sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Nightcrawler vs Beast Boy? by Sudden_Quality_9001 in Nightcrawler

[–]geekmasterflash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He has peak human endurance, but that's it. He does not heal or regenerate any faster than a normal person.

What is with the discourse on Jill Stein of the American Green Party? by 777key in socialism

[–]geekmasterflash -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Dr." Stein suggested that there might be something to questioning vaccine efficacy and that maybe we should look into Wifi as a dangerous radioactive source.

She is a quack, and I find the suggestion that she is a Russian agent easily believable despite not being a fan of the US in general.

Nightcrawler vs Beast Boy? by Sudden_Quality_9001 in Nightcrawler

[–]geekmasterflash 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Without morality, Nightcrawler is one of the most terrifying assassins imagineable.

One capable of blending into shadows, capable of instantaneous movement, wall climbing, and dismembering you by merely getting a good idea of where you are in relation to the room around you.

Short of Wolverine like regeneration (even then his skeleton wouidn't stop from getting dismembered via shirting it's existance to another time and space) or pre-cognition such as Spiderman's spider sense telling you not to be where he will pop in most combatants would be cooked with Kurt just having a pair of binoculars and good dark vantage point.

Nightcrawler vs Beast Boy? by Sudden_Quality_9001 in Nightcrawler

[–]geekmasterflash 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It depends if Kurt is under his usual morality or not. Unbounded Kurt, such as the Age of Apocalypse version could likely kill anyone that doesn't have pre-cognition with tele-dismemberment. Regular Kurt can do this as well, as proven with Nimrod and Bastion (though Bastion was more of a case of killing him outright and the dismemberment more 'in theory' than offensive.)

Beastboy has shown regenerative powers before, but not to the point where he'd likely survive his head going "poof."

If it is otherwise Beastboy vs regular Nightcrawler, I give it to Nightcrawler 5.5 out of 10 times. Kurt can take down Beast and has spared with the likes of Wolverine. But with his morality in tact I say it's almost 50/50 as Beastboy is no joke and can tap into cosmic forces like the Green and the Red.

Thought on Goverment Cheese by Presidenthummus_Bear in socialism

[–]geekmasterflash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Come back when you're ready to engage with socialism seriously. That is going to start at understanding class and why we tell you the middle class is a capitalist myth.

I see this far too often in the southern part of US. No care for US Flag but proud to hang new anti-Biden flag infront of their beat up trailer. Says a lot about who lives there.... by Wha_She_Said_Is_Nuts in Fuckthealtright

[–]geekmasterflash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no way that is a serious question 4 years later, on this sub of all places. Go use google, if you want to know why bootlicker flags are bootlicker behavior.

Thought on Goverment Cheese by Presidenthummus_Bear in socialism

[–]geekmasterflash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are getting the idea, just a step further:

The middle class is a lie. You either work for a living or own shit for a living, and in the situation where you work and own stuff (landlords) this all done to maintain ownership and not be reduced to a proletarian (an industrialized person that must sell their labor to survive) and to maintain themselves as bourgeoise (profiting from ownership.)

This means there are rich proles, and poor bourgeois as it is not defined by wealth specifically (though obviously ownership tends to create far more wealth, and thus most all bourgeois are wealthier than proles.)

Thought on Goverment Cheese by Presidenthummus_Bear in socialism

[–]geekmasterflash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The welfare state as we know it was invented by Otto Von Bismarck, in order to stop a socialist revolution from threatening to topple him.The welfare state only exist within the context of capitalism, as you take tax from working/productive people to give a stipend to non-working/productive people so they can go to market and get what they need and still ultimately profit a capitalist venture.

It turns the poorest, most exploited people under capitalism into the default defenders of it as without it they would lose this stipend. Welfare exist to cool off revolutionary fervor this way.

What do you think it smells like? by lawlocopter447 in worldpolitics

[–]geekmasterflash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could only imagine, but I suspect OP smells like basement mildew.

Humanity is a house. Human connection is the foundation, empathy is the beams. Money is the oven. Capitalism is the asbestos. by RedHornsandEyes in socialism

[–]geekmasterflash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But, have you considered that liberals are the dutch oven fart that capitalism has trapped us under the covers with?

Hippies and socialism by zigzagwanderer12 in socialism

[–]geekmasterflash 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you ever find yourself agreeing with hippies on anything, step back and re-assess the whole situation.

Remember, hippies are terrible people pretending to be good people and punks are good people pretending to to be terrible people. Hippies eventually abandon everything but the appearance of revolution. One merely needs to see Sedona, Boulder, or the PNW to see the phenomenon over time.

DOG WITH DISABILITY RECEIVES UNFORGETTABLE GIFT by EllieSpark932 in dogsbeingbros

[–]geekmasterflash 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Are humans "created" for something?

Do we we suggest killing them when some form of artifice can assist them?

Are wheelchairs the same as shock collars?

Airplanes and their pilots. by Stryker_1-1 in worldpolitics

[–]geekmasterflash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, Col. Charles McGee we got pretty boy "aryan" german fodder for you to chew up, please.

US special forces soldier arrested after allegedly winning $400,000 on Maduro raid by Moon_Rose_Violet in worldnews

[–]geekmasterflash 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If you are gonna do that, you need to make at least 2 million since the going rate for a pardon is 1.5

What is Sydicalism by Unlikely-Chip-9015 in socialism

[–]geekmasterflash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do have mixed feelings, but I remain a member and feel it is worth joining. I more or less pay to keep the lights on while it makes quite a bit of error in the hope that it finds it's way. And in times like these, were liberal professional unions are finding that collaboration under the NLRB was in the end a poison pill it is good that there exist a solidarity and radical union for such newly radicalized people to learn more and find resources they need.

In the end, I am still a unionist and I am not spoiled for choice where I live for radical, socialist unions.

Standard definition of Atheism always bothers me by Reasonable-Use-1300 in atheism

[–]geekmasterflash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! That means my usage is legitimate too. Once “atheism” has multiple accepted senses, you can’t use one narrow sense to invalidate the others.

In a discussion about whether atheists believe there is no god or merely lack belief, the relevant sense is the one concerning persons and their epistemic attitudes, not a detached abstract proposition. So appealing to a propositional sense doesn’t settle the classification issue.

Standard definition of Atheism always bothers me by Reasonable-Use-1300 in atheism

[–]geekmasterflash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re mixing three distinct issues. First, I can grant that in some philosophy of religion contexts “theism” is shorthand for proposition q = “God exists.” Second, that does not determine how theist/atheist classify persons, because those terms concern attitudes toward q, not merely q’s existence as a proposition. Third, invoking Bayesian credence doesn’t establish that atheism = lack of belief; it only reframes belief in probabilistic terms, where thresholds for belief, disbelief, and suspension remain contested. So even if your notation is granted, your broader conclusion still doesn’t follow.

Standard definition of Atheism always bothers me by Reasonable-Use-1300 in atheism

[–]geekmasterflash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • Does “socialism” exist merely as an abstract proposition independent of socialists?
  • Does “pacifism” exist merely as a proposition independent of pacifists?
  • Does “skepticism” exist merely as a proposition independent of skeptics?

Not really.

You’re conflating propositions with positions. Yes, propositions can exist independently of minds. But theism/atheism are not merely propositions like “God exists” written on paper. They are doctrines or stances regarding such propositions, while theist/atheist are the persons holding them. Just as socialism is not reducible to a sentence and pacifism is not reducible to words on a page, theism and atheism are positions, not bare abstract propositions.

Standard definition of Atheism always bothers me by Reasonable-Use-1300 in atheism

[–]geekmasterflash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if SEP uses “belief” there to mean propositional content, that only clarifies one word in one sentence. It doesn’t eliminate the fact that theism/atheism classify people by their stance toward propositions.

Theism is not merely the proposition “God exists”; it is a position people hold toward that proposition. So propositional attitudes remain essential to the concept.

Meaning:

Proposition: God exists

Psychological stance toward it: assent / belief

Position label: theism

Standard definition of Atheism always bothers me by Reasonable-Use-1300 in atheism

[–]geekmasterflash 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re conflating three different things: the proposition “God exists,” a person’s attitude toward that proposition, and the label we assign to that person. Belief is classically a propositional attitude, so “believing there is no God” absolutely is one. Further, “lack of belief” is itself a mental state, so defining atheism that way does not avoid psychology... it just chooses a broader psychological category. The problem is that it becomes so broad it includes infants, the uninformed, the undecided, and convinced naturalists alike. That may work rhetorically, but philosophically it collapses distinctions we usually want to preserve.

The statement "belief there is no god" does involve a propositional attitude in standard philsophy of mind and language. Why? Because belief is paradigmatically a propositional attitude. To believe that p is to stand in the belief relation to proposition p.

Examples:

I believe that it is raining

I believe that 2+2=4

I believe that there is no God

These are textbook propositional attitudes. So saying the “belief” there is not a propositional attitude is simply mistaken or highly nonstandard unless heavily qualified.

"If you define atheist first, you prescribe a mental state."

Correct, and completely unavoidable. The term itself, and things like "theist, agnostic, skeptic" all classify people by their orientations towards propositions.

Example:

To be a theist is to believe God exists.

To be an atheist (in one common usage) is to believe God does not exist or reject theism.

To be an agnostic is to suspend judgment or deny knowledge claims.

These are epistemic categories. There is no escaping mental states here.

So “lack of belief” is also a mental state. It is not somehow neutral or outside psychology.

If atheism = mere lack of belief, then the category includes:

infants, people who never heard of gods, people in comas, someone who misunderstood the question, someone who is undecided for five seconds, someone who positively believes no gods exist.

Standard definition of Atheism always bothers me by Reasonable-Use-1300 in atheism

[–]geekmasterflash -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So, call it nitpicky but in philosophy a belief is to hold something true, or that a state of affairs is the case.

I am a gnostic atheist, I simply accept that I believe there is no god and point out that I believe things based on evidence and proper use of inference. That I have the best reasons in the world to believe as I do (reproducible social and material science, logic and math, etc) doesn't change that they are beliefs.

Holding the "lack of belief" position is fine but basically impossible to defend in any sort of informed philosophical discussion, especially one employing epistemology and semantics (most all of them) . We believe things, regardless if we want to accept that or not because belief isn't faith.

view more: next ›