www.legendsofhorde.fora.pl

[zvswgogna]

Jamie Beckland Answers on Philosophy
How do you respond to someone who believes that only "Top 40", "big box office" culture has any value?
You should respond to your friend by saying, "Guess we won see many movies or go to many shows together!" And then you should try to enjoy popcorn films and top 40 music for what it is pure, entertaining,[url=http://nikefree.mobilejeti.com]nike free sko[/url], schlocky, schmaltzy joy.
If you claim to be a film buff or a music lover, and you can or won consume popular content, then you are the one who is flawed because you willfully negate an important component of an ecosystem that you profess to respect.
So if you won or can enjoy "the alchemist", your not a literature fan?
And if you won or can devour a bigMac, your not a food connoisseur?
Is big Mac an "important part of an ecosystem"?
What important about it?
What contains it?
Your creating a conflict where non exists. This is compounded by your need to feel morally superior through egalitarianism and judgement and is encouraged by success: your indeed considered morally superior by most readers.
Comment downvoted Insert a dynamic date here
Cannot add reply if you are logged out.
UpvoteDownvote Share Insert a dynamic date here
What are philosophical arguments for gay marriage but against group marriage?
There is an argument for the "one spouse" philosophy based on maximum net societal benefit.
Your spouse is a primary line of defense for all manner of support and need, that otherwise is provided by society. Your husband or wife is a firstline nurse, therapist, career counselor, emergency contact, and best friend. So, their advice is likely to be skewed in the direction they know you. With multiple partners, it is highly likely that each partner would take on an increasingly specialized role. In this case, increased specialization does not create greater net benefit. Having one person know you intimately in many ways creates a first, best resource that can be easily duplicated.