or for Afkap
or for that matter anyone who can conduct an intellectually honest discussion

>
>And shitty.
>
>>a metaphor is a phrase that is not literally connected to
>the
>>thing it's describing
>>saying "the metric system is a bad metaphor because it has
>>nothing to do with morality" is fucking world class
>>redundancy
>
>And suggesting that:
>
>Holland uses the Metric System
>US uses the Imperial System
>
>Holland allows you to drink beer in the movies
>US dosent' allow you to drink beer in the movies
>
>Is a good metaphor for differences in morality is
>just......hmm.......PCP induced.
>

been over this before

>>How about this: every human being has the concept of weight.
>>Any quantifying terms given to weight are meaningful only to
>>the person who made them. Eventually people manage to
>>standardize the terms into an agreed system of measurement,
>>but there will be different systems amongst different
>peoples,
>>Similarly every human being has concepts of right and wrong,
>>but they're only meaningful to themselves (subjective
>>morality), eventually people manage to standardize the
>>concepts (law), but there's still peoples with different
>>laws.
>
>Hmm. What you just said, sucked. Not only because it has
>nothing to do with what Tarantino was trying to put across,
>but because it sucks.
>
>Besides, you just made that horseshit up.
>
>Every human has their own individual concept of weight. Too
>bad this has nothing to do with whether I decide to weigh
>something in pounds or grams. In fact, two people, both of
>whom measure things in grams, might have completely different
>subjective perspectives on what "light" or "heavy" is. And
>two people who measure objects in different units, might in
>fact have very similar intuitive perspectives on what
>constitutes a "heavy" object versus a "light" object.
>

yes cavemen argued about whether or not 100 grams was heavy, didn't they?
no, early man had to make units of weight to help him think, then eventually everyone had to be using THE SAME, STANDARDIZED units of weight

yes "light" and "heavy' are still subjective but at least now there's a system to put things in perspective


>So again, the system of measurement is a shitty, shitty,
>shitty, shitty metaphor for moral differences.
>
>As much as I hate Tarantino, I think you are the bigger idiot
>for manufacturing that bullshit.
>
>>people have different systems by which to make judgements
>>you have physical judgements, and you have moral judgements
>
>Here's what's even more retarded:
>
>The different systems of measurement actually don't change
>anything about the objects themselves. 0 Kelvin and -270
>degrees Celsius are exactly the same temperature. There is
>nothing subjective about that.
>
>

different laws don't change the actions themselves. smoking weed in Amsterdam is exactly the same thing as smoaking weed in LA


>So, your metaphor continues to be shitty.
>
>
>>lol. i've not seen Get on the Bus but it looks like you're
>>comparing a metaphor that's developed for an entire film,
>with
>>a metaphor that takes up a couple of lines then gives way to
>>the actual subject. of course it's not as developed
>
>Not the point. Spike Lee used an actual metaphor. To pull it
>off for an entire film is actually MORE DIFFICULT than to
>introduce oen in a little dialogue. If what you are suggesting
>is correct(which it isn't) Tarantino couldn't even get a
>minute metaphor correct.
>
>

it's a PASSING METAPHOR, like most metaphors are. he doesn't go into it in depth


>>this is idiotic.
>>did you notice the term "common usage"
>>meaning outside scientific usage
>>and more importantly if you were intellectually honest you
>>would consider how the metric system has only been fading in
>>to common vocabulary of English speaking countries over the
>>last 20 or 30 years, that lots of middle-aged people didn't
>>learn it at school, that the US is a particularly slow
>adopter
>>and still hasn't officially taken to it (for general
>purposes
>>like trade and road signs), and having considered that you
>>would not make this irrelevant point about scientists (btw,
>>congrats on being a scientist)
>
>No.
>
>You made a terrible, terrible, terrible, connection between
>the use of metric system, its increased use in the United
>States, and its subsequent use in the criminal underworld.
>
>I shot that down by telling you that the criminal underworld's
>use of the metric system is derved from the fact that science
>world, who constructs the instruments of measurement,
>including scales and syringes, uses the metric system.

no, because the point about the drug dealer using metric was a small, supporting side point in brackets, which i only said because I suspected you would say some shit like "but in America, where the film is set, they use the Imperial system. so how does the metric system have anything to do with the story?", and explaining that the reason is because it's science related doesn't actually change anything, it doesn't make it inconsistent


>
>
>>p.s. shame about that NASA probe that smashed into Mars
>>because some scientist got miles and kms mixed up
>
>Not quite correct, but ironically, he was using the metric
>system. Not the imperial system.
>

LOL why would you even refute this point. They crashed because of a metric/imperial mix up. End of story. I'm not even going to bother entertaining there being something "ironic" about it being metric or whatever, because it's so fucking irrelevant and typical of you

>Scientists use the metric system, Have for many years.
>
>If drug dealers use the metric system, its because syringes
>are marked in metric volumetric measurment, not because the
>criminal underworld has co-opted the metric system for some
>specific cultural reason. That is why that point you made was
>terrible.
>

the point i was making was actually that metric has come into common usage reletavely recently. which it has.

>>that doesn't even make sense. either Tarantino used a
>>metaphor or I (and others) just imagined he did. you can't
>>have a mixture of both
>
>Yes you can. Maybe Tarantino did mean to communicate
>something with the dialogue. I think the dialogue was stupid,
>because if he wanted to communicate something, he simply
>should have communicated it and not layered it.
>

still doesn't make sense


>And while Tarantino migt have meant to communicate something,
>I think you got whatever he wanted to communicate dead wrong.
>
>
>>what's laughable about this is that it's such a small thing
>>i could have said 'dutch law' instead of 'the metric system'
>>and we wouldn't even be having this discussion
>>it's not like Pulp Fiction or my point relied on this
>>metaphor
>
>LOL.
>
>In that case you'd be admitting that the use of 'metric
>system' had nothing to do with the later discussion of the
>law, and had nothing to do with this grandiose comparison of
>moral codes or whatever bullshit you've put together.
>

no, in that case i'd be realizing that it is not ESSENTIAL to the film
you're so childish in thinking that just because I don't attach absolute importance to something, i must be admitting it's wrong

>>there's material to back it up or do its job immediately
>>following on screen
>>yet you zoom in on it like it's crucial, and talk complete
>>nonsense too
>
>No. I actually require you to tell me what the hell the metric
>system/imperial system discussion actually has to do with
>morals.
>
>You see, my guess is better than yours:
>
>Even if Tarantino did want to say something about morals, that
>discussion didn't come until LATER IN THAT CAR CONVERSATION
>and he used the metric/imperial system merely to INTRODUCE THE
>TOPIC, not as a DIRECT METAPHOR.
>
>You see.
>
>I hate Tarantino, and that movie, yet I've come up with a
>better approximation for what went on than you have.
>
>You should be ashamed of yourself.
>

no, because in that case he could have talked about any other "little difference," like the ones you listed, none of which were as good a metaphor as metric/imperial, leaving you only the possibility that it's a COINCIDENCE he chose metric/imperial, which is not a good argument

and it's so simple
morality, system for making moral judgements
imperial/metric, system for making physical judgements
and physical judgement, particularly weight, is a well known metaphor for moral judgement already

>>i'm still laughing at you saying the metric system was a
>>"colder, narrower" system of measurement
>>COLDER? NARROWER? were you speaking metaphorically?
>
>I use metaphors all the time.
>
>"Warmth" = full of life, living, biotic, organic
>
>"Colder" = abiotic, physical, lifeless.
>
>I consider the imperial system "warmer" because there is a
>story behind each measurement -- the 'foot' being the size of
>an alleged actual foot, the 'yard' being the length from the
>king's ear to his wrist(or some approximation of that)....etc.
>The imperial system has origins in actual living people.
>
>The millimeter and meter and kilometer, on the other hand,
>have no such story, and are therefore "colder."
>
>You see how nicely that works? That's because I actually know
>how to correctly construct a metaphor.
>

lol, i suspected that's what you'd say for "colder"
what's even funnier is
1. what the fuck does being colder have to do with being less "relaxed"?
2. what the fuck was "narrower"

your metaphors were weak because you were making a really bad point trying to say the metric system in particular was bad for these purposes

>Sort of like how I call your arguments "shitty." They stink,
>are repulsive, and would be best stored in a sewer somewhere.
>Not in this post.
>
>Mang.
>

you're so bad at this