11,535 Forum Posts by "Gunter45"
At 7/10/08 03:29 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: What else could we give up to Russia anyway? They've got everything they want: a port, a resort, a strategic location. They haven't left us absolutely anything.
More territory. Russia has expressed a great interest in expansion. They've even said so, themselves. Their claim to the Arctic is the most notable of their desires to start pushing outward again. Putin's the man to do it, too. As frightening a character as he is, I can respect the moves he's making. He's definitely flexing Russia's muscles without overextending themselves. It's classic Russian directness with all the delicateness of a shrewd tactician. As an outside observer, it definitely makes for an intensely fascinating turn of events. I'm anxious to see how our next President handles the growing situation.
But, tangent aside, once Russia has reestablished itself and no longer needs to be quite so delicate about its aims, it would be nice to at least have some kind of military backing, don't you think?
Who the fuck gives a shit about what Jesse Jackson says. He's been making a mockery of the Civil Rights movement for the past 2 decades.
At 7/10/08 02:45 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: How would joining the NATO contribute to returning our lost territories anyway? The de facto Republics would simply ignore this and maybe even announce closer ties with Russia (if closer ties are even possible).
That's my point. Stopping the current level of expansionism would require a declaration of war, or very close to it. It's a shame, but Russia's really making a well-orchestrated move.
All I see right now is a pretty shitty situation with an Imperialistic Russia aiding rebels, that committed genocide of their own people (Abkhazians are Georgians), and the internationals organizations doing nothing but prolonging state of peace, with no actual plan of reuniting Georgia.
Not to sound dismissive, but the reunification of Georgia is the least of your problems on the current course. Joining NATO, which Georgia is seeking to do anyway, is a stopgap to prevent any further losses to Russia's advancement.
And really, what do you expect? It's an internal matter. Russia's touch in the matter is just slight enough to keep the international bodies at bay. Even further, America risks losing even greater ground in the international community by sending peacekeepers of their own.
It's a clusterfuck and the situation troubles me as a precursor of more to come.
At 7/10/08 02:22 PM, Elfer wrote: If you were trying to design a system, would you opt for the most complex, convoluted, inefficient design possible, or a simple, elegant one?
I can think of a lot of design problems with humans that wouldn't make sense if there was someone intelligent behind it all.
The surest sign of genius is simplicity. The best engineers and architects are the ones who can create the simplest possible design, that's where the real trick is. The fact that we, and other creatures, have vestigial organs that serve no logical purpose speaks against a competent designer rather than for. I'll agree, the jury is out as to whether or not our development was guided by some outside force with an intent because, as of yet, it's impossible to determine and there's no way of following up on that outside of finding out how we formed. However, the idea of that force having superior craftsmanship is ludicrous. Even though we can't create something on par with ourselves has no bearing on the fact that our makeup is still needlessly complicated.
At 7/10/08 02:15 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: Those are our bloody territories, and it is pretty blatant, even for a blind retard, that Russia has its so called "Peacekeepers" in there in order to control the territories illegally to fill the pockets of their corrupted politicians. And I'm pretty sure that the Russians wouldn't even give a jack shit about Abkhazia if it weren't for the auspicious port location and for the resort.
I believe that's why the US has sent our Secretary of State to tell Russia to back off.
I think joining NATO would be a good step forward, having a member nation right next door to Russia, given the way things are going. To be honest, though, I don't think that playing softball with them is going to get them to stop. It's going to take more than telling them off to stop them from picking up the old Soviet satellite states and nobody's really in a position to do that. They're playing it brilliantly, moving just enough to where it can be justified as peacekeeping operations, but not so much as to warrant other nations getting involved.
At 7/10/08 01:14 PM, ZOMG3 wrote: No because the economy of Russia is increasingly under national control and not exploited like the 1990s, where neo-liberalism and corruption are rife. I support the rights of people to associate with whoever they want and if the Abkhazian people which to unite with Russia, then that is their choice as sovereign people.
Except Russia is still capitalist and the fact of the matter is that Abkhazian people want independence, whereas Russia is, almost certainly, going to manipulate the situation into expansionism.
Not exactly the sort of thing you're trying to get people angry about, but that's alright. I don't really think you're smart to begin with, but the troll thing works, you can, at least, pretend that your intention was to be ill-informed.
At 7/10/08 11:58 AM, ZOMG3 wrote: The US should stop interfering with the Abkhazian people. If they want to be annexed by Russia, then so be it.
Long live Russia.
I know you're a troll and all, but don't you think it's a little out of character for you to be praising capitalist expansionism?
So it looks like Russia has forces in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia. Given Russia's recent activity in Chechnya, it's revival of Cold War-era military readiness exercises, and the fact that Vladimir Putin is still running the show, it's really no surprise they would say something so thinly veiled as "the local populations do not want to be part of Georgia."
Oh, and Georgia has expressed interest in joining NATO, the treaty organization that formed in opposition to the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. You have to hand it to Russia for being upfront as they are.
I'm glad to see that the US is taking this incredibly seriously. Sending the Secretary of State shows a concern for the situation that I think is fitting. Judging from the language Secretary Rice uses, I think it's clear what kind of message the United States is sending: Russia needs to stick to its borders instead of capitalizing on the in-fighting of the surrounding provinces.
My take on the situation? Russia is consistently proving me right. I've been saying that Russia is back to its old expansionist game for a while and it just looks like every move they make is a textbook example.
I'm anxious to see how they respond when our leadership changes in November. It's going to be an interesting few years. What do you guys think?
At 7/10/08 03:08 AM, Rosenrot-I wrote: I'm not kidding, this is a very serious issue to me. Subway has all the bacon you can eat. Plus I don't see Quiznos sponsoring Happy Gilmore.
Burger King sponsored Arrested Development. Doesn't mean I'll eat there.
And honestly, Subway uses shitty, low quality ingredients. You can buy better ingredients at a supermarket, slap it together haphazardly and save yourself some money in the process. If you're going to get a sandwich from a restaurant, you might as well make sure the ingredients are at least on par with what you'd find in a grocery store.
At 7/10/08 02:51 AM, JadeTheAssassin wrote: You know what gets me out of bed?
Knowing I'll be back in it at some point.
Well that's more recursive than anything.
More Dali than Escher, if you would. Still what's become has become so I guess I'll give it a go.
I get up because I have to work to so I don't evicted otherwise my credit would go down the shitter faster than MC Hammer's and then shit sucks for the next several years, if not more.
Subway is the bottom of the barrel for sandwich shops. You guys need to behold the glory that is Potbelly.
I'll be honest. I was hoping more people would take the hint of this being more of a surreal thread.
Glad a couple people caught it and joined in on it.
You've pretty much proven my point, Memorize. No, I don't assume you're talking about the Judeochristian God. I'm making a point that it could be literally anything really puts a kink in things, doesn't it. As I've said before. How do you know God's not a rabbit that only manifests its powers when nobody's looking? Claiming the Judeochristian God in this sense is a nice reference point because you know what I'm talking about. What if He is real? How would you test for that? What if God's that rabbit? How would you test for it? What if He's a force that mimics some natural phenomenon we've already discovered? Is that something we can track? Good gravy, maybe God only created the universe and then... dare I say it, died!!! How would we even find the body to have a proper burial?
There are too many variables. In the mathematical sense, it's an unsolvable problem.
And, you're right, we haven't found any sign of life on other planets yet. But we still have more of a clue of what we're looking for than when it comes to some completely unknown force/being/thing. We know what life is, at least according to our standards, when we see it. Even if we managed to stumble upon God in some form. How the hell would we know we had?
Also, since when do you speak for all scientists to know that a great many of them wouldn't be instantly skeptical and secondly, what difference does it make what their reaction would be anyway? I shot that argument down cold. Even if a scientist were to say "well, hey, what made this," which I agreed some would (I simply said that SCIENCE as a body does not condone making a theory off of that), then it still makes a poor analogy.
Again: Humans have prior knowledge of how structures come to be, we build them. The human mind is geared to take prior knowledge and apply it to what's put in front of it. If somebody were to give me a bowl of cereal in a white fluid that was slightly more viscous than water, I would assume it's milk. Of course, by drinking it, I would test that theory and would be well on my way to determining if it was, in fact milk. If it did not, in fact taste like milk, I would say "well, hey, I guess this isn't milk." My initial hypothesis does not change the fact.
However, it's a ridiculous idea to automatically look at the universe and make the claim that it had to have been created. Why does it have to have been created? Do you have any previous knowledge of the construction of universae to know that they are typically made by something? What science is doing is wondering how it formed.
It's a similar principle to that misguided analogy you made. When you turn it completely around, it actually makes sense. If, say, we found structures on another planet, the first thing we would do is to found out what caused them. We would not say aliens made them and call it a day. That's a bullshit assumption. Even if the research team believed aliens made them, they would still investigate how they were built. This would lead to two conclusions: 1) they were caused by natural phenomena and there's no way to tell from that data that life is on that planet or 2) they were constructed by some life form, meaning that there is life in outer space.
That's what you call a first step. By looking into how the universe formed we are being WAY more productive than going on a wild goose chase to search for God, exclusively. If, in fact, God did create the universe, then studying how it formed should lead us to that conclusion.
At 7/10/08 02:09 AM, CapnCrunchDaPimp wrote: There's a reason why my name has a cereal in it, you know.
Wait. Are you the person I told to name yourself after the cereal?
Haha, you fucking tool.
At 7/10/08 01:45 AM, Trambamboline wrote: Oh I know. If I thought he'd meant it and was being mean to you, there would have been around 75% more swearing, and possibly a reference to his mother.
Because I'm so damn immature. =P
You're just jealous that dad likes me more because I put out.
At 7/10/08 01:13 AM, Gagsy wrote: Can I use it a la Solid Snake?
Yeah, this is boring
At 7/10/08 01:11 AM, BlackPlastic wrote: For the slim chance I might get laid that day.
You are, too. But let me tell you something. Did you know. Are you aware. That for only pennies a day you can start your own small business from home while supporting a starving child in Africa? It's true, and legit. Would I say that if it wasn't true or legit? You better fucking believe I would.
I'd do fucking anything. You don't even know.
At 7/10/08 01:05 AM, Memorize wrote: It really tickles my fancy.
Mind if I tickle the fancy in your pants-y?
At 7/10/08 01:10 AM, Gagsy wrote: My alarm gets me out of bed. =[
Tell me, and be honest with me now.
Would you have sex with this box? Would you do it for 5 dollars?
Would you do it because it's made of cardboard?
At 7/10/08 12:41 AM, Memorize wrote:At 7/10/08 12:30 AM, Gunter45 wrote:I'm talking about the initial reaction.
And you said that's all you were talking about "nothing more, nothing less." That's not the case.
You say you can not observe what is un-observable. But we actually do not know if "God/Deity" can or can not be observed, except that at this very moment, we have nothing to observe 'it/him' by.
Which is fine.
Which is why I brought up what Scientists are doing now. Which is spending tons of money in an attempt to find what we can not yet observe, which is: Life Forms on a Foreign planet.
We have no evidence of life on any other planet. Yet we continue to pour billions into finding life on any other planet in hopes of actually finding that life which, at current time, is 'un-observable'.
So as I was saying. I don't see a seperate account in which money is being poured into in an attempt to find "God/Deity" somewhere out there in the Universe. We have no evidence of it, just like the other life forms, but there's still a possibility (just like those life forms).
But quite honestly. Having two identical circumstances and coming to a different personal conclusion? Hypocrites.
So we're supposed to pour millions of dollars into a project to find an omniscient/omnipotent/invisible being that doesn't want to be found? How is that responsible?
How is that even comparable to finding life forms on other planets? "Observable" doesn't mean we're just not pointing the telescope in the right place. If life forms exist on other planets, they are observable or leave behind evidence that we can measure. That's what we are looking for and we know where to look for it. Since it would be easiest for us to find life similar to organism we know on earth, we search for planets that have similar conditions. Believe it or not, that's what we like to call, a "starting place." It's something you need to have before you ask the government for millions of dollars and the valuable time of brilliant minds.
How, exactly, do you propose we find God? Maybe we should get some equipment that measures the gleam in a child's eye on Christmas morning or some instrument to calculate the potency and loudness of unicorn farts. Maybe that's where God is.
That there are actually scientists out there who do not believe in a God because there is no evidence for such a being, while simutaneously believing that there are other life forms in the Universe despite there being no evidence.
How honest. How trustworthy.
I'm pretty sure there are accountants who cook their books, too. There might even be a fast food employee or two that spit in the food. I also have the nagging suspicion that some of our politicians aren't quite telling us the truth the whole time.
How earth-shattering that some people don't do their jobs like they're supposed to. It's like... it's like humans are fallible or something. Or that some people simply aren't on the up and up. This wouldn't happen in a theocracy, boy howdy. God wouldn't allow it.
Sure I can. Because you've been arguing with so-called "Scientists" during this entire conversation.
And I'm agreeing with scientists, too. What's your point?
At 7/10/08 12:39 AM, TheBoard wrote: BAGEL BITES ARE THE ONLY THING I LIVE FOR PIZZA IN THE MORNING, PIZZA IN THE EVENING, PIZZAS AT SUPPER TIME WHEN PIZZA'S ON A BAGEL, YOU CAN HAVE PIZZA ANYTIME
Dude, pizza's not for breakfast. What are you, gay?
At 7/10/08 12:42 AM, CapnCrunchDaPimp wrote: I just finished a bowl of Cap'n Crunch.
Referentially delicious.
I ate some rice and ground meat that I sauteed up together. It's a cheap meal.
If I was Danny Glover and I was two days from retirement, what would you do to me?
At 7/10/08 12:17 AM, Memorize wrote:At 7/9/08 04:16 PM, Gunter45 wrote:How would scientists even begin to start testing whether or not there was a God? Your claim is absolutely asinine.But that's not the point.
I'm only telling you about how the world and scientific community would act. Nothing more and nothing less.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Or even if it's science or not. But that is how they will react. And it is for that reason, why I am wondering why the same group of people who would claim "We have no proof of God/Deity/Force, therefore we can't say" will suddenly jump at such a circumstance that I provided, before they even test anything.
And why wouldn't they? As I said, they're already spending billions to push forward specifically to find any other underdeveloped life on another planet when we have absolutely no evidence that such other life even exists.
Haha, that's why I don't understand people like Poxy. So simple-minded.
We'll assume that they make the claim and everyone believes it without anyone testing the premise. Let's even go there. You're forgetting that science is based on constantly being checked and rechecked. If the structures weren't created by anything, then somebody would get the proof, present it to the scientific community and then, oh shit, the scientific community would change it's theory.
Also, your point wasn't to explain how the scientific community would react. You were using it as an example to show a perceived double-standard.
And again, it's entirely the point. You ALSO made the claim that scientists not believing in God wasn't discovery and lauded that as being against science. My counterpoint was that you can't discover something that's unobservable. That's just a stupid comment to make.
You can't exactly say that's the only point you were making when you're in print saying that you were using that as an analogy to illustrate a further point and, in the process, making separate points, as well. Well, you can't do that and look credible at the same time, if that's the sort of thing that's important to you.
At 7/10/08 12:08 AM, StephenBaby wrote: you r jesus finally smbody who shares the same passion for Reeses Puffs
I am the Hand of Michael, chosen from time immemorial. It is mine to scatter the wicked as chaff and unite the faithful. Your body will crumble and be lost in the sands of time forever.
I am the Sword of Damocles hanging over your sin. Fall down in penance and cleanse yourself with fire and ash for yours is the lost and the deceived and the wicked.
I Am A Golden God.
At 7/10/08 12:11 AM, idle wrote:At 7/9/08 11:41 PM, Gunter45 wrote: do it for the sweet, crunchy taste of Reese's Puff cerealWhat gets me out of bed?
WHAT GETS ME OUT OF BED?
You do Gunter, with your manly arms to hold me and your Bond villain scar to remind me that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words... they are perspectives. Screw Reese, I hate his guts, even though he was great in Terminator and pretty good in Tombstone. All that matters is that you are candy which melts in my mouth...
For breakfast.
Sometimes.
I haven't been completely honest with you though. There is another object which gets me out of bed.
Banana bread. Oh how I love it. Talk about melting in your mouth. It can, AND WILL, compete for the top spot in my affections list even though you don't add milk and it can't ride a motor bike.
Take note Gunter, for those cold winter mornings.
Yeah, banana bread's okay, I guess.
At 7/9/08 11:54 PM, AdairTishler wrote: there is nothing for me worth getting out of bed, which is why i spend 16 per day in bed
all this is just shit
i wish i could just hibernate permanently, but my brain makes me stay awake some
Listen, man. Listen.
Are you listening? Seriously, man. I'm being serious, okay? So listen.
Candy for breakfast.
At 7/9/08 11:45 PM, Project-Mayhem wrote: Calm down "badass NG user". Idiot.
Listen. I just need like 10 bucks, my dog's real sick man, I need like 10 bucks for the vet. Like 10 bucks outta cover it, I swear, I was on a trip and I ran out of gas and I need a ride home, but I lost my phone. Like 10 bucks should do it, I'm a Christian. I just need like 5 bucks for some food for my dog, I'll pay you back when my friends get here.
At 7/9/08 11:42 PM, Project-Mayhem wrote: I hate you for your product placement you corporate bitch.
I'm fucking MENTAL for this shit. I will cut you. Don't look at me. I will fucking cut you.
Yes, you, you lazy asshole. Why do you put your worthless feet on the ground and carry your carcass through the day?
Me? I do it for the sweet, crunchy taste of Reese's Puff cereal. Candy for breakfast? You're out of your fucking mind, you slut!
Oh my God, a bunch of rich kids go on to be in politics! There must be some convoluted, sinister explanation. The fact that they're in an organization that gets them important connections to powerful people, have rich, influential parents, and go to a prestigious school doesn't mean dick. It's a conspiracy.
At 7/9/08 11:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: If life is constantly adapting to survive and evolve and improve, will there ever be a point of apex?
What would be the measure of such a peak?
Evolution != improvement.
Evolution doesn't have a consciousness, it just means that whatever traits help an organism survive until successfully reproducing are what goes into the gene pool.
The classic case of the white moths that where well camouflaged until a factory moved in and blew soot all over the place making the moths with darker and darker wings more advantageous is a prime example.
Having white or black wings isn't an improvement, it's simply what it took to survive.
If you want to get right down to it, there's already a creature at the survivability "apex." Archaeobacteria. It reproduces incredibly quickly and is more resistant to harsh climates than anything else on earth.
If evolution was working towards the goal of something, it would have stopped there. In reality, though, there is no logical driving force, no direction. It just happens.
