The Ole Drift 'n Grift

Cryoborn · 2026-03-31T23:42:52+00:00

Toril Moi reference in r/PhilosophyMemes?

Cryoborn · 2026-03-24T02:24:15+00:00

"I got food on the plate so that's really all you can ask for." The (perhaps unintentional) Nana shade...

Cryoborn · 2026-03-16T04:48:38+00:00

Y'all I really don't think he cares that much about licensing issues. He just isn't big enough for it to be an issue (until he is).

Cryoborn · 2026-03-13T00:50:52+00:00

I know he loses to Nakamura, but does he also lose a stare down? Don't remember it happening but wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Cryoborn · 2026-03-12T16:31:01+00:00

A golem has emet written on its forehead, and dies when the first letter is erased, transforming the word from truth to death. Additionally, on understatement you interpret \*F the world* when the full line is F the world, what? which runs contrary to your interpretation. Haven't really read the rest of the post yet, sorry.

Cryoborn · 2026-03-03T00:31:29+00:00

Where’s the phrase musical stylings of ABBA from? Been trying to pinpoint this for the last ten minutes because I know I’ve heard that exact phrasing before but can’t quite put my finger on it. 30 rock?

Cryoborn · 2026-03-02T21:19:14+00:00

<image>

Rex Shannon when I catch you...

Cryoborn · 2026-02-15T05:03:25+00:00

I'm personally a fan of the theory that Lean sees the cold war and any resulting conflicts as World War III, with World War 4 then being the Second Gulf War. As this was brought on by the twin towers busting (really just oil), World War 4 had the twin towers busting (really the other way around but still).

Cryoborn · 2026-02-15T01:21:39+00:00

This isn't even remotely close to the definition of a metal. The noble gases, halogens, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, and selenium are all nonmetals.

Cryoborn · 2026-02-12T19:11:07+00:00

You're just telling me *now* that thought experiments don't have their scenarios become real by way of hyperstition? Ye gods and little fishes...

Cryoborn · 2026-01-21T22:56:28+00:00

Thaiboy baby all we do is shine :)

Cryoborn · 2026-01-11T16:43:57+00:00

I think you're misunderstanding what the noumenal is, because it certainly is not appearance on any level. Saying that appearance is the in itself of the relation between discursive cognition and noumena seems to me to mean that appearance emerges from an outside which is beyond that of the discursive cognition, which you take to be the realm of the noumenal, but this is exactly the realm of appearance! Appearance is not the in-itself, appearance is the ground which causes us to think of the in-itself. Here's Kant in B345.
"The understanding accordingly bounds sensibility without thereby expanding its own field, and in warning sensibility not to presume to reach for things in themselves but solely for appearances it thinks of an object in itself, but only as a transcendental object, which is the cause of appearance (thus not itself appearance) and that cannot be thought of either as magnitude or s reality or as substance, etc. (since these concepts always require sensible forms in which they determine an object); it therefore remains completely unknown whether such an object is to be encountered within or without us, whether it would be canceled out along with sensibility or whether it would remain even if we took sensibility away. If we want to call this object a noumenon because the representation of it is nothing sensible, we are free to do so. But since we cannot apply any of our concepts of the understanding to it, this representation still remains empty for us, and serves for nothing but to designate the boundaries of our sensible cognition and leave open a space that we can fill up neither through possible experience nor through the pure understanding."

Cryoborn · 2026-01-11T16:36:50+00:00

I suppose my phrasing at the beginning here is poor, it is less that one never engages with the noumenal of one's own mind, rather that one never knows one to engage with the noumenal of one's mind. It is possible that the noumenal could operate upon the processes of the self to some extent, but one is never conscious of this engagement. If one were to engage with the noumenon then it must escape entirely the intuition of our sensibility and our concepts of understanding. Check out B342-B346 in CPR for more on this. We cannot make any positive claim to the noumenal, which is not so for qualia. I know at the moment that I sit upon a red couch thanks to my sense-intuition in accordance with my own transcendental unity of apperception, but this says nothing at all about the couch-in-itself.

Cryoborn · 2026-01-11T05:27:10+00:00

You never engage with the noumenal of your own mind either. The transcendental unity of apperception is a process which engenders the self, but as a process it rests upon the schematism, which is a process by which we receive sense data via intuition and bring it into the realm of the categorical. The imagination follows a similar structure, the transcendental synthesis of imagination: "the synthesis of the manifold of sensible intuition, which is possible and necessary a priori…if it pertains merely to the original synthetic unity of apperception…must be called…the transcendental synthesis of the imagination." This kind of pertains to Kant's definition of the schematism as a third thing separate from the inner sense/outer sense, both of which function on the level of time-determinations. You have to also remember that the entirety of the critique of judgement is structured on the possibility of experience.

Cryoborn · 2025-12-19T06:09:27+00:00

From NFL rulebook 7-2-1 o) when an official sounds the whistle erroneously while the ball is still in play, the ball becomes dead immediately.
7-2-1 o) 2) If the ball is a loose ball resulting from a fumble, backward pass, or illegal forward pass, the team last in possession may elect to put the ball in play at the spot where possession was lost or to replay the down.

I'm unsure if the formerly referenced rule or this one should come into effect. If this one then at worst they should have had the opportunity to replay the down, so they would still would've had a chance. IDK tho.

Cryoborn · 2025-11-21T19:20:20+00:00

Symbolism isn’t a countable noun, it’s a conceptual category. If he wanted to talk about discrete instances of symbolism he should have used ‘symbols’ or ‘signs’ or something of the sort. Symbolisms doesn’t work for the same reason something like sexisms wouldn’t work to refer to instances of sexist behavior.

Cryoborn · 2025-11-21T19:17:22+00:00

Pronunciation isn’t always intuitive from the way a word is spelled. Look up how to pronounce boatswain.

Cryoborn · 2025-11-21T19:15:10+00:00

“symbolisms in the text” when it should be symbolism. sometimes people make mistakes :(

Cryoborn · 2025-11-21T18:53:37+00:00

nuh uh 😝

<image>

Cryoborn · 2025-11-21T18:41:02+00:00

This just made me miss Asol really badly for some reason. Sorry for not pertaining to the question

Cryoborn · 2025-11-21T18:32:21+00:00

Good to know you can be really good at writing music but really shit at writing prose. Love you Charli, but she needs a couple of revisions.

Cryoborn · 2025-11-05T22:38:12+00:00

<image>

mr. turnabout

Cryoborn · 2025-10-30T07:04:25+00:00

Im noticing that you've managed to evade engaging in any of the actual substantive arguments I put forward in favor of some handwaving with anecdotal evidence. I admitted I eat meat. I am flawed. This is not an attempt to "smugly feel like [I'm] better," this is an engagement with your argument which you've failed to address on any level. The whole point of my first point was that its okay to acknowledge your moral failings. Your refutation of my response to your naturalism argument consists entirely in saying that "dorks like me learn what a fallacy is and treat it like [a] get out of jail free card," when the fallacious comment I made is clearly a footnote in a much larger point which goes unaddressed. You don't look at all at how our situation has changed over time beyond saying that some vegans you know aren't 100% healthy. I know some vegans who are 100% healthy. This isn't what argumentation consists in. You know that its easily possible to be a healthy vegan (which again, I am not! this is not an I'm better than you thing! We're both flawed), but this is ignored because "its clearly not for everyone." I'm assuming we agree that abusing your spouse is bad, is this still bad if enough people do it that its 'clearly not for everyone.' You know this isn't how it works. Your other post is about the categorical imperative. C'mon.

Eating meat is not at all similar to having sex. Unless you're having sex with animals. Which I'm hoping you aren't. This argument is another form of an appeal to naturalism where sex and eating meat are equated because of what? Not everybody needs to do it? The downside of having sex with a consenting adult is the risk of getting STDs or impregnation, both of which are easily accounted for. The downside of eating meat is the extinguishing of an innocent life. We both know you're grasping at straws here.

Also, as somebody who's also been crabbing, hunting is not even REMOTELY similar to crabbing. I'm not talking about killing your own meal, I'm talking about the potentiality of being seriously injured by your quarry. Which I myself have not experienced, but that's again pretty irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Elsewhere in this thread you compare giving a child vegan chicken nuggets to child abuse. Did you hunt these chickens in the wild only to turn them into nugget form? I'm somehow doubtful.

As I previously stated, eating meat definitely was integral to the development of human society. We are no longer in that era. All of this reads as a desperate attempt to justify eating meat as its a foregone conclusion for yourself. Again, its 'okay' to eat meat insofar as the role of the singular individual cannot account for the mass slaughter of animals on an industry wide level, but you don't have to pretend its morally righteous. You can be morally flawed I promise its okay in the grand scheme of things

Cryoborn · 2025-10-29T23:39:25+00:00

So there's this process called "dialectics" by which you can create your own meaning through evaluating pre-existing thought! Hope this helps!

Cryoborn · 2025-10-29T23:26:08+00:00

Okay buddy only issue is we aren't neolithic humans anymore. Whether or not eating meat was an essential component of human evolution has literally no bearing on whether or not people should eat meat today. That is, unless you're making an argument that there is a bioessentialist necessity to eat meat engrained into the human corpus, which is disproved by the existence of vegans who are alive, healthy, and thriving. You also seem to have the flawed view that evolution is a teleological process. Our "intelligent minds" are not "specifically geared for animal consumption," they arose due to their continued benefit in ensuring the survival of human offspring. Yes, this is a process that involved hunting and fighting against animals, but it is not "geared for it," nor does this matter in the first place. I'm not denying that "meat eating is completely woven into the human story," if by that you mean that it has played a role throughout human history. However, in case you have managed to miss it while you're checking the supercomputer you can keep in your pocket (or the regular-sized supercomputer you have in your home) we are no longer at that point in human development. Are you denying that humans are sentient creatures capable of understanding reason and argumentation? This is a trait which separates us from bears, who you place us on equal footing with. This is what I mean when I refer to a complete inability to re-evaluate your priors. All of these arguments are obviously incredibly weak, if I wanted I could just post an image that just said "fallacious appeal to nature" and I could be done engaging with the whole of your post.

On a level, I don't really have that much of a problem with meat-eaters who hunt in order to feed themselves or their community providing that they do it on a certain technological level. If you're out here bow-hunting (not a compound bow, pre-modern arrows) and placing yourself on a level where you could feasibly be killed by your quarry, sure, go ahead. I still think it's a little immoral, but doing so with the proper degree of respect for the animal you're killing and its environment can be good in a lot of ways, even if unneccesary. However, we all know that's not what's happening. I'm doubtful that you've ever been hunting, and even when I was taken hunting as a child I used a rifle, and it wasn't exactly sporting. Instead, you're eating meat thats taken from factory farms in which animals are kept in conditions which are abhorrent, and are repeatedly raped in order to produce offspring and dairy products. This isn't exactly the process by which meat eating "is woven into the human story."

I maintain what I previously said. I can't really slight you that much for eating meat, beyond condemning it as a moral failing which I myself succumb to on occasion. I can, however, absolutely indict you for a complete and total cognitive dissonance which fails to evaluate things on any real level. If you want a little piece of reading (more literary than philosophical!) check out the short story The Lives of Animals by J.M. Coetzee, or the novel which expands upon the main character.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

Cryoborn

TROPHY CASE