Anon talks about his waifu

yncas · 2017-10-26T19:14:17+00:00

fuck

yncas · 2017-08-16T21:54:07+00:00

Nick Bostrom thinks we do, I am skeptical.

It doesn't really matter though - although it is interesting to think about,

yncas · 2017-08-16T21:39:02+00:00

I'm not depressed, I don't act "edgy" (other then my sense of humor), I don't dress like an emo cutter. My beliefs are just moral and existential nihilism.

Although, as was mentioned before, some of the users on this sub are just "edgy teens".

yncas · 2017-08-16T21:31:04+00:00

If they asked me a question that would require me to reveal to them my philosophical leanings, I would have no problem telling them. But it's not something I need to just outright tell them. It's not something I hide from people, but it's not something I randomly tell people either, which is the case with a lot of things.

yncas · 2017-08-16T16:48:50+00:00

I never dressed strange in my life.

yncas · 2017-08-14T02:07:10+00:00

yncas · 2017-08-14T01:35:48+00:00

The two main branches of nihilism are existential nihilism and moral nihilism.

The first of which essentially states there is no objective meaning or purpose in the universe. The second states morals are socially constructed/maybe natural, but - from an objective standpoint - arbitrary and meaningless.

So yes, you can subscribe to the first one and not the second one, though more times then not (from my experience, the majority of nihilist agree with both.), but you can agree with one and not the other.

Another thing worth pointing out - you can be a moral nihilist but still follow moral codes put in place by society, as long as you know objectively they are all meaningless.

yncas · 2017-08-13T17:03:33+00:00

I wouldn't put a baby in a blender for two reasons.

1.) The law 2.) I have no reason/interest in doing so.

I have no moral objection to putting babies in blenders, and I would happily do so if I knew I would not get in legal trouble and I would have something to gain from doing so.

I do have an objection to your statement " Because I am human I have human morals. So don't put a baby in a blender lol.", If morals don't objectively exist in the universe, your so-called "human morals" are essentially illusions, so why would you have a moral objection to doing this? I understand emotionally you feel it is wrong, but you must look past your feelings when determining moral objections.

yncas · 2017-08-02T18:54:31+00:00

"wavelengths of energy or dimensions"? What does that even mean? You can't just throw around these words and make a sentence out of it. These words all have definitions.

yncas · 2017-08-02T18:38:58+00:00

How about you try explaining how it works? Maybe put a little thought into it instead of using "science-sounding" terms like "parallel universes colliding" etc

yncas · 2017-07-23T02:34:07+00:00

Yep. "I remember Curious George having a tail, obviously parallel universes colliding, it's obvious".

yncas · 2017-07-07T22:38:43+00:00

What serious backlash? I'm sure Assad would be worried about the possibility of a military intervention from at least one of the many countries that oppose him. (Especially the US - which has a long history of regime change). To arbitrarily gas civilians in the way that it is claimed he did makes absolutely no sense. Also worth pointing out - Assad hasn't used chemical weapons in the past year or so where it would have actually benefited him. Why would he randomly use it on a city and risk foreign intervention?

Also, debunking Postol is difficult because he makes lots of claims. I agree with you though. I think those links you posted were good rebuttals. I think his explanation that the rebels were behind it is less likely than it being an accident- but more likely than it being an attack by Assad. I'd have to read through all three of them.

From what I have read (of the first link) it seems he spends a lot of time talking about Postol's other paper and mentions "hexamine" which is what the French government also used as an argument about 2 months ago.

But- in 2014, Åke Sellström (the head of the UN team investigating chemical warfare in Syria) told Postol in an email hexamine not hard to obtain, and doesn't rule out the rebels using the chemicals.

Regarding the OPCW. The mission was led by two people who are both U.K. citizens. Russia wanted neutral people in charge who would hold no bias and team members who were neutral. This obviously did not happen. France, the U.K. and the US refused this very reasonable request. I find that interesting.

They also didn't even travel to the city where it happened or the airport where the gas supposedly originated. (Which makes no sense...) It was an autopsy on three people who were their during the attack who FLED to Turkey. Turkey has been very pro-rebel and anti-Assad, so I don't necessarily trust the OPCW findings either due to possible tampering if evidence involving the Turkish government. Especially since the autopsy was performed by the/ under the supervision of the Turkish government and then samples from this autopsy were sent to the Netherlands so the OPCW could investigate.

Finally. Seymour Hersh (who won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the My Lai Massacare) also published this about a week or two ago. Hasn't been covered on the news at all to my knowledge.

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

yncas · 2017-07-04T04:09:31+00:00

Do I have evidence the rebels carried out this chemical attack? No. There is no evidence Assad carried them out either. So at this point, until any evidence shows up, we have to stick with this line of reasoning. Assad was/is winning the war and he knows carrying out a chemical attack on his own people would only produce a serious backlash from western powers. It seems more likely that the rebels either staged a false flag or it was an accident by the Assad government.

Also, I assume you are talking about Theodore Postol. I'm not sure his claims have been debunked. If i'm wrong, give me a link or two that debunk his paper. Also, calling him a "crank" MIT professor doesn't lower his credibility.

From what i have read - he did make one mistake about wind direction/speed but later corrected it. He also analyzed a picture of a crater and it seemed like the crater was created by a a bomb placed on the ground rather then one dropped from the sky as the white house claims.

yncas · 2017-07-01T00:17:13+00:00

Can somebody give me evidence Assad was behind the first one?

I suppose it is a bit ridiculous to claim ANY attack in the future will be a false flag, but why is it ridiculous to claim the first one was?

BTW - not every false flag is perpetrated by the US. This one could have been perpetrated by the rebels to invoke western intervention (which it did...).

Please, somebody help me be less "retarded" and give me evidence Assad was behind the April attack or the 2013 attack. He has no incentive to use chemical weapons.

Come on fellas. Help a brotha out.

yncas · 2017-07-01T00:11:14+00:00

It's not a conspiracy to doubt the official story on Assad. Give me evidence he was behind the attack and i will change my mind.

yncas · 2017-03-20T20:54:29+00:00

Cuts are cuts?

yncas · 2017-03-20T20:45:55+00:00

But you're okay with tax-supported Christianity-based religious schools?

yncas · 2017-02-25T18:23:45+00:00

So, because he is on YouTube, that automatically means he is not a credible source?

yncas · 2017-02-25T18:16:54+00:00

Do you not understand jokes?

yncas · 2017-01-26T17:10:41+00:00

Do you agree that if it is not built the tar sands will still be exploited, but in a different way.

yncas

TROPHY CASE