Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: Premarital Sex

« on: December 19, 2009, 05:52:15 pm »

It assumes that one believes that he or she is completely equal with everyone else. Everyone has an ego and at the root of all choices and actions lies an egotistical reason. Kant, like many philosophers, shaped his ideas around predisposed beliefs he held.

That's more of a musing than an actual criticism. I think what you were getting at is the assertion that people operating from different premises cannot be held to the same standards of thought, word, and deed.* That holds true, but only insofar as you are able to maintain that people cannot or should not or need not be judged objectively...and I haven't met many people who can make a good case for it.

~~~~~
* Example:
Person 1: I love pie. I shall write a book describing the best way to prepare and consume pie. It will be the ultimate pie resource.
Person 2: I hate pie. Why would I care about your book?

Thank you for responding Lord J. My criticism was not just a musing. What I was getting at is simply this: An individual is egotistical at their root. One will always act in ways that will benefit him or herself in one way or another. These actions may be in order to "get to heaven" or to have fun, or anything else you could imagine but it always boils down to self satisfaction. Many times their choices and actions will be conflicting with the Categorical Imperative. For instance: getting drunk. One might get drunk in order to have a fun and entertaining night doing some crazy shit. Most would say that they definitely do not think everyone should be able to do that, especially public figures. So they can justify their actions in context, yet according to Kant's categorical imperative it should be seen as morally wrong. Cutting down trees could be another simple less moralistic example. I might cut down some trees for fire wood. It does not mean everyone should be able to cut down trees for firewood, otherwise we would deforest this world at a much faster rate. Individuals do not hold themselves as equal with others under a moral system even if they believe they do. Every individual puts themself on a higher level morally. That is why "sinning" exists in Christianity.

 I'm criticizing Kant. Setting universal maxims of right and wrong based on whether or not actions should be universally performed has no foundation in its argument. The only way you can believe this viewpoint is if you believe that there are moral standards for all peoples aka Moral Objectivity. (I feel I argued fairly strongly against that concept in my first post). After all, setting these OBJECTIVE rights and wrongs are done from a SUBJECTIVE standpoint! How can they then be accepted as universally objective? Kant used philosophy to justify all beliefs he already held. He did not ever take any stances of objectivity even though he tries to present it that way.

I am not a total relativist. I am a moral relativist though in belief, not in action. Like I said in my first post, I believe our society's moral system is our new code for survival. If we lived by our animal instincts neglecting our cultural intelligence, we would not be able to survive in modern society. We would not be able to survive happily anyways because of our moral programming. We cannot escape the fact that we believe certain things are right and wrong, it does not mean that there is any truth to it.  

2

General Discussion / Re: Premarital Sex

« on: December 19, 2009, 04:14:54 pm »

No one wants to respond to my criticism of Immanuel Kant? Or my views on sex? Oh boy, that's no fun. I figured I'd at least get someone going.

3

General Discussion / Re: Record of Religious Ridiculousness, or ITT: Batshit religious insanity

« on: December 19, 2009, 04:11:30 pm »

I agree with MsBlack. Besides, it's just been you guys arguing semantics with some ad hominem attacks  when the truth is you just disagree. I thought I had some good points and no one wanted to argue against them, but oh wells.

Here are a couple websites that are worth some laughs:

www.intelligentdesign.org/

http://www.albatrus.org/english/home.htm This website is very funny if you read any of the articles on hot topics like creation and homosexuality.

4

General Discussion / Premarital Sex

« on: December 19, 2009, 01:43:11 am »

I do wonder what Immanuel Kant would have to say about all this.

Kant's categorical imperative is a ridiculous concept:

You presume that what I said was a universal rule.

"Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

It assumes that one believes that he or she is completely equal with everyone else. Everyone has an ego and at the root of all choices and actions lies an egotistical reason. Kant, like many philosophers, shaped his ideas around predisposed beliefs he held.

As far as the sexual conversation goes, there isn't much more to say. I read the first 10 or so posts and quit after I realized the same things were just being said back and forth with different words. So excuse me if any of this has been said already.

Sex is a simple biological action that humans have manipulated over thousands of years to mean something much more than it does. However, this attitude was necessary for the human civilization to advance as it has. How could Albert Einstein ever come up with the Theory of Relativity if he was just running around all willy nilly fucking anything that moves? The same goes for most other kinds of intellectual advancements. The family unit couldn't exist as we know it if we lived like other animals. People are bred into their views on sexuality and pretty much everything else they believe. It doesn't mean one side is right or wrong or good or bad. Humans are animals with higher intellect. We know that from science. We have developed morality IMO to establish controllable societies in which most everyone benefits (food, water, shelter are more readily available). Morality gives order to an otherwise very disorderly universe. It varies from one culture to another. It has been enforced through religious and cultural beliefs, and in Christianity it is enforced through otherworldly punishment or reward. Without the moral constraints of sexuality, we are simply animals that enjoy sex because of the pleasure it brings. People (myself included), follow a set of morals influenced by our culture as a method of survival whether consciously or subconsciously.

I am not a Christian. I am not a follower of any other religions either. Religious organizations have provided beneficial services to many in our more modern day, so I would not completely tear them down.

The original topic though had to do with religious ridiculousness. I think Jesus Camp is a good representation of the real crazies out there.

5

Chrono Compendium Discussion / Re: Merchandise Section

« on: October 10, 2006, 05:27:32 pm »

Well, like I was saying, as long as no profit is made on liscensed material. We could post links to e-bay auctions for the games being sold on e-bay or other related items on e-bay. And as long as no money is made on the actual Chrono product, there should be no problem. You could sell Chrono Compendium things like tee shirts or mugs or something. That's promoting the site that is, in turn, promoting the product. And no money is being made directly off the product. This would be a good way to get the website out there a little more and maybe spread the popularity of the Chrono series.

I understand liscensing complications, and I admit, I'm no expert on them. As far as I know though, as long as no money is made off of their product, then it's ok, and as long as no ideas are being stolen or anything. I don't see why a fan site couldn't sell T-shirts or other various items. I think it would actually help Square by promoting the series and getting more people interested.

6

Chrono Compendium Discussion / Merchandise Section

« on: October 07, 2006, 03:49:52 pm »

Hello, everyone. It's been a while since I've posted, but I've been lurking around the site. I'm not sure if this has been suggested before on the compendium, but I think that a merchandise section would be pretty nifty. I was on starmen.net and saw it had its own merchandise section and links to e-bay auctions for Earthbound/Mother video games and related items. I know The compendium doesn't have any liscenses regarding the actual Chrono series, so they couldn't sell Square liscensed products, but they could develop their own shirts to spread the popularity of the site and various going-ons around here. I just thought this would give people feeling like they could actually get a little more from the site. For instance, if they were interested in buying a Chrono Trigger game, theres links right there to the auctions. Then they would probably be a little more interested in the site itself and take a look around and spread its popularity.

7

Polling / Have you played the new Coliseum?

« on: October 31, 2005, 04:20:42 pm »

Nevermind, I figured it out. I found the first one. I guess the others are found in the same fashion, are they not?

8

Polling / Have you played the new Coliseum?

« on: October 31, 2005, 11:39:36 am »

I agree with Mr. Translanka. The only problem I'm having with the Coliseum is the whole key thing. I'm not getting it. Do you actually need to find the key as an item? Or will you sort of just get the key for going through the story.

9

Site Updates / Locations (Chrono Trigger) finished; Prerelease update

« on: October 16, 2005, 07:24:51 pm »

I second V Translanka's remarks. Oh and Zeality, I was wondering something. Do you keep all the info (especially the encyclopedia) protected under copyright? Cause these are teh things that make compendium awesome, and I was just checking that if you didnt, you should.

10

Lavos, the Planet, and other Entities / why is he stronger?

« on: August 02, 2005, 05:30:53 pm »

dont the chriosphinx have around 13,000 and cant you just kill him in a riddle thing?

Yes you can beat him in a riddle, but you dont get the Sun shades if you do that. Got to do it the hard way for that. And it is hard haha.

11

Lavos, the Planet, and other Entities / Lavos' power in the Tesseract

« on: August 02, 2005, 05:26:09 pm »

yes I understood that. But does it only give him the power to devour time? or can it still do things like control time.

Another thing I dont understand is how he pulled Chronopolis back in time if he was defeated already and erased from the timeline. UNLESS he did this before Crono and friends defeated him in CT, then he should have no power to do that in the Tesseract.

One Last thing is if the pocket dimension theory is true, then when Lavos was defeated all of his effects should have gone with him because he has no more connection with time and any connection that ever happened should be relinquished because Lavos is not in a certain time period. He's in his pocket dimension. I'm discounting the evolution of humans because the frozen flame caused that and that splintered off Lavos so it wasnt with him in his pocket dimension. But I guess I'm more referring to things like Zeal, when Lavos unleashed upon it. If they took out Lavos in his pocket dimension then that disaster shouldnt have happened and a COMPLETELY different outcome of history would occur. (unless they dont fight him in his PD and I'm mistaken, maybe they fought him when he came out of the ground in 1999, which I guess is what happens cause you travel to that time period to fight him. But you seem to be fighting him across time which would include him being in his PD). If this is the latter then just clarify.

12

Lavos, the Planet, and other Entities / why is he stronger?

« on: August 02, 2005, 08:18:00 am »

so he eats the timelines?? im confused like a piece of paper timeline? im like real confused

A timline is all the events that happened in a certain dimension, or a portion of a whole timeline. It's just basically a timeline (not the kind you make on paper).

13

Lavos, the Planet, and other Entities / Lavos' power in the Tesseract

« on: August 01, 2005, 10:35:14 pm »

Ok, one part of the Chrono series plot that has always baffled me is Lavos' power in the Tesseract. What power does he have in there? Can he still manipulate time and such? How does he become a threat once again? It just seems to me that if he was sent to the Tesseract it's just another form of dying and that there shouldnt be anything he can do. But yet he starts to devour time-space as the Time Devourer and a threat once again.

14

Chrono / Gameplay Casual Discussion / belthesar's book in kajar

« on: August 01, 2005, 10:20:21 pm »

WERD UP! Beaner got that one right.

15

Chrono / Gameplay Casual Discussion / belthesar's book in kajar

« on: August 01, 2005, 09:39:03 pm »

Serge's death in Another World is by drowning. This is said in many places throughout the game, including the time you meet Another World's Leena for the first time:

Ok you're right. But, I think it was Wazuki that drowned him. The game also mentions that Wazuki kills him.