http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
I was surprised by my results. I suppose the caveat is I have tended to be a scoundrel in my pursuit of the just.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/image...l_musings6.jpg
OEC
Printable View
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
I was surprised by my results. I suppose the caveat is I have tended to be a scoundrel in my pursuit of the just.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/image...l_musings6.jpg
OEC
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
i really hope they aren't logging IP addresses.
?? Why do you say that ??Quote:
Originally Posted by sheramil
OEC
oh, i'm just paranoid. i've been watching the nightly news a lot lately, and i don't think that's healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
Hedley Lamarr: I want you to round up every vicious criminal and gun slinger in the west. Take this down. I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
Taggart: Could you repeat that, sir?
Watching the nightly news isn't healthy? My answers? Your answers? hehe I'm paranoid too I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheramil
OEC
funny how it gets pregressivly more "extreme"............i'm almost done i think.....min..
here ya go,is that good?........interesting read too.....
http://www.philosophersnet.com/image..._musings12.jpg
I don't think any set of answers is necessarily good or bad.
OEC
yea, i didn;t really mean it like that........Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
why is it wheni get it here,someone elses post just went through "1 min." ago.........is it luck or somthing.....
it 5:34 isn't it ..........i think i'm saying fuck work today,i'm "sick" dammit..........hahaahahhaaaaaaa../........////,m/m.........
It's 4:37 here. :O And I get to clean house all day tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by killerkat
...today. I get to clean house today.
don't you hate when time seems to just kind of skip forward,hours or days or weeks at a time,ge golly gosh that's bugs me.........Quote:
Originally Posted by cheinara wraithwalker
god"ge golly gosh" come on, what the fuck am i talkin' about,haha...laugh...laughing....laughed...will laugh...um.........
I lose track of time a lot. I'm awake like 20 hours a day. Luckily, I get a week off come friday:1orglaugh :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by killerkat
OEC
yea, times been doing well beyond weird shit lately,i can't even really use numbered time in my life anymore,5:00am feels just like 8:00pm and all that,i've been going by weeks and monthsQuote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
it sucks pretty bad , becuse shit comes up soo fast i don't get ready for it then !BAM! it just passed, and i fucked up,...........i'm getting real sick of this "system"............hmmmmmm....doin' some pondering on this one............
http://www.philosophersnet.com/image..._musings10.jpg
"There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway you indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook"
woo hoo! No, actually, it's because this survey assumes that my responses to the questions asking me how I feel about something and how it is judged by my definition of Morality, and how I feel about something based on my personal feelings of right and wrong, are one and the same, and they aren't. I may agree that something is right or wrong acording to Morality, but that doesn't mean that I personally feel that same way. had it asked me if I gave a shit about conventional Morality or Moralistic thinking, the answer would have been No.
fully permissive
same as killerkat and 23*
damn...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliX
Hrm... same here... weird.
I took it again and changed my answer on the chickenfucker and one other and it came about the same as those.
OEC
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
and there was me thinking that you were some sort of prodigy, the only one outside the 3rd quadrant :thumb: :1orglaugh
LOL nah. I just get on my high horse when it comes to animals etc. I had to rethink whether some guy fucking a dead chicken is really grounds for sanction:1orglaugh :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by 23*
OEC
So what does My result Mean?
fully permissive.. what a shocker. NOT
fully permissive
You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don't think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios wrong in terms of your moral outlook. It is a bit of a puzzle!
0.00.......0.00......-1.............morals, what morals? we don't need no stinkin' morals...................."good" morals just get in the way of "bad" fun
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. Where you have judged an act to be morally problematic, it is likely that you did so because you think that what makes it wrong comes from God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. You indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong, there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/image..._musings10.jpg
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.25.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.
Awxome
http://www.philosophersnet.com/image...l_musings4.jpg
Hey neet test. I can't say I have a problem with dead chicken sex...
yeah the dead chicken sex one was one of two I got on my high horse about. I was in the same quadrant as Nautilus overall. I'll post a few more from that site when I have more time.
OEC
i dunno how to post the pic but i got as morning glory