¡xkcd!

From what I can gather, it is a substitute for the word 'sh!t'. But there seems to be more to it than this. Sage, as well as some of his fellow rappers, seemed to use the word ubiquitously around the time of his 'still sick...urine trouble' album. Any idea what the origin is, or if it has another meaning??

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/35308221078...

That's the only sense I can make of the lines:

"Isn't it ironic? I'm the sadist,

but now it seems he just might be immune to what I inflict."

I'd be interested to see what anyone else can make of it, though.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11839.html

he does a pretty good job of trying to make it understandable, but i guess i'll just have to accept my dimwitery in physics

I am a former liberal who first became a social libertarian and then realized that corporatism is actually often perpetuated rather than curtailed by the state. Even if the eventual goal is a minarchist/anarchist society in which parallel institutions are set up to solve problems previously put in the hands of the state, I think the state serves some necessary functions (especially economically) right now. However, when debating with a friend of mine who is either a moderate or right-leaning libertarian, I was forced to concede that large taxes allow the state to keep ballooning in size. So my question is, "What is the best way to address economic inequalities before there are sufficient private/cooperative solutions?" Starving the state, I admit, seems nice, but I'm not sure it's practical. I'm not really sure what best to do. Your thoughts? Also, any recommendations on what I can read to learn more about this? I'm familiar with Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, but I don't care if the ideology is specifically "socialist" like theirs. Thank you in advance for any light you can shed on this topic.

I'm confused about what seems to be a contradiction in the anti death penalty argument. Some, though certainly not all advocates of this position, claim that life in prison without parole is a worse punishment than the death penalty, and thus, a more fitting punishment for those convicted of the most heinous crimes. They also claim that innocent people may be executed, which is unjust. But if we return to the first argument, wouldn't they be condemning the innocents to a fate worse than death? This seems hardly a humane treatment.

And yes, I know there ain't no THE cosmological argument. Personally, I think our conception of time and our lack of knowledge about the laws 'before' the Big Bang render us unable to accept a First Cause. That being said, I find it much more convincing than the ontological or teleological arguments and think it is probably the strongest argument around for at least a Deist conception of God. So, while I don't except this argument, I would call myself a weak atheist towards all possible deist gods (conscious/intending creation or not) as opposed to a strong atheist towards the specific theistic variants that have been proposed. Also, does anyone have a concise explanation of potential infinites vs. actual infinites (in dealing with causal chains)? What do you guys think?

If a car going a constant speed (0 acceleration) of 70kph, wouldn't it be striking you with twice the force of a car going at a constant speed of 35kph? Yet, both cars have the same amount (lack) of acceleration. Maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of 'force,' but the formula F=ma just doesn't make any sense to me. I do have an understanding of derivatives so if you can somehow explain the formula using acceleration as the derivative of speed i'll follow, but I'd prefer an intuitive explanation to a mathematical one, if possible (though both would be great!).

Or, perhaps, it seems both speed and acceleration should be determinants of force. Because if that same car going 70kph at the moment of impact is accelerating, rather than cruising, then, intuitively, it would impact you with more force. Or at least, the force would be maintained for longer period of time, since it now takes the car longer to decelerate. Am I wrong in my thinking here?

I know that the latter group explicitly adds the defense of men's rights to its agenda, but are there any substantive differences in practice between the adherents of the two ideologies?

Don't anybody go freaking out on me. I'm not going to go lopping motherfu*kers heads off if I can't find a concrete philosophical reason why values should be societally enforced. I'm mainly just confused about what seperates this act from others as a punishable crime. For example, I don't like it when people play loud music in the park, but it is not illegal, and i don't insist that they be arrested (ya, there are noise ordinances, but they're only for a decibel level well above that which is annoying, and they are rarely enforced at that). Please don't go invoking any religious arguments for the inherent value of human life. If you still believe that this is the case, so be it; just do me the favor of refraining from answering this question. (I suppose if you could make a secular argument for the same, that'd be fair game, though I think you'd have a hell of time convincing me). And I guess, tangentially related, how do subjectivist ethics have relevance if they are subjective? I understand that subjectivists claim that morality exists, just not objectively (as opposed to moral error theororists who say no moraltiy exists), but I don't understand how this is so. Damn you, metaethics, damn you!

For example:

"Kelly went to the store, and in the produce aisle, she picked out three apples."

I do not understand why there isn't a comma after "and" and before "in." "In the produce aisle" is an unnecessary prepositional phrase, so why wouldn't you need a comma both preceding and following it? I have always seen this type of comma ommited when a nonessentail part of the sentence follows a conjunction (at least that's the pattern i've noticed, not sure if the rule is broader) but can find no rational explanation for it. Care to enlighten me?

the lyrics: http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/35308221078...

to hear the song: http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/search/songs/?quer...

I don't know that I woul call myself an existentialist, but I would at least say I'm existentialist-ic in that I accept the basic premise that subjective purpose is what matters and that a person is the arbiter of their nature by making choices. It seems to me like there is a glaring contradiction here and that I would at least have to at least scale back to compatibalism for these beliefs to be logically consistent, but somehow I hold both of the above beliefs. Anyone care to enlighten me?

If you can't choose your original nature does that preclude freewill, or is it still possible?