[quote]elano wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I lied. The purpose of life is to show it to her. And THEN stick it in her pooper. While squatting.
While drinking a gallon of milk.
Or a gallon of water. Isn’t that more alpha?[/quote]
Milk is the number one bulking agent of men everywhere.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
elano wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I lied. The purpose of life is to show it to her. And THEN stick it in her pooper. While squatting.
While drinking a gallon of milk.
Or a gallon of water. Isn’t that more alpha?
Milk is the number one bulking agent of men everywhere.[/quote]
Well, I can’t disagree. I got me mah milk. I love mah milk. I do work with the milk.
[quote]elano wrote:
Makavali wrote:
elano wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I lied. The purpose of life is to show it to her. And THEN stick it in her pooper. While squatting.
While drinking a gallon of milk.
Or a gallon of water. Isn’t that more alpha?
Milk is the number one bulking agent of men everywhere.
Well, I can’t disagree. I got me mah milk. I love mah milk. I do work with the milk.[/quote]
Foo’, I gots mah milk workin’ fo’ ME.
Sucka.
Nine ta five, bitches.
Ovattime.
[quote]elano wrote:
Makavali wrote:
elano wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I lied. The purpose of life is to show it to her. And THEN stick it in her pooper. While squatting.
While drinking a gallon of milk.
Or a gallon of water. Isn’t that more alpha?
Milk is the number one bulking agent of men everywhere.
Well, I can’t disagree. I got me mah milk. I love mah milk. I do work with the milk.[/quote]
Yeah,but I don’t even drink it out of a bottle or carton like you pussies.
I suck it straight out of the cow’s udders.
After bench pressing the cow.
And I usually find one thats been recently pregnant,so thats pure colostrum I’m sucking down there buddy.
That’s how fucken hardcore I am.
Yaaaarrr!
I’m gonna be hewge!
[quote]Ace Rimmer wrote:
Yeah,but I don’t even drink it out of a bottle or carton like you pussies.
I suck it straight out of the cow’s udders.
After bench pressing the cow.
And I usually find one thats been recently pregnant,so thats pure colostrum I’m sucking down there buddy.
That’s how fucken hardcore I am.
Yaaaarrr!
I’m gonna be hewge![/quote]
Yeah, I meant to tell you. that pregnant cow I sold you? It was just a fat bull. So… yeah… that’s not milk you drank.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yeah, I meant to tell you. that pregnant cow I sold you? It was just a fat bull. So… yeah… that’s not milk you drank.[/quote]
Yeeuurgh!
You,sir,are a bounder and a cad!
I thought it tasted salty.
The fact it only had one udder should have been a giveaway…
I’m starting to read a book about evolutionary psychology. Interesting stuff, I hope to finish it soon.
the purpose of life is
to rock out with your cock out
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
In a situation where there are only two possibilities about which one knows absolutely nothing, logic dictates they are both equally likely. [/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your reasoning here. In a situation where there are two possibilities about which one knows absolutely nothing, logic does not dictate anything at all. Logic has nothing to do with your ignorance or lack thereof.
I think what you mean to say is that in a situation where there are only two possibilities about which one knows nothing, then a claim on either side is EQUALLY VALID. Equally valid in the sense that neither belief has anything going for them, so they’re on equal footing.
But that certainly does not imply that there’s a 50-50 chance and they’re equally likely. The nature of the world determines what is likely about it, not the ignorance or wisdom of its inhabitants.
Since we cannot absolutely know one way or another, it’s not ignorance so much as a condition of the mathematics. If there is an actual, absolute, correct answer, seeing as there is no way of knowing it, from any given two choices they must be equally true. I understand what you’re saying, but you’re assuming there is a right answer that we just don’t know. I’m assuming that because we can never know the answer (at least in our present state), that ignorance is a law of the argument, not a variable. If that makes sense.
Like Schroedinger’s cat, only you aren’t given the option to look in the box, ever. Remove the possibility of your intervention(because your intervention is impossible) and both options are not only equally likely, but they must be equally true, as there is no absolute truth to be gained no matter how much time passes. It’s parity by default.
Make any sense?
[/quote]
Great post - thanks for that. I have a hard time understanding how the discussion could be meaningful if you don’t assume that there is in fact a correct answer (but we just don’t know it), though. Isn’t that the basis of inquiry?
[quote]Brayton wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
In a situation where there are only two possibilities about which one knows absolutely nothing, logic dictates they are both equally likely.
I’m not sure I understand your reasoning here. In a situation where there are two possibilities about which one knows absolutely nothing, logic does not dictate anything at all. Logic has nothing to do with your ignorance or lack thereof.
I think what you mean to say is that in a situation where there are only two possibilities about which one knows nothing, then a claim on either side is EQUALLY VALID. Equally valid in the sense that neither belief has anything going for them, so they’re on equal footing.
But that certainly does not imply that there’s a 50-50 chance and they’re equally likely. The nature of the world determines what is likely about it, not the ignorance or wisdom of its inhabitants.
Since we cannot absolutely know one way or another, it’s not ignorance so much as a condition of the mathematics. If there is an actual, absolute, correct answer, seeing as there is no way of knowing it, from any given two choices they must be equally true. I understand what you’re saying, but you’re assuming there is a right answer that we just don’t know. I’m assuming that because we can never know the answer (at least in our present state), that ignorance is a law of the argument, not a variable. If that makes sense.
Like Schroedinger’s cat, only you aren’t given the option to look in the box, ever. Remove the possibility of your intervention(because your intervention is impossible) and both options are not only equally likely, but they must be equally true, as there is no absolute truth to be gained no matter how much time passes. It’s parity by default.
Make any sense?
Great post - thanks for that. I have a hard time understanding how the discussion could be meaningful if you don’t assume that there is in fact a correct answer (but we just don’t know it), though. Isn’t that the basis of inquiry?
[/quote]
That’s the thing. I don’t believe the discussion IS meaningful. On the contrary, it’s equivalent to taking the proverbial piss.
Which is why I don’t much care for bigger-picture philosophy.
The purpose of life is to be Das Übermensch.
So try not to fuck it up you bunch of peons. I don’t care what your freshmen biology teacher told you the purpose of life was.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
I’m starting to read a book about evolutionary psychology. Interesting stuff, I hope to finish it soon.[/quote]
Clearly a bunch of horse shit. If there was such a thing, stupid people would die off.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
I’m starting to read a book about evolutionary psychology. Interesting stuff, I hope to finish it soon.
Clearly a bunch of horse shit. If there was such a thing, stupid people would die off. [/quote]
Stupid people do die off, but they also procreate as well at a much faster rate then smart people. It is dumb to have a whole bunch of kids unless you are financially and emotionally stable, however stupid people ignore this fact and pro create anyway at a very alarming rate.
Oh my god, fitness guys talking philosophy? Even a figure girl and a Philosophy major, this makes me SO much happier than it should. Take me now!
Whatever you say, Sir Freddie Ayer. 
[quote]triple-10sets wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
I’m starting to read a book about evolutionary psychology. Interesting stuff, I hope to finish it soon.
Clearly a bunch of horse shit. If there was such a thing, stupid people would die off.
Stupid people do die off, but they also procreate as well at a much faster rate then smart people. It is dumb to have a whole bunch of kids unless you are financially and emotionally stable, however stupid people ignore this fact and pro create anyway at a very alarming rate. [/quote]
So they’re not dying off. Everyone dies. Only natural selection makes a trait die out through total extinction.
Bacteria are stupid and reproduce at an alarming rate. And their Darwinian fitness kicks ass. That, and they’ve been around for ages.
[quote]Annaerobic wrote:
That’s the thing. I don’t believe the discussion IS meaningful. On the contrary, it’s equivalent to taking the proverbial piss.
Which is why I don’t much care for bigger-picture philosophy.
Whatever you say, Sir Freddie Ayer.
[/quote]
I’ve always wanted to be a knight!
But Ayer makes my brain cry.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
I’m starting to read a book about evolutionary psychology. Interesting stuff, I hope to finish it soon.
Clearly a bunch of horse shit. If there was such a thing, stupid people would die off. [/quote]
Evolutionary psychology deals with the whys surrounding our various psychological attributes, it is not darwinism of the mind.
the porpoise of life is to avoid the dolphin of death
(sorry, just trying to mark this thread so i can come back to it)
the purpose of life is to live. The secret is out.
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
