h.e. pennypacker wealthy industrialist
Find Me On:
So, I’ve been reading this site kindasorta daily for 5 years. It took me too much time to sign up for an account and then I never really bothered commenting. I just want to say thank you to everyone who made this the funniest, cleverest, coolest, bestest weblog on the webternet. This place was one of the only examples I ever had of a comment section that was worth more than the e-paper it was e-printed on. Just thanks everyone, again. I will miss this place.
I know a couple of old fat men who would disagree
no please Say Anything
Dr. Strangelove. or how i stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb, really, i stopped worrying, it’s fine.
These are not the donnas darko you’re looking for.
2 World 2 War
Also, shouldn’t letting your voice go up at the end count? I’m doing this right?
I choose to believe she meant that she can eat any man, just so long as she’s under a table. This would confirm both her evil cannibal nature and her snootiness about etiquette.
Pretty sure that at ~1:40, he calls Zach Galifianakis “actrice” which would be like calling him an actress. Heh heh.
That’s (x) ray cyst.
So, looooongtime lurker (ah! he’s lurking!) but I feel I have to Wade (get it? get it?) in here because what the world absolutely absolutely needs is more Phil majors arguing. Anywhos, the idea that Gabe’s making isn’t that there is a REAL moral relativity, that is: that there are people all over the country with different moral beliefs and all of those beliefs are true. That’s a big metaethical argument that I don’t think Gabe would want to make (and duh, I know every big metaethical argument Gabe wants to make).
Instead, I think what Gabe is saying is that there are a lot of people around the country with different ethical beliefs. PERIOD. This seems like a pretty good and pretty valid statement. Gabe isn’t a moral relativist, he’s not arguing that his “opinion of the morality of the act” would change, so he doesn’t “invalidate all [his] moral consistency.” He’s simply saying that there are a pluality of values, and in the way government should be organized, we are best to leave these kind of tough moral decisions up to the people. Now, this is a simplification on the latter part of the argument, because you could be like, “what’s that, H.E. Pennypacker Wealthy Industrialist, you think the government ought to step out of big moral disagreements? Well boom goes the civil rightsamyte, but those are questions of political philosophy and not ethics. (and the difference is something on the order of, like, some issues are issues of people and laws, like civil rights and some are between people and people, like people who disagree on abortion)
In other words, tl;dnr, and go look at the adorable kitties a post or two up.