At 7/25/08 10:47 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/25/08 10:44 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: i would have checkmated elfer by dragging him into a discussion on faith, run circles around him until he made an ass of himself and logged off.

Actually I was one post away from dismissing it as a troll. Congratulations though?

thanks. (in before troll though. gg)

PICS OR DIDN'T HAPPEN.

also.

GTFO!

lol @: elfer and earfetish.

i can always rile them up. :p
it's not even worth the effort to take the jumbled quotes from both of you.
to get the point...

i would have checkmated elfer by dragging him into a discussion on faith, run circles around him until he made an ass of himself and logged off. earfetish? don't really have to do anything to earfetish. he just likes to use blatant ad hominems. :p

long story short: DON'T GET SO HUFFY BITCHES!!! lol.

At 7/25/08 10:27 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/25/08 10:10 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote:

At 7/25/08 10:06 AM, Elfer wrote: Sure I can. Unlike many liberals in the United States, I already live in Canada.

canadian, eh? then this doesn't really concern you, but hey... i was plannin to move to canada myself... it's more laid back than california i hear. how long have ya been there?

Twenty years and five days legally, but depending on your beliefs you could add up to about nine months onto that.

And yeah, Canada is reasonably less terrifying than the united states. I'm always weirded out when I watch American TV that takes place in a major city and there's officers armed with assault rifles searching bags outside subway entrances, but the characters act as if there's nothing unusual about it. That's fuckin' CRAZY, man.

eh, one kinda gets used to a cop holding a gun to the back of your head while another one frisks ya. especially if you're mexican walkin down san pedro at night just to go get something to snack on because the food at home is nothin but crappy leftovers. but i was thinkin about movin there so i could just chill without having to listen to the annoying sound of police cruisers and obnoxious shouting.

believe it or not. old emo music (pre-mcr) is actually tolerable when you're a funk. but idk... have you tried simple plan--untitled?

At 7/25/08 10:21 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I think it will be a pretty good race.

Certainly more interesting than Kerry dumb versus George dumber.

as an idea, ya it'll be a good race. but in practice... it'll just be the same prick, different name, different face.

i hate when people spell color with a "u" and when people spell sulfur with a "ph". talk about ghey!!!

At 7/25/08 10:09 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote:

At 7/25/08 09:43 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote:

i still don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p
(ad nauseum)

What are you smoking?

obviously some REALLY good shit. jealous?

but no i jest... although it would be nice.
ahhh... a man can dream though. :p

At 7/25/08 10:06 AM, Elfer wrote: Sure I can. Unlike many liberals in the United States, I already live in Canada.

canadian, eh? then this doesn't really concern you, but hey... i was plannin to move to canada myself... it's more laid back than california i hear. how long have ya been there?

At 7/25/08 09:57 AM, lapis wrote: I'm glad we reached agreement, qu3muchach0.

At 7/25/08 09:40 AM, lapis wrote: their empiricists, right?

*they're
Lol. I can't even recall the last time I interchanged their and they're. It's pretty ironic that this happened in an intricate discussion about empiricism.

i'm glad i found someone who actually has a mind on ng. most people go off with the slightest tap.

At 7/25/08 09:54 AM, Elfer wrote: I'm going to start recording all of the quotes like this from NG users, then depending on who wins, I'll see if everyone actually does become an atheist, or if everyone actually does move to Canada.

by all means! but run, run as fast as you can but...

YOU CAN'T ESCAPE HIS INEVITABLE FAILURE!!!

At 7/25/08 09:40 AM, lapis wrote: I agree. People just throw the word empiricism around too often these days. In my opinion, the only real empiricists were found in Britain in the 17th and 18th century, although there might have been people who shared their thoughts in other parts of Europe and perhaps even the 12th century Muslim world as well. I mean, just because a nation has interventionalist policies doesn't necessarily mean their empiricists, right?

true. we're not establishing colonies or forcing people to pay taxes to help the mother country or forcing them to buy our goods. half the time we intervene so people won't shout, "WHERE THE HELL IS AMERICA??? WHAT IS THIS PLACE TO SMALL FOR JOOO!!!???" it's sad really. america is damned it does and damned if it doesn't. so i'm pretty sure people have learned to tune them out by now.

At 7/25/08 09:29 AM, Elfer wrote: Yeah, the difference between that and religion is that in science you guess, then test your guess and try to prove it wrong.

as opposed to "knowing"? then omg! let's go out in the middle of the street and guess what's going to happen. ik let's make some generalizaitons because i'm a <sarcasm><dignafied voice>scientist</dignified voice></sarcasm>.

Also, equivocating the scientific meaning of "theory" with the colloquial meaning of "theory" has been shown to be stupid over and over and over and over and over again. Just don't do it.

i'm not using the colloquial term "theory". so you can't pull your "OMG LOOK AT ME! I'M A GRAMMAR NAZI!" stint here. and on a side note: YOU have been shown to be stupid over and over and over and over and over again. Just don't do it.

So you're proposing that it's impossible to conclude that a species is changing because you can't isolate a control group that doesn't change?

maybe... what's it to you?

You can have control observations and not just a control group, you know.

in other words: guessing.

That's the great thing about science: anyone can examine the evidence for themselves and try to discredit it if they want. Interesting how exactly zero creationists have managed to do this in the past 150 years.

an actual group called creationists haven't existed for that long dumbass. go read wiki over again--or better yet... why don't you edit it so you can win? and it has been discredited by darwin himself. but nooo.... athiests don't want to hear any of that and say it's a lie and start getting all. it's kind of ironic and kinky at the same time. :p

The observable, scientific evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Flat out denial of evolution without a strong argument betrays one's ignorance, not skepticism.

i still don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p
(ad nauseum)

At 7/25/08 09:21 AM, lapis wrote:

At 7/25/08 09:10 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: Pffft. Exactly what a dirty basement-dweller would say. :p

Okay, I'll admit that I crossed a line when I said that empiricists prefer first-hand experience but I didn't like how you mitigated your earlier remarks about US empiricism rebuilding Japan after the war. You must have at least mildly sympathised with those comments. I personally don't think that it was necessarily empiricism that made the US rebuild Japan but that it were simple economic interests on the part of the US. I personally think that empiricism is an inherently flawed set of doctrines and I wouldn't brand basic strategic initiatives by the US as such.

no prob. and like i said i was just doin it piss off multicanimefan because he's on obvious wee-a-boo. and you are right, i don't really think it was empiricism that motivated america to rebuild japan. people who think america is always this big bully hasn't really talked to many americans. i mean, we're an extremely diverse group of people spanning over a vast region. but then again, what country isn't?

At 7/25/08 08:51 AM, bcdemon wrote:
Ahh the "terrorist watch list". Includes people like Nelson Mandela (removed July 2 2008), CNN reporter Drew Griffin, Roman Catholic nun, Sister Glenn Anne McPhee, and Cat Stevens. I'm sure that list is a helpful tool in thwarting attacks...

i guess so, since there haven't been any new attacks since then. and don't post another lame simpson meme guys. show some creativity if you're going to bitch and moan about the us. i mean c'mon! it's like listening to a flock of parrots. oo;

At 7/25/08 09:04 AM, lapis wrote:

At 7/25/08 08:54 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: shit... first hand experience is better than anything you read in books. :p

Pffft. Exactly what a dirty empiricist would say.

Pffft. Exactly what a dirty basement-dweller would say. :p

to morefngdbs:
although i think you're a little cliched and stereotypical in terms of a ng user.
i must say that you

ROCK!

and are far more interesting than these guys and have a fairly unbiased opinion in that you hate everything. kudos. :p

At 7/25/08 08:54 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: What are your arguments against evolution.

Keep in mind it's a theory about process, not control.

that's just what evolution is--a theory. the whole of science is made up of guesses based upon more guesses and then some windbag who threatens your credibility if you don't suck their cock (pardon my chinese).

and with just a theory that's all you have. A THEORY! one cannot have a successful experiment if one's "control group" is "changing".

but aside from that, i don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p

At 7/25/08 08:46 AM, lapis wrote:

At 7/23/08 11:24 PM, qu3muchach0 wrote: if you're against american empiricism...

Everyone is. Empiricists are the scum of the earth.

guys that was days ago, i had my laughs then went clubbing. get with program!
and the facts that you claim i was pulling out of my ass weren't from my ass (well maybe a couple were, but that was just to piss off the wee-a-boo). they come from officers. shit... first hand experience is better than anything you read in books. :p

but if you want me to quote wikipedia or some "news" blog. you're out of luck, and you fail to see the irony of you telling me that i am pulling stuff out of my ass. lawl.

evolutionism and why it's so dumb:

the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves.

ever read the origin of species? it's a wonder people still read it.
OH WAIT!

THEY DON'T!

they just saw the article on wikipedia. wow! what a great way to learn! :P

hey, i'm brown and i believe in white pride and white power but why do people feel unconfortable saying that around me? i thought it was supposed to be empowering...?

me personally, i don't believe in black, brown, white, or azn pride. it kinda seems like one is trying to compensate for one's own personal failures. and personally, i fail just fine on my own. and i mean SPECTACULAR failures. hell sometimes i surprise myself. :p

no you're stupid! you're the idiot who thinks they can fool people with a hacked account!

SOCK PUPPET!!!

At 7/20/08 01:46 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: This technology is also what allows the stupid to survive and propogate.

if you need an example, you could as use yourself. :p

do any of you have any personal experience in these religions, or are you guys quoting "what i learned from my college professor." bs? because really, it sounds like you're talking out of your asses and rewriting Sihdartha for the trillionth time.

we all know mccain is going to win. so get used to hearing the word "gook" a lot more often.
barrack so-damn-insane obomba is not going to win. i know it, the republicans know it, and deep down inside of you... aside from your great--admirable, even--desire to see obama win, i'm pretty sure you know he's not going to win. would be nice, except for one thing: he's a politician, and he probably won't keep any of his campaign promises! especially not getting the troops out of iraq.

and believe it or not, the main reason he is not going to win is because he is black. and come time the election is over, i will be on ng posting "so... how about obama?" for massive points and hilarity.

and don't give that "what's his skin color have to do with becoming the president of the us?" bull crap. because then you're just being naive.

hell, if obama wins, i'll change my aura from neutral to evil and become an athiest just so i can show my face on ng. (you know... hopping on the bandwagon?)

this thread is both ironic and hypocritical!

i'm home! :p

c'mon guys, this kid's a 13 yr old homophobe... you're taking crap from him? lol.
i'm surprised he doesn't like the republicans himself. he probably tries to pretend he's an anarchist punk or some bs at school.

isn't that right lil boy?

jews did wtc. simple as that.

At 7/24/08 12:06 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Namecalling is never a legitimate means of conversing or debating, Q.

i disagree, it solves things much more quickly sometimes. but, i suppose if one thinks one is above people, then by all means, it is illegitimate.

MultiCanimefan: Rebuilding a another country doesn't make it your bitch. I don't know where the hell you pulled that from(it was probably from your ass, right next to your head). Rebuilding another country should show that you put the feelings of war and violence behind you and are willing to give them another chance and live and trade in peace, idiot. I'm against any empiricism, not only America's.

america made japan it's bitch by nuking the hell out of it, and then completely rewriting it's government. and we still have military bases in japan to watch over it. in fact, if we were to withdraw from japan, it would be taken over by north korea because we weren't there to defend it. and as you know, america took away japan's military power to keep it from pulling another crazy stunt. face it. japan is america's bitch.

MultiCanimefan: Yet another huge false statement. Just because I'm defending Japan doesn't make me a wapanese fag. I would defend any country and people against your ignorance and stupidity.

i still don't hear you denying the fact that you are a wee-a-boo. and i say you're full bs... i don't think you would have come running if i were talking about american empiricism in latin america.

so...
WEE-A-BOO! WEE-A-BOO!