Stop scrolling. Click here. Everybody look what's goin' down.

[Anarchemitis]

Work in Progress, Maya 2011
211,000 tris

Deustche Bundesbahn Baureihe-23 (1950)

The first thing that surprised me about making my first real train in Maya was how narrow the wheelbase is. Additionally, the train is deceptively large, those drive wheels are about five feet tall.

 

[Condor219]

I am the only person that I know am 100% trustworthy, 100% controllable, and 100% true. Everyone, everything, that I encounter, could be an illusion. All others could be animals simply placed here to view my reaction by some higher being, or (in a more "government conspiracy" fashion) they could be robots or contolled devices meant to react in certain ways to each and every one of my statements. I only know of my sentience, because that is the only one I know is under my control. Everything I ever do could be meticulously planned out so I could experience it, and I'd never know it. Maybe my life is a gigantic simulation, and when I die I'll wake up out of the simulation booth as a completely different being. But regardless of all that, I accept everything around me to be real, because no truer sense of reality exists. And if some greater presence were controlling the events around me, I need to do my best to satisfy that control; what else can I do besides that if it was my purpose? Anyway, I hope whoever read this enjoyed it.

Though it's some nice philosophy, Rene Descartes beat you to it. "Cogito, ergo sum" and all that.

But what the hell, it doesn't have to be original to be good, as my previous post proves.

Edit: Ooh, ooh! That reminds me of what is possibly the worst joke ever! Y'all ready for this?

So, Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks, "Hey, Rene, want a scotch?"
He answers "No, I think not," and then he vanishes.

Philosophy is philosophy, regardless of origin. Good to know I'm not the only crazy one here.

Also, LOL on that joke.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

The word "rust" is 80% of the word "trust"

Assuming an equal value split between 'u', 's', 'r' and 't' are we? Scrabble Underground got to you did they?

 

[spartan231490]

Justice is a myth. Think about it, it works two ways. The idea that somehow, there is an equilibrium, 'Karma', so to speak, is ludicrous. Newborn babies, who have never done anything wrong die, unable to earn any kind of good luck in exchange. Murderers walk free, and innocent men die by lethal injection.

The second way it works, is that no government can pursue any kind of true justice. No matter what you do, guilty men will walk free, and innocent men will be punished, and even if that weren't the case. I seriously doubt that even going so far as killing a murderer is any kind of justice, the victim is dead, and nothing will bring them back, and the family will not get to see them again just because the person who did it is dead. The only justifiable purpose for law is to prevent actions which harm members of the populace, I.E. crime, so law's purpose should be deterrence, not justice. Justice is the realm of God, not Men, any man made justice is nothing but a myth.

Pretty sure that's original. You caught me at a good time with this thread, this is a rather recent thought of mine, in another month I will likely have forgotten it, if the past is any indication.

I think what you mean is that complete justice doesn't exist, not that justice doesn't exist. Some notion of justice has to exist, otherwise you wouldn't realize what was unjust. It's kind of like how Goodness can only exist if there is Evil/badness to differentiate from.

No, I meant what I said. Justice is a myth. It has been conceptualized, but it doesn't exist(at least not in this life. I have no authority to claim anything about what may or may not come after). Partial justice doesn't exist either.

Justice is just a word thrown about to give moral authority to a punishment. However, punishment needs no moral authority beyond being a deterrent of similar undesirable actions from others. As for us knowing when something is unjust, we don't.

We can't know how any action will balance on the scales of universal 'justice.' A man kills a child, sounds unjust, but maybe that kid would one day grow to be a mass-murderer, or a child molester. We can't know that that action was unjust, or even evil. but we still have the moral authority, as a society, to punish that action, because killing a person is usually going to be a bad thing for society, and because if it is a common occurrence, panic and fear will endanger the lives of everyone.

'Unjust' is almost always used to describe something that was evil or cruel, not even things which our society considers to be 'unjust.' At least, that's what my experience tells me.

ok, I get what you're saying. You're saying that Justice doesn't manifest itself in this reality, but that the concept of Justice as an absolute idea does in fact exist. We just don't (and perhaps can't) really know what executed Justice would look like, and therefore all justice systems that exist today are not really justice systems at all, but failed attempts.

Your view differs from another view of justice: That justice is not necessarily a concrete idea, but something to work towards. Like you said, Unjust is used to describe something evil or cruel, and likewise, Just is used to describe something which would be the opposite or retribution for evil or cruelty. Think about all of the many different kinds of moralities out there, and how people's opinions on what is evil or cruel differ.

The Justice system doesn't exist to establish some kind of ultimate, pure justice, the kind you say doesn't exist, but rather is there to establish some kind of moral order in the lack of over-arching objective morality.

Which is exactly my point. "Government is just a body of people, usually notably, ungoverned." The government has no business telling me what to believe or what is right or wrong. That's God's job. Government should stop claiming to bring about justice and just be honest about what they're doing, because what they are doing is far more important and morally justifiable than imposing a morality on their people. What they are doing is maintaining order and safety for the populace, a necessary and worthy goal, that should not be hidden behind vain and useless attempts to mimic omnipotence. Perhaps I should modify it. Justice on Earth is a myth.

I have no idea if you're American (I am), but the American government never claims that it does the kind of Justice you're talking about. For instance, if we understood what it took to exact your kind of Justice, the right to a fair trial would not be necessary. The point in the Justice system is to prevent people from coming over and saying that they do in fact know what is needed to exact Justice (in the purest sense), and people believing.

I suppose if you really wanted, it really ought to be considered the "Various kinds and degrees of Injustice prevention" system, rather than the "Justice System".

I would also like to point out that it's not only God's job, but Man's job as well. For those who do not believe in God for instance, they are still moral. And their conception of Right and Wrong may differ from what you perceive to be the word of God.

I disagree with the first part. I'm American, and every time I hear about a trial for even the mildest of non-victimless crime, all I hear about is bringing 'justice' to the victims. It's all over our culture, every crime show, every action flick references 'justice.' Politicians are especially guilty of making crime prevention about 'justice' in an abstract sense, which in my opinion it never can be.

As for being man's job, that kinda depends on what you mean. I am saying that any true justice is out of the reach of man, and must be left up to whatever supreme power rules the universe, whether that be a God or if it is physics. And I would not say that those who don't believe in God are still moral. That implies that I believe all people who believe in God are moral. I'm a realist, and I believe that the vast majority of people wouldn't recognize moral if it started screwing them on the street, and that those few who do are not separated by what they believe in, but by the simple fact that they believe in something greater than themselves.

I would rather it simply be called the legal system, because that's all it is, and all it can ever be, and all it should ever aspire to be.

 

[Mr Thin]

If my life was a music box, then the boy I met some time ago wound it up, let the music pour out, and the little ballerina twirl. Pity that the feelings are purely one-sided.

That's beautiful.

OT: I just ate a mock cream & jam bun, despite being unable to ride a bike, and no amount of physical therapy will truly fix me.

 

[DarkRyter]

Gee Willickers, Ronald Reagan/Barack Obama hybrid forged by elven watch repairmen, you were right about Kamen Rider Kabuto being green!

 

[Ambi]

This is ridiculous, nothing in this thread is original (in the larger scope of things). But here I am thinking up the same type of trite philosophical drabble. Maybe it's not so bad, I love you all. Should I try to be original? I'd probably sacrifice sense and coherency if I did. What would the point of that be?

 

[Sonic Doctor]

The flying 6 legged whales were at war with the unicorns. Unfortunately the gnomes and dwarves kidnapped a rich business man, who made the unicorns only weakness. Brownies. Thus destroying Unicorns forever and having the whales, dwarves and gnomes rule over the land.

They ruled over the land until there arose a new alliance between the bears, giant killer bees, and Steve. Bob The Ninja was a double agent that was the real mastermind behind all that went on in the war. He eventually became ruler of all the land, but nobody noticed.

 

[Jubbert]

Sometimes I'm afraid that this life is actually all a virtual simulation, much like the Matrix, except that it's actually a test to see what kind of person I am in the outside world, and the test is used in a job interview or something to decide whether or not I'm fit to be the ruler of the world.

 

[Scars Unseen]

You know how nurses (and occasionally doctors) will ask you to rate your current state of pain from 0 - 10, with 0 being no pain at all and 10 being the worst pain you can imagine? I can't ever rate myself any higher than a 2 on that scale. Having the inside of your mouth slowly sliced open with a scalpel sans anesthesia grants a bit of insight into pain, and since I can imagine things far more painful that even that, the scale seems too small to be useful. I mean, where on that scale do you place being slowly eroded away by medium grit sand paper? Industrial strength acid being administered from the toes and moving upward? A broken glass filled massage chair? Being eaten alive by ravenous Chihuahuas? The list goes on.

 

[zehydra]

Justice is a myth. Think about it, it works two ways. The idea that somehow, there is an equilibrium, 'Karma', so to speak, is ludicrous. Newborn babies, who have never done anything wrong die, unable to earn any kind of good luck in exchange. Murderers walk free, and innocent men die by lethal injection.

The second way it works, is that no government can pursue any kind of true justice. No matter what you do, guilty men will walk free, and innocent men will be punished, and even if that weren't the case. I seriously doubt that even going so far as killing a murderer is any kind of justice, the victim is dead, and nothing will bring them back, and the family will not get to see them again just because the person who did it is dead. The only justifiable purpose for law is to prevent actions which harm members of the populace, I.E. crime, so law's purpose should be deterrence, not justice. Justice is the realm of God, not Men, any man made justice is nothing but a myth.

Pretty sure that's original. You caught me at a good time with this thread, this is a rather recent thought of mine, in another month I will likely have forgotten it, if the past is any indication.

I think what you mean is that complete justice doesn't exist, not that justice doesn't exist. Some notion of justice has to exist, otherwise you wouldn't realize what was unjust. It's kind of like how Goodness can only exist if there is Evil/badness to differentiate from.

No, I meant what I said. Justice is a myth. It has been conceptualized, but it doesn't exist(at least not in this life. I have no authority to claim anything about what may or may not come after). Partial justice doesn't exist either.

Justice is just a word thrown about to give moral authority to a punishment. However, punishment needs no moral authority beyond being a deterrent of similar undesirable actions from others. As for us knowing when something is unjust, we don't.

We can't know how any action will balance on the scales of universal 'justice.' A man kills a child, sounds unjust, but maybe that kid would one day grow to be a mass-murderer, or a child molester. We can't know that that action was unjust, or even evil. but we still have the moral authority, as a society, to punish that action, because killing a person is usually going to be a bad thing for society, and because if it is a common occurrence, panic and fear will endanger the lives of everyone.

'Unjust' is almost always used to describe something that was evil or cruel, not even things which our society considers to be 'unjust.' At least, that's what my experience tells me.

ok, I get what you're saying. You're saying that Justice doesn't manifest itself in this reality, but that the concept of Justice as an absolute idea does in fact exist. We just don't (and perhaps can't) really know what executed Justice would look like, and therefore all justice systems that exist today are not really justice systems at all, but failed attempts.

Your view differs from another view of justice: That justice is not necessarily a concrete idea, but something to work towards. Like you said, Unjust is used to describe something evil or cruel, and likewise, Just is used to describe something which would be the opposite or retribution for evil or cruelty. Think about all of the many different kinds of moralities out there, and how people's opinions on what is evil or cruel differ.

The Justice system doesn't exist to establish some kind of ultimate, pure justice, the kind you say doesn't exist, but rather is there to establish some kind of moral order in the lack of over-arching objective morality.

Which is exactly my point. "Government is just a body of people, usually notably, ungoverned." The government has no business telling me what to believe or what is right or wrong. That's God's job. Government should stop claiming to bring about justice and just be honest about what they're doing, because what they are doing is far more important and morally justifiable than imposing a morality on their people. What they are doing is maintaining order and safety for the populace, a necessary and worthy goal, that should not be hidden behind vain and useless attempts to mimic omnipotence. Perhaps I should modify it. Justice on Earth is a myth.

I have no idea if you're American (I am), but the American government never claims that it does the kind of Justice you're talking about. For instance, if we understood what it took to exact your kind of Justice, the right to a fair trial would not be necessary. The point in the Justice system is to prevent people from coming over and saying that they do in fact know what is needed to exact Justice (in the purest sense), and people believing.

I suppose if you really wanted, it really ought to be considered the "Various kinds and degrees of Injustice prevention" system, rather than the "Justice System".

I would also like to point out that it's not only God's job, but Man's job as well. For those who do not believe in God for instance, they are still moral. And their conception of Right and Wrong may differ from what you perceive to be the word of God.

I disagree with the first part. I'm American, and every time I hear about a trial for even the mildest of non-victimless crime, all I hear about is bringing 'justice' to the victims. It's all over our culture, every crime show, every action flick references 'justice.' Politicians are especially guilty of making crime prevention about 'justice' in an abstract sense, which in my opinion it never can be.

As for being man's job, that kinda depends on what you mean. I am saying that any true justice is out of the reach of man, and must be left up to whatever supreme power rules the universe, whether that be a God or if it is physics. And I would not say that those who don't believe in God are still moral. That implies that I believe all people who believe in God are moral. I'm a realist, and I believe that the vast majority of people wouldn't recognize moral if it started screwing them on the street, and that those few who do are not separated by what they believe in, but by the simple fact that they believe in something greater than themselves.

I would rather it simply be called the legal system, because that's all it is, and all it can ever be, and all it should ever aspire to be.

Physics cannot determine justice, that doesn't make any sense. If there is no God, then by your definition of Justice, there cannot be any Justice, EVER.

I would consider this to be a flawed conception of Justice.

Also, when I meant that people who don't believe in God are still moral, I meant in that they can still be moral, not that they necessarily are. I totally agree with you that a very large sum of people do not really understand morality.

Justice necessarily stems from conceptions of Right and Wrong. Many believe that there is no concrete, no absolute Right and Wrong that is above everything else.

True Justice is within man's reach, because the concept of Justice is man-made.

 

[zehydra]

Sometimes I'm afraid that this life is actually all a virtual simulation, much like the Matrix, except that it's actually a test to see what kind of person I am in the outside world, and the test is used in a job interview or something to decide whether or not I'm fit to be the ruler of the world.

Well, if it is, then there's nothing you can do about it.

If it's out of your control, why be afraid of it?

 

[^=ash=^]

ASIMO's 'face' is one that I would like to punch.

xxx

 

[zehydra]

This is ridiculous, nothing in this thread is original (in the larger scope of things). But here I am thinking up the same type of trite philosophical drabble. Maybe it's not so bad, I love you all. Should I try to be original? I'd probably sacrifice sense and coherency if I did. What would the point of that be?

The only people who make intellectual progress nowadays are those who refuse to acknowledge that all that could be said has been said.

Go against your instinct on this one, and try and come up with a truly unique philosophical idea.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Perception is the mother of deception and generalization is the brother of misinformation.

 

[Nouw]

I'm Korean and I personally think that Warhammer 40,000 is cooler than Starcraft.

Beat that!

 

[VyperX]

A series of tubes
The whole human experience
Lolcats and bronies

 

[spartan231490]

Justice is a myth. Think about it, it works two ways. The idea that somehow, there is an equilibrium, 'Karma', so to speak, is ludicrous. Newborn babies, who have never done anything wrong die, unable to earn any kind of good luck in exchange. Murderers walk free, and innocent men die by lethal injection.

The second way it works, is that no government can pursue any kind of true justice. No matter what you do, guilty men will walk free, and innocent men will be punished, and even if that weren't the case. I seriously doubt that even going so far as killing a murderer is any kind of justice, the victim is dead, and nothing will bring them back, and the family will not get to see them again just because the person who did it is dead. The only justifiable purpose for law is to prevent actions which harm members of the populace, I.E. crime, so law's purpose should be deterrence, not justice. Justice is the realm of God, not Men, any man made justice is nothing but a myth.

Pretty sure that's original. You caught me at a good time with this thread, this is a rather recent thought of mine, in another month I will likely have forgotten it, if the past is any indication.

I think what you mean is that complete justice doesn't exist, not that justice doesn't exist. Some notion of justice has to exist, otherwise you wouldn't realize what was unjust. It's kind of like how Goodness can only exist if there is Evil/badness to differentiate from.

No, I meant what I said. Justice is a myth. It has been conceptualized, but it doesn't exist(at least not in this life. I have no authority to claim anything about what may or may not come after). Partial justice doesn't exist either.

Justice is just a word thrown about to give moral authority to a punishment. However, punishment needs no moral authority beyond being a deterrent of similar undesirable actions from others. As for us knowing when something is unjust, we don't.

We can't know how any action will balance on the scales of universal 'justice.' A man kills a child, sounds unjust, but maybe that kid would one day grow to be a mass-murderer, or a child molester. We can't know that that action was unjust, or even evil. but we still have the moral authority, as a society, to punish that action, because killing a person is usually going to be a bad thing for society, and because if it is a common occurrence, panic and fear will endanger the lives of everyone.

'Unjust' is almost always used to describe something that was evil or cruel, not even things which our society considers to be 'unjust.' At least, that's what my experience tells me.

ok, I get what you're saying. You're saying that Justice doesn't manifest itself in this reality, but that the concept of Justice as an absolute idea does in fact exist. We just don't (and perhaps can't) really know what executed Justice would look like, and therefore all justice systems that exist today are not really justice systems at all, but failed attempts.

Your view differs from another view of justice: That justice is not necessarily a concrete idea, but something to work towards. Like you said, Unjust is used to describe something evil or cruel, and likewise, Just is used to describe something which would be the opposite or retribution for evil or cruelty. Think about all of the many different kinds of moralities out there, and how people's opinions on what is evil or cruel differ.

The Justice system doesn't exist to establish some kind of ultimate, pure justice, the kind you say doesn't exist, but rather is there to establish some kind of moral order in the lack of over-arching objective morality.

Which is exactly my point. "Government is just a body of people, usually notably, ungoverned." The government has no business telling me what to believe or what is right or wrong. That's God's job. Government should stop claiming to bring about justice and just be honest about what they're doing, because what they are doing is far more important and morally justifiable than imposing a morality on their people. What they are doing is maintaining order and safety for the populace, a necessary and worthy goal, that should not be hidden behind vain and useless attempts to mimic omnipotence. Perhaps I should modify it. Justice on Earth is a myth.

I have no idea if you're American (I am), but the American government never claims that it does the kind of Justice you're talking about. For instance, if we understood what it took to exact your kind of Justice, the right to a fair trial would not be necessary. The point in the Justice system is to prevent people from coming over and saying that they do in fact know what is needed to exact Justice (in the purest sense), and people believing.

I suppose if you really wanted, it really ought to be considered the "Various kinds and degrees of Injustice prevention" system, rather than the "Justice System".

I would also like to point out that it's not only God's job, but Man's job as well. For those who do not believe in God for instance, they are still moral. And their conception of Right and Wrong may differ from what you perceive to be the word of God.

I disagree with the first part. I'm American, and every time I hear about a trial for even the mildest of non-victimless crime, all I hear about is bringing 'justice' to the victims. It's all over our culture, every crime show, every action flick references 'justice.' Politicians are especially guilty of making crime prevention about 'justice' in an abstract sense, which in my opinion it never can be.

As for being man's job, that kinda depends on what you mean. I am saying that any true justice is out of the reach of man, and must be left up to whatever supreme power rules the universe, whether that be a God or if it is physics. And I would not say that those who don't believe in God are still moral. That implies that I believe all people who believe in God are moral. I'm a realist, and I believe that the vast majority of people wouldn't recognize moral if it started screwing them on the street, and that those few who do are not separated by what they believe in, but by the simple fact that they believe in something greater than themselves.

I would rather it simply be called the legal system, because that's all it is, and all it can ever be, and all it should ever aspire to be.

Physics cannot determine justice, that doesn't make any sense. If there is no God, then by your definition of Justice, there cannot be any Justice, EVER.

I would consider this to be a flawed conception of Justice.

Also, when I meant that people who don't believe in God are still moral, I meant in that they can still be moral, not that they necessarily are. I totally agree with you that a very large sum of people do not really understand morality.

Justice necessarily stems from conceptions of Right and Wrong. Many believe that there is no concrete, no absolute Right and Wrong that is above everything else.

True Justice is within man's reach, because the concept of Justice is man-made.

Perfection is a man-made concept too, so is infinity, so is a perfect circle, so is immortality. Just because man thought it up, doesn't mean it's possible. Look at anime.

And yes, I don't believe that justice is possible without omnipotence, which is my only real requirement for being a god. But That's not a problem I have, because I believe in God. I'm going to quote Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider
~I always admired atheists. I think it takes a lot of faith.

I don't get my religion from a Book, or from any preacher, men are fallible, and every holy book was written by men. I get my religion from the world around me, and from how it works. I can't believe it was just chance, everything works out just a little too pretty, and a little to ugly at the same time, for me to believe that a God doesn't exist. But that's just me.

 

[ChuQue37]

Original (pun intended?) Poster here.

I like where this thread is going, I do. It has shittons of potential. But there are a few things I should bring up:

First, before you stop reading this, MESSAGE ME. I was going to individually message each and everyone one of you because all of this is interesting. I like this. A lot. But there are too many replies and I can't. So I want all of you to message me so we can start up a convo.

Second, (now comes the deeper shit) I want to ask you to reimagine your concept of original. Basically, as I saw it, you can break all replies down into three categories:

a. The Random. A few non-sequitir phrases lined up next to each other. Is it so original, really? The thought and motivation behind it is essentially the same as the ten other guys who did it as well. Ultimately, I wouldn't consider that original.

b. The Philosophical. A musing or rant about what have you and your opinions on blah blah blah. While many of these I whole-heartedly agreed with, all of them I had seen before and all of them still had the same intent. I don't think those are quite original either.

c. The not original at all. Seriously guys. D:

 

[pwned123456]

i am such a bad poet that i literally lost my poetic license