Wow, Weed guy destroyed Alchy there at the end.

If this passes, I'm sure new laws will pop up to protect the masses from douchey intoxicated people and I'm sure new technologies for detecting smoking while driving will be used.

I don't see why you couldn't just sample the air content for expelled marijuana smoke and determine how old it is.

Hahaha! That was totally unexpected!

Three years of fighting a war after going to work as a skinny nerd will broaden anyone's shoulders, thicken anyone's neck.

>> ^EmptyFriend:

Hitler also enjoyed sandwiches. Next time your friend eats a sandwich, ask them why they're nazis.


He also enjoyed painting and he was a historian. I'm definitely going to call all of my historian friends Nazi's now, especially the ones who paint while eating sandwiches!

Crap!!! I'm so tempted! I wonder how much a flight is going to cost me.

For a second there near the 2:40 mark, I was secretly hoping that it would do the crane kick from The Karate Kid. I'll be supremely impressed when robots can do that!

Seriously.... WTF!

I honestly didn't think that the Charlie the Unicorn series could get any weirder... I was wrong. Dubstep apparently makes everything better.

Reading into her story a bit more, she's aspiring to be a fashion model. I'd say she'll be picked up by someone pretty soon.

I'm pretty sure that guy is a real drummer. Just the way he plays shows that he'd know what he's doing without rock band. Most people just can't play like that, even if they are exceptionally skilled at rock band.

And the whole racing simulator vs. real life comparison is crap. Anyone who has gone from playing racing simulators to doing it in real life (including myself) will tell you that the whole experience is entirely different. The only thing you can learn with a simulator are track layouts and how to apex corners properly. I don't care how good someone is at racing simulators, strap them into a real car on a real course (auto-x or road course) and they'll fail miserably. The physical world is a million times better than any video game.

And yes, the ending sounded like sex haha

@gwiz665 Ok ok, I know this is the third one of the night but I watched the video again and caught something that I think is important to our discussion.

I think you're talking about morality from more or less a philosophical perspective, a lot like the guy in the video (I forget his name).

I'm talking about morality from a scientific perspective.

The guy in the video and yourself keep mentioning the point of view model, that morals are instilled from some sort of hierarchy (or at least he is). If you agree with him then I suspect that you also think of morals in the same way. The guy in the video talks about how Alpha wolves teach their pack how to hunt, and how priest teach their congregations to hate homosexuals.

I wouldn't liken that to morality at all, I would just liken that to behavioral control mechanisms, completely separate from morality. If you're telling people that something is bad and they believe it, just because they believe it doesn't make it bad. In the same way that just because I believe that something is morally justified doesn't mean that it actually is justifiable.

@gwiz665 Just to be light-hearted a bit.

Everyone who is in the front of the line at a red light has a moral responsibility to move as quickly as they can off the line as soon as there is a green light if it's during rush hour and traffic is backed up, especially if the light is known to be a very fast changing light. Go ahead, refute that moral code!

@gwiz665 Sounds like someone needs to get the sand out of his vagina too hehe jk My bad either way, I don't like when I get that shit wrong

Just to clarify on something you said.

"but to say that there is an "absolute right way" is like saying that there is an "absolutely perfect animal" and that's just stupid"

I totally agree with that statement, but I didn't say that there is a "absolute right way", I said that there is an "absolute wrong way" and those two things are entirely different. If I tell you "Don't go that way", it just means that of all the possible ways you can go, that isn't the one you want to go in; leaving all other possibilities open.

Because you take a descriptive look at the concept of morality, can we ever call any act truly immoral? Notice that I say "we" and not "you", "I", or "an individual". I mean "we" as in the human race.

The way I see it is that it is a better system which operates on universal qualifiers rather than points-of-view. Using universal qualifiers in a system requires them be met in order for something to be considered true, allowing a system to function with as few confusions and errors as possible. Points-of-view can be flawed, unintentionally misleading, delusional, mistaken or maliciously tricky. Ultimately, points-of-view are founded in anecdotes, universal qualifiers when dealing with the issue of morality is more likely to be founded in data, cold hard facts.

To give you an example that you brought up before. "Is the car fast?" That question asked in a "point-of-view" system doesn't mean anything because, yes, the term "fast" is based on the point of view of both the questioner and the person answering. But if you put that question into a qualifier system, its deemed incomplete and unanswerable until a qualifier is added. In a qualifier system the question would turn into "Is the car fast in your opinion?", or, "Is the car fast compared to that other car over there?"

I choose to look at the moral issue from a qualifier standpoint. Approaching the issue of morality from inside a qualifier system, you're forced to add requirements, adjectives that limit the scope of the moral issue in question.

The benefit of doing this is it allows you to look at every possible point-of-view without needing individuals subjectively adding their own biases. It effectively removes the human aspect out of morality and just address the questions posed by every possible action conceivable.

Child rape is conclusively shown to be more than damaging. It is one of the most, if not the most, horrendous thing any human can ever do to another human. The act of raping a child is fundamentally immoral, the data supports the claim. It is in no way ever beneficial or virtuous to rape a child.

I don't care if anyone is in the position of either raping a child or allowing the world to explode; raping the child is still an immoral act and if that someone does it just to save the world, it's still immoral.

@qwiz665 If you believe that slavery has become immoral then it follows that you think that slavery wasn't always immoral. If that's the case then you are morally inferior to a lot of people because you're fundamentally saying that under certain conditions, slavery is justifiable. Slavery has always been immoral, it's just that we (most of humanity) haven't caught up until recently. The systematic ownership of other humans to be used in forced servitude is in no way ever moral, under any conditions, for any reasons.

Even if we lived in a society that justified and allowed slavery, it would still be immoral.

Slavery is illegal in most of the western world, but it isn't illegal everywhere and it's still being practiced in some places. Does that mean in those places, where slavery is practiced, it's not immoral?

If you believe that slavery, child abuse, rape, or torture is at all ever justifiable, you are an immoral person. If you accept that any or all of those conducts are always an immoral act, then you must subject to moral realism.

Do yourself a favor and look up "Moral Realism" on wikipedia.

Just to clarify, is this basically what you're talking about?

"In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.[clarification needed] This sense of the term is also addressed by descriptive ethics." - From Wikipedia

Because this is what I'm talking about:

"In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by a moral skepticism, in which the unchanging existence of a rigid, universal, objective moral "truth" is rejected,[1] and supported by moral realism, in which the existence of this "truth" is accepted. The normative usage of the term "morality" is also addressed by normative ethics." - From Wikipedia

I reject the notion that child abuse, rape, torture, and slavery ever have valid justification no matter what he view point of the any individual is.

@gwiz665 I agree that morality is ultimately a human defined but that doesn't mean that it's not something that can be objectively defined. I just can't agree that if you have two people who have two opposing ideas of morality that somehow they're both moral. Either one person is moral, the other person is moral, or they're both not moral. Saying that morals are based on a point of view, sounds a lot like "truth is based on a point of view"

I see where you're coming from but do you actually differentiate "ideas" and "morals"? Aren't morals just ideas about which action to take or not to take under certain conditions.

Which do you agree with more:

1. Morality, or what is moral, can be defined by any singular group for the participants of that group. The existence of multiple groups would mean that there would be multiple concepts of morality.

2. Morality, or what is moral, is ultimately a collection of every possible human action toward other sentient beings which is weighed to be good or healthy, regardless of belief, creed, or culture.


I agree with statement 2 more than 1 and here's why.

Is slavery immoral? Yes. Was it always immoral? Yes. Does that mean that American slave owners were immoral even though it was their point of view that slavery was not a moral issue? Yes. Does that mean that slavery throughout all history was immoral? Yes.

If Statement 1 is correct, then slavery would be moral under certain conditions and I just don't buy that. It doesn't matter if joe blow thinks that slavery is a good idea or that he finds it morally acceptable, it's still immoral. Categorically, undeniably, objectively immoral. Slavery as an immoral thing has never been emergent, it's always been immoral, we just haven't grown up into the concept of morality until relatively recently.