CheekyChiki
FESSer
Certified Mamkute
I am not dead!! =0 *temporarily* XD
Posts: 1,955
|
Post by CheekyChiki on Mar 29, 2003 22:31:45 GMT -5
Nah... I respect Slifer more than I'll ever respect you. He at least tries to correct his grammar... ^^ He's got a point there ^_______________^ And although Slifer USED TO squeeze me cheeks, he doesn't revive dead topics HINTHINT
|
|
|
Post by The dark prince on Mar 29, 2003 22:52:40 GMT -5
ya i was bored so i did that. (started squeezing her cheeks)this is fun
|
|
TogeKiD
FESSer
I love Twilkitri. :-*
Posts: 2,594
|
Post by TogeKiD on Mar 30, 2003 10:56:32 GMT -5
Hey! Leave my Twin Sister alone!
Doom Talk! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda!
|
|
NoBaka
FESSer
Olympic Fencer in Training
Posts: 2,155
|
Post by NoBaka on Apr 1, 2003 10:13:48 GMT -5
That's your fabled 'doom talk'?
. . .
Come on. I expected more from you. You could at least rant about the nature of humanity or something.
|
|
TogeKiD
FESSer
I love Twilkitri. :-*
Posts: 2,594
|
Post by TogeKiD on Apr 1, 2003 11:52:32 GMT -5
Why are we humans so dumb? Well.. let's look back at our history. We humans have lived a long time on this planet and we've met much dangers of life in our past. Billions of years ago there were the dinosaurs who ruled the Earth. If they didn't died we wouldn't have been able to live on this planet. They died and our life became a fact.
People started to develop themself and soon after we got much smarter and we became much more familiar with the ways of life. We discovered the fire, the biggest invention ever! Without it we wouldn't be able to live now since we would be frozen to death. Later we invented something else, the wheel! This was another big invention that changed our life for ever. The humans started to use wheels and they made tools which made life easier. We could carry more wood, stones, ect.. At first we humans pulled the cars, but later we started to use animals, mainly horses to do those things. Animals became very important to us, we used sheeps for cloths, cows for food and horses for work. Animals made our life much easier and the horse has even become a noble animal.
If we look further, many inventions were made and our technology has been far developed. We have cars, airplanes, computers, the internet and much more things that make our life much easier! We live in a good world and we have great lifes. To think that we may come from the monkeys..
However.. we humans use destructive weapons, machines that ruin our enviroment and we kill people! We certainly are dumb.. We destroy what we made.. Is that a kind of living?
|
|
NoBaka
FESSer
Olympic Fencer in Training
Posts: 2,155
|
Post by NoBaka on Apr 1, 2003 12:51:34 GMT -5
Now THAT is ranting.
|
|
TogeKiD
FESSer
I love Twilkitri. :-*
Posts: 2,594
|
Post by TogeKiD on Apr 1, 2003 15:12:54 GMT -5
Hehehe.. I knew I could do it! ^.^;;
I bet CheekyChiki can do it too! =D
|
|
NoBaka
FESSer
Olympic Fencer in Training
Posts: 2,155
|
Post by NoBaka on Apr 2, 2003 10:33:21 GMT -5
I'll take that as a challenge!
|
|
CheekyChiki
FESSer
Certified Mamkute
I am not dead!! =0 *temporarily* XD
Posts: 1,955
|
Post by CheekyChiki on Apr 2, 2003 19:40:43 GMT -5
Hehehe.. I knew I could do it! ^.^;; I bet CheekyChiki can do it too! =D XD hahahaha I like that speech XD Ahem... Dagger my recognise this... *coughs* PhilosophyThe best way to approach philosophy is to ask a few philosophical questions:
How was the world created? Is there any will or meaning behind what happens? Is there a life after death? How can we answer these questions? And most important, how ought we to live? People have been asking these questions throughout the ages. We know of no culture which has not concerned itself with what man is and where the world came from.
Basically there are not many philosophical questions to ask. We have already asked some of the most important ones. But history presents us with many different answers to each question. So it is easier to ask philosophical questions than to answer them.
Today as well each individual has to discover his own answer to these same questions. You cannot find out whether there is a God or whether there is life after death by looking in an encyclopedia. Nor does the encyclopedia tell us how we ought to live. However, reading what other people have believed can help us formulate our own veiw of life.
A lot of old-age enigmas have been now explained by science. What the dark side of the moon looks like was once shrouded in mystery. It was not the kind of thing that could be solved by discussion, it was left to the imagination of the individual. But today we know exactly what the dark side of the moon looks like, and no one can "believe" any longer in the Man in the Moon, or that the moon is made out of green cheese.ugh...my head hurts... I'll continue this later perhaps... @_@
|
|
firerymist07
FESSer
wh00t! more kirbies! ya! <(-^^-)>
Posts: 938
|
Post by firerymist07 on Apr 2, 2003 21:24:59 GMT -5
sorry I know I'm not a twin talker but I just can't help myself ^^;;;
In A Theory of Justice Rawls is committed to something like the liberal principle of legitimacy. If we are to justify the use of the coercive power of the state over individuals it ought to be in terms of reasons that all can accept (or at least ought to accept). But people disagree with one another not just because of their unreasonable selfishness but also because of their quite reasonable attachment to a diversity of incompatible religious and philosophical doctrines. A Theory of Justice has a picture of the well-ordered society as being one where citizens affirm something like the doctrine of Theory. If the coercive power of the state ever needs to be deployed it will be deployed for the reasons outlined in Theory and when citizens advance justifications to one another they are advanced in terms derived from Theory. But it is perfectly possible to be a reasonable person and to disagree with the reasonings of A Theory of Justice. Nor is there any reason to suppose that this problem will go away. Rather a theory of justice has to take cognisance of what Rawls calls ‘Four general facts’ about modern societies. These are: (1) The fact of pluralism; (2) The only way round the fact of pluralism is the oppressive use of state power to enforce unity; (3) If a well-ordered society is to survive it much enjoy the support of the majority of its citizens and so it must be justified in terms of reasons that most of them can affirm (yet most of them cannot affirm particular sectarian doctrines); (4) The public culture of most democratic societies contains intuitive ideas which it is possible to work up into the justificatory basis for a constitutional regime.
This fourth fact leads Rawls to believe that it is possible to elaborate principles to govern the basic structure of society (its political realm) which will be acceptable to most citizens despite their conflicting views. Citizens may have all kinds of beliefs but they also have, Rawls believes, a public persona as citizens. In that role they see themselves and others as free choosers of ends and capable of revising and examining the conception of the good which they are to pursue. . Not only do people see themselves and others as free, pursuers of ends, they also have a conception of themselves and others as equal which disposes them to moderate their own claims in order to accommodate the reasonable claims of others and (a further and new dimension to reasonability) they can understand that how ever much they believe that their views about the good life, how to live, the existence of God etc., are true, yet another reasonable person might come to quite different conclusions about those same matters. Because of that fact of reasonable disagreement it would be quite wrong (and unreasonable) to insist on the enforcement by the state of that part of my beliefs that can be the object of such reasonable disagreement.
Now Rawls describes his new theory as being ‘political not metaphysical’. He means two things: first that the theory is restricted in scope to cover the ‘basic structure’ of society. Second, it is political in that it does not rely on any of the general metaphysical facts that are disputed among reasonable persons in a pluralistic society. Rather it relies on working up the shared values of freedom and equality that he presumes are shared among citizens into more determinate principles to govern society. These shared values are the focus of what Rawls calls an ‘overlapping consensus’.
*whistles* no I so DID NOT write this
|
|
CheekyChiki
FESSer
Certified Mamkute
I am not dead!! =0 *temporarily* XD
Posts: 1,955
|
Post by CheekyChiki on Apr 2, 2003 21:27:35 GMT -5
Yeah... you just copied and pasted... at least I took time to type text from the book =/
|
|
firerymist07
FESSer
wh00t! more kirbies! ya! <(-^^-)>
Posts: 938
|
Post by firerymist07 on Apr 2, 2003 21:36:53 GMT -5
au contrair... I have no book ^^;
|
|
CheekyChiki
FESSer
Certified Mamkute
I am not dead!! =0 *temporarily* XD
Posts: 1,955
|
Post by CheekyChiki on Apr 2, 2003 22:19:36 GMT -5
ask sharry =p She might have an extra copy XD
|
|
NoBaka
FESSer
Olympic Fencer in Training
Posts: 2,155
|
Post by NoBaka on Apr 3, 2003 12:22:09 GMT -5
Hey! If you're gonna rant, then rant! Don't copy and paste, or copy from a book! TogeKiD, did you copy your rant to? Please say you didn't! . . . Man, I'm disappointed.
|
|
TogeKiD
FESSer
I love Twilkitri. :-*
Posts: 2,594
|
Post by TogeKiD on Apr 3, 2003 13:56:55 GMT -5
I didn't? I just made all that up? ' Man.. Chiki? You can do much better when you do it yourself! ^.^
|
|