'Murica! (257 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
Spooky. 
It is an orgy of paranoia and pessimism. Every day it's the latest article about the thing that will end the world. And yet the next morning they're able to do the same thing, every day.
I actually just cut a person quite dear to me out of my life for similar reasons, a combo of closemindedness and pessimism. Btw I'm not saying Andy is like that, but that really is a toxic trait combo.
It's true that the worst case scenarios are underreported in a lot of mediums. Take financial markets and our buddy Jim Cramer. And people who put a rosy spin on everything make me vomit daisies.
But the art of the chiaroscuro is the contrast between dark and light. The dark becomes that much darker when it is compared with daylight. Dark on dark is just, well, gray after a while.
So when everything is doom and gloom 24x7, it dilutes it. Darkness becomes a cheap commodity. So much so that it merely becomes the equal and opposite of Jim Cramer pumping up every crackpot investment. As if Jim Cramer were pitching the investment upside of doom and chaos futures. Same guilt, different direction.
And to X's point, people like that can suck any enjoyment out of life if you're around them too long.
For the record, I am a big fan of Tyler and his philosophies. Let it be said...
But the art of the chiaroscuro is the contrast between dark and light. The dark becomes that much darker when it is compared with daylight. Dark on dark is just, well, gray after a while.
So when everything is doom and gloom 24x7, it dilutes it. Darkness becomes a cheap commodity. So much so that it merely becomes the equal and opposite of Jim Cramer pumping up every crackpot investment. As if Jim Cramer were pitching the investment upside of doom and chaos futures. Same guilt, different direction.
And to X's point, people like that can suck any enjoyment out of life if you're around them too long.
Tyler Durden writes the articles. That's all you need to know about it 
http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector
- - - Updated - - -
In not really other news, Trump said you should torture terrorists even if they're already complying with the question of the officers.
- - - Updated - - -
In not really other news, Trump said you should torture terrorists even if they're already complying with the question of the officers.
That's silly.
What's also silly is this notion that we shouldn't torture them for information. As long as it is credible information, I say torture is fine. Especially if it may save lives.
Of course, any evidence gathered by torture cannot result in a conviction. So you'd have to let most of them go afterwards. You can't convict them, because you went against everything a modern 'rechtsstaat' is.
All of this assuming you play by the rules and don't lock them up anyway.
What's also silly is this notion that we shouldn't torture them for information. As long as it is credible information, I say torture is fine. Especially if it may save lives.
Of course, any evidence gathered by torture cannot result in a conviction. So you'd have to let most of them go afterwards. You can't convict them, because you went against everything a modern 'rechtsstaat' is.
All of this assuming you play by the rules and don't lock them up anyway.
Sure.
Have you ever seen Unthinkable? It is supposed to be about a moral dilemma. Samuel L. Jackson tortures a terrorist to get information about three bomb locations. The bombs are placed in major American cities. In this case I'm all about utilitarianism. You choose the moral action that results in the least amount of suffering. Millions die if you don't resort to torture. One suffers if you do. I say go ahead and torture the man. However, if you manage to retrieve the bombs and the only evidence you have against this man (unlikely, but it happens) is his confession which you got through torture, you cannot convict him.
But all of this is assuming that the information you gather is reliable.
Have you ever seen Unthinkable? It is supposed to be about a moral dilemma. Samuel L. Jackson tortures a terrorist to get information about three bomb locations. The bombs are placed in major American cities. In this case I'm all about utilitarianism. You choose the moral action that results in the least amount of suffering. Millions die if you don't resort to torture. One suffers if you do. I say go ahead and torture the man. However, if you manage to retrieve the bombs and the only evidence you have against this man (unlikely, but it happens) is his confession which you got through torture, you cannot convict him.
But all of this is assuming that the information you gather is reliable.