3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
At 12/27/07 05:57 AM, WolvenBear wrote: OH MY GOD. Abusive marriages!
Yet, you didn't specify that. You pointed to "forced circumstances" and acted like that was cellar's entire claim. I'm disaapointed Rav, this is beneath you.
Well, noone asked. And abusive relationships are only the extreme end of subjugation anyway. Even little things like ordering for the wife at dinner are small psychological controls that men regularly put on women. And this whole off-topic argument was started over the original premise that women should "submit to the leadership" of men in marriage. Cellar claims that this is not a sexist view because *insert crapton of irrelevant statistics here*.
In order to show that even his statistics don't prove anything, I'm trying to explain various reasons why certain statistics are either irrelevant or misleading, namely the increased rate of divorce in dual-income families. The factors I have described are extremely relevant to that case. Also relevant are other factors cellar hasn't considered. Namely strain on the relationship posed by having both people working. Oftimes with kids, they'll stagger their shifts so that someone can be home with the kids... this can put a great strain on a relationship. With the statistics showing that when the woman makes over 75% of the household income that divorce rates are exactly the same as when she makes less than 50%, the relationship becomes clear. Cellar's entire point is "women working = bad, mmkay" when it's easy to see that, while it may be a corollary factor, it isn't the causal one.
Nonsense.
Damn, I thought cellar's case was weak. Yours is weak too....
You don't think that financial security plays a significant role in whether or not someone will initiate a divorce?
I'd be interested to hear why.
I'm not sure which is sadder... the death of one of the greatest hopes for democracy in Pakistan... or the fact that I am completely unsurprised by it. After several previous attempts... if they continued, one was bound to get her.
At 12/27/07 10:37 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Ever wonder why you're nomionated for all the negative awards, and I'm not?
It's a vast left-wing conspiracy.
At 12/26/07 11:53 AM, Zeistro wrote: It doesn't have to necessarily be magic or omnipotent. Certain deist thinkers believe God is neither infallible or all-powerful, just a higher life form, such as you and I are too an ant.
True, but 9 times out of ten, I'm talking with Christians.
Would the whole "The world is actually spherical instead of cubical" fall under this?
Huh? I suppose if our next space mission went out and saw that the Earth was actually a cube, took pictures and we could verify that yes, indeed, it was now a cube.... sure that might do it.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it supernatural. I'd call it mathematicians trying to use algebra to fuck with everyone. Considering some of said mathematicians can make 1+1=3.
Not without dividing by 0 :P
But no... if we measured pi to equla something not 3.14159... then I would think there's something supernatural going on.
I don't think there's any definitive or partial evidence indicating a deity or not.
Exactly... 's why I'm agnostic. However, rationality is able (so far) to explain nearly everything. So based on track record, I tend to stick to that. Remember, when I argue religion, it's usually with a Christian... thus I usually have to assume the features of their god in my arguments.
If it was non-sentient I don't think it would even fit under the description of "god," but just another event, force, energy etc since it lacks any self-awareness to be given anthropomorphic traits. Otherwise, it would be a misuse of the word god.
But as we can't tell if the creative force was sentient or not, it's just as likely to not be. I realize we love to anthropomorphize everything, but it's not evidence that whatever started this whole thing was sentient or not.
But what happens when no rational explanation suffices?
Such a situation hasn't come up yet... I guess we'll jump off that bridge when we get to it.
I'm not sure how its existance would cause logical issues, considering if something exists and it conflicts with our worldview. It isn't the thing which exists fault, but our own grasp of things that are flawed.
Again, talking about an omni-god. And many people would say that a prime cause MUST be omni... otherwise it couldn't be "eternal" or without cause itself.
At 12/26/07 03:55 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Oh please. Subjugated women? Unless we're talking about Muslim marriages or forced marriage cults, you're going pretty far out there.
Not really. In the most extreme cases, such as abusive and overly-controlling relationships (yes, they do exist, and are far more frequent than anyone wants to admit) it generally takes years (if ever) for the wife to come forward. The lighter the subjugation, the easier it is for a woman to get out from under it. And making money is one way to be able to get out of a bad marriage easier, because you can support yourself.
That's why all this talk of working women and divorce rates is bunk. Just because a woman isn't working doesn't make the relationship better it only means she can't divorce without some serious risk to her and possibly her children's welfare. The more she makes, the easier it is to do that. Both sexes are aware of this... hence the higher divorce rate.
Women are just as likely to cheat (every guy that cheats...there's a girl who cheats too). Finances are also an issue. You're just tossing out prejudice as objective fact here.
Actually... you're right. I double-checked and from what I can find... it's about even. Women from 40-60% cheat at some time in their relationship... men are from like 45-55% depending on the survey.
So I retract that statement.
At 12/26/07 01:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Ravariel, the 29 year old student whose learning disabilities are apparent not only because of his late-student status, but also due the fact that he can't even attempt to fathom facts that shatter his fragile little mindset.
Oh, my. Going the "omg ur retarded" route? Pure class, right there.
Ravariel, a small-minded, late-blooming bottom feeder who is so blinded by bias that he simply overlooks all that is said and takes a stance based on predetermined desire to bash certain users who he has lost to in former arguments.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Wow, you really can't see past your own nose, can you?
You're unwilling to realize that I showed correlation and causation at the same time.
Because you haven't. You've shown a myriad of statistics that prove nothing. Working women and divorce rates? Not a causal factor, merely a catalytic one. All the bullshit on single-mother families: irrelevant. Your OWN STATISTICS showed that women who made over 75% of the wages in the household had no significantly greater risk of divorce. Something you've ignored the entire time.
None of your links show ANYTHING relating to the original topic (which I'm not entirely certain you even remember), which is whether or not a matriarchal household is any different than a patriarchal one. Guess what: working and wage earning have NOTHING to do with that. A matriarch can as easily stay home with the kids as go work. But your view of what constitutes the "leader" is so myopic that you don't actually realize that you can lead from any "position" in a household.
You don't get that women who are subjugated will obviously be less inclined to initiate divorce... and yet you parade the statistic of this around like it's a goddamn GOOD thing. As men are more likely to do shit divorce-worthy, the correlation between higher wages and higher divorce rates and higher rates of divorce instigated by women becomes more clear.
You're good at FINDING statistics... however, you're very very bad at reading them. But hey, just insult my intelligence and my integrity and tell yourself that that means you "win". Or you could fill another four posts with links you've already linked to. That means you "win", too.
Factors that nobody has shown to be significant or to have an overriding affect in marriages in which the wife works.
Again, mistaking the symptom for the disease.
And you're still resorting to Ad Hominem as the sole source of your argument in the issue,
lolirony.
in which you jump into a debate against someone who is already arguing other people,
Sorry... wasn't aware I couldn't join an ongoing discussion with my take on the issue. So solly.
and focus your entire participation on the personal attributes of that person.
...followed instantly by:
That's how pathetic you are. You're so damaged personally blahblahblah
You are a walking self-contradictory irony factory, you know that?
NOONE here makes more Ad-Hominem attacks than you. Noone. And you DARE try to say that it's all I do? And then you dare question anyone's integrity?
If nothing else, you've got balls.
At 12/26/07 12:51 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Of people who, just like you, are angry due to prior arguments in which they've been proved wrong.
Lol, get over yourself.
Which you yourself have claimed considering you've actually admitted it before.
I have mods who do my whims, too. I'm also part of the Illuminati.
And the irony is that you broke those very rules (again), did exactly what I did (again), and managed to do the very thing you criticized, as you criticized it.
What are you, 8? "Waaaah, he's just as bad as me cuz he shush'd me for talking during quiet time!"
You completely avoid the topic, and eventually run away from it, when you get proved wrong... because you got your ego hurt.
Wow, you're a douchebag... congratulations on running away with every negative award we can think of.
Not only did you question my honesty, but even after it was showed that I was neither lying nor "misinformed" you continued to question it anyway.
God forbid someone question your "honesty". After someone throws that gauntlet, all bets are off! </sarcasm>
In the cases with you, someone wins the argument by validating their position more so than the other person.
Lol... so juvenile and yet such a large ego.
When I literally prove someone's claims wrong, and they run away from the thread shortly thereafter, it's safe that they lost
Here's an idea... I'll never respond to another post of yours ever again, and you can tell yourself that you've won every single one by default, okay? And hey, to do that you don't even have to post, because just by thinking that you disagree with me, you will have automatically "won" any "debate" that might have occurred.
Deal?
When you get the last word after the other person was proved wrong and ceased arguing because they knew they couldn't continue to do so without entirely ignoring the topic, they lost.
Lol. Remember, he who shouts loudest and longest wins the debate!
Quite frankly, I'm even sketchy on the idea that you can "win" a debate, let alone cellardoor having the mental capacity to "win" one.Grammer, now you're just lying to yourself.
No, my friend... you are. And everyone but you seems to realize that. If you want to know what the true purpose of debate is, then just ask. Nicely.
Oooh, quadruple post... got yer dander up, have we?
But poor, poor cellar... still mistaking the symptoms for the disease. Still unwilling to realize that correlation is not causation. Still unwilling to admit that there are factors you haven't considered. Still trying to win via Argumentum ad Nauseum or Proof by Assertion (Wiki it).
But hey... your wife will be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where she belongs, because it's "natural". You should be proud to carry on our beloved traditions.
Well, the real kicker is they only took the x-box and the games. There's an $1100.00 bike in the living room, 2 high-end computers, a saxophone, guitar, keyboard, multiple i-pods and game Nintendo DSes, printers, keyboards, TVs CDs... they didn't even think to take the stack of 360 games that was on the shelf RIGHT NEXT TO THE DAMN CONSOLE.
FFS, if you're gunna rob me, don't be so goddamn stupid about it.
At 12/25/07 09:03 PM, morefngdbs wrote: (I scored half a carrot cake with cream cheese icing ,for later )
/jealous
Also, who's this Tom Fulp character who bogarted my "Merry Christmas" topic?
So, merry christmas to me... while away at a friend's house for Christmas dinner someone broke into my apartment and stole my X-Box 360 and a folder with probably 30-40 games in it. Ironically, only 3 of the games in that folder were x-box games.
Emptied my change bowl, too, the fuckers.
bah fucking humbug.
At 12/25/07 09:21 PM, Bookman60 wrote: Respectfully, no one has actually observed dark matter. We've postulated that is exists, and we've seen its effects. But, as for actual observation of dark matter... no one has seen it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just haven't seen it.
We haven't seen black holes or subatomic particles either... but we have observed their effect on the world around us and thus are reasonable sure they exist. Noticing the effect and seeing the thing are different, but for the purposes of what Shaggy is trying to say, they are the same.
I kinda wish there was an "ignore poster" feature.
Just saying...
also merry christmas (hah, fuck you, Jews!)
wow... just when I though things couldn't get more retarded in here.
...maybe I need an NG break...
He's got nothing but general correlations that are meaningless, because he fails to take into account the millions of different factors involved. His links are mainly to pages DESIGNED to help men gain an upper hand in divorce proceedings (thus: obviously biased)... ignores counter-evidence and resorts to personal insults when proven wrong, as usual.
Just revel in Musician tearing him apart like the rest of us. Watching him wriggle on the hook is like hearing babies giggle... you can't help but smile.
Repeating yourself makes what you say more true!!
At 12/23/07 11:34 PM, Zeistro wrote: I find myself actually agreeing with Ravariel, it's been a year and another account since.
Who did you used to be?
Anyways, you say you're agnostic, but which idea are you more predisposed to; there being a god/catalyst/higher-power or not? Just my natural curiosity.
Mostly not. The very idea of some magical omnipotence seems so absurd as to be laughable. But like I said, with enough evidence... though that would mean breaking down the very fabric of existence. Namely: logic and rationality as omnipotence is a logical paradox. As such, you'd need some serious evidence. Like if tomorrow pi = 4... then I might think there's something supernatural going on. Until then, everything so far outside of a few fractions of a second are logically explainable (and those missing fractions are being whittled away with alarming frequency)... so I tend to go for the side with the evidence.
Now if you said that the universe was a result of simply an outside force, non-omni, most likely non-sentient, then sure, I can go for that. We can apply Clarke's 3rd law to it and call it "god" I suppose (not that it necessarily be technological). Sure there's plenty I can't explain... yet. But that doesn't point toward there being no rational explanation. On the flip side, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I cannot also logically assume that deities must not exist... though for one to exist would cause logical issues... but I digress.
At 12/23/07 11:42 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Um, although terrible things have been done by Atheists, I don't think anything has been done 'in the name' of atheism per se.
I dunno... the amount of self-control it takes to not reach through my computer screen whenever someone tries to "prove" the Flood happened and choke them the fuck out begs to differ.
6) We tend to exaggerate about the other guyNot fairly though, mind you.
'tis the point.
9) Both sides have brought good things to the tableSome.
Rationality brough the technological age. Religion dragged us out of tribes and into a vast world community. I'd say they both have done a decent amount.
10) You'll never harass the other side out of existanceNor do atheists try.
Lol... have you even read some of these topics? ;-)
I seem to be running away with underrated (yay?) but I think Drak's got me on Dawkins..
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAHNNN!
Now, with the preponderance of religion threads out there, this one may seem like just another on the pile. It may also seem like I am a rabid anti-religious foam-at-the-mouth atheist at times. The fact that I'm leading (I think) in the votes for the Dawkins award is enough proof of that. Neither of these statements are true. I am an agnostic. I don't know what's out there, and as I don't have any information, I will not hazard a guess. I believe that the universe works in a rational manner and that it may be possible that it is self-existant. I am also fairly certain that nearly every religion around today has it wrong (in one way or another). But neither am I so confident in that belief that I would not set it aside with enough evidence.
Preamble aside, there are some (10) things I think that both the atheist and the theist need to realize. From here, and copypasta'd/paraphrased for your convenience.
1) Horrible things can be done in the name of either
2) Both sides really do believe what they're saying
3) In everyday life, you're not that different
4) There are good people on both sides
5) Your point of view is legitimately offensive to them
6) We tend to exaggerate about the other guy
7) We tend to exaggerate about ourselves, too
8) Focusing on negative examples makes you stupid
9) Both sides have brought good things to the table
10) You'll never harass the other side out of existance
Read, learn, discuss... and try to keep this in mind for future conversations.
Thank you.
I call hax that I'm not in the Darwin finals ;-P
I'd end up voting for elfer anyway, but still
At 12/23/07 02:07 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Best Poster
lapis
Elfer
Elfer
Worst Poster
Memorize
Shaggytheclown17
Shaggy
Most Underrated Poster
Ravariel - three votes
Imperator- two votes
SmilezRoyale - two votes
Smilez >_>
Most Overrated User
Cellardoor6 - 4 votes
Der-Löwe - 2 votes
Cellar
Most Helpful Poster
TheMason 5 votes!
SevenSeize3 votes
reviewer-general - 2 votes *wink wink*
Seven
Least Helpful Poster
Memorize - 7 votes!
Cellardoor6 - 4 votes
Cellar
Pontificate Award
Imperator
lapis
Imperator
Charles Darwin Award
Elfer
Drakim
HAX! ;-P
Elfer
Steven Hawking Award for the Sciences
EndGameOmega- 6 votes
Elfer - 3 votes
EGO
Troll Award
Memorize - 9 votes!
Demosthenez - 3 votes
Mem
Chris Hansen Mediator Award
lapis
SevenSeize
Seven
Best Newcomer
Sajberhippien
tony4moroney
Sajberhippien
Most Improved Poster
Dre-Man
Drakim
Drakim
Gen. George S. Patton Award
TheMason- 11 votes!
Cellardoor6 - 4 votes
Mason
Gen. Michael Hayden Award
TheMason - 5 votes
Cellardoor6 - 3 votes
Mason
Thomas Ewing Award
Stafffighter
JudgeDredd
Cellardoor6
Stafffighter
John Roberts Award
MortifiedPenguins - 2 votes
Cellardoor6, Proteas, Elfer, or Stafffighter - 1 vote
Proteas
Alan Greenspan Award
Elfer
Der-Löwe
Cellardoor6
Der-Lowe
"I, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby" Award for Perjury
Shaggytheclown17
Cellardoor6
Shaggy
Robert Novak Award for Integrity
Imperator
Cellardoor6
Memorize
Zoraxe7
Memorize
Court Jester Award
poxpower - 5 votes
Empanado - 3 votes
Pox <3
Overzealous Mod Award
Proteas
SevenSeize
Seven
Richard Dawkins Award
Drakim
Ravariel
Drakim (can't honestly vote for myself since I'm actually an agnostic)
Bill O'Reilly Award for Conservatism
WolvenBear - 3 votes
Memorize - 2 votes
Wolven
Theodore Roosevelt award for Environmentalism
TheMason
Earfetish
Mason
Basically it means that the big bang wasn't the "beginning" of spacetime.
We call it t=0 because it's a useful point with a bit of significance. However, if the NBP proves out, there is then no reason to believe that spacetime had a beginning and may, in fact, be infinite. That's when Quantum Vacuum properties come into play and the possibility of spontaneous creation of large amounts of matter... for if that is possible, given an infinite timeline, the big bang was, in fact, an inevitable and non-causal event.
Mind you, there's a lot of work yet to do on these theories, and EndGameOmega can probably teach you more about them than I can. But that's the general idea.
At 12/23/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now compare that to the increase in divorce rate in Canada:
It seems like the increase in dual-income homes in Canada has been paralleled with the increase in divorce (which we know is bad for kids).
It's also inversely proportional to the number of pirates. So obviously if we increase the number of pirates, the divorce rate will drop!
in other words: correlation =/= causation.
Give a CAUSAL link and we might think about taking you seriously. Until then, you're just another misogynist fundie.
At 12/23/07 12:47 AM, therealsylvos wrote: To say it existed for eternity is ridiculously problematic. There HAS to be a t=0 or else you get all sorts of headaches.
There may need to be a t=0, but there's nothing to say that there can' be t = -X values. Imaginary time and the No Boundary Proposal (google it) pretty much removes the singularity from the big bang, making it simply another point in spacetime. There is nothing except faulty "common sense" logic that says there had to be a start to spacetime.
At 12/23/07 12:26 AM, SevenSeize wrote: You're also winning the super awesome award along with MP.
\(*o*\)
(/*o*)/
~(o.o)~
(>^(>O.o)>
At 12/23/07 12:14 AM, Bookman60 wrote: There's one thing that science will never be able to explain...
How did the Universe come into being?
Prove it. There are no known limits to scientific knowledge, only assumed ones. Even Heisenberg may be wrong in that regard (though probably not... but it's not what you were talking about anyway, so it's moot).
According to the popular "big-bang" theory a tiny little ball about the size of a period exploded and fifteen billion years later here we are. Where did this little ball of matter come from? Nothing? How is it possible for something to arise from nothing? Theoretically, if I were to take a tube and empty it of everything, making a complete vacuum, would there be anything inside that tube no matter how long we waited the tube would still hold... absolutely nothing.
Not necessarily. There's a little phenomenon you should look up called "Quantum Vacuum" that kinds owns your little metaphor there.
Any macro-evolutionists want to take a crack at giving me a halfway decent explanation as to the origins of the universe?
...because the two are inextricably linked, of course!
At 12/22/07 07:58 PM, Christopherr wrote: At least you're winning something...
I am!?
*checks thread*
Holy shit... I AM! Underrated and Darwin (it'll be a fight to the death between me and Elfer!) With nods in 5 other categories. (including awesomeness, rawk!). Seems I need to piss more people off to have a chance of facing off against Cellar or Mem in the "least helpful" category. ;_;
*snort*... who'd'a' thunk.
Get someone to nom you for best newcomer... cuz Sab seems to be running away with that one. After that, it's just a case of getting more posts under your belt. Though, from what I've seen, you might actually rival Wolven for the Bill O. award soon enough.
At 12/22/07 06:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/22/07 05:15 AM, Ravariel wrote: Did someone dub this the "Official Retard Thread" when I wasn't looking?I assume you're talking about Shaggy?
I mean, holy crap.
...and satanbrain, and psycho-squirrel...
At 12/22/07 03:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You: "You believe traditional marriage is faulty or you're a sexist"
Bzzt, wrong. That's not what he's saying at all.
Me: "Traditional marriages are better and the natural family unit is more healthy for the preservation of families".
Proof? "Divorce rates are on the rise" is not proof, just in case you're wondering.
My views are incredibly traditional.
Which obviously means they're correct!
I'm not sexist at all, and you know it. But you don't want to admit that what I stated is completely status quo and normal, because you're trying to get revenge somehow for things that aren't even related to this subject.
You do realize that "status quo and normal" and "sexist" are not mutually exclusive, right?
Did someone dub this the "Official Retard Thread" when I wasn't looking?
I mean, holy crap.
