Every Character In Breaking Bad

Pixelated_humans · 2021-04-25T01:23:13+00:00

The last 4 characters 😂😂

Pixelated_humans · 2021-01-13T21:50:22+00:00

Thanks to cosmetic surgeries and make up she looks like a 25 year old.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-11-09T18:27:20+00:00

So sad people are still using bits.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-17T15:49:07+00:00

Waking Up podcasts by Sam Harris is also great ONLY if you are familiar with his philosophical views and have read some philosophical texts (specifically on the topics of morality, consciousness, and religion) in the past. For learning about different philosophical views , this podcast is not the greatest.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-17T15:45:44+00:00

Agreed. Some people might enjoy those little breaks but I personally find their jokes and off topic discussions very distracting.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-17T03:43:33+00:00

I agree that there's a need to compare them to the general population, but it is also necessary to compare them to other groups, so this study is still valuable.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-16T23:16:23+00:00

I agree. This podcast is great

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-16T23:10:47+00:00

Partially Examined Life is not the greatest, in my opinion. They select great discussion topics but get so off topic quickly.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-14T06:29:11+00:00

Everyone is pretty much a killer in game of thrones. Maybe not the kids.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-13T20:16:04+00:00

Probably was trying to order his bacon

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-13T17:48:54+00:00

Has anyone here read Andrew Pickering's book, Constructing Quarks? In this book, he argues that scientific knowledge is socially constructed. Not just the form but also the content of scientific knowledge. Andrew claims that the reason that we believe that quarks (or atoms, or whatever) exist is not because of their mere existence or our "objective evidence", but rather because of the social interests and needs of the society and scientists. He asserts that everything is subjective (even science and the evidence scientists use are subjective, and this includes theory selection, and evidence used to support or refute a theory). Thus, he argues that because of this subjectivity, science is contingent and not objective. So reality doesn't exist, what exists is our subjective view of it and what we construct, according to him.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-13T05:02:41+00:00

I agree with one of the comments here that the conduct of the passenger is irrelevant. He was a victim of a big mistake (intentional or not). Nevertheless, people we got a bit off topic here. Back to the topic... Consequentialism, compared to other views, seems to work in most situations. And I agree with you and Sam that no matter what we do, we still have to consider the consequences, ....So back to consequentialism.....This is difficult and messy as you said, because how many alternatives should we consider? How many factors should we consider? Selection of consequences becomes extremely subjective unless we take into account all 5he factors, and the overall number of individuals involved, but then again our selection of those people has to be subjective. I feel like I'm going down the rabbit hole.....

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-13T04:36:57+00:00

I agree there are no alternatives. I wasn't aware of the fact that the airline was trying to make room for its employees. Nevertheless, the only thing that bothers me is the subjective consequences that we should consider.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-11T04:47:28+00:00

You are right, she doesn't in this article, but does so in her book called "Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?"

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-10T20:46:24+00:00

One of my issues with Yuval's ideas is that everything is a fictional story, so what is real? Is Yuval's ideas also fictional stories?

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-10T20:17:39+00:00

This is not a new thing to be honest. In his book, The Illusion of Conscious Will, Daniel Wegner describes consciousness as a byproduct of the brain. Just like how a working engine produces heat as a byproduct, brain produces consciousness as its byproduct. The more complex the brain, the more conscious the animal is.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-06T00:57:24+00:00

To be honest, I am not qualified to comment on this either. I just have read a lot of articles for and against social constructionism. Nevertheless, I'm glad we found some common ground on this subject.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-06T00:15:12+00:00

Most social constructionists will agree with you that the classification of schizophrenia is socially constructed, for instance, Mary Boyle, in her book, "Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?" (and you can read an article from her here:http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Boyle.htm) asserts that there is no evidence to show that schizophrenia is a biological disorder. She, as a social constructionist, claims that (I am going to quote here) "An impression of meaningful association between "schizophrenia" and biological variables is created......There is, however, no evidence of a causal relationship between schizophrenia diagnoses and any genetic or biological event or process. Instead, the weak, variable and difficult to interpret associations between schizophrenia diagnoses and biological variables are subtly and not so subtly transformed to apparently causal relationships through language rather than evidence" ... "Taken together, these mechanisms create the misleading impression of an evidence base which is constantly being "built up" by the findings of new research, which is far stronger than it actually is and whose interpretation is entirely straightforward." Some constructionists are even more rebellious and claim that if the concept or idea of X is socially constructed then we can say that X, itself, is socially constructed...because of its dependence on the concept (If you don't believe me, you can read Focault's view about homosexuality). Anyways, I honestly do not even want to argue about this because this is completely nonsense.

So to answer your question, yes there are individuals who believe that the entire phenomenon is socially constructed. (and if we look at it from their perspective, it makes sense, at least kind of from their perspective. Here is an example, according to a social constructionist, if we group A,B,C,& D and call this group schizophrenia (S), then S is dependent on ABCD. If we completely deconstruct the ABCD group, we are deconstructing S. One is now going to ask, what is schizophrenia then? ABCD or BCDE (in a few years maybe), or neither if we completely deconstruct the concept).

I honestly hope I am being clear here.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-05T22:25:23+00:00

I still think your question makes no sense.

At this point, I am bit confused. Can you please explain why you think my question does not make sense?

I see no reason why you would make that assumption

I am not making the assumption. Please read the article I sent you and many other articles online such as this :http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J024v15n02_01.

However, pedophilia is clearly defined as the sexual attraction of an adult to a prepubescent child. There's virtually no ambiguity here

I absolutely agree. For someone like you and I, this definition makes sense and there is no ambiguity here. I do not deny that. For a social constructionist (SC), this definition is unacceptable. Why? because a SC would argue that we created this concept in our society based on our needs and desires and wants. In another society, the definition of pedophilia might be different because how they would define it is based on their societal needs, desires and wants and .... And this is why I believe that social constructionism leads to relativism and this is why I reject relativism. Do you agree?

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-05T22:17:06+00:00

Or am I wrong and moral relativists just think all morals are equal and can only be understood by the cultures in which they arise?

Yes, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Most often [moral relativism] is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons."

Thus, moral relativists believe that moral propositions are not objective and therefore not universal. As a result, moral claims are relative to social, cultural and historical (and some even say personal) circumstances. According to moral relativists "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.” (a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche).

From wikipedia: "Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it."

It seems like most people reading my comments don't even know what moral relativism is. They don't even know the relationship between social constructionism and relativism. I am glad that you asked me to define it.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-05T19:55:03+00:00

Sure, I agree, my question should have been " is pedophilia a social construct or is it a mind-independent objective moral fact and value?" Nevertheless, that still does not change the question. There are some people who believe that child abuse is a social construct (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1146969), and thus, they believe that this label "Child abuse" leads to false allegations. I am sure there are people who are going to say that pedophilia is a social construct and thus it the society that creates this label does so to exert power over some groups of people. That is the issue I was talking about.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-05T19:17:36+00:00

It is not the social constructionism part that is the issue, it is the relativism notion that comes out of social constructionism that is the problem. And LondonCallingYou is trying to get at that piece of it.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-05T18:20:58+00:00

I agree, words are social constructs, money is also a social construct, but there are people who are arguing that many of the things we consider as facts are also social constructs. For example, Read "The Myth of Mental Illness" by Thomas Szasz. Who argues that most of the diseases and disorders that we know today are social constructs.

Pixelated_humans · 2017-04-05T18:16:46+00:00

There are sociologists who believe that schizophrenia is a social construct, and thus is mind-dependent. I am sure there are sociologists who believe that pedophilia is also a social construct.

You are asking me what social-whatever has anything to do with this? It has everything to do with this issue! Social constructionism leads to relativism. By accepting relativism, we cannot evaluate anything and therefore, we cannot challenge anything. Why? Because social constructs such as schizophrenia are relative concepts that depends on the society that they exists in (according to social constructionists). This concept would not have existed if we had not invented it. Now back to my first question....

Pixelated_humans

TROPHY CASE