Desipio Message Board

Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM

Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM

Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow:

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM

Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow:

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Quote from: PenPho on May 24, 2010, 04:21:52 PM

Quote from: MAD on May 24, 2010, 04:20:37 PM
I'm certain this will just me appear like an unrefined douche, but y'all are damn fools for spending that kinda money on a 12 ounce beer.  There.  I said it.

At 18%, it's more like 5 beers.

That.

5 beers may be an exaggeration, but according to this, I'd still be over the legal limit after nearly two hours with a single 12 oz bottle of this stuff*, let alone the Foster's-sized can Huey says it should come in.

*Fatties' mileage may vary.

Quote from: Slaky on May 24, 2010, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: PenPho on May 24, 2010, 12:47:49 PM

Quote from: Slaky on May 15, 2010, 10:59:49 PM

Quote from: PenPho on May 15, 2010, 10:51:35 PM

Quote from: Slaky on May 14, 2010, 08:34:32 PM
Made a quick beer run to Binny's. Father in law is flying in tomorrow so I wanted to have something interesting for us to sit around and drink while I nod, laugh and pretend to understand the version of English he speaks.

Picked up a sixer of Lagunitas' new Hairy Eyeball ale. At 8.8 ABV I'm sure this will kick my ass in. It's an American Strong Ale which essentially just means ales that are over 7%.

Also grabbed a large bottle of Stone's Old Guardian which is a barleywine which my brother (who has actually taken the first part of the exams to become a Cicerone) is quite fond of. I like to call him when I'm walking the aisles to find out what's good. He's a beer savant, no lie. Anyway, this one clocks in at 11.20% ABV which should be deadly.

Finally I found their last bottle of Dogfish Head's World Wide Stout which clocks in at a wobbly 18% ABV. Most people can't finish the 12 oz. bottle without splitting it as it will wreck the finest of men. I have heard tales of this drink mixed with their 120 Minute IPA called Heaven and Hell which just sounds too awesome to describe.

Lagunitas has another strong one called Brown Shugga...it's something like 9.8%.
Not bad...I liked one, didn't like 3.
I think it's seasonal b/c I haven't seen it in a few months.

120 Minute IPA? I was unaware of this, have had the 60 and 90....also had a chance to try Dogfish's Raison d'etre lately, a really, really interesting beer. Doesn't taste like anything I've ever had before.

In typical Dogfish fashion it's 8%+.

As for tonight, I'm about to embark on a Stout adventure, bought a mix 6-pack of six different types of Stouts to see if I can find a new favorite.

Details to follow.

Beer is wonderful.

The 120 Minute IPA is amazing. You have to find it when they make a new batch. It's been awhile since they've distributed it so it's not something you'll likely find until they put out more. It's what you think it is - 18% ABV and a 12 oz. bottle goes for around 10 bucks. I had my first at a place called Jerry's on Division and it knocked me silly. One bottle will have you spinning. It's to be consumed very slowly in a small glass. Really good with cheese. If it comes back out and  you can't find any, I'd easily ship one to you. It's that good.

So, I don't know if it was a new one or a remnant from last batch, but at Whole Foods this weekend they had one single 12 oz. bottle of 120 Minute IPA available.

For $9.49.

Needless to say, I passed on it. out after enjoying it.

No other acceptable answer.

Pen refuses to pay less than $10 for a bottle of beer.

He's high class.

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2010, 03:03:21 PM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 02:23:21 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2010, 02:18:42 PM
A very meh ending.  If it's all about the character, I'd hate to see these guys do a remake of "The Fugitive."

Dr. Kimble doesn't catch the One Armed Man, but the Doc and Dept. Gerard have a nice hug and shed a tear.

Great... Now Chuck's bitching about a show that doesn't even exist any longer.

Mykelti Williamson'd

Oh, I see. You're bitching about an actual short-lived show that has no relation whatsoever to the target of your complaints. Forget I said anything.

Quote from: R-V on May 24, 2010, 02:25:25 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2010, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: R-V on May 24, 2010, 02:16:03 PM
I actually think it's more interesting if they didn't have a plan and still managed to fit 80% of the pieces in place in an entertaining way.

Do you find sausages taste different if you know how they are made?

A very meh ending.  If it's all about the character, I'd hate to see these guys do a remake of "The Fugitive."

Dr. Kimble doesn't catch the One Armed Man, but the Doc and Dept. Gerard have a nice hug and shed a tear.

Jimmy Kimmel had the best answer: It was all in Jack's mind and he died in the plane crash.  It was all Purgatory.  Makes all the incontinuities explainable by "They were all already dead."

And Kerm thought MY analogy was bad.

This analogy is so bad Chuck had to try it out in the shoutbox first.

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2010, 02:18:42 PM
A very meh ending.  If it's all about the character, I'd hate to see these guys do a remake of "The Fugitive."

Dr. Kimble doesn't catch the One Armed Man, but the Doc and Dept. Gerard have a nice hug and shed a tear.

Great... Now Chuck's bitching about a show that doesn't even exist.

Quote from: Kermit IV on May 24, 2010, 01:56:51 PM

Quote from: R-V on May 24, 2010, 01:26:57 PM

Quote from: PenPho on May 24, 2010, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Kermit IV on May 24, 2010, 01:07:13 PM
I blame myself.

I had really hoped they would do something with the fact that Jack woke up after the crash apart from everything in the cane field.  Especially when they said the cave of light was near there.  Like that Jack might have been planted there and might not have been on the plane at all.  I thought there were a lot of really interesting choices they could have made, but they made none of them.

Don't worry, RV is going to post 30-40 more times until you like it.

My hope is that the sheer volume of my posts can generate enough energy to obliterate your internet existence.

It's totally reasonable to not like the episode. Christian's wise afterlife words to Jack were a little lame and I was disappointed that they went with a more faith-y than science-y ending. But I thought on balance there was a whole lot of awesomeness in the finale and the show in general, and endings in these types of stories aren't ever as interesting as the beginning and the middle.

So Kerm, do you already have your last HJE post planned out? If I see ANY evidence that you didn't meticulously plan it out years in advance it will diminish my enjoyment of it greatly.

No, but I also didn't tell anyone that I know what I'm going to post in three years, so your silly little analogy just fell apart like the ending of Lost.

Besides, that's definitely not the reason I was disappointed in the episode.  I just think it became pretty clear in the final season that they only said they had a "plan" to buy themselves a guaranteed 3 seasons, or whatever it was.  I'm sure a ton of planning went into the final episode, but if it was three years of planning, they didn't do a very good job with it.

I think you're confusing 'the end of the show' with 'the final episode.'

In a lot of ways, this entire season was the ending to the show.

And I don't think it would be totally outlandish for them to claim that they started this show 6 years ago with at least a road map that included all the Smokey-vs-Jacob stuff, the vague magical "light" at the heart of the island and Jack's six-season character arc.

Quote from: Oleg on May 24, 2010, 01:32:42 PM

Quote from: Fork on May 24, 2010, 01:11:07 PM

Quote from: BH on May 24, 2010, 12:52:01 PM
Bump. Husband kicked the bucket.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/simon-monjack-brittany-mu_0_n_586840.html

This whole saga could be intriguing, if anyone gave a shit.

Needless to say,

Well not-said.

Quote from: Fork on May 24, 2010, 01:10:14 PM

Quote from: SKO on May 24, 2010, 12:58:58 PM

Quote from: Fork on May 24, 2010, 12:25:22 PM

So...anybody up for a food & drink get-together for Game 1?

DPD, but if it's on the weekend I may be able to make that.

If Philly wins tonight, Game 1 is Saturday.

And Karaoke will be a must.

Really? I was assuming (hoping) they'd aim for an NBC Sunday game.

I have a fucking wedding on Saturday.

Two months ago I would have said Parks and Rec is hands down the better show, but Community closed the season really, really strong. I think they're neck and neck at this point.

And I think I'm with Ivy6 and Kerm on its originality.

For starters (and sort of responding to Weebs' posts earlier), I don't think the sideways world was "created" by the bomb or by anything that happened on the island.

In fact, I feel that it was almost entirely beside the point of the happenings on the island.

Christian told Jack that, in the sideways world there is no "now." It's an afterlife existence that exists outside of time, totally apart from the real world. I gather the only reason it appeared as "2004" to us was because Flight 815 was the pivotal event in these characters' real lives and thus the key for each of them to resolve whatever each of them needed to resolve before moving on. So that was the timeframe they relived. Other dead people (Alpert, for example) presumably relive other times and places.

The resolution of the sideways world as purgatory (or whatever) wasn't 'the whole point' of the past six seasons of build up. It wasn't 'what the show was all about.' Most of that was dealt with earlier in the season. The island drama came to a climax in the finale, but all of the mysteries behind the island, the mysteries driving six years' worth of story, were revealed to us before this, in various episodes earlier this season.

Yeah, the fact that there weren't really any more BIG FAT ISLAND REVEALS left me very surprised last night. I remember looking at the clock at around 10:15 or so and realizing: "This is it, isn't it? No more huge twists?" And, yeah, I felt a bit let down in the moment when I realized that the other shoe wasn't going to drop.

The more I think about it, though, (and it has provoked a lot of questions) the more satisfying I find the finale to have been. But that instinct to expect a crazy, gob-smacking twist ANY MINUTE NOW that Lost has conditioned me to have was hard to shake in the moment.

So, anyways: as it turns out, the sideways world wasn't the magic key to everything. What it was, though, was a narrative coda, a postscript to the island story.

It was a means of bringing the stories of these characters' lives to a close for us, a storytelling device akin to the flashbacks and flashforwards of past seasons, but this time with an eye towards resolution.

Namely: Desmond.

Quote from: Weebs on May 23, 2010, 09:15:51 PM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 23, 2010, 09:08:47 PM

Quote from: Weebs on May 23, 2010, 08:46:33 PM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 23, 2010, 08:37:36 PM
Lapidus!

This finale is the balls so far.  Can't wait to see how it all plays out.

Awesome piled on awesome.

So... Is the alt-timeline Jacob's backup plan/winning move?

I don't think so.  I think everybody on the island is dead.  The flash-sideways world is actually some kind of "purgatory," and Desmond is helping everybody cross over.

Or, maybe, they've always been dead.  The key point here is that everybody on the island winds up dead in the end.  I think these flashes they have in the sideways world are actually them realizing they've died.  Now they're doing...something...maybe their whole purpose is to help Rose, Bernard and Vincent live!

I just meant that, while EvilLocke thinks he's won, maybe Jacob still has a move to play.

Quote from: Weebs on May 23, 2010, 08:46:33 PM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 23, 2010, 08:37:36 PM
Lapidus!

This finale is the balls so far.  Can't wait to see how it all plays out.

Awesome piled on awesome.

So... Is the alt-timeline Jacob's backup plan/winning move?