Angry Goose

Really interesting doc series Black Metal solo acts

my aim low totals EP; 30 BOESER: 30 BO: 25 PEARSON; 20 FERLAND:20 MILLER: 18 (hes a set up guy) VIRTANEN; 18 LEIVO: 18

Im beginning to really enjoy black metal. The corpse paint, misanthropy, and gangster poses are hilarious and fascinating to me.

So I thought Loui found some chemistry when he had Roussel and Gaudette on his line. Their speed and tenacity helped him a lot although it wasnt a line for all that long. I could see Eriksson on a third line with Gaudette and Leivo, but Sutter? A 4th line of Virtanen Beagle Sutter looks good to me. The bottom 6 is a freaking headache when it comes to who is in the line up/line combos.

I can't freaking wait for puck drop

I absolutely agree with the authors that plants show forms of cognitive function. But's that's cellular intelligence. Quite different from phenomenal experience. It's YOU that cant grasp the material. Youre still missing the point. Such a car would feel nothing even if showing avoidance behavior. See what I mean people? YOU are putting words in other people's mouths, and admit to it. lol. In a food scarcity scenario I wonder what's going to be more available for humans to eat: plants are resource intensive animals? Also, funny to think what we ought to do is determined by these imaginary scenarios of yours. So like I said, because violence is an evolved behavior it is simply ethical to do so? Nonsensical. Sorry, but Kant's main idea was to respect the rational ability of people, and based on this what could be rationally willed as a universal law. You know what, people lie all the time, some might say it is an evolved behavior based on psychology etc. But according to Kant, telling a lie is ALWAYS wrong no matter the situation. This example shows Kant would disagree with your characterization of what he said. Again, more misleading and not understanding the material referenced.

Sorry but you using science gibberish (not the authors words/YOURS) doesnt wash over the fact that there is a fundamental difference regarding consciousness that you are trying to conflate. Wrong again. If we programmed an autonomous car with a variety of sensors so well that it could learn and form future avoidance behavior on it's own, it still wouldn't capture what we mean by experiencing pain. Which they dont, and the article that references McClintock certainly makes ZERO claim to this. I can certainly call you out on your lack of understanding if you continue to repeat yourself in making mistakes, posting misleading information. Again, conflating descriptive processes with normative judgments. First, that's a historical claim and second, one you havnt substantiated. Third, even if I play into this nonsense, what makes you think if there were to be an another extinction event that omnivores would fair better? So much missing information. LMAO. What a load of BS This is incoherent. What are you even trying to say

False. Humans and animals like cows can suffer from PTSD because they have affective mental states. Plants do not have affective mental states no matter how much you try to mis lead people/dress it up. Avoidance behavior/reacting to external stimuli is not the same thing. Post your reference to PTSD in plants, go ahead now. Guaranteed that if you read closely there will be no terminology referencing phenomenal conscious experience. Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as feeling or experiencing something. Try again. Its been shown time and time again you dont understand how to discern the material you reference. See above Has a right eh? Well that's a normative judgement. Please justify said claim that "evolved behavior" is by default ethical. Is violence always ethical? Lmao that's stretch. Inferior is a value laden judgement made up by YOU. Ill repeat, you are making things up now. Wrong again. Evolution is a process. A descriptive process. You saying what can and cant be immoral is a normative judgement. Like I said a couple posts back, you are conflating the two. That's an appeal to nature/ naturalistic fallacy.

Again, it depends on what you mean by consciousness. Plants do not have phenomenal conscious experience. Big difference Wrong. Not only do cows have a sensation of pain, that is, they can feel it, they also have an additional mental state of not liking such a sensation. You can not say that about plants. They have no subjective mental states. They are not individuals like any human or mammal. They feel nothing. You are mis representing intelligent cellular behavior for something else. Big mistake Just wanted to point this out again. You dont even understand the very science you are citing All human conduct that relating to the rightness or wrongness of an action pertains to ethics. Um no, eating meat is not required for our continual survival. A plant based diet is safe for all ages. Second, that's a load of horse $&!# regarding "losing ability". Pure speculation. For all you know humans could thrive on a plant based diet as a society, and perhaps with enough time perhaps even evolve for all you know. That's a logical possibility. But Im not going to say that with any conviction because guess what, that would be pure speculation! This is incoherent. You need to elaborate or clearly define what you are saying. Evolution is just a descriptive mechanism. Humans have evolved by eating meat, but what we do now is still subject to ethics. Knowledge can change behaviors. But you seem to think mere evolution somehow places humans outside the sphere of morality. That doesnt make sense.

I need him to do more of the bigger things this season, in addition to the little things too.

I wasnt going to waste my time with you further but I did find a few things that stood out in your response Sorry, but in practical terms it is very important. Based on neurophysiology, neuroscience (e.g. brain imaging) and observed behaviors we know many other animals are conscious in similar ways to us. That a) confirms consciousness and b) is practically relevant for not only further scientific research but also has ethical implications. The "guessing" part applies to human observation as well- I dont know exactly what it feels like for another to be in pain but we can reasonably guess, or make an informed decision based on observable behavior. That lack of certainty doesn't prevent in any fundamental way studying the phenomenal aspects of consciousness, but it DOES highlight the subjective nature of our mental lives. "Superior consciousness" is just a stupid value laden term made up by you, For starters organ response or observed behavior is only one way of looking at consciousness, not the ONLY way. Second, signal detection doesn't tell you everything you think it does. It for starters doesnt explain/substantiate any sort of subjective, mental life. "Organized behavior" can be labeled very generally as conscious but again, nothing that indicates a subjective, mental life. Empirically speaking that's distinct and a substantive difference. Third, you are reaching so badly. You want so badly to right you are stretching the truth (again) which is misleading and quite frankly, not intelligent argument. To a degree. It doesnt tell the whole story. Trying to argue plants "feel" pain like humans and animals feel pain is simply false even if observable behaviors mimic each other in some ways. Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as a subjective, conscious experience. Facts. You are not understanding the article you yourself cited. No, this is what is wrong with you. Like I just said, you stretch the truth of scientific findings which fundamentally goes against the conservative nature of science itself. Leaps in reasoning are not persuasive at all. And it muddles the very science you reference because the misinformation you spread smears the same science cited. Remember what I said about outlandish ethical claims? For starters you've made a poor argument: While it may be true that humans have evolved eating meat, that fact doesn't require us to continue on this way, or make it ethically permissible to do so. How humans have evolved is a natural fact. What is good or immoral is value laden, which requires normative justification. If self sustenance is the point at issue, then your argument falls apart because guess what, plant based diets will sustain you and is safe for humans of all ages. And more importantly, you are wrongly assuming that because of evolution, we should desire to continue on in such a way. That's unjustified. It would be like saying GMO food should be undesired because it is 'un natural'. Also, wrong. Also, Im not talking about animals, they are not subject to moral principles and obligations like adult, rational humans are before you go and make another mistake. So that's a poor argument, ethically speaking. Like I said, you dont get it.

You see, this sums you up in a nutshell. You have compared human consciousness to plant 'consciousness', or have you already forgotten? I argued quite clearly that the mental life humans and animals have are distinctly different than any type of broad, very general functionalist account of plant 'consciousness'. The paper you cited supports this claim because it made no reference to it either- guess what: there are no grounds for doing so. Instead, they looked as a very broad, functional account of plant consciousness which I outlined to you. You simply dismissed this distinction as unscientific and went on and on about how there really is no substantive difference. Hilarious given the amount of research and focus on the subjective/phenomenal aspect of consciousness in neuroscience. Instead, you deemed both types of consciousness as comparable for all intents and purposes based on a very vague and therefore weak justification of signal theory yadda yadda yadda. This is not bias. This is empirically justified given neurophysiology. Not interested in getting into that nonsense again. Second, you just dont get it. Your ability to reason and critically look at information is weak. You make very outlandish ethical claims which could be avoided if you thought about them first. First, cows have mental states of pain, and also additional mental states of not wanting to be in a state of pain. Second, plants do not have mental states, whatsoever, because mental states require a brain. So there is such a rational basis for saying animals suffer more than plants. In fact, there is no basis for saying plants "suffer" because there is no basis for stating plants have a mental life comparable to that of humans and animals . You can't say plants feel anything. You CAN state they react to external stimuli. Big difference. lso, we empathize with other humans and animals in moments of distress BECAUSE we have REASON to. We know this based on how we experience the world- its one way of how we relate to others. Like Ive said before, no point in going in circles with someone who is un reasonable, untruthful and misleading. Cant have a rational discussion with this type of person. Enjoy yelling at clouds

Like Ive said before, I'm not going to discuss a topic with a guy who doesn't understand simple reasoning based on facts. To think plant consciousness is equivalent or closely similar to the mental lives of non human animals and humans based on scientific research you can't seem to grasp/understand important factual differences is absurd. You couldn't even grasp what conditional reasoning entails so let that sink in. Second, you missed the point regarding the persuasiveness of animal suffering. It's called empathy and rational assent based on evidence people may not be aware of. Not surprised you went off on your own tangent though. Waste cellulose eh? Whatever that is, does it magically grow and not require other resources like water and land to grow? It's not rocket science pal. When you account for the total amount of resources to raise animals in concentrated feed operations, then compare the calories you get from eating said animals, the equation is significantly in efficient. If CAFO's in "Asia" are so different I wouldn't be surprised, but then again so are their animal protection/welfare laws, not that North America or Europe are pillars of Justice on this front either. The way you describe it I'd be even more wary of eating animals exploited in Asia. I'm not even going to get into the question marks of whatever this waste cellulose is that you think is OK for animals to eat. Continue on with your vendetta however.

Im not one for being pushy or putting people down (unless they acting adversarial as well) to try and persuade people. At the same time you have to stand up for what you believe in so I get that side of it too. I do wonder if people followed advocacy groups like: https://twitter.com/DxEverywhere?s=17 and saw the rampant abuse in the industry, whether, they might re consider their actions over time.

Here we go again with the guy that doesnt understand facts

he knows the league and what it takes. i like his philosophy and its the kind of hockey i like to watch. love him as a coach

Firebase / Oats Studios Been a couple of years so I figured Id give it a rewatch and god damn I would love to see this made somehow.

I think so. See if he can take another step over the summer.

Hard to believe Demko is still considered a prospect but hes played 10 games total. Is he really still Calder eligible?

I was looking at getting an SSD in the near future

That's fair. Credit to Mikey Garcia at least. I'd say even Canelo for facing down GGG and Jacobs recently. The light welterweight/welterweight division has potential. Spence/Crawford/Porter/Pacquiao/Khan/Thurman/Garcia Maybe we will see Davis face off vs Russell Jr. hopefully in a couple of fights.

I know I know. Just trying to stir things up a bit since nobody seemed to watch the Davis fight.

And yet he got his clock cleaned by Floyd!

keep bringing that salt, bad news is good news when it comes to EDM

Cant wait for training camp