Nerd rage at its finest.
Edit: Watch for 1:11
Old.
I mean, the fifth video of those came out…
Hey, getting to level 70 is a challenge. Hahaha.
Please.
That’s how you rage.
Trivia #1282 - DKP is Dragon Kill Points, which you get for raiding and killing bosses, and the more you have the more you can spend on gear drops.
…
Repetition (Danish:Gjentagelsen) is a book by the 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard and published on October 16, 1843 under the pseudonym Constantin Constantius.
Repetition is the story told by Constantin Constantius as he attempts to repeat a memorable trip by stage coach to see the Opera in Berlin but finds that he cannot recapture the feelings and experiences that he had the first time. Because so much of life depends on random, accidental happenings, past events cannot be precisely recreated. But the desire to repeat the past necessarily creates different experiences. The dynamic of our relationship with this backward and forward nature of experience are central themes. Recollection is characterized as the melancholic feelings we have associated with the past that we know cannot be repeated and that often immobilize us; whilst repetition is the act and will to live forward. In recollection we place ourselves at the tragic end and we have no hope or desire. Hope and desire for novelty is merely restlessness between past and present. But repetition is profoundly and courageously living in the present. Thus for Kierkegaard repetition is philosophically and otherwise essential.
“…he who does not grasp that life is a repetition and that this is the beauty of life has pronounced his own verdict and deserves nothing better than what will happen to him anyway - he will perish.”
WTF did he try stick that remote control up his ass?
Dude I thought he was possessed at first and we were watching some weird acting thing. And then I was like, whoa how’d his shirt come off? Maybe after he finally kicks the habit he’ll be come a GREAT hawt abz guy.
But anyways, if that wasn’t acting, I’m sad for humanity.
[quote]artw wrote:
Repetition (Danish:Gjentagelsen) is a book by the 19th century Danish philosopher S�¸ren Kierkegaard and published on October 16, 1843 under the pseudonym Constantin Constantius.
Repetition is the story told by Constantin Constantius as he attempts to repeat a memorable trip by stage coach to see the Opera in Berlin but finds that he cannot recapture the feelings and experiences that he had the first time. Because so much of life depends on random, accidental happenings, past events cannot be precisely recreated. But the desire to repeat the past necessarily creates different experiences. The dynamic of our relationship with this backward and forward nature of experience are central themes. Recollection is characterized as the melancholic feelings we have associated with the past that we know cannot be repeated and that often immobilize us; whilst repetition is the act and will to live forward. In recollection we place ourselves at the tragic end and we have no hope or desire. Hope and desire for novelty is merely restlessness between past and present. But repetition is profoundly and courageously living in the present. Thus for Kierkegaard repetition is philosophically and otherwise essential.
“…he who does not grasp that life is a repetition and that this is the beauty of life has pronounced his own verdict and deserves nothing better than what will happen to him anyway - he will perish.”
[/quote]
…I didn’t know it was old and viewed by most.
But I really appreciate the classy way in which you chose to fill me in.
[quote]artw wrote:
Repetition (Danish:Gjentagelsen) is a book by the 19th century Danish philosopher S�¸ren Kierkegaard and published on October 16, 1843 under the pseudonym Constantin Constantius.
Repetition is the story told by Constantin Constantius as he attempts to repeat a memorable trip by stage coach to see the Opera in Berlin but finds that he cannot recapture the feelings and experiences that he had the first time. Because so much of life depends on random, accidental happenings, past events cannot be precisely recreated. But the desire to repeat the past necessarily creates different experiences. The dynamic of our relationship with this backward and forward nature of experience are central themes. Recollection is characterized as the melancholic feelings we have associated with the past that we know cannot be repeated and that often immobilize us; whilst repetition is the act and will to live forward. In recollection we place ourselves at the tragic end and we have no hope or desire. Hope and desire for novelty is merely restlessness between past and present. But repetition is profoundly and courageously living in the present. Thus for Kierkegaard repetition is philosophically and otherwise essential.
“…he who does not grasp that life is a repetition and that this is the beauty of life has pronounced his own verdict and deserves nothing better than what will happen to him anyway - he will perish.”
[/quote]
WIN
That shit was faked.
Ok well, I just saw this for the first time. I thought it was funny as shit.
I didn’t know it was so old, my bad.
[quote]kheaslim wrote:
Ok well, I just saw this for the first time. I thought it was funny as shit.
I didn’t know it was so old, my bad.[/quote]
Vincible ignorance is, in Catholic ethics, a moral or doctrinal matter that could have been removed by diligence reasonable to the circumstances. It contrasts with invincible ignorance, which can not be removed at all, or only by supererogatory efforts (eg. exceptionally remote location).
While invincible ignorance prevents a sinful action from being a sin, vincible ignorance at most mitigates it. It may even aggravate guilt. The guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.
Ignorance stemming from making little or no effort is termed crass or supine; it removes little or no guilt. Deliberately fostered ignorance is affected or studied; it can increase guilt.
Ignorance may be
Of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.
Of fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circumstance is unknown.
Of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.
Vincible ignorance can also refer to the intentional refusal to understand or consider a particular point of doctrine. (eg. “The doctrine of Invincible Ignorance is just wrong, no matter what you say.”)
[quote]artw wrote:
kheaslim wrote:
Ok well, I just saw this for the first time. I thought it was funny as shit.
I didn’t know it was so old, my bad.
Vincible ignorance is, in Catholic ethics, a moral or doctrinal matter that could have been removed by diligence reasonable to the circumstances. It contrasts with invincible ignorance, which can not be removed at all, or only by supererogatory efforts (eg. exceptionally remote location).
While invincible ignorance prevents a sinful action from being a sin, vincible ignorance at most mitigates it. It may even aggravate guilt. The guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.
Ignorance stemming from making little or no effort is termed crass or supine; it removes little or no guilt. Deliberately fostered ignorance is affected or studied; it can increase guilt.
Ignorance may be
Of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.
Of fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circumstance is unknown.
Of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.
Vincible ignorance can also refer to the intentional refusal to understand or consider a particular point of doctrine. (eg. “The doctrine of Invincible Ignorance is just wrong, no matter what you say.”)
[/quote]
lol, holy shit