War Room Lounge v135: Accidental Meme Thread Click

[tonni]

Like fine arts students? Or like any art degree students? (English, history, etc)

Fine arts. Just too pretentious imo.

 

[Sara]

Great now I’m afraid of seagulls

 

[Prokofievian]

Omg

If it wasn't for the palm tree I would have guessed that video was taken in Helsinki. They have the most insanely aggressive seagulls I have ever encountered. The seagulls here are a bunch of trick ass marks in comparison.

 

[weed]

If it wasn't for the palm tree I would have guessed that video was taken in Helsinki. They have the most insanely aggressive seagulls I have ever encountered. The seagulls here are a bunch of trick ass marks in comparison.

see below

I told this one before. Atlantic City seagulls from the Boardwalk.


those fuckers are straight up thugs. a buddy of mine once bought funnel cake & this one seagull dipped in before he could even take a bite, grabbed it & shit on his face as it flew away. fucking badass

 

[Prokofievian]

see below

game recognizes game.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUse...5-r509328166-Kauppatori-Helsinki_Uusimaa.html

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/new_weapon_in_war_against_seagulls/6730026

There was a compilation of images of people getting murked by a kauppatori seagulls, I'm trying to find it.

 

[weed]

game recognizes game.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUse...5-r509328166-Kauppatori-Helsinki_Uusimaa.html

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/new_weapon_in_war_against_seagulls/6730026

There was a compilation of images of people getting murked by a kauppatori seagulls, I'm trying to find it.

haha yup!! exactly how it is in NJ. they're fearless & divebomb right in when you least expect it.

the crazy thing is that they 'hover' in groups, when the wind would be blowing hard - they have their wings extended & resist it slightly so they hover in place over the food shops/stands.

when they shit on my friend's face, it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in my life, & I know it was intentional - right all over his cheek & lips. no way it couldn't have been.

 

[tonni]

@JDragon The peak of German culture.

 

[CubicleGangster]

I hope you guys train to start with them standing. Wrestlers are not using what they know if you BJJ nerds insist on guard starts etc.

gotta hit them with a little bit of the Judo

 

[Trotsky]

@JDragon The peak of German culture.

This is what I think of for German culture

 

[JDragon]

@JDragon The peak of German culture.

Haven't watched, is it Eurodance?

Edit: LOL, I actually play a game with a friend where we nominate bands and select songs and have the other one rate them in tournament mode (round of 8/semifinal/final). We are in tournament #16 now and I punished him by selecting this dude

 

[senri]

@senri

Ravenous....

 

[Wet Blanket]

I promise you, learn to wrestle. You'll end up with a Wrestler one day and wonder how it is everything is spinning in your brain. Wrestling is simple, very strength dominant and it will attract more athletic people than BJJ. You need to know the chess as well as the primal.

Submission wrestling was the hardest (wrestling drills) and most fun (no stupid pajamas to hold onto) non striking training I've ever done.

I only train MT / KB normally, as it's my roots.. but I would definitely like to do more of that. My gym has a wrestling program, but I can barely make it to kickboxing more than twice a week.

 

[Prokofievian]

Submission wrestling was the hardest (wrestling drills) and most fun (no stupid pajamas to hold onto) non striking training I've ever done.

I only train MT / KB normally, as it's my roots.. but I would definitely like to do more of that. My gym has a wrestling program, but I can barely make it to kickboxing more than twice a week.

My gym is opening up on July 1st to do ''social distancing'' jiu jitsu. I'm not sure what exactly that will entail.

 

[Wet Blanket]

Great now I’m afraid of seagulls

But their babies are so cute.

I was just looking at some the other day. The birth them on the little islands by my house and I always try to up close for a look at them in my kayak. Not too close cuz the parents get really protective.

 

[Wet Blanket]

My gym is opening up on July 1st to do ''social distancing'' jiu jitsu. I'm not sure what exactly that will entail.

Yeah mine is doing social distancing kickboxing...

I'm not going to bother going to the gym till we can hold pads and spar / drill. I can shadowbox at home.

 

[Rational Poster]

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I'm probably not explaining myself well. Let me try again.

'moral efficacy' is fraught with assumptions the way you are using it. What does it mean for morals to be 'efficacious'? You actually need to justify why loyalty, authority and sanctity are not equally valid moral considerations when compared to care and fairness. In order to do so, you will have to at some point rely on premises which cannot themselves be logically justified.

Unless you are going to posit some sort of underlying natural law to the universe, naturally.

Yea, I think that's too pessimistic. The problem you're referring to is a meta-ethical issue that imo becomes a concern at a deeper level of consideration than what we really need to do work here.

It's pretty simple to say, for example, that an archaeology of disgust reveals it to be sort of a proxy value for tracking harm (via poisoning), and that a change in our environment has resulted in it misfiring more often than not. Therefore disgust should give way as a moral value when consequent harm cannot be demonstrated. This is important for two reasons: one, it reveals the opportunity for education to override moral emotion; and two, it's deliberated via objective criteria and so offers a method for resolving disagreement.

I think you'd have your work cut out for you if you wished to take the position that disgust actually tracks a morally relevant property other than harm, that should be considered in-itself, and possibly with greater weight.

 

[Prokofievian]

Yea, I think that's too pessimistic. The problem you're referring to is a meta-ethical issue that imo becomes a concern at a deeper level of consideration than what we really need to do work here.

It's pretty simple to say, for example, that an archaeology of disgust reveals it to be sort of a proxy value for tracking harm (via poisoning), and that a change in our environment has resulted in it misfiring more often than not. Therefore disgust should give way as a moral value when consequent harm cannot be demonstrated. This is important for two reasons: one, it reveals the opportunity for education to override moral emotion; and two, it's deliberated via objective criteria and so offers a method for resolving disagreement.

I think you'd have your work cut out for you if you wished to take the position that disgust actually tracks a morally relevant property other than harm, that should be considered in-itself, and possibly with greater weight.

This is why I really liked Geuss' philosophy and real politics. The habit in the west is to create a moral political philosophy that is abstract and somehow separate from the actors whose behaviour it's meant to govern. I imagine @Pseudo Sane will respond by restating the is-ought problem something along the lines that our morality is essentially governed by emotion and our systems of morality are all post-hoc rationalizations thereof. I say ''okay, we still have to pick one.'' And then when we look out into the world, and we make our choices in this matter, we find reasoning more like yours to be more useful. Kant tried to square the circle on this with the categorical imperative. Rawls as well.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

This is why I really liked Geuss' philosophy and real politics. The habit in the west is to create a moral political philosophy that is abstract and somehow separate from the actors whose behaviour it's meant to govern. I imagine @Pseudo Sane will respond by restating the is-ought problem something along the lines that our morality is essentially governed by emotion and our systems of morality are all post-hoc rationalizations thereof. I say ''okay, we still have to pick one.'' And then when we look out into the world, and we make our choices in this matter, we find reasoning more like yours to be more useful. Kant tried to square the circle on this with the categorical imperative. Rawls as well.

Yes, I think that's more or less true, but actually I find the discussion in the political domain to be easier to resolve for that reason - that the criteria we need to use to develop political morality has to be somewhat socially demonstrable or at least convincing [insert criticism of theocracy here].

Personally, just to offer up a case in which I might lean in the opposite direction, you might take a situation where you're seeking revenge on someone who has harmed a member of your family. Even taking harm to be the primary moral wrong, in such a situation where loyalty and fairness also kick in, I'd be hard-pressed to say that those values should give way for the purpose of minimizing harm, just because in the long-term demonstrations of loyalty don't actually reduce overall harm etc etc. In this case it feels very convincing that harm might even be required to resolve the other intuitions.

Of course we have institutions designed to administer justice in order to keep us from having to make too many of these decisions, but just because those institutions function well socially does not mean they are at all satisfying personally.

At some level even I want to throw out all the disgusting shit, give it all up to a benevolent dictator, and allow my family to flourish at the expense of everyone else. But it's a low-level that's kept under control.

Related film recommendation:

 

[Prokofievian]

Yes, I think that's more or less true, but actually I find the discussion in the political domain to be easier to resolve for that reason - that the criteria we need to use to develop political morality has to be somewhat socially demonstrable or at least convincing [insert criticism of theocracy here].

Personally, just to offer up a case in which I might lean in the opposite direction, you might take a situation where you're seeking revenge on someone who has harmed a member of your family. Even taking harm to be the primary moral wrong, in such a situation where loyalty and fairness also kick in, I'd be hard-pressed to say that those values should give way for the purpose of minimizing harm. Harm might even become required to resolve the other intuitions.

Of course we have institutions designed to administer justice in order to keep us from having to make too many of these decisions, but just because those institutions function well socially does not mean they are at all satisfying personally.

We need something to ensure consistency, though. It needs to be grounded somehow, otherwise it's just whatever's expedient. This is what Kant and Rawls among others were trying to get around. Hobbes, Rousseau. In their varying ways. Kant once famously stood by the claim that he would not tell a lie even to hide a family member from a murderer because of his categorical imperative.

I some level even I want to throw out all the disgusting shit, give it all up to a benevolent dictator, and allow my family to flourish at the expense of everyone else. But it's a low-level that's kept under control.

That's the one thing that monarchy, or neo-reaction offers. A relief of responsibility for the shitty political things you want to do. Just give it to someone with divine right, and all the contradictions go away.