Ouphenix 2RR
Creature - Phoenix Ouphe
Flying
During your upkeep, if Ouphenix is in your graveyard and you control three or more artifacts, sacrifice three artifacts and return Ouphenix to the battlefield.
Meowphistopheles 1BB
Legendary Creature - Cat Demon
If ~ would die, instead remove all counters except death counters from it, then put a death counter on it and you lose 2 life.
When ~ has 9 death counters on it, exile it.
2/1
I think "colorless" makes sense. "Devoid" in the context of mana can also work, I suppose. The only confusing bit would be costs such as 1CG, because right now cards are specified to be "Devoid" (no color) and I am not sure it makes sense to have cards be Devoid-Green the way RG can be Red-Green. I am not into "glass" as a term for this; it feels too non sequitur.
Honestly, it feels like anything but generic, colorless, r, g, w, u, b would be problematic. If it's not locked into meaning strictly devoid of color, "colorless" will remain an ambiguous term.
Actually over time it's become more and more socially unacceptable to resort to violence to settle any sort of dispute. You can't even defend yourself in a fight in school anymore without getting into trouble for it. I would say that proportionally speaking, there is far less violence these days than there has been in the past.
I agree that letting anger get the better of you is just about never a good idea, but I'm not sure if there's anything really interesting to say on the topic.
Frankly, I don't see how people disagreeing provides any evidence one way or the other about if morality is actually relative or is actually absolute.
It is, however, evidence that there is not a readily apparent absolute morality.
Hmm well I'm pointing out that there are moralities and they can only be judged relative to one another rather than against some "correct morality" -- and they are judged this way all the time. Ever since moral systems were first developed by organisms this has been the case and not once has anyone been able to determine whether morality A is "more moral" than morality B in any truly objective manner.
So the point is, relative morality is the morality we've always known. You're right, that alone doesn't tell us whether or not an "absolute morality" exists. What tells us that is that no source for such a concept has been coherently defined, let alone any evidence presented for it, and certainly there's no actual evidence for an absolute morality even as a self-emerged thing. In fact, the more I think about it, the more ignostic of the concept I become.
We have to assume that the criminal is the exception to the belief
When there is a logical connection from a belief to criminal behavior, and when the evidence is overwhelming that certain beliefs and certain behaviors are directly linked, then would you advocate willful ignorance? Seems somewhat irresponsible.
I can't be the only one who sees the asinine absurdity of this conundrum, right?
No I see it as well. Superman doesn't need our taxpayer money because he can basically use his powers to create his own mint and print all the money he wants. Or he can rob a thousand banks at mach 150. Or mine his own precious metals and minerals. Superman can drill for his own oil. Man, if I were Superman, I would be so freaking wealthy.
I agree. But if a kid is sick at school, just having health care doesn't mean they will never have a cold or something. Anyone can go buy cold medicine at a pharmacy or something.
It's not that they might never have a cold. (Although it may be that they never get something or other.) It's that they get well sooner because they get treated for it, or they get better treatment than over-the-counter. "Cold medicine at a pharmacy or something" won't treat bacterial infection, for instance -- for that you need an antibiotic prescription from a physician. And there are many bacterial infections that children get. A physician can also help diagnose whether you're dealing with a viral or bacterial infection, etc.
And I haven't even mentioned injury, etc. and being treated for it in due time by qualified healthcare practitioners. I don't really want to think about the number of people who, if not for proper treatment at an ER despite their not having health insurance, would have improperly healed injuries and so forth. I imagine it's not a number one can laugh off.
---
SailorMoonkin
I vote for universal toy care.
Healthcare and toys aren't free. It's a question of weighing the costs of having these things provided (to whatever degree) to as many members of the public as possible, compared to not doing that. My point was that not providing healthcare isn't an action that's free of cost in itself, due to its consequences. Though I must say you really are very sarcastic and witty.
You have children. They go to school. You can afford, and therefore have, healthcare. Some of your children's classmates do not have healthcare. When they get sick, they stay sick longer. Maybe a couple develop other complications from their sicknesses. How is this situation not a problem for your own children? Sure, they have healthcare, but they are exposed to far more health risks than if all of their classmates had healthcare.
There are costs associated with both providing healthcare to people and not providing it.
A case can be made that a society that has a system to promote the general health of its populace may have an advantage in terms of prosperity and progress over a society that has no such system (or a much worse system). All developed nations I can think of have some system of this sort. Paying to uphold such a system beats paying for the alternative -- more frequent outbreaks of dangerous diseases, etc. It's not like, if there were no socialized healthcare of any kind, that everyone who couldn't afford it would just croak and vaporize on the spot and have no direct/indirect effect on anyone else. Sick poor people would stay sick longer, they would develop more complications, etc. You can end up with a health crisis on your hands from sheer negligence.
So it's not just about "deserving health care"; it's about perpetuating a society that is most beneficial to its populace and can sustain itself longest.
Ignosticism/igtheism and atheism are only at odds in the sense that atheism is taken to mean that the concept of 'god' is coherent enough that asking a question about its existence is at all meaningful.
I suppose one can call oneself both but then things get a bit confusing. Sure, if something is incoherent then it can't possibly exist so it's silly to believe it does, and I suppose igtheism puts the emphasis on the 'incoherent' bit rather than on the 'belief' bit.
What I've found a bit surprising is how much the fall shows are toeing over the line as far as erm ... questionable content. You usually would see something like Panty and Stocking during the summer, but there are quite a few shows like that in the fall O.o
It seems like there's more and more anime that's really borderline erotica these days. A growing trend. So many "uncensored DVD" releases >_> Cheapens the product if you ask me.
Second episode of Ika Musume was good. I'd wanted a comedy show for a while now so I'm glad that we have one this season (Lucky Star was the last one that I thought was on par; K-ON!! is not comedic enough).
I didn't. You brought realism into the discussion. Pretty sure I was the first to make a distinction. But meh.
I guess I just don't follow the leap from "people disagree about what is moral" to "therefore there is no objective morality"
Because that's not where the logical connection is made. The "people disagree" bit (well, even if everyone agreed the argument would be nearly the same) is evidence of relative morality. That is, morality is relative in at least some scope -- for instance, within the scope of humanity.
The "there is no objective morality" conclusion is actually derived from the question of what would be the source of an objective morality. And this question hasn't even been close to satisfactorily answered. There is zero evidence for a source of absolute morality, whether interpreted as a "god" of some sort or an "inherent property" of whatever things/actions (in the sense that something -- say, a neutron star -- can be "inherently good" independent of anyone's experience or interpretation of it). And if the response to this is that the source is conjectured to be such that we should not expect to find any evidence of it, then frankly it's an untestable, meaningless conjecture that gets us nowhere because its existence, whatever that means, is indistinguishable from its nonexistence and we therefore live our lives as if it doesn't actually exist (whether we pretend it does or not).
Creature - Phoenix Ouphe
Flying
During your upkeep, if Ouphenix is in your graveyard and you control three or more artifacts, sacrifice three artifacts and return Ouphenix to the battlefield.
Oh oh oh.. no no no no awww, come on!
2/3
Ok next is Kithkin Eldrazi
Legendary Creature - Cat Demon
If ~ would die, instead remove all counters except death counters from it, then put a death counter on it and you lose 2 life.
When ~ has 9 death counters on it, exile it.
2/1
Yeah it's a bit clumsy.
How about...
Hippo Samurai
Honestly, it feels like anything but generic, colorless, r, g, w, u, b would be problematic. If it's not locked into meaning strictly devoid of color, "colorless" will remain an ambiguous term.
I agree that letting anger get the better of you is just about never a good idea, but I'm not sure if there's anything really interesting to say on the topic.
So the point is, relative morality is the morality we've always known. You're right, that alone doesn't tell us whether or not an "absolute morality" exists. What tells us that is that no source for such a concept has been coherently defined, let alone any evidence presented for it, and certainly there's no actual evidence for an absolute morality even as a self-emerged thing. In fact, the more I think about it, the more ignostic of the concept I become.
And I haven't even mentioned injury, etc. and being treated for it in due time by qualified healthcare practitioners. I don't really want to think about the number of people who, if not for proper treatment at an ER despite their not having health insurance, would have improperly healed injuries and so forth. I imagine it's not a number one can laugh off.
---
SailorMoonkin
Healthcare and toys aren't free. It's a question of weighing the costs of having these things provided (to whatever degree) to as many members of the public as possible, compared to not doing that. My point was that not providing healthcare isn't an action that's free of cost in itself, due to its consequences. Though I must say you really are very sarcastic and witty.
You have children. They go to school. You can afford, and therefore have, healthcare. Some of your children's classmates do not have healthcare. When they get sick, they stay sick longer. Maybe a couple develop other complications from their sicknesses. How is this situation not a problem for your own children? Sure, they have healthcare, but they are exposed to far more health risks than if all of their classmates had healthcare.
There are costs associated with both providing healthcare to people and not providing it.
So it's not just about "deserving health care"; it's about perpetuating a society that is most beneficial to its populace and can sustain itself longest.
I suppose one can call oneself both but then things get a bit confusing. Sure, if something is incoherent then it can't possibly exist so it's silly to believe it does, and I suppose igtheism puts the emphasis on the 'incoherent' bit rather than on the 'belief' bit.
Second episode of Ika Musume was good. I'd wanted a comedy show for a while now so I'm glad that we have one this season (Lucky Star was the last one that I thought was on par; K-ON!! is not comedic enough).
Because that's not where the logical connection is made. The "people disagree" bit (well, even if everyone agreed the argument would be nearly the same) is evidence of relative morality. That is, morality is relative in at least some scope -- for instance, within the scope of humanity.
The "there is no objective morality" conclusion is actually derived from the question of what would be the source of an objective morality. And this question hasn't even been close to satisfactorily answered. There is zero evidence for a source of absolute morality, whether interpreted as a "god" of some sort or an "inherent property" of whatever things/actions (in the sense that something -- say, a neutron star -- can be "inherently good" independent of anyone's experience or interpretation of it). And if the response to this is that the source is conjectured to be such that we should not expect to find any evidence of it, then frankly it's an untestable, meaningless conjecture that gets us nowhere because its existence, whatever that means, is indistinguishable from its nonexistence and we therefore live our lives as if it doesn't actually exist (whether we pretend it does or not).