>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>
>WOOOOOOO
>
>WOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
>WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
>YOU SEE WHY YOU GET CLOWNED!!!!
>

^ so childish


>PICK A FUCKING POINT!!!
>
>YOU SWITCH POINTS EVERY TWO POSTS!!!!!
>
>FIRST YOU SAID:
>
>1) The Metric/Imperial dialogue was supposed to represent the
>subjective understandings of the physical world, how
>metric/imperial are two completely different views on the
>physical world, just like our subjective understandings of
>morals.
>
>THAN YOU TURN RIGHT AROUND AND SAY:
>
>2)The Metric/Imperial dialogue is supposed to represent the
>fact that the labels are just labels and don't represent
>differences in subjective understanding of the physical world.
> The labels mean nothing for how we interpret the world.
>
>PICK A FUCKING ARGUMENT!!!!
>
>YOU HAVE MADE BOTH OF THESE ARGUMENTS IN A SINGLE FUCKING
>DISCUSSION!!!!
>

haven't you been paying attention? these are both ways of extending a basic metaphor that the author doesn't elaborate for us. if you MUST elaborate. the basic point is "different people have different moral codes"


>YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING COLD, CLAMMY CUP OF LATTE IT AIN'T
>NEVEN FUNN!!!!
>

^ not many people, even on OKP, stoop to this level of arguing


>>if you want to expand the metaphor (which Tarantino doesn't
>>do), you can make it good or bad. a good idea that one essay
>>said is that units are just arbitrary terms slapped on
>things,
>>that don't alter subjective ideas of "light" and "heavy" -
>
>MOTHEFUCKER I JUST EXPLAINED THIS SHIT TO YOU ABOVE!!!!!
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!
>
>DIS LATTE TRIED TO STEAL MY IDEA AND SAY "I read it in an
>essay."
>
>I JUST TOLD YOU THAT SHIT.
>
>I JUST JUST JUST JUST JUST EXPLAINED TO YOU HOW THE
>METRIC/IMPERIAL SYSTEM DOSEN'T CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION OF
>"light" and "heavy." I
>
>I EVEN USED THE EXACT WORDS "light" and "heavy"
>

funny isn't it when your own ideas come back and slap you in the face. like your idea about science and drug dealers.

anyway, after you made that point, i said I could easily reframe the debate to take account of that point, because it's already been done in an essay. You think i'm lying about the essay? I can go and find out the author and publication RIGHT NOW, in fact there's AT LEAST TWO essays that use the idea, and they're on the Pulp Fiction dvd and they appeared in big periodicals like the NY Times. But you can take my word for it, because i'm not dishonest

>
>>laws are arbitrary and don't alter subjective ideas of good
>>and evil (necessarily)
>
>WRONG!!!!!!!
>
>LAWS ABSOLUTELY DO CRAFT WHAT SOCIETIES BELIEVE IS RIGHT AND
>WRONG!!!!
>
>I GREW UP BELIEVING WEED SMOKING WAS WRONG SOLELY BECAUSE OF
>ITS ILLEGALITY!!!!!
>
>

that's why I said "necessarily"
obviously they do affect peoples views
but the point would be that ULTIMATELY the connections are arbitrary
that's what makes it an original point worth making, and not stating the fucking obvious

it's so funny watching you scramble to make your triumphant proclamations of stupidity, IN CAPITAL LETTERS

but it's also a waste of time, so i'm not responding anymore

>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!
>