User talk:Weri long wang/Archive 4
Re: Charlie's loaf[edit source]
"At the beginning of the movie he rushes in with a loaf of bread above his head. His mother asks were he got it from, but Grandpa Joe butted in: “who cares were he got it, point is he got it”. Who cares where our morality comes from, point is we got it. If being good is simply “selfish” (it serves oneself) then so what! That’s even better!"
The point is NOT that he got it. What if he got the loaf by swiping it from a starving family? What if he stole the loaf openly from a store, and the police will be by Charlie's house any minute to present charges? What if he spent their last savings on it, but he got ripped off in the deal, so that loaf is the only food they have for the entire year? What if the loaf was found on the ground, on a pile of rat poison? What if it was a wax piece from an art museum, and thus is not a loaf of bread at all? Perhaps it would be a case of "so what" if being good actually were the same as being selfish, but that's very often not the case. For instance, giving away your last possession to someone who needs it more is an act of selflessness, not selfishness. The highest morality is not "easy", and I don't think you really believe it is as simple as being selfish. -BaronGrackle 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Stick chasing[edit source]
You describe morality as "working well with others, not hurting people, doing good deeds for people you see a lot". I agree with you that absolute selflessness is not the only means this can be accomplished, but I also do not believe the two are that distinct; I believe selflessness is the highest form of this.
As for Charlie's bread, I came up with those bizarre examples to illustrate that it very much DOES matter where he got the bread. In some of the cases, where he got the bread means he wronged others to get it, in others it means he is harming his family and even himself, and in some cases the bread is not even bread at all. The reason I believe that it matters where our morality comes from is because the source often defines what type of morality we have. Someone whose morality comes from believing humans are prime and most significant will sacrifice a million dogs, cats, endangered panda, or what have you to save a single person. For someone whose morality is based on all life reigning supreme except in cases where one life threatens another, a human can be severely punished for walking on the grass. You point out many cases where a religious/spiritual person's morality, which is often based on some divine concept, acts in contradiction to what you yourself would consider moral. The source for our morality, the foundation on which it is built, dictates precisely how that morality takes shape.
You may say it is arrogant, bigoted, and wrong for religious folk to consider only religious folk to be "good", but this is often based on how their morals and those of unreligious folk contradict on so many key issues. It may be considered equally arrogant, bigoted, and wrong for an atheist to believe that most atheists are "better" than most religious types because of the morality contradictions. The difference, of course, is that the different moralities cannot all be correct at the same time. Someone is wrong, or perhaps everyone is wrong. This is why we have to consider the source for our morality, to make sure it isn't just something that got made up one day, after which it caught on. -BaronGrackle 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
York, et al[edit source]
What is it with Moslem terrorists and the placename “York”? That's actually rather good... is there something in the Islam or Jihad article yet about having an inclination toward destroying places named York? And I appreciate the gesture; I just get frustrated sometimes, as I'm sure you do with people like me. -BaronGrackle 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
ID reverts[edit source]
Ok, we've had quite enough of this foolishness, then. Both of you, walk away from that page. Right now before someone is going to loses an eye. /me grabs stick for poking of eye, mentioned earlier in this header Oh, shit. I've run out of things to say. Well, just read the title, then. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
George W. Bush[edit source]
Just a heads up. Your edits on that page won't last for long at all. And I don't even need to get involved to revert your "humor" (note the quotes). There are half a dozen people there who will do it.
Look, if you're not going to be serious about being funny, why edit at all? Haven't you noticed the fact that your talk page is one person after another telling you that they don't like your edits? May I repeat the advice offered to you by an earlier poster: "You have way too much free time. You should join some cult or something." You seem to have ticked off almost everyone on this site. The amazing thing is that it hasn't made you stop yet. -- Rei 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can think of a place you can put your head up. Now fuck off!!!! I don't want your opinions. (By the way, when you’re on this page, it’s spelt humour) Weri long wang 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent Design[edit source]
Are you still reverting Intelligent Design? The user Rei (who I can see is a great friend of yours) is convinced I’m doing it for you! Newze rules 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry[edit source]
Sorry about accidentally reverting your changes. --Sir Geo 00:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Invitation[edit source]
|
RadicalX invites you to join the Potatochoppers' Guild. Please read through our charter and decide whether or not you would like to join. If you would, please contact RadicalX to find out more! |
Shit happens...[edit source]
...on VFP. But remember "...Do not remove or archive nominations. Loser admins will see to that...". I saw them take a guy's thumbs for doing that, once. Now he can't hit the spacebar. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah....and I was about to vote FOR it too, on the strength that it made me laugh! :) -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
Swinjastore!![edit source]
Re:Yes Minister[edit source]
I have looked at some of your articles and have no doubt that you are open minded. While you are mocking the British political system, I still believe you still need some jokes that aren't referring to homosexuality. The pictures are well 'chopped and the Saddam one is funny, but it is sort of irrelevent to what is happening in the article. The picture replacing Bernard in the background with some guy off South Park is funny-ish, but it refers to the homosexuality jokes that you have in the article.
In conclusion, I have no doubt that you are not homophobic, but it is my opinion that this article could do without some of the crude jokes to reach the height of its humour. {Ikabu}BUZZ...FLICK...GURGLE... 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Patheticism[edit source]
I already listed it on QVFD, in case you haven't found out yet. --Andorin Kato 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)