Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Any music gear discussions that don't fit into one of the other forums.

Moderators: Kent, Joe., luketeaford, lisa

Post Reply
User avatar
3hands
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1629
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:36 pm
Location: Ottawa Ontario

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by 3hands » Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:54 am

Blairio wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:42 am
oscilloscope wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:32 am

when will you finally, at last, close this useless, shit stirring, and nasty wokefest thread ????
Wokefest. Wokefest. In what kind of post social-media wankerage hell, should such a lame, lazy, sad-ass word even exist?

Wokefest.

Good grief. That's annoyed me more than all the rest of this pox of a thread ( to which I feel I have usefully contributed!).

I feel a stiff letter to the editor coming on, using words only found in Chambers Etymological Dictionary.
Haha!

Dear Mr Muff...
Gum is fun, but not on a cat.

My minds an art gallery.

User avatar
kons
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 4:28 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by kons » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:45 pm

Dear Mr. Muff. Sir
I didn't fight and die in two world wars just so people could run around holding wokefests....

User avatar
Flounderguts
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 899
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: SLC
Contact:

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Flounderguts » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:49 pm

I hope the millenials around here are having giggles watching us mangle their words.
----------------------

Flounderguts

User avatar
Zymos
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:14 pm
Location: ABQ,NM

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Zymos » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:58 pm

Dear Mr. Muff,
I must object in the strongest possible terms to your allowing this despicable wokefest to continue in your area of the aethers. If you do not immediately desist, I’ll be forced to take actions that may well reflect poorly on both of us.
Yours sincerely,
Zymos, Esq
maybe you’d like to buy some nice used modules? Free cables with purchase!!

viewtopic.php?f=74&t=235367&p=3313562&h ... s#p3313562

User avatar
3hands
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1629
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:36 pm
Location: Ottawa Ontario

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by 3hands » Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:03 pm

I hope they are too....


Because this is fantastic!
Gum is fun, but not on a cat.

My minds an art gallery.

User avatar
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 7944
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Dr. Sketch-n-Etch » Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Composting the drones will ensure the survival of the elite.

User avatar
dubonaire
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 7294
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by dubonaire » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:25 am

Dr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm
dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

User avatar
Blairio
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Blairio » Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:09 am

dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:25 am
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm
dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.
Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.

Licudi
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:43 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Licudi » Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:32 am

Needs a remix. Not enough existential angst.

User avatar
strettara
mufferthucker
Posts: 6554
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:16 am
Location: das Land der eisernen Wurst

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by strettara » Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:37 am

From Uli's naughty to the heat death of the universe. Now that's a conversation :tu:
“It must be abstract. It must change. It must give pleasure."

New album: OZ

User avatar
dubonaire
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 7294
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by dubonaire » Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:14 am

strettara wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:37 am
From Uli's naughty to the heat death of the universe. Now that's a conversation :tu:
No it's not.

By the way, it's not heat death of the universe, which may or may not be inevitable, that the Dr is talking about, it's the Sun exiting its main sequence, estimated to occur in approximately 5 billion years, when it will likely start to turn into a red giant which may or may not engulf the earth but will probably end things anyway, which is also a moot point, because as the Dr alludes too, we humans will outdo the sun as (sentient) "Death, the destroyer of worlds". Heat death comes much later, if you think time is a thing.

:ponytail: :nuke: :eel: :mygod:

User avatar
strettara
mufferthucker
Posts: 6554
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:16 am
Location: das Land der eisernen Wurst

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by strettara » Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:37 am

Thanks, I just won ten quid on a bet I had with myself that you’d correct me.

Come to think of it though, I also lost... dammit!
“It must be abstract. It must change. It must give pleasure."

New album: OZ

User avatar
KSS
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4136
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by KSS » Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:33 pm

@strettara
But who else could you get to take that bet? ;)

User avatar
dubonaire
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 7294
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by dubonaire » Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:34 pm

Blairio wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:09 am
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:25 am
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm
dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.
Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.
Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.

User avatar
dubonaire
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 7294
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by dubonaire » Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:37 pm

strettara wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:37 am
Thanks, I just won ten quid on a bet I had with myself that you’d correct me.

Come to think of it though, I also lost... dammit!
I’m so predictable.

User avatar
galanter2
Common Wiggler
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:32 pm
Location: Texas A&M University
Contact:

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by galanter2 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:10 pm

dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:34 pm
Blairio wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:09 am
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:25 am
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm
dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.
Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.
Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.
Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.

User avatar
sduck
experimental use of gravity
Posts: 13991
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:03 pm
Location: Vortepexaion, TN, USA

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by sduck » Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:45 pm

dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:37 pm
strettara wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:37 am
Thanks, I just won ten quid on a bet I had with myself that you’d correct me.

Come to think of it though, I also lost... dammit!
I’m so predictable.
No you're not.
flickr cloud of sound touyube NOT A MODERATOR ANYMORE

User avatar
dubonaire
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 7294
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by dubonaire » Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:52 pm

galanter2 wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:10 pm
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:34 pm
Blairio wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:09 am
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:25 am
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm
dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.
Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.
Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.
Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/

User avatar
galanter2
Common Wiggler
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:32 pm
Location: Texas A&M University
Contact:

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by galanter2 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:33 am

dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:52 pm
galanter2 wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:10 pm
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:34 pm
Blairio wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:09 am
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:25 am
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm
dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.
Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.
Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.
Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/
Yes, I'm aware of the special notions of intentionality in philosophy. But I've not seen it as a reference to the ability to reason. And I don't see where this article equates intent with the ability to reason.

In a moral philosophy setting, intention can refer to something more like the common meaning. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, that's morally different than if you pick them out and aim your car at them. In moral philosophy that kind of everyday intention matters. And most people understand, and in fact even some animals seem to understand, the difference between an unintended act and an intentional act.

But it's entirely possible in cases of moral philosophy to have an act that is fully intended but highly irrational. Surely you've encountered this in life.

But there is also intentionality as discussed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cons ... tionality/

In philosophy of mind intentionality has an unusual meaning. It's about mental representation, and simply refers to the way our thoughts correspond to objects or events in the world. This is something most of us take for granted and don't have a particular word for. But in order to talk about the way mental events/objects correspond to real world events/objects, philosophers have overloaded the word "intentionality" with this new meaning.

But that's not the same as a reference to the ability to reason.

User avatar
htor
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:20 am

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by htor » Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:43 am

guys, guys, get a room

User avatar
dubonaire
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 7294
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by dubonaire » Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:54 am

galanter2 wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:33 am
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:52 pm
galanter2 wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:10 pm
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:34 pm
Blairio wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:09 am
dubonaire wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:25 am
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:17 pm
dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.
Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.
Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.
Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.
Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/
Yes, I'm aware of the special notions of intentionality in philosophy. But I've not seen it as a reference to the ability to reason. And I don't see where this article equates intent with the ability to reason.

In a moral philosophy setting, intention can refer to something more like the common meaning. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, that's morally different than if you pick them out and aim your car at them. In moral philosophy that kind of everyday intention matters. And most people understand, and in fact even some animals seem to understand, the difference between an unintended act and an intentional act.

But it's entirely possible in cases of moral philosophy to have an act that is fully intended but highly irrational. Surely you've encountered this in life.

But there is also intentionality as discussed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cons ... tionality/

In philosophy of mind intentionality has an unusual meaning. It's about mental representation, and simply refers to the way our thoughts correspond to objects or events in the world. This is something most of us take for granted and don't have a particular word for. But in order to talk about the way mental events/objects correspond to real world events/objects, philosophers have overloaded the word "intentionality" with this new meaning.

But that's not the same as a reference to the ability to reason.
I have no desire to argue with you about this.

grizzleb
Common Wiggler
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:29 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by grizzleb » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:18 am

Lol

User avatar
Orange
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 3:57 pm
Location: The Hague - Holland

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Orange » Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:37 am

:poke:

User avatar
strettara
mufferthucker
Posts: 6554
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:16 am
Location: das Land der eisernen Wurst

Re: Behringer 2-voices SEM

Post by strettara » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:47 pm

At this point Behringer is just trolling the whole fartsniffing vintage goodness crowd :yay: :lol: It’s performance art for the nerdiest nerds in nerdland. :hail:
“It must be abstract. It must change. It must give pleasure."

New album: OZ

User avatar
3hands
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1629
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:36 pm
Location: Ottawa Ontario

Re: Behringer 2-voices SEM

Post by 3hands » Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:10 pm

strettara wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:47 pm
At this point Behringer is just trolling the whole fartsniffing vintage goodness crowd :yay: :lol: It’s performance art for the nerdiest nerds in nerdland. :hail:
Haha I was having a discussion with someone about this, and this very thing came up. If it’s true, it’s epic.
Gum is fun, but not on a cat.

My minds an art gallery.

Post Reply

Return to “General Gear”