Dunno, maybe it would help if you offered them some Lagerbeta.
Edit: Er, not to grope them, that is. I meant as an alternative. XD
Printable View
And we're already working on adding cuddles to the mix too!
Some of us are, some of us are not. Same with most people, I think.
But there is a difference between cuddling and groping, so even cuddly people may have an aversion to groping.
Just like I have an aversion to people stealing my hat.
Yeah, I'm not asexual, and I love cuddling, but groping is only for, y'know, grope-appropriate (gropropriate) situations with grope-approved (gropproved) individuals. Actually, there are definitely people who are not even cuddlepproved, so really, it's all about context and relationship to the person.
Tomorrow I'm going on a March for Marriage!
But Mackie argues that immaterial properties cannot exist, and thereby lays out his moral error theory.
It's his Argument from Queerness. :smallwink:
I could very easily not exist and still have the text that is coming from "me" appear here.
In any event, the immaterial nature of this conversation has very little to do with morality. Given the nature of the virtual "world."
ION: Phonetically, LGBT seems more like "liège bitte," than "lagerbeta," from what I understand of most english accents in the western hemisphere.
I was actually imagining it as "lah-GER-BAH-ter", but spelling it out just happened to end up lagerbeta...
People carry conversations with cats, babies, and plants all the time.
In addition, you could use that logic to then state that any creature that does not hold conversation with us could be said to not exist, as ridiculous as that statement is.
So what's the impetus for the vowel choices then? Your Australian accent or individual idiosyncrasies?
I can tell making an "a" sound like an "er" is something born of Britland in one form or another, at least.
Wait. Wouldn't that have spelled out lager batter based upon the phonetics you're using? :smallconfused:
As far as I can tell, there needs to be some level of interaction to have a conversation.
Generally those are just monologues. Or soliloquies where someone is just really chewing the scenery.
That would be a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...ative_premises
Premise: All of these people have had a conversation with me.
Premise: All people who have had a conversation with me exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, all people who have not had a conversation with me don't exist.
Or, more directly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
If a person has had a conversation with me, then they exist.
They have not have a conversation with me.
Therefore, they don't exist.
I'm imagining this entire conversation never happened.:smalltongue:
Prove that what you are reading on the screen is what is actually there.
That's the problem with this sorta philosophy :smallsigh:
You also have to prove that imaginary constructs exist.
Like I said, it's a valid perspective, just a useless one.
Of course, proving that you're not wasting your own time by saying this kind of thing is another problem with this kind of philosophy.
Though what was originally said being immaterial and all does tie in to that to a certain extent, what with it not being a physical object one can touch.
So you're telling me to chalk this up to your Australian then, yes?
Prove that validity exists. :smallwink:
I am back, having Marched for Marriage! There were some great speakers and a great crowd. People had cards that said
equal
I pinned one to my shirt with an Amnesty badge so I could wave my (borrowed :smallfrown:) rainbow flag. There were some fierce showers today so I wanted to bring my rainbow umbrella, but then I didn't get a chance to drop by my flat between visiting IKEA and going on the March. I was wearing my rainbow hoodie, though! It only drizzled a little while we were marching, in fact, it cleared up so much I invited some of my friends and co-marchers back to my flat to have a rooftop picnic with fruit and cupcakes (I had the most amazing chocolate fudge gluten-free cupcake with tiny marshmallows on top!) and it was actually kind of sunny!
It was the third annual March. The crowd was pretty cheerful and people beeped their cars in support, and the Viking Spash Tour boat-truck-thing people gave out Viking helmets, which was weird, but cool!
So did you find someone to marry?
Alright, so the previous conversation never happened, since I can't prove it did, and in my subjective point of view, I can't prove any of you exist either, therefore you can't give me a proof it did.
Suits me.
:smallyuk:
@Kenderwizard: sounds like it was fun!
That would be a much more entertaining March for Marriage! I was going to go dressed as a bride but in a purple gown and veil instead of white, but I wasn't sure it was _that_ kind of march, since I hadn't made it to the previous ones. Then I could have found someone to marry. There was a girl with a pink veil there, I could have married her! Not sure my partner would approve, though. "We're apart for THREE DAYS and you MARRY someone?".
As always, there's an appropriate xkcd.
All I got from this argument thingy was that my imaginary friends are real! I must discover the cloaking technology they use....
Imaginary freinds, you say?
Philosophy, you say?
Also, it's clearly "luh-buh-guh-tuh" or lubugata.
...Derp. Just realised I had my G and B the wrong way round, rendering it l'gubutuh.
I always just say elle-gee-bee-tee
<.<
~ ♅