btw are there any bikers on ESR?

yeah I got back into motorcross recently. Not sure if that counts!

My hero is Ricky Carmichael!

don't be modest now, your 500 medals sure do count.

Sorry to spoil your online escape.

"Sorry you never amounted to anything in life. But knocking "

oh hi

bafta, own businesses, own boss and a profitable and sustainable past, present, future in an area you became a victim in. Oh and a clean bill of health from a recent BUPA health plan :). My future is fine.

P.S.
Even if I stoop down to your sad levels of currency I'm still better at games, know more and troll better than you.

Which is why people like you mope around forums trying to chip away at anything or anyone who reminds them of their reality.

You don't even have the bus fare to ride the Jamerio.

"You don't even have the bus fare to ride the Jamerio. "

gay pony

completely missed what week it is

Bupa got a rubber room with your name on it?

hi

Didnt some east euro quaker die from a bike accident? was a post on here about him

ppl like this r idiots who playing with other ppl lifes

more like with their own only

nope

i rly hope that my point dont need to be proved on u irl

google pictures for "crash car motorcycle" and see for yourself.

??

:D:D:DD

Have a +

wanna know where the red color comes from?

Wow, russian dickheads will defend their own over anything won't they?

At least they do it for their country, as opposed to a computer game.

Are you talking about the CPM community? Because almost all of them are dickheads.

liver

easy

sup DOG :DDDDDD

He aint got shit on ghostrider.

increible!!!!!!!!!!

nuts!

didn't seem too sick tbh

obv u'd do better than passing bewteen 1 m spaces at 70 km/h

Typical esr nonsense

obv

keep on being a couch hero i'd say :-)

weak jamerio impression i'd say : )

ironically none of u people seem to realise that is the same as saying you like his comments.

do ur guardians make u wear a helmet when u walk around?

no, we just eat milkshakes instead

looks like the average motorbike/bike/scooter around the centre of london

but so far this guy > ghostrider

:DDD

Man... I have to buy u a beer :D

64%+

I BET HE'S COOLLER

I hope the authorities find him and confiscate the bike forever.

boring and dangerous, a new low

AHHHHHHH MOTHERLAND!!!!!

busy roads those in Moscow. might have something to do with Master's awesomeness.

Can't believe there's people so detached from reality that they would think this was anything other than retarded and the selfish cunt should be locked up.

at least he can pass trough 1m wide spaces

especially if the driver is very large!

typical vegan

fuck you carnivore stupid dinosaur go extinct !!

i can help u with weight and diet if u want ;)

Just had a grapefruit for breakfast m8 got it sorted np

i say truth that i dont know whats the thing about grapefruit rly, but i would recommend u to reduce every week kkalories.. how much cm and kg r u? i need to know it but if u dont wanna say lets say start with eating 2k kkalories per day and every week lets say monday reduce them for 100-200 also u get 1900-1800 so do 4 weeks, then make 3-7 days pause and start again :) in weekends u can eat 1 time some cool stuff to relax ur brain.. last thing i did was from 82kg to 74kg in 32days) once i was 105kg when did bb :/ if i did it then u can do it too :) and dont trust ppl who wanna "help" u and make money on u with it

u rly helpful person.

you see people doing shit like this all the time over here... we have no road rules, really. Speed limits are never imposed.

this is more efficient

haha :D

heh beat me to it.

HE'S CHILLIN BRO!

loooooooooooooooool

WTF

hahaha, wonko is it? ;D

I've seen better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT1TjEgSEAI
and my alltime favourite also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgNpEPx3DzM

Truly impressive stuff.

Anyone has a bike?

I had an F4i, sold it before season end. Now thinking about k7, or if get to save more money, maybe 600rr.

going to buy a kawasaki z1000 :). just got my salary and will probably buy one really soon :)

pretty good value for money.
My neighbor from the same block has one, great for the city, comfortable riding position. Great bike overall

thats what i think too, i also want one "mv agusta brutale" but its pretty expensive atm.

ducati streetfighter 09/10 PLEASE!

thats cool, not many dukes around in Poland - still pretty expansive and used bikes are hard to repair (spare parts + ducati isn't the most reliable in therms of mechanics). Still would love to own one

funny how people increasingly become hostile to any sort of ego-trip-power or danger

next man going to the moon, "he doesn't think about his wife and children at all! he might die! and what is he going to do up there anyway.. stupid and expensive! take care of planet and family first, and once you do that - make sure to contribute to the collective!!"

meh, i don't know :: in any case, video was awesome, dude was awesome. such people are usually way fun to have around, regardless of any other concerns :D

when you think about it, it's not that different from leeeeeeeeroooooooooy, in that sure on the level of morality and reason it doesn't hold up, but yet, considering what would be if they them powers did slaughter all such things.. brajve njev worjld

you can say, he's mostly a danger to himself, but the moralists will follow you everywhere, "'he's a danger to himself', ban it! put a sticker on and make them see what's healthy!" ahghghg can't let it go,,,,

im lamenting the landscape here, like Jeremy Clarkson did in Top Gear when he tried a fast, powerful car that he felt was "the end of something" rather than a beginning, like the death of speed somehow.. and he drove with melancholy instead of joy, like i did when i saw this vid :Ccc

I mean I could try to explain to your feeble mind why that analogy is fucking retarded but instead I'll just say this and let you figure it out for yourself: if he crashed into a car and killed a couple of kids would you still feel the same way about the whole thing? If the answer is yes you genuinely need help, if the answer is "that's unlikely" you're a fucking idiot.

hahaha, see guyz. this is the trend i'm talking about: notice the hostility in his tone, he thinks it's some kind of given.

yes, we reason better now in many ways than we did before, morally as well. i see completely what you mean.

it's analogous to the michael jackson case, of him dangling a baby out the window, and people being very offended.

meanwhile, what people forget is that it was quite normal before to toss children in the air and catch then like no big deal. do we know anything different now? are we more sophisticated?

look at this for example, how natural the display of certain things like the man climbing with the child on his back. http://parkour-videos.com/pre-historic-parkour-video/ at 26 seconds in.

examples like these are innumerable, including working conditions of people working on buildings- and we've all seen the examples. the inescapable conclusion is that we've become much more sensitive, sort of like parent when they get older. (is it wisdom?)

this goes through many spheres of life, including childrearing, and various activities. maybe things aren't really that dangerous now, so you can always make up some way to avoid it. smoking is banned several places here in norway, for instance in my little apartment here, that i live in.

it's just the trend that is all. people react more quickly now, and with more moral force, than they would have done before. of course this might be an "easy" example, but the direction is clear - and the ones speaking out most loudly are at the forefront.

Yeah true human progress is pretty shit

I already said it didn't hold up in normal moral/reason terms, and I know full well what that means.

The point is the point made by Huxley in his Brave New World.

There are lots of irrational yet awesome things going on, and they might all slowly die out. Pretty much all the artsy stuff boardering on tragic, like love and death-defiance.

Either you're a complete dumbass or you're trolling. How does putting your own life in danger compare to putting other people's lives in danger?

Why do you think criminals are regarded more and more as victims of the system? Why can't I smoke in my appartment? Why is suicide illeagal? Why is there a debate in Norway about whether people should be allowed to climb mountains?

Morality is an ultrasocial affair that doesn't much care about "individuals" as such.

That is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about so I guess you really are trolling.

You don't see how this is mixed in the contemporary debate? How they glide from talking about the criminals as victims and the fat people as hurting society? Essentially they can flip the thing upside down and people hardly take notice; to spell it out - the one killing other people is a victim, and the person living his dream of eating food is hurting others.

As long as individuals are framed by the society as "contributing members" there really is no major difference.

no.

you should visit norway for a guided tour of tomorrows moral landscape

suicide isn't illegal in many countries.
murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is.

Likewise people climbing up a mountain is fine.
People climbing up a mountain and then demanding others climb after to rescue them is not.

Firing a gun at a target on a shooting range is legal.
Firing a gun at a target on a playground full of children is not.


So, in this example. If a guy wants to race his motorcycle he should go to a racetrack or race down an empty canyon.

If you disagree, I would like to try how good I am at dis- and reasembling brakes without a manual. Can I use your car please?

Dude. I know every moral theory out there. You're arguing on a two-dimensional map I could fill out better myself. Try jump out that plane and see the other dimensions.

Here's a hint. I already said, in normal terms, there's no way around it, yet *and here i move into three dimensions* he's *awesome* (a three dimensional term) and i don't know where to go from there.

But this example is too concrete for your intuitions it seems. It's too obvious to you.

What you need to do is think a bit about the other examples i gave you first, or you're just gonna get dragged into that narrow plane again.

It's like the abortion debate, if i'd mention how they used to abort children after they are born; it's a stupid idea to start the imagination there, when your concern really is with the more down-to-earth cases.

If it's a scale then what is to be said for leeeeeeroy? is there something to be said for him? do people find it funny only because he's a retard? or because there's a tiny bit of that "fuck it" that we felt when the volcano errupted that gets smuggled into that feeling of "oh wow"?

you're illogical for the sake of breaching sanity.
and stop using technical terms you don't understand.

trying to breach sanity - yes. not grasping the philosophical backdrop of opinion or terminology? hardly.

"the philosophical backdrop of opinion or terminology"

stop making shit up, christ

have to make up shit to make sense of what you say. hardly used any jargon at all in this whole thread. just presupposing you're right to make the point that you'd still be wrong.

if anything i've actively tried to avoid it by using metaphors and examples. you're being unfair.

try using logic

that's like saying "use math" when playing snooker

"the philosophical backdrop of opinion or terminology" is not the same as a technical term

what technical terms, what are you talking about

well, i've used duty and virtue ethics, as well as consequentialism; yes these are somewhat technical, but i deliberately avoided "deontology" for instance, because these others are meaningful just on their own, without any deep specification

those particular words might as well be meaningless, I'm talking about 'dimension' but it doesn't matter since I've realized you're not just dabbling, you're retarded from the core

You have it all upside down.

The whole point of using metaphors like dimension to convey ideas in a moral non-mathematical discussion is to get an idea across intutiviely and non-technically.

Anyway, this discussion is pointless. You're already too frustrated with me to think clearly.

well, I believe when attaching moral aspect to a person, or in this case something a person does, it is simple. Sure you can analyse different implications of freedom, guilt, responsibility or whatever. But in the end, there aren't even two dimensions, just one.

It all boilds down to this on dimension:
Would we rather have more or fewer people to act like that or are we indifferent.


So, would you want more (or ideally all) people to ride a motorcycle like that?

Well see exactly this is my problem with how you think.

Rules are in place. And social norms; and they serve slightly different purposes. Something illeagal may in many cases be quite awesome, or at any rate impressive, and so on, regardless of strict morality that needs apply to all.

If your conception of "awesome" or "interesting" or "impressive" and so on is restricted by societal morality in the form of rules, then society might quickly get very boring, no? It would rule out that spider-man guy, and the one sneaking into award shows to mess them up etc. I think ehm are pretty cool guys, even if, if they gathered in numbers they'd be reduced to a class of duchebags. x)

Why do you assume that people don't conceive more dimension, while in reality they might just chose not to reveal them?
Imo, your problem is that you always want to detach your emotion from your sense of morals.
Sure I can do that, especially if I do a thought experiment like I proposed below.

However, I think even when just posting on a forum on should not simply detach the two.

Think of people cheering for gladiotors.
Think of people cheering at public decapicitations.
Bystanders watching a pub brawl and cheering the fighters on.

I believe no matter how many dimensions you prefers to evaluate something in, as long as your final judgement is supposed to include a moral aspect, you should end up projecting it all to the one dimension.

Otherwise you can end up cheering for people who risks other lives. And through that ,ptivating others to do the same.
It's easy to say "Oh, it's just one forum post, it won't make a difference". But is that really true?

This is so exatcly what i'm getting at that it's not even funny. I would have had to make you up if you didn't exist, because you exemplify so well.

I mean. I've tried for years to seperate out what is morally a sad thing from what is funny from what is interesting and so on. Most people don't seem capable of doing that - especially in a social setting.

They could watch the news of some unknown with the most ridiculous death and they wouldn't even smile a little; they'd keep to their act and put on their moral-face. And I've always seen that's it's a fake emotion coming out, like an insincere fart at the end of a frown.

Like you need personally to be responsible for upholding the moral pressure of finding such things worthy of condemnation. "This is an outrage." "something must be done". Everyday-Joe playing politician poker-face? I don't know.

I'm pretty sure the next generation after us ain't gonna give a shit about things like that. I hope. People are already watching fail-blog like it's some kind of voluntary jack-ass. Not to mention slapping other people in the face has become a joke.

Moral outrage is a ridiculous thing mostly in our age where we have police and we have all kinds of experts already telling us what to do, we need to keep reminding ourselves in addition? Like people talk all day about health, food and excersise. Jesus christ.

Btw. it's not about detaching the two, it's about descriminating in thought what is intuitively discriminated in feelings. We don't feel outraged when watching awesome stuff giving us a thrill - that outrage is of the grandmother because she is scared, and of the moralist that they may be abusing their freedoms in morally questionable ways.

If someone dies, and it is funny, you can laugh and cry at the same time, and express this genuinely without any sort of mask - at least this is how i would like think things ideally to be. that we admit our human aspect, and don't overcommit to our social-level moral-rules for societal interaction.

something like that

sorry, but you misunderstood me there, maybe jsut so you can make your argument, I don't know.

If someone is dead then it is too late. Laughing about it won't change a thing. I don't care.

Cheering someone on to risk someone else's life is something completely different. And I do care about that.


I mean, if you are in a situation that someone is going to risk another person's life without the consent.
For example, push a baby in a buggy down a steep hill while wearing a fat costume and making a video of it.
Would you just stand by, becuase hey, it might look funny on failblog. Or would you try to intervene?

If it's the latter, then you really are no different from me, no matter how far your thoughts took you.

he already did drive. and you're on a forum that he will never read. what is this concern you have? cheering on is ambigous, doesn't matter if someone is dead or not, there's always new occasions.

my mom can sit alone in her house watching the news and she'll still keep a mask up. if even to herself. just to practise, so to speak.

psychologically speaking this might be very unhealthy and twisting.

it's not about our moral intuitions. we all pretty much have the same intuitions. whatever we think of first, chances are, most people are thinking the same thing. we're pretty interconnected atm.

to detach dimensions leads to me comment down below about virtue and duty ethics, so lets see what you make of that.

he already did drive. and you're on a forum that he will never read. what is this concern you have?

my concern is, simply put for the copy cats.
And yes i am aware that my singular opinion will in all probablity never make a difference.
But what if my postive post were exactly the one that made someone else try it as well?

I think this part of our discussion has some relevance.

The moral status of the outrage itself, and the consequences of displaying it, and whether it need be genuine or not and so on. That's mainly here what it boils up to.

"But what if my postive post were exactly the one that made someone else try it as well?"

Hold on though.

This notion of responsibility is quite strong isn't it? You say active, but surely it's no more active than the makers of GTA or some such game. At least on the face of it.

(And now Tarantino says, "Oh, but you see, I talk about fiction and you're talking about reality.")

The issue here seems to be the potential negative effects of your actions, when these only passively contribute to a possible negative effect.

And again, I think this highlights some of my concern.

If more and more people take it upon themselves to actively engage in supressing things that can passively be potentially harmfull, then ...

?? what do you think?

your tarantino quote says it all.

GTA is fiction, Tarantino's films are fiction.
If I say I like it, it is about judging the work the producers have done to simulate something.

The video in the original post is real.
If I say I like it, then, by extension, I also accept that he is risking the life of others.

So it's not a consequentialist view then?

Either it's about the potential negative effect of your comment; embracing GTA and this video could very easily be imagined to have the same potential negative effects.

Or, it seems to me, it has to be about some moral indignation on the part of accepting to yourself and others, this kind of thing whatsoever, as a kind of principle.

Or?

on the basis of this i'm saying that the occasional adrenaline-rush dude climbing buildings and driving like crazy or messing up award-shows and so on isn't really a problem.

people conform enough. maybe this is just more obvious in norway where the norms are that much stronger, and the fight more pressing, and the moral outrage more despicable in each new case.

What about people simply driving too fast, way above their skills, should we drop all speed limits to allow it?

No, I remain at the decision, that the possible negative effects to other should at no time be ignoring.

Ruining an awards show by streaking or emptying a bucket of paint? Ok.
Ruining an awards show by plantig a fire on center stage, causing a mass panic? Not ok.


I mean you mentioned base jumping yourself, there a so may things you can do to get your fill of adrenaline that don't involve risking the lives of others. What possible excuse is there to do it anyways?

First of all you need to realize that there's a gradual line between ruining award-shows and setting fire to the stage. You're just making up the distinction, like people usually do in the case of abortions.

It's a completely irrational thing already. If the show loses say, 200 million dollars then if that money had been given to charity. Never mind the example, just abstract and realize on another note that we're dealing with a world so huge now, that our moral intuitions are mostly worth shit.

"What possible excuse is there to do it anyways?"

This is the problem isn't it? If you think real hard about it, if you want a "good reason" for the things you do, you're not going to go very far, and you're certainly not going to become original in any way.

What excuse is there to smoking? Literally none, it's stupid, costing society, bothering other people etc. Same with being fat or other health negligencies. Should we ban it? Open question. To be sure, there are lots of these.

In this case you might say, it's directly affecting others, and so on, but i really don't think this holds up. Our society is too complex to rely on such direct causation thinking with our intuitions. Getting fat goes straight out of medical budget that is always strangled for money to save more people.

The examples here are mostly beyond our capacity to see easily.

My mom always gets upset by people traveling to strange places or mountains and so on, like Karl Pilkington would say, "why would they do that? it's uncomfortable, dangerous, etc."; for instance the people going to the north pole. What's the use, it's already discovered?

i don't knw i don't know i don't knwo, i don't know.

First of all you need to realize that there's a gradual line between ruining award-shows and setting fire to the stage.

Exactly, you are finally getting it.
A line.

The one-dimensional evaluation that I have been talking about all along.

to clarify a bit more:

It doesn't matter to the line or the decision how he set the fire.
If it was just emtied a tank of gasoline and lit it with a match.
Or if he sky-dived into an open arena, artistically distributed flammable materials while just c4.
And then ignited it by breathing fire. Doesn't matter if he dies himself or not.

In every case it is beyond that "moral" line of don't.

They already drew a speed limit line, how do you think that was determined? It's obviously a complex process that doesn't have much to do with how individuals evaluate things morally.

No one in their right mind would implement cars if the cost was known to be, as it is known now, that 3000 people would die each year in UK alone. The same with many other kinds of risks. The benifit doesn't seem to add up on the face of it, and this might be a very dangerous thing in itself.

In any case, the individual breaking the law is obviously, breaking a law that is there for moral reasons. What i've noticed is that people can't say "yes, he is brave, skilled, that's impressive" and so on, since they think their moral guardian-ship has the highest claim to be heard above all else.

Didn't you notice how it played out in the bullfighting case? They deserved to die, because their morals were inferior. Children and women, away with them, the bull was in the right!

that is were personal opinion comes in, but that is entirely different matter.

So far, we where just talking how suhc an opinion is formed.
Not if it is correct.

"No one in their right mind would implement cars if the cost was known to be, as it is known now, that 3000 people would die each year in UK alone. The same with many other kinds of risks. The benifit doesn't seem to add up on the face of it, and this might be a very dangerous thing in itself."

ROFL, I can't believe how clueless you really are.

troll

about the "awesome". Do the following thought experiment please:

Imagine a similar video, but this time it is with robots. Except for the driver there is no human around.
Do you feel it is more, less or just as awesome?

no. that's not awesome. the main thing about it is like when the captive fish (and we are in a web of reason and morality here) finally escapes the glass, and all the others, or a least a few, cheer and find it enlivning to see how someone might do something so crazy and beyond normal ways

didn't you feel that way in brave new world? didn't you feel confined by everything you could not strictly, and philosophically argue against?

Nope, sorry, I can't feel impressed about people in that way and I can tell you why exactly.

If that guy had ended up in an accident, with the result of him being relatively unhurt and a child dead.
When confronted with the parents he would either be cold-hearted saying it was bad luck, or apologetic saying how sorry he was and didn't mean to hurt anyone.
Just picture the situation yourself.
I for one find it very hard to admire such a person.

Look, Becks. You're forcing an example on your intuition that you already see strongly to the point of circularity. If you keep thinking like this you'll never get anywhere.

Try this excersise.

In the next week, whenever you see something you instinctively want to condemn, try to find at least one good quality about it. Focus on this quality and realize that some of its conditions for existing at all might be behavior like that.

that no difficult experiment.

The motorcyclist in the example shows people how to swerve to avoid unexpected traffic, so it might help to save other rider's lives. Traning situations like that will also improve the skills of the rider in the video, becoming a better rider and maybe avoid in accident when riding "normally".

Does that change my final opinion? No.

Honestly, I think I might even be on step ahead of you. You evaluate the different aspects.
But you do not take the next step to express a final verdict. Yes, I aware that that is your conscious decision to do so. But I don't agree that it is the better approach.

First of all I mean qualities like bravery, not afraid of death, doing what he wants regardless of what anyone thinks, and so on. (and skill, and badassness for sure.)

So you believe in a final verdict? I don't think this is how it is. Here we find the point of disagreement i think.

On my view i see at least two/three different things at play here:

1A) We have the rider doing what he wants to do in a badass way, and being skilled at it. This part of the deal is a virtue as far as i'm concerned.

1B) Then we have the more lowly aspects such as disregard for safety of others, that may well be a condition of his virtue.

2) In addition we have other considerations, such as considering him (from a societal perspective) as guilty of breaking the law; and here you can argue with, "if everyone, blabla".

I like a seperation between virtue and duty ethics. In common day parlance and with the size and complexity of the world, i don't think non-specialized people should think too much about duty ethics as it is instantiated by rules and broad norms.

Problem is of course that both virtues and rules are defined by the norms; so there's this backward feedback from what should apply to all to individual cases.

(This girl I talk to used to be angry at football and the players because there was so much fame and money going into something so pointless. All that money and energy could've been better spent elsewere, she said.)

I always liked the idea of two virtuous warriors meeting intent and determined to kill eachother, while still retaining respect for eachother.

Respect is in many ways possible to seperate from moral commitment. I love the old stories when these were held clearly apart.

Where the theif and the sheriff or the detective and the criminal develop some sort of professional respect for eachother, even in the hunt.

Or even, like in Hero, where two different planes of morality intersect on a level of mutual respect.

anyway.
/off

sry bit tired for that atm. Might read again tomorrow.

yeah, i'm always trying to put everything into each place. there's so many options in each reply, i don't know how to contain, and even what's left are fractions, fragments. i'll try to figure out something

"not much was learned after 10000 posts."

(this means partly, yes, regardless, on a meta-note, the issue of spread and messiness and the whole form of the discussion so far is problematic, and i'll look into it for other times or .. etc!)

Look, CPLains. You're forcing a blockage of any example on your intuition that you already see strongly to the point of circularity. If you keep thinking like this you'll never get anywhere.

Try this excersise.

In the next week, whenever you see something you instinctively want to deflect, try to find at least one good quality about it smashing into your face until it bleeds. Focus on this quality and realize that some of its conditions for existing at all might be behavior like that.

using it back on myself you mean? sure. but that's the question here isn't it. it is taking a step back, and reflecting on the situation of moral outrage, trying to evaluate it in some deeper way.

You're right about suicide, thought by far that was more universal. (:

Don't bother, there are people on this site who truly think borg like.

They'll talk about leading happy and fulfilling lives while at the same time restriciting others to do the same yet see no flaw in that reasoning.

Too me it's all bulshit, if me leading a happy life involves me potentially killing 500 people as a side-effect then so be it . I'll be prepared to suffer the consequences for my moment of sheer bliss.

Yes. At least I think that's an interesting thing. That it is very hard to argue for. Like selfish love (even familial love) seems kinda artificially stitched into our moral-reasons, without any objective justification.

What you seem to miss is that there are a lot of people who behave like that i our "society".

Doing something for their own gain, without caring much about what happens to others. Ready to "accept" the consequences if they are caught:


Certain types of politicans and investment bankers, drunk drivers, rapists, robbers, spam mailers, the list goes on and on...

Are you sure you want to be in that list?

No i don't but i dont blame those who do

The so called conformists do the same thing anyway, they push their "acceptable behaviour" onto others, even when its detrimental for those others

An obvious case would be smoking medicinal marihuana. General public goes "drugs are bad mkay" so it remains illegal in most countries... while its been proven that it does provide considerable relief for chronic pain patients.

I'd say the medicinal marihuana example is more like arguing your case by the exception. As the tendency of countries is to allow it rather than forbid it where it is allowed.

You also use conformist as your "big hammer" argument.
As if it were a rule that it is negative to agree with a majority, regardless of the topic.

I mean, the traditional "counter" to that argument would be to call you a loser who hasn't got the brains or skills to make it in society.

Hardly a worthwile discussion.

Obviously conformist is meant in the spirit of the original argument by cplains.

However i agree this is a non worthwhile argument since youre way of thinking is light years away from mine.

Mainly because you clearly consider me to be far below you when it comes to reasoning skills and pure intellect. Which is pretty funny in itself.

Mainly because you clearly consider me to be far below you when it comes to reasoning skills and pure intellect.

If I thought that I would have written it.

What is society? A grouping of individuals.
What does morality concern? How one(!) ought to live.

How could morality not conern the individual "as much," it is _all_ about the individual and how they ought to do things within the context of a paritcular situation. What about hermits? Even they must make such decisions. I anticipate that you will say something such as "But yes, where did he get those morals from" -> That is not the point, being a learned thing does not equate to not caring about the individual (I don't even see the logical jump between the two)

There are many ways to talk about morality. Everything from existentialism to or evolutionary psychology, take your pick. I'm just making a point in a discussion.

I didn't say individual "as much", I said individual "as such": Individual as individual. It cares about an individual insofar as it is part of a collective, like a soldier in combat or medic in hospital.

Much love to hermits, being one myself. However, being realistic; there's to be seven+ billions of us, and what we see from space are lines bathed in light.

I don't think too many of our dear moral philosophers had the privilege of being stuffed into a subway full of people with cellphones.

you are so fat it you fall off a mountain you cause massive earthquakes

please don't ever take psychodelics. I'm serious.

There's this measure of intelligence vs creativity. If you're too creative for your own intelligence you boarder on what you see me as, but i'm pretty sure the opposite is your problem in equal measure.

oh crap, you did take it. didn't you?

Man, go take an IQ+Creativity test and you'll see what I mean. Nothing like objective measures as against the mob eh?

stop tripping

typical non-creative rationality xD

there is no such thing as a creative IQ. it's only what stupid people tell themselves to feel better.

I never said there was. There's IQ tests and there's Creativity tests. I'm guessing you're a 75% on the IQ and 40% on the Creativity.

In other words, a literal minded, high common-sense, moderately bright person.

(i mean, since we are in the business of evaluating eachother)

how dare you call me moderate, I'm at least 190 on the Lethe iq scale.

pfffff.. emotional wishwashy, fairy-scale

concrete-street-smarts is the real deal, smarts

-.-

REAL DEAL, smarts

-ypants

"No choice, pal." (Blade Runner) =p

nice try to become attend by saying the opposite from what all others say, i dont like that u write so much ))

There's this example in the litterature about how the rationality of the Jews were used agains them in the concentration camp. Each Jew knew that if they tried to rebel or escape the guards would kill of 10 Jews or so. What then happened is that the Nazi's used the rationality in this way to control the Jews. The complete irrational thing to do is if everyone had started spontaneously rioting; the historical research suggest that the Nazi guards easily could've been overwhelmed if they didn't have this mental lockdown on the prisoners.

tl;dr tired after 25km run train sorry

you need to go to,

concentration camp, LOLOL

i like to spell lolo so -> LOLOLOL

got a mail yesterday from some site i subscribed to ages ago; "Gratulations on your 53rd birthday! LOLOLOOLOLLOLL" "visit the site for more updates blabla".

rationality or jews have nothing to do with this per se. it was a standard nazi tactic. they used it all the time, not only in concentration camps or against jews. moreover, the nazis were not the first, nor the last to use it in human history.

yes. the principle is the interesting thing.

especially how it may be confronting ego-centric views as often rationality and morality try to base themselves in. it may be a fringe example, but it sure does leave an ugly stain.

failed suicide attempt

Lol. When somes bikers is next to him, he is speeding up even more, like to say :

"newbiiiiie you suck, look how good i am. 0wned"

Funny
;-)

there is no word called "somes" in english language

when some bikers

I decided to + you, every time you tell me mistakes i did.
Thank.

"Thank you" or "Thanks".

i'd start by losing those mirrors if I was him

Not impressed. The video is speed up at some point when he start avoiding traffic.

most of those kind of videos are, still the skill is big in this one

What a cunt.

There are better places to show off your skills; racetrack.

----


Shared a VFR 800 with my brother, but over that shit. Getting a Suzuki 650 DR sometime later this or next year. :)

"There are better places to show off your skills; racetrack."

we can close thread now

why oh why did i read "Insane Russian Hitler"?

what about this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjHMFd4Bln8

you can see the link for his blog in the section below the video.

hope he crashes into a tree and gets paralysed, fucking cock.

Easy shit! If you can survive the indian traffic, you can drive/ride anywhere in the world.

I remember some guy coming on Top Gear who was of Indian heritage. He seemed to be scared shitless when he talked about going to India and experiencing the traffic there.

Indian Traffic = Organized Chaos

If you remember that episode where the top-gear trio were to meet in france (Supercars do France part 1 and 2), the expressions on their faces told the story about the night time traffic there. Just think of driving with a contorted face all the time. That's Indian traffic!

I can't read russian, but I think that rider has come off once before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tyJ4TBqc5w

you don't need to have great reflexes to do this. You just need a lot of trust that you predict what the ppl on the road will do.
Which is the same as in quake. Just win based on prediction rather than reflexes.

lol i can understand u re not a biker yourself but this movie is a joke

how can u even compare this beginner to ghostrider hahahah

u retarded or what? ppl ride like this after a few weeks on a bike

it wasnt even fast :O

give somes youtube videos

you people seriously need to bitch more about how dangerous and irresponsible it was otherwise it's waste of time reading

This is like the worst stupid stuff to do, to make videos off, boring and dangerous like i think someone said above.

at least make it fun.

houps :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ng6Dwk3mI

failed this time

that's not him