I didn't even look at who wrote it. I don't judge peoples opinions on post count or join date. Your argument was crap regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
Printable View
I didn't even look at who wrote it. I don't judge peoples opinions on post count or join date. Your argument was crap regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
What made it crap? Go on, elaborate, if you can. Your use of the word noob was beyond ironic. It makes me question your motives behind why you posted it. Do you want some laughs to feel better about yourself? Do you enjoy pleasure at other people's expense? Learn that what you say will have consequences and retalliations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReUp
I think you already answered your own question with this cute little excerpt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
That's nice. Smoke some cannabis and have yourself a ding dang diddly day.
The ability to view things from a perspective other than your own would help but since you seem incapable of doing that then you will always lack understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
My girlfriend used to get mad at me alot becuase I smoked cannabis. But about a month ago, she educated herself about marijuana and why people do it and realized things. And she even has taken a few hits between now and then, suprisingly lol
Your lack of ability to conclude that I can view things from perspectives besides my own exposes a misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
One issue does not dictate universalisability.
Use of Immanuel Kants oft misunderstood and contentious universalizability. Your spelling is incorrect.
How does that relate ?
Morals are not the question here.
Methinks you just enjoy talking cobblers !
The concept of universalizability was set out by the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant as part of his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. It is part of the first formulation of his categorical imperative, which states that the only morally acceptable maxims of our actions are those that could rationally be willed to be universal law. The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. If the action could be universalized (i.e., everyone could do it), then it is morally acceptable. Otherwise, it is not. For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible. Kant calls such acts examples of a contradiction in conception, which is much like a performative contradiction, because they undermine the very basis for their existence.
You say it's pathetic to choose smoking over a girl? Oh really.... I think it is pathetic to be with someone who can't accept you for who you are and try to mold you into their ideal mate. If some girl made me choose, i'd say nice knowing you, bye. That's just me though.