3,058 Forum Posts by "lapis"
At 12/10/05 01:16 PM, Imperator wrote: 1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first
plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.
Try converting NYC (from New York City) to wingdings. The Q33 NY flight number is a hoax though, but that has already been pointed out.
At 12/5/05 06:26 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I suppose you'd also say that we should go back slash and burn farming and eating meat, as well.
That, my good sir, is a most vile and abhorrent insinuation that I felt like a dagger's stab in the heart. Of course the terrible vice of eating meat could in no way be compared to the ancient and noble ritual of beating one's meat. That is like comparing beating a senior citizen to eating a senior citizen, and we all know that the first is to be widely encouraged while the second one is just plain gross.
Masturbation may be primitive, but it's one of the human inventions that should be cherished by every morally upstanding individual.
To further strengthen my point I'd like to point out that Jesus masturbated. I quote the well-respected historian and Bible scholar JimmyPage, who, in all his wisdom, spoke these famous words on some random internet forum I found using Google:
"Jesus floggin' the bishop (before there were bisops) seem quite possible' though I imagine him laying pip with Mary Magdaline more likely.
Ah, hell, why not both? As a husband to her, like the rest of us, he probably got bored..."
And he of course bases this claim on absolutely nothing, like every self-respecting modern day historian should. And the 'quite possible' is just a form of modesty, since he already knows that the historian who would be man enough to try to refute his findings has yet to be born.
So hah, I'd like to see you defend the prosecution of masturbators now, knowing that Jesus would be among those upon whom you'd place your blasphemous restrictions. Crucifixion is one thing, but taking away a man's right to unleash a wave of potential children upon the toilet is beyond humane torture.
At 12/5/05 05:57 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I could just as easily say that man invented agriculture so that he would have more time to rape women, but that would offend people and would be rejected as not being logical.
Yes, you could say that, but then you'd just be making unfounded claims. Archaeological research has given indisputable evidence that masturbation was the driving force behind the discovery of agriculture. For starters I'd like to mention the Sumerians, inventors of agriculture. I cite from this source:
The Sumerians, who invented the first written Western language, make reference to the Mesopotamian god Enki masturbating, his ejaculation filling the Tigris River with flowing water.
Now is it not very plausible that Sumerian men tried to emulate their beloved God as much as possible by masturbating? The problem here is of course: you're busy all day chasing wild animals. So you invent agriculture and voilà: you've suddenly got a huge amount of spare time to perform the most sacred of human hand rituals: masturbation.
I rest my case.
Merely a fulfillment of lust? That may be so, but you're underestimating the enormous role masturbation has played during the foundation of human civilization. Think about it: why did man invent agriculture? So he would have to spend less time running after wild animals and more time to be at home and masturbate!
And immoral? if masturbation is immoral then so was Descartes when he spoke the famous words: "Masturbato, ergo sum". At least I find myself in the company of some of history's greatest philosophers. Good day, sirs.
At 12/5/05 05:27 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:At 12/5/05 05:23 PM, mosous wrote: But they cant illegalize masterbation, i mean what else am i supposed to do sfter school?You could learn a new skill,
Masturbation itself is among the oldest and most vital skills known to man and certainly one that every teenage boy should seek to master.
At 12/5/05 04:59 PM, The_Loop wrote: Its about controlling a little peice of land both sides think is extremely holy
I don't think the Palestinians care that much about the holiness of the land, they just want the land back that was stolen from them in 1948 (or given away by unrightful owners with the Balfour declaration in 1917). Anyways, I'll just plain beat Lidov to it (har har har) and point out that topics regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict belong
here.
At 12/5/05 04:53 PM, lapis wrote: (since you're multiplying numbers between 0 and 1 k times).
Except k-1 over r-1 of course, but the other numbers tend to zero faster. If someone's got too much spare time he might prove it.
At 12/5/05 04:37 PM, -dELta- wrote: put another way, the chance that the chimp DOESNT write out the entire works of shakespear is (1-(1/64))^(10^1000)
Right, the probability that a chimp types out the entire works of Shakspeare in a single try is 1-((1/64)^(10^1000)), and the probablity that he did type it out equals ((1/64)^(10^1000)), which I'll call p. Then the probability that after the kth try he has seen r times the exact works of Shakespeare equals the formula below. The probablity that r equals zero tends to zero when k nears infinity (since you're multiplying numbers between 0 and 1 k times). I can't give a numeric example because p is so damn microscopic, but it's all about the infinity.
At 12/5/05 03:42 PM, TheButler05 wrote: i guess that would be possible if chimps knew how to read and write, but seeing as how they dont i believe the would eat the paper and shit all over the typewriters.
They're not supposed to be able to write, they just have to randomly hit keys. Random sequences of letters, numbers white spaces and symbols will appear, and the probablity that one of these long sequences is in fact exactly equal to a work of Shakespeare is negligable. If the time they get to type out random sequences of letters nears infinity however, the probability that none of these random sequences actually equals an exact work of Shapespears tends to zero.
At 12/5/05 11:30 AM, Empanado wrote: Many historians believe that the chemicals produced in Hitler's brain after a round of very agressive masturbation drove him to desire the extermination of all jews and gipsyes.
Oooooooh. So that's why I've been having these 'urges' lately.
At 12/5/05 02:35 PM, punisher19848 wrote: Sure, there can be brief periods od global peace (Pax Romana the only one on record)
Global is pretty relative in this case; I'm sure Hunnic tribes in Mongolia hardly noted peace in some regions around the Mediterranean.
Yes. You don't even need an infinite number of chimps, even a finite number of immortal or replaceable chimps and typewriters would type Shakespeare an infinite amount of times if they had infinite time.
At 12/4/05 03:56 PM, Christmas_Wisdom wrote: It came out in 2003.
Heh, you beat me to it :)
At 12/4/05 03:55 PM, ChristmasPeepers wrote: It's an old song you say? I just heard it two days ago.
It was released in 2003.
At 12/4/05 02:18 PM, smith916 wrote: Slavery is the exact opposite of capitalisim.
That's not true. When a society adopts slavery it just considers the freedoms of certain people to be tradable commodities. There are several forms of freedom, one being the freedom to not have the government interfere with your economic decisions, and there's the freedom to choose to live your life the way you want to. Capitalism seeks to maximise the former and so not having the government interfere with your trading of slaves is more capitalist than a government ban on slavery.
I mean, just look at slave traders in the Renaissance. The first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stocks even utilised slave labour in East Asia.
Lol, I was reading a few random articles on Haaretzdaily.com and suddenly this advertisement appeared. It's for Efrat, some Jewish anti-abortion movement. Now I don't really care about people pushing their pro-life opinions on others but I found this particular ad to be pretty racist. I mean, if local news stations here ran an ad saying: "If the Negro population in the Netherlands reaches 40%, the Dutch state will be nullified" then all local media and politicians would throw a fit.
The people from Haaretz obviously don't see a problem with this or else they wouldn't have allowed this ad on their site. But this ad (and Efrat as a whole) suggests that Jews are different from anybody else and need to be adressed as a community about their reproduction rates. If I were Arab I'd also be offended because even though you always hear that the Palestinians could have stayed when Israel was founded, this ad implies that they are only wanted in small proportions.
And their choice of words is of course appalling. Replace the word only in the last line by final and one might easily draw historical parallels.
At 12/4/05 11:00 AM, theabominablematt wrote: I've heard people say that absinthe has hallucinogenic properties but I'm pretty sure that's bull. A friend of mine brought a bottle back from holidays with him and I had about three caps of it, it didn't seem to touch me.
Maybe you start hallucinating when you finish half a bottle, but that's just impossible because Absinthe is among the most disgusting liquors ever made by men along with Shaosing rice wine, which me and my cousin bought at a Chinese market when trying to experiment with foreign products. Now I'm usually not that picky when it comes to alcohol but that rice wine went straight down the drain and I'd recommend doing the same with Absinthe. If one wants to hallucinate then I'd recommend shrooms, the taste of mud still beats the taste of Absinthe.
Well, talking from a European standpoint, we hold China in pretty high regard. Chinese exchange students do well in local universities, European companies are moving their production departments to China and Chinese movies are getting more and more popular around Europe. China is being seen as a big potential trading partner of the European Union so courses in Chinese are being offered at local high schools and universities.
Chinese also seem to integrate well with the local population; two of my friends have Chinese girlfriends and Chinese men communicate very well with locals when compared to other ethnic groups. Just don't consume all our oil :P
Well, according to our good friend Jack Chick (it's near the bottom if the story) Russia is Magog. Those damn Russians.
At 12/2/05 08:53 PM, smith916 wrote: Unless you want to cut yourself off from the world then homeland security only does half of the job.
But keeping their soldiers in Iraq wasn't doing the other half of the job. Al-Qaeda loses when the support regular muslims have for them fades away. Spanish presence in Iraq was only fueling muslim hatred against Spain and therefore not a great way to fight terror. You're right when you say that civilian deaths can never be prevented, but keeping soldiers in Iraq was a waste of money and time which could have better been spent on fighting muslim radicals at home.
An islam who commits violence against civiliants for religous reasons is a terrorist, and i doubt they were ever happy with you to begin with, ever heared of the riots in france? i'm not saying you deserved it though.
The riots in France didn't start because of religious reasons, they happened because a minority, in this case North-African muslims, felt impoverished and discriminated against (whether they were right or just blaming the French government for their own problems is up for discussion). Non-muslim Africans also participated in the riots. It wasn't a Jihad, it could be better compared to the 1965 riots in Watts.
What about before the iraqi war, what reason did osama have for killing 3000 americans, as well as his harsh actions in religous law in afganistan.
His reasons were mostly connected to anger with American involvement in the Middle East. Of course the 9/11 bombing were unjustified, but 'hate for democracy' is hardly a reason for muslim radicals hating the US. The Iraq war was also not much of a blow to Al-Qaeda when compared to the invasion of Afghanistan.
At 12/2/05 08:14 PM, smith916 wrote: http://www.weeklysta..000/004/152lndzv.asp
That article is from June 7 2004, here's a more recent article about Ahmed Hikmat Shakir.
No one has ever proven ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
As i said... the spanish should have hit the back just as hard for the bombings, you dont back further into a hole after you get hit.
By doing what? By keeping their soldiers in Iraq to support a pointless war? Or by instead spending the money on homeland security?
Now... If the terrorists have no connection to sadam, why are they bombing spain when the spanish helped the US in iraq? if they didn't see iraq as important, why did the terrorists bother with hurting you? I can think of 2 reasons
1) If there's no connection between sadam and the terrorists, then there's no connection to the bombings in madrid, to the spanish aid of reconstruction i iraq. Therefore, the bombings were a hate crime.
There were no connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, however the US invasion of Iraq did piss off the muslim world for obvious reasons which encouraged some European muslims to start deliberating a terror attack against targets in Europe. Supporting the Iraq war was not helping the war on terror so the Spanish backed out of it because they more keen on keeping their own civilians safe.
2) There is a connection to the terrorists in iraq, and they attacked you because you were helping the US start a democracy.
Hahaha, ha. Yeah, they really hate the US because it's starting democracies. That's why anti-US president Ahmadinejad was democratically elected in Iran.
At 12/2/05 07:40 PM, smith916 wrote: i apologize, i was told that after the madrid bombings, the governments of spain decided to make spain a more socialistic country to help become less of a target by the big bad bullies.
Well I had already typed this so I'll post it anyway.
At 12/2/05 03:06 PM, smith916 wrote: I'll give you an example, spain, was attacked by bombers in madrid i think, yes? I do feel bad that they died, but what they did afterwards was foolish, they blamed the united states for their troubles and backed further into their hole, turning to socialism as means of protection.
As far as I know the people of Spain never supported the war on Iraq, Aznar's conservative government did however, while the social-democratic opposition under Zapatero was against sending troops to Iraq. When a few retards blew up the trains in Madrid a few weeks before the elections, Aznar's government tried to blame it on the ETA, the Basque independence fighters who haven't seriously targeted civilians for a long time now. After a few days it became clear that muslims were behind the attacks, and Aznar's government tried to blame it on the ETA because they didn't want people to suspect that Spain's support for the Iraq war caused the bombings. The people were furious with Aznar for lying and voted for Zapatero in the elections. Zapatero didn't "flip-flop" and pulled all Spanish soldiers out of Iraq like he always said he would.
The parts where you're wrong:
1) The Spanish people never blamed the US, they just started backing France and Germany in their criticism of the illegal invasion of Iraq after Zapatero got elected.
2) They never turned to 'Socialism', they elected a social-democratic government.
3) They never 'ran away', since keeping soldiers in Iraq was in no way aiding the security of the Spanish people. I'm not sure what the motives were for the US to invade Iraq, but there was certainly no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda terrorism. Money spent on Spanish soldiers in Iraq could be better spent on homeland security, and removing their troops would hurt whatever faith some Spanish muslims might have had in al-Qaeda.
At 12/1/05 10:08 AM, sas3900 wrote: god i hate the dutch
You're from Belgium, Holland's retarded little sister.
no offense intented to other Belgians
At 12/1/05 09:48 AM, deurwaarder wrote: The problem with this country is that they only look for short term solutions!
Heh, yeah I guess. They look for short-term solutions because they do well during elections.
On who should i vote then? VVD is suppose to be the liberal party, "save yourself" mentality. i think CDA are the fuck ups.
Meh, Balkenende's keyword is 'personal responsibility' and by that he also means that everybody should look after himself in the first place, instead of turning to the state. He's just as capitalist as the VVD, most of what this government has done reflects VVD standpoints. (afschaffing prepensioen, replacing WAO by WIA in 2006 which makes it harder for people to get state money etc.)
And I think this measure is also capitalist. After all, the state doesn't pay our health care bills, we do. The government is just making sure that they don't have to pay for people's medical bills when those who refused to get themselves insured do get an injury. Sure they force us to do something, but that's not by nature communist. Conservatives also force their believes on people.
Anyway, I guess this new system sucks, my dad hasn't stopped bitching about it for a long time now and other guys I know from college say the same thing, I personally haven't really looked into it yet. But I don't think we're communist or becoming so, I think this country is turning more and more right-wing actually.
It's a lot of money (although I'm part of the 50% which has no clue about what's going to happen) and yes, the government sucks, but making health care insurance compulsory isn't very communist. What if it's not compulsory and you don't get insured and you spend the money on something else. Then what if you get a heart attack? Then who's going to pay for your medical bill?
The state, with your tax payer's money.
This isn't communism, there's only one more right-wing thing to do here and that's letting everybody who isn't insured die when they get a disease. If the government was communist they'd make health care free instead of allowing insurance companies to make tons of money.
This government is primarily capitalist, that's what VVD and CDA have in common and this policy reflects that.
These statistics are fun to use at the dinner table but they don't prove jack shit. I already posted my thoughts about causality and correlation in this thread and this is a perfect example of when correlations are taken the wrong way. Statistics were meant to prove or strengthen scientific hypotheses and no self-respecting scientist has believed in the superiority of races for a long time now.
Ever noted how most deaths from Ebola occur in places which aren't connected to the internet? You might even conduct a study about it and conclude that people who aren't connected to the internet are x times more likely to die from Ebola than those who are. This however gives no proof whatsoever about internet use being a remedy against Ebola.
And there are no reasons to assume that Hispanics and African-Americans are genetically inferior either. Remember, Germanic tribesmen were still at the same civilization level as their African counterparts only 2,000 years ago, and although I'm no biologist I think I'm right to assume that 2,000 years is nothing when talking in terms of human evolution. I'm also fairly positive that black children adopted by rich white parents are just as likely to succeed in college as white adopted children.
I'd like to see you give some hard evidence which undoubtably shows that blacks are not on the same intellectual level as whites due to biological inferiority like missing brain genes. Only then will the numbers you posted have some sort of meaning.
In fact, there are other, more plausible, theories that explain these numbers. One has already been mentioned by Aapo-Joki: social-economic status. Another explanation could be cultural; when a pimp gets more respect in his community than a quantum physicist then he will be less likely to go to college. This mentality could just as well be applied to caucasian trailor parks and explains a lot more about human success than race theory.
At 12/1/05 07:35 AM, MikeZan wrote: He said race not religion, anyway i dont see why people use ''Race'' everyone it a human only skin color and a bit of facial physiology is different from one another.
It depends on whether the criteria are descent or merely skin colour and facial physiology. I figure he means descent since he mentioned 'caucasian', which refers to the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans who were originally from the Caucasus. This excludes skin colour since Pakistani and Indians (although a lot are from Dravidian descent I suppose) have a dark skin compared to Turks or Chinese but they share a common background with the Nordic/Germanic/Romanic peoples. Nordics in turn have a darker skin than Hellenic or Romanic peoples.
So what are the criteria Gunter? Does the number of pigment cells define a man's survival? Because if you choose the former then one might ask what the limit is. Does regular sun bathing equal a one way ticket to the ovens or not? Or maybe facial characteristics like an African or Asian flat nose mean you're toast? Then how about people like Michael Jackson?
If you choose descent then do we just kill off anyone who isn't of Indo-European descent, so that all African-Americans, Chinese, Turks (altaic descent), Jews/Arabs (semite descent) etc get a bullet? Or also everyone who's not of Nordic/Germanic descent, which means Russians, Gypsies and Italians will also be off to death camp?
Racism is of course a human flaw based on subjective and mostly unfounded criteria which no leader should give in to. I know your intent was merely parody but it's fun to know, now that you have chosen the subject, to elaborate on which 'races' get to survive your second Endlösung.
Luke.
Just so that I can stand over his cradle and say: "Luke *cggghhh* I am your father."
H3LO MAH GOD SIR I WUD B A QUIET AND UTAR PL3ASURA 2 HAEV TEA WIT U THIS LOV3LY AFT3RNON!!!11111 LOL
Fucking awesome
