action, that you're nothing but a token. Doesn't matter how good you actually are, you're being treated like a child. So this default assumption of black underperformance and incompetence is exacerbated by affirmative action, which unfortunately only goes to feed into itself, because if everyone's going to assume that you're incompetent just because of your skin, you might as well be incompetent, because you'll never get fired. And the whole thing just goes into a negative place. And then there's the attack on civilized values. All the black bloggers and black Youtubers that I subscribe to are extremely critical of ghetto culture. They very much see how the ghetto culture is killing the black race, it's destroying them. And yet it's this attack on so-called white culture, when really we should be calling it western civilized culture, it's this attack on this and the glorification of the ghetto hip-hop culture. It's not only insulting and bad for the whites living in the suburb, it's destructive and bad for the blacks living in the ghettos. Celebrating their underperformance, rather than encouraging them, to do the best that they can. At the end of the day, politics should not be an outfit. Politics is politics. Demographics are demographics. You are an individual. It's fun to criticize old people who grew up in a world without international television, and now see everything on the news and are too scared to walk outside their door because they think there's a rape a minute because of everything they see on the international news... Obsessing over HBD, over race realism, getting really worked up about it, and then wearing it like a badge on your chest, is not a healthy way to live. It is very important politically. But individually? it makes sense to avoid large black gatherings if you're a white person, or even for that matter if you're a black person. Violence is more likely to happen at those sorts of places. But when I meet individuals - race, sure, that does give you some information about them, but it doesn't give you all the information about them. Individuals I meet are individuals. All this bullshit that we talk about on here is politics, it's demographics. My own personal life? Just because I think that most women are bad at math doesn't mean I wouldn't hire a woman who was good at math. So I will occasionally speak bluntly on the matters of race. But that's because I trust that my viewership is smart enough and strong enough that if I point out that there's a black achievement gap in education, that they're not going to start crying and fail at life because a mean white person said something about them. No, I assume that my viewership is intelligent enough and competent enough that they can handle facts which are indisputably true. No different than my female friends. I will call them on their bullshit if they start quoting some feminist nonsense, and I expect them to be intelligent enough to see the truth for what it is. So is race realism racist? Well, not really. Sometimes yes. Sometimes, if you start wearing your policies as an outfit, if you start embracing the hatred, you can go too deep into it. And that's not going to help you, that's not going to help the cause. And it does become ridiculous. But fundamentally, no. Race realism is simply the truth and living a life of lies is sure as hell not going to set us free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr3vtbvHGIg
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
As a general rule, I try and avoid writing depression porn; for one thing it’s too easy, and for another it tends to turn into “excuse making” far too quickly. I didn’t become the man I am today by accepting my lot in life, or by blaming external forces for my problems. However: there is a fine line between blaming external forces and acknowledging them. Heck; I wax poetical about Kurt Gödel all the time, and his claim to fame was a response to Bertrand Russell, who failed in his attempt to establish Formalism with Principia Mathematica – a problem which Gödel proved was unanswerable. In other words, this post is going to be long on problems, and short on solutions. In my last post, I tried to tie a happy bow around things; I think that denies just how deep the problems go. The Prisoner’s Dilemma Prisoners Dilemma Source: Wikipedia. I cannot overstate what a terrible, terrible thing the Prisoner’s Dilemma is. It is Objective Reality run amok. It is Cthulhu’s maw gaping for our souls. It is an eternal hall of mirrors squeezing in on you, until the glass shatters and tears through your eyes, and into your soul. If you think you have a solution to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, then you don’t understand the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The essence of the PD is this: Heaven is possible, but the sane men choose Hell. The sane man always and forever chooses Hell. Heaven – the “cooperator” – is nothing but a Unicorn Hunter, he is a total and utter fool. Perhaps his opponent is another Unicorn Hunter, and in that rare instance the two of them get to happily smear their feces on the wall, but nonetheless these are both Doves waiting for a Hawk to come along and eat them. The above Matrix is a “gentle” version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, so perhaps you aren’t convinced just yet. In that case, I invite you to adjust the numbers until they’re sufficiently dire… or better yet, instead of comparing apples to apples, compare apples to oranges. Replace “1 to 3 years in prison” with “Sex Scandal versus Blackmail”, or anything else that strikes dear to your heart. The greatest tragedies ever written are fundamentally about the Prisoner’s Dilemma – Shakespeare’s Hamlet is nothing but the story of two decent and fallible men locked into such a struggle. Peaceful Coexistence <-> Kingship Revenge <-> Mutual Death There are some plot twists, but those are the essential elements; and the tragedy is that you know how it’s going to end from the moment it begins. “What – is there no honour among thieves?” you say – hearken! For you’re no longer talking about the Prisoner’s Dilemma; you’re talking about the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a one-off which presupposes absolute ignorance between the two parties. Prisoners A and B have insufficient data to make a Bayesian assessment of one another – this is why they’re Prisoners in the thought experiment, to emphasize that they have no civilized assumptions about one another. “Civilized Assumptions” are what happens when you iterate the experiment – rather than running it a single time, you run it multiple times. Over and over, Prisoners A and B have to decide what they’re going to do, whether they’re going to develop trust between one another, or whether they’re going to blade each other for an easy payday. This is where you start to see civilization occurring. There’s a large body of research on the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma, but what it boils down to is this: ‘normal’ people (meaning: white, university-educated males) will rapidly develop a system of proportional punishments during the IPD. “Each time you defect, I’m going to defect three times in a row.” While it’s unlikely that you’ll ever see a perfectly cooperative game of IPD (if you do, it’s probably because you didn’t explain the rules properly – or, because the real IPD game is happening outside of your gaming circle) what you’ll generally find is that the basic rules of proportionate punishment – which players discover all on their own – creates an environment which is primarily cooperative. “A-ha!” you say, finger pointed at my face. “Civilization is an emergent behaviour!” But I only shake my head, and hand you the moist towelette that I’ve been storing in my wallet for precisely such an occasion. “You’re missing two things.” “What’s that?” “Who imposed this 100-game iteration structure on these two players? And what happens on turn 98?” The IPD and Marriage I already argued that the IPD is the same thing as civilization, and I think it’s no stretch to argue the marriage is the basis of civilization. Without marriage, you don’t have paternal investment in children; without marriage, you don’t have surplus male labour; without marriage, you don’t have the driving force which convinces 10,000 men to coexist peacefully, rather than murdering one another to build their local harems. Some other time we’ll explore the impacts of porn, sexbots, and political lesbianism, but for now let’s just admit that for every bachelor-entrepreneur you have 99 layabouts, and that for every Ayn Rand you have 999 prostitutes. The exceptions are not the rule; without married couples, there is no society. There are numerous Prisoner Dilemma-style questions which make up our world, but without marriage the rest of them fall apart; it is the most foundational. Break it, and you break the lot of them… and remember: marriage is just another sort of Prisoner’s Dilemma. Healthy Marriage <-> Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks Soft Harem <-> Single Mother/Herb The above is a vast over-simplification – obviously! – but it puts the whole matter into perspective. How are you supposed to trust the other person? “I want to try a glass of milk before I buy the cow,” is just as reasonable as saying, “I want some commitment before I put out.” Neither are conducive to trust without some overweening commitment… some sort of Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma… But what happens on the 98th turn? Well, what do you think happens on the 98th turn? The 98th Turn When you set people up on an IPD experiment, and you replace “years in prison” with “dimes”, you start to see some raw humanity at play – some raw power dynamics, some raw Objective Reality. And somewhere around the 98th turn is where the defection begins. The first 30 turns are spent establishing the rules – “If you defect, I’ll defect,” et cetera. The next third of the game is spent playing by those rules, and only occasionally testing them to see if they’re still in place. The next third of the game… that’s where it becomes Sid Meier’s Civilization IV: the choral music’s playing, nukes are all over the map, and the Space Race is going full force – what good is loyalty to past alliances when Armageddon threatens? Up until about 1800 or so, we were playing a Perpetually-Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma: Cave, Cave, Deus Videt! None of us escaped His wrathful gaze. Even your final move on your deathbed was being witnessed. But at some point in the early 19th century we decided we didn’t need Him anymore. “God is dead!” Thus Spake Zarathustra: and we carried on as before, living with Pagan dignity in the ruins of a Christian world, acting as we had always acted, and only occasionally asking “Should we really feel bad about doing X? This new philosophy of Utilitarianism certainly seems scientific, and it says that we’ll be okay.” For about two centuries things held together reasonably well; we amended the rules here, and relaxed the requirements there – but surely a bit of market inefficiency was worth a general liberating of human happiness, wasn’t it? Markets, utilitarianism, quantifiable, heuristical living… *sigh* Without a center, the orbits can’t hold. ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ We aren’t at the 98th turn yet… but we’re getting close. I can already hear the choral music starting. 95th, perhaps? The closer we get to the end game, the greater the percentage of those who will defect; and as the number of defectors rise, the cost of trust rises as well. As both of these work in unison, a positive feedback loop ensues, driving the cycle faster and faster, until… …we return to Hobbes’ state of nature, and the one-off Prisoner’s Dilemma becomes all that we are. Savage sociopaths – the lot of us. ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ I know I promised no happy ending, and if I were a better man I would leave it here… but there are still some words to be said. Earlier I asked two questions, and I only answered one of them. “Who imposed this 100-game iteration structure?” Or – in our case – who will impose the structure of civilization once more? Jack Donovan‘s Barbarians, perhaps? Can we trust that some man – some vir – will impose slavery upon the slave-like masses, to teach them how to be civilized once more? And what, then, of the Paladins? Shall we lose all faith? Accede to the wonts of the tide, and disappear like the Unicorns? Or – even in a world without trust – can we still find a struggle that’s worth fighting? I don’t know much about trust, but I know a noble death when I see one. Rorschach Never Compromise
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you.” The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind. You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man’s sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
I seriously can not believe Jojo's Bizarre Adventure's second season is only half done after 24 episodes, what dangers will our heroes have to overcome in the second part?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Hmm in the admin panel I think I can turn an account's "Display images in posts" setting back on...
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Ion Helmet posted:Hmm in the admin panel I think I can turn an account's "Display images in posts" setting back on... Hooly shitt
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Ion Helmet posted:Hmm in the admin panel I think I can turn an account's "Display images in posts" setting back on... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Ion Helmet posted:Hmm in the admin panel I think I can turn an account's "Display images in posts" setting back on... well that seems more lenient than what I was planning
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Can someone help me write a program to post goatse to something awful? I would like to be able to post at least 1000 goatses per second. Also please allow me to customize which thread I post the goatse's into. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:Can someone help me write a program to post goatse to something awful? I would like to be able to post at least 1000 goatses per second. Also please allow me to customize which thread I post the goatse's into. "Now, just to be clear," Harry said, "if the professor does levitate you, Dad, when you know you haven't been attached to any wires, that's going to be sufficient evidence. You're not going to turn around and say that it's a magician's trick. That wouldn't be fair play. If you feel that way, you should say so now, and we can figure out a different experiment instead." Harry's father, Professor Michael Verres-Evans, rolled his eyes. "Yes, Harry." "And you, Mum, your theory says that the professor should be able to do this, and if that doesn't happen, you'll admit you're mistaken. Nothing about how magic doesn't work when people are sceptical of it, or anything like that." Deputy Headmistress Minerva McGonagall was watching Harry with a bemused expression. She looked quite witchy in her black robes and pointed hat, but when she spoke she sounded formal and Scottish, which didn't go together with the look at all. At first glance she looked like someone who ought to cackle and put babies into cauldrons, but the whole effect was ruined as soon as she opened her mouth. "Is that sufficient, Mr. Potter?" she said. "Shall I go ahead and demonstrate?" "Sufficient? Probably not," Harry said. "But at least it will help. Go ahead, Deputy Headmistress." "Just Professor will do," said she, and then, "Wingardium Leviosa." Harry looked at his father. "Huh," Harry said. His father looked back at him. "Huh," his father echoed. Then Professor Verres-Evans looked back at Professor McGonagall. "All right, you can put me down now." His father was lowered carefully to the ground. Harry ruffled a hand through his own hair. Maybe it was just that strange part of him which had already been convinced, but... "That's a bit of an anticlimax," Harry said. "You'd think there'd be some kind of more dramatic mental event associated with updating on an observation of infinitesimal probability -" Harry stopped himself. Mum, the witch, and even his Dad were giving him that look again. "I mean, with finding out that everything I believe is false." Seriously, it should have been more dramatic. His brain ought to have been flushing its entire current stock of hypotheses about the universe, none of which allowed this to happen. But instead his brain just seemed to be going, All right, I saw the Hogwarts Professor wave her wand and make your father rise into the air, now what? The witch-lady was smiling benevolently upon them, looking quite amused. "Would you like a further demonstration, Mr. Potter?" "You don't have to," Harry said. "We've performed a definitive experiment. But..." Harry hesitated. He couldn't help himself. Actually, under the circumstances, he shouldn't be helping himself. It was right and proper to be curious. "What else can you do?" Professor McGonagall turned into a cat. Harry scrambled back unthinkingly, backpedalling so fast that he tripped over a stray stack of books and landed hard on his bottom with a thwack. His hands came down to catch himself without quite reaching properly, and there was a warning twinge in his shoulder as the weight came down unbraced. At once the small tabby cat morphed back up into a robed woman. "I'm sorry, Mr. Potter," said the witch, sounding sincere, though the corners of her lips were twitching upwards. "I should have warned you." Harry was breathing in short gasps. His voice came out choked. "You can't DO that!" "It's only a Transfiguration," said Professor McGonagall. "An Animagus transformation, to be exact." "You turned into a cat! A SMALL cat! You violated Conservation of Energy! That's not just an arbitrary rule, it's implied by the form of the quantum Hamiltonian! Rejecting it destroys unitarity and then you get FTL signalling! And cats are COMPLICATED! A human mind can't just visualise a whole cat's anatomy and, and all the cat biochemistry, and what about the neurology? How can you go on thinking using a cat-sized brain?" Professor McGonagall's lips were twitching harder now. "Magic." "Magic isn't enough to do that! You'd have to be a god!" Professor McGonagall blinked. "That's the first time I've ever been called that." A blur was coming over Harry's vision, as his brain started to comprehend what had just broken. The whole idea of a unified universe with mathematically regular laws, that was what had been flushed down the toilet; the whole notion of physics. Three thousand years of resolving big complicated things into smaller pieces, discovering that the music of the planets was the same tune as a falling apple, finding that the true laws were perfectly universal and had no exceptions anywhere and took the form of simple maths governing the smallest parts, not to mention that the mind was the brain and the brain was made of neurons, a brain was what a person was - And then a woman turned into a cat, so much for all that. A hundred questions fought for priority over Harry's lips and the winner poured out: "And, and what kind of incantation is Wingardium Leviosa? Who invents the words to these spells, nursery schoolers?" "That will do, Mr. Potter," Professor McGonagall said crisply, though her eyes shone with suppressed amusement. "If you wish to learn about magic, I suggest that we finalise the paperwork so that you can go to Hogwarts." "Right," Harry said, somewhat dazed. He pulled his thoughts together. The March of Reason would just have to start over, that was all; they still had the experimental method and that was the important thing. "How do I get to Hogwarts, then?" A choked laugh escaped Professor McGonagall, as if extracted from her by tweezers. "Hold on a moment, Harry," his father said. "Remember why you haven't been going to school up until now? What about your condition?" Professor McGonagall spun to face Michael. "His condition? What's this?" "I don't sleep right," Harry said. He waved his hands helplessly. "My sleep cycle is twenty-six hours long, I always go to sleep two hours later, every day. I can't fall asleep any earlier than that, and then the next day I go to sleep two hours later than that. 10PM, 12AM, 2AM, 4AM, until it goes around the clock. Even if I try to wake up early, it makes no difference and I'm a wreck that whole day. That's why I haven't been going to a normal school up until now." "One of the reasons," said his mother. Harry shot her a glare. McGonagall gave a long hmmmmm. "I can't recall hearing about such a condition before..." she said slowly. "I'll check with Madam Pomfrey to see if she knows any remedies." Then her face brightened. "No, I'm sure this won't be a problem - I'll find a solution in time. Now," and her gaze sharpened again, "what are these other reasons?" Harry sent his parents a glare. "I am a conscientious objector to child conscription, on grounds that I should not have to suffer for a disintegrating school system's failure to provide teachers or study materials of even minimally adequate quality." Both of Harry's parents howled with laughter at that, like they thought it was all a big joke. "Oh," said Harry's father, eyes bright, "is that why you bit a maths teacher in third year." "She didn't know what a logarithm was! " "Of course," seconded Harry's mother. "Biting her was a very mature response to that." Harry's father nodded. "A well-considered policy for addressing the problem of teachers who don't understand logarithms." "I was seven years old! How long are you going to keep on bringing that up?" "I know," said his mother sympathetically, "you bite one maths teacher and they never let you forget it, do they?" Harry turned to Professor McGonagall. "There! You see what I have to deal with?" "Excuse me," said Petunia, and fled through the backdoor into the garden, from which her screams of laughter were clearly audible. "There, ah, there," Professor McGonagall seemed to be having trouble speaking for some reason, "there is to be no biting of teachers at Hogwarts, is that quite clear, Mr. Potter?" Harry scowled at her. "Fine, I won't bite anyone who doesn't bite me first." Professor Michael Verres-Evans also had to leave the room briefly upon hearing that. "Well," Professor McGonagall sighed, after Harry's parents had composed themselves and returned. "Well. I think, under the circumstances, that I should avoid taking you to purchase your study materials until a day or two before school begins." "What? Why? The other children already know magic, don't they? I have to start catching up right away!" "Rest assured, Mr. Potter," replied Professor McGonagall, "Hogwarts is quite capable of teaching the basics. And I suspect, Mr. Potter, that if I leave you alone for two months with your schoolbooks, even without a wand, I will return to this house only to find a crater billowing purple smoke, a depopulated city surrounding it and a plague of flaming zebras terrorising what remains of England." Harry's mother and father nodded in perfect unison. "Mum! Dad! "
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
I love I AM BRAWW 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I don't get why the mods are dismissing this as 'twitter drama' when it's spilled into the MSM and there's rumblings that SNL might be doing a skit making fun of gamergate. It's white knighting so they can try to get some of that sweet rainbow hair/prison tattoo/infected facial piercing boooootay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:46
|
|
City of Tampa posted:It's white knighting so they can try to get some of that sweet rainbow hair/prison tattoo/infected facial piercing boooootay. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required? Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous. Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge. On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God. I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Is. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. Reply to Objection 1: Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists. Reply to Objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. Whether sacred doctrine is a science? Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science. Objection 2: Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science. I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God. Reply to Objection 1: The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine. Reply to Objection 2: Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
from d&d canada threadascendance posted:I feel like its a roll of the dice that these fuckers became Islamic radicals instead of GamerGaters on 4chan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:53
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:from d&d canada thread Whether sacred doctrine is one science? Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) "that science is one which treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science. Objection 2: Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science. On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things" (Wis. 10:10). I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, rear end, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one science. Reply to Objection 1: Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this science is not impaired. Reply to Objection 2: Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the "common sense" is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the "common sense," although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything. Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science? Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that which ends in action according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science. Objection 2: Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science. On the contrary, Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a speculative science. I answer that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss. This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Same
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Portals posted:why did this poo poo thread get unlocked missive from lowtax
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
next person to use a capital letter or any punctuation gets probated
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
this seems like a really easy one you should up the challenge level edit but then i thought that about the s challenge too
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
The new Gamergate thread is here. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3675207 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I AM BRAWW posted:The new Gamergate thread is here. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3675207 no they will not posted:next person to use a capital letter or any punctuation gets probated Dude...
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
gently caress..  just do it..
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
I AM BRAWW posted:gently caress.. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
mods if I toxx to never post itt again will you bring the bad webcomics thread back to gbs
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:mods if I toxx to never post itt again will you bring the bad webcomics thread back to gbs somebody already did one but the retards never posted any comics
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 00:33
|
|