3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
Ooh, an Absolute Morality argument... my second favorite ^_^
But since Fynizzle and Flagg are arguing both sides rather well, I'mma throw a monkey into the wrench...
Question: Is it possible to do the morally wrong thing for the right reason?
A Person's IQ is inversely proportional to the average curses per sentance that person utters. Wander 'round a construction, painting or plumbing crew and just listen for a while. Not to disrespect those professions, myself and my family have all three of those professions covered, or to overgeneralize, but it illustrates my point.
As someone once said: Cursing is the illiterate person's way of being emphatic.
Or as I like to say: Curses are like a fine wine... you only bring them out on very special occasions.
At 9/3/05 10:20 AM, I7-I2-E-I7-I7 wrote: ..but if time is the fourth dimension, and apparent time slows near the speed of light, then we should assume that time can also go backwards (ie. travelling forwards or backwards thru time) ....ok, then explain why time can't also go both sideways or up and down?
Actually, it kind of does. We can't travel backard in time because it's a "vector". From your basic physics class, you'll know a vector is a line with a direction... but only ONE direction. There is only one way to travel down the vector of time.
However, google the "No Boundary Proposal". It theorizes a second "imaginary" time that exists at right angles to normal time (wrap yer gray matter 'round THAT o_O)... Solves all sorts of problems with old theories about the universe.
..then what about gravity? gravity warps space, therfore it has relation to all spacial dimensions. Therefore gravity must also be a dimension. Is gravity the 5th dimension, or is counting of dimensions a flawed man-made construct? so why are there now considered to be only 11 dimensions in our Universe? and how can there possibly be a zero dimension when nothing (not even a point) exist, because even time itself doesn't exist yet.
Gravity is a force, not a dimension. Just because it changes the shape of the space (and time) around it doesn't make it a dimension. True, it's tied to them, but so is light (light determines the outside boundary of the universe, effectively creating space). Also, only one of the SIX string theories has 11 dimensions... some have as high as 32 (I think).
A point is a theoretical concept, anyway, so thinking about it with regards to time isn't helpful. He was just listing the dimensions in a way that is "easy" to visualize.
..what then is dark matter? Is it anti-matter? Why does matter and anti-matter cancel each other out when they meet? Doesn't this cancelling of matter produce energy? is the energy positive or negative or neither? Does this engery (which by definition doesn't have mass) therefore exist outside of space and time? Wouldn't such energy then exist in its own Energy dimension?
Dark matter is not anti-matter. It is completely different. It doesn't produce or impede the travel of visible light, but it DOES have a gravitational pull. Scientists know it must exist because of the behavior of other stars and galaxies around us. However, they don't know what it really is or anything else about it.
Anti-matter is matter with a negative energy signature (protons are negative, electrons are positive, etc). They annihilate each other because of how they attract... a positive and a negative electron would attract each other, then cancel each other out. The energy they release is calculated by that famous equation E=mc^2. The energy is released as photons and is "positive" as far as it can be said.
Energy doesn't exist in its own dimension because it and matter are two sides of the same coin. They are the same thing... just in different forms. One has mass the other does not, but they are interchangeable. To think of them as separate entities is incorrect.
..so the Big Bang created time and space and mass (gravity) simultaneously and were created from pure energy - the resulting collision of 2 Universes according to current (M) theory.
Umm... kinda. Time and space were present from the zero-point of the big bang (without them, the bang would have nowhere to go and no time in which to go there) so it might be more correct to assume that time and space are features of whatever it is in which this (and maybe other) universe exists. Gravity, Electromagnetivity, and the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces were not present from the zero point, only one force was present (urge... to make... Star Wars reference... rising...) and only once the universe cooled enough did it differentiate to the 4 forces we know and love today.
[i]If multiple Universes (now commonly refered to as Multiverses) do exist, do they "run in parallel" or is parrallel a misnomer implying likeness not nearness?...
(snipped for brevity)[/i]
Misnomer. If they run "parallel" how can they collide? It's as misnomerish to think of them as bubbles in a gigantic multiverse soup, too, I would think. But then again this is all purely speculative. It is impossible to know the features or even the possibilities of the features of universes not our own. Their rules of physics could be so different from our own as to be incomprehensible. However, if there are an infinite number of universes, then there are universes that ar not only exactly like our own, but also just a little bit different from our own (think Sliders without the awful story and bad acting). Purely speculative and completely unknowable... unfortunately :(
At 8/28/05 12:46 PM, revexe wrote:At 8/28/05 12:44 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote: Any evidence that can be found for the variation of species, or the purpose of vestigial organs points to evolution.... There is absolutely no wevidence that the world was created in seven days.. None!Micro-evolution? Big deal.
There is no evidence that the world was created in millions of years, only theorys.
Take a math class, then learn some astrophysics. Come back when you actually know what you're talking about.
At 8/9/05 07:18 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:
whole different case but still matters. if it is rape why does this potential life have to be terminated. what has it done to deserve death
What, exactly, has it done to deserve life?
It was concieved by an evil act, and no such act should be allowed it's consequences laid upon another person.
If you ask me, if people wear a helmet for fear of a ticket (money) than for fear of injury, then those who don't wear a helmet are helping the human species by removing themselves from the gene pool. It's pretty goddamn obvious that helmets save lives and reduce injuries. If that's not enough incentive to wear one, you deserve whatever risk you put yourself at by NOT wearing it. I'm not about to shed a tear for some retard who thinks that just because it's not law anymore means it's okay not to wear one and dies as a result.
That's too bad. He was one of the good ones. Maybe the only good one.
I have a question for all y'all that's, for this kind of discussion, startlingly on-topic.
If fear isn't a motivator, then why is the term "God-fearing man" synonymous with "good christian" (at least colloquially)?
Looking for meaning, etymology, personal feelings, actual papal stances, other church stances, everything.
What I really want to know is why you guys are actually arguing this?
You've shown, pretty conclusively, that TheReviewer is full of shit (as if it weren't blatantly abvious anyway). Now you're just feeding his apparent desire for attention.
He's an idiot.
Please don't feed the trolls.
I gotta agree with the capn and Shrike... this has got to be the most retarded thread I've seen. I don't even know where to start...
But yeah... Read A Brief History of Time, then read up on the No Boundary Proposal. Then look up the definitions of "subjective" and "objective".
*nukes topic*
At 8/4/05 09:09 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:
And you know this how? Oh, thats right! You HAVE no proof for or against it!! Wow, facts are great.
Lol... because we all know that it's facts that drive our beliefs in this area. >_>
People claim their religion is true with just as much arrogance and brevity. Just the other side of the coin.
At 8/4/05 10:52 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: Circumstancial evidence isnt evidence at all
((Defense has to raise a doubt pros has to remove ALL doubt))
No. Prosecutors have to prove guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond all doubt. And unless you were in the jury, you have no way of knowing what all of the evidence was. If you feel that he was wrongly convicted, then dig up some law books and instruct his lawyers on what basis to form their appeal. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
At 7/26/05 08:44 AM, fenrus1989 wrote:
no because original sin is inherited sin. so it counts as a sin but not one performed by the person.
That just seems very.... convenient to me. As though the religions were all set in their dogma, then someone brought up babies dying before baptism, and they were like "Oh, shit, we can't send babies to hell, noone'll convert to our religion!"
Not that that's how it actually happened, but it smacks of the Church being caught with it's panbts down and hurrying to fix up something to the sensibilities of it's constituents that it hadn't though of.
At 7/24/05 06:09 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:
matters which religon. most christian relgions believe in orignal sin so you can't reach heaven yet you haven't commited a sin so you'll probally just go to limbo.
Actually, as far as I can tell, Catholicism is the only religion that believes in Limbo. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, according to many, Original Sin is not an actual sin-stain on someone's soul, but rather the ability/nature to sin, and thus a child aborted before it could sin would go to Heaven, not Limbo and not Hell.
Odd how noone thinks that a baby's soul stained with Original sin would go to Hell, even though it is sinful...
Tweaking your own beliefs around something that seems immoral, perhaps?
At 7/25/05 07:04 PM, Proteas wrote:At 7/25/05 05:25 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: dumbass.Fuck you, and everyone that looks like you buddy.
Wow, I had to hit Page Down twice just to get to the part about "dinosaurs". Too bad I had to wade through all the prosteletizing bullshit that went before it. And I'm sorry, that's about as evidentiary of dinosaurs as footprints are of bigfoot. Sorry, not impressed, not convinced.
Oh, and what bug crawled up your ass and died today?
At 7/25/05 10:51 PM, darkmage8 wrote:
There are plently of atheists who are aware of the insurmountable bullshit that surrounds the theory of human evolution. You can still not believe in God and be smart enough to know that a monkey and a human are two different sentient beings and always have been.
There are plenty of theists who are aware of the insurmountable bullshit that surrounds every church in existance (pedophile priests anyone?). Does that invalidate your entire belief system? No more than the few bad scientists who pervert the realm of evolutionary science.
whats more, evolution has PROVEN to be true. How could it not?We can start with the word "theory".
There are VERY few things actually proven to the point of being a scientific "law". Theists love to jump on the word "theory" as though it means something. "Zomg, you can't prove it, so it must be false!!" Nosry. Doesn't work like that. Theories are what we use to explain the evidence. If any evidence is forthcoming that contradicts the theory, then it is thrown out and a new one is brought in. So far, there has been ZERO evidence disproving evolution. There have been evidences discovered that altered the detail of the theory, but nothing to disprove the theory as a whole. Until you can actually offer hard evidence that proves this theory wrong, it can be thought of (for all intents and purposes) as a "law".
And no, holes in the fossil record prove nothing other than a few people opted not to die in a convenient place for their bones to be fossilized... how inconsiderate of them. Also, be sure to read up on the more current theory of evolution which predicts, long periods of little change followed by brief periods of great change. Also read up on Human Genome Retroviruses. These are viruses encoded into our DNA, and are though to have been the catalyst for our last big evolutionary jump.
At 7/21/05 06:02 AM, TheReveiwer wrote:
and btw the proof is simply in a quote "I voted for the war before I voted against it"
Nevermind the actual REASON for his votes. Howsabout the fact that the first vote was on bad info (WMDs). And the second vote was a protest vote, made only AFTER he knew the legislation for more funding would pass.
Interesting how the little details get glossed over when the spin gets added...
http://www.newground..id=289592&page=1
15 pages of abortion debate. My views are in there.
Teachers have one of the most important jobs in america. Arguably only police and other public-service people have a more-important one. And we pay them shit.
30-40k a year is complete crap in todays society. Union construction makes 50-60k a year for a job that requires NO schooling. Union Plumbing or steelwork can make 70-80k. Sorry, Flagg... you don't deserve to make more than teachers. They do NOT get paid vacations, they do not get paid holidays. Every teacher I ever had in high school had a second summer job. My Band Director installed and removed docks for the lakeside dwellers, others did construction.
Teachers, IMO, should be among the highest-paid people in the country. Only when there is an actual incentive to work this job will the best and brightest actually work it. Police and Firefighters should be on par with them, and only those who work in the most skilled areas (engineering, for example) should be paid more. These are the people who singly make this country viable.
They have a shit job. They get to deal with kids at their absolute worst. Away from the parents, and completely free of any and all punishment (ohnoes, I have to sit in the principal's office for a few minutes, whatever will I do?). If you think this job is easy, you're a fool. I would rather be a roofer than a teacher... and roofing sucks some serious balls.
I think 40k/yr starting is too low, actually. 60k/year is more reasonable for the job they do and the impact it has on the country. Once we can entice more people to become teachers, we can make it a high-interest job and we can choose the best teachers for the job. Only then will teachers become "better" and only then will our children learn better.
I also want to see incentives given for working in low-income and dangerous neighborhoods. Education is the ONLY thing that could possibly help the poor and disenfranchised people.
At 7/16/05 05:32 PM, bluemidgetguy wrote: O'Fortuna - Wilhem Richard Wagner
Actually O Fortuna is the opening (and closing) song of Carl Orff's Opera Carmina Burana.
</musicgeek>
At 7/16/05 03:15 AM, deadafterall wrote:Yeah, I'm SURE the conservatives are all open-arms, let's work together, lovey-dovey. Get a clue. The lack of cooperation is on both sides.Yeah i'm wrong, Bush in his victory speech said that Conservatives and Liberals need to unify.Well what have the Liberals done with these several innvatations to work together? They attack us and bash us over unproven statements. Yeah, Conservatives are all to blam
So, "the lack of cooperation is on both sides" gets translated to "The conservatives are all to blame" in your mind? And you acuse ME of putting words in YOUR mouth.
And what exactly have the conservatives done other than say "we should unify" in a couple speeches? On what policies have they made concessions on in order to garner favor? In what ways has the conservative side of the aisle reached over? Saying "we should unify" in a speech does nothing. It's action that matters. Repubs tried to block every single thing the Clinton Admin tried to do, and NOW they want to work together? Please.
Yes they are, they try to look out for the terrorists at Gitmo,does this sound smart to you? They want they people are Gitmo to come up and all have lawyers,lets not forget they want to kill us.
So... liberal=lawyer=terrorist-lover.
Your logic is just astounding.
Yes we really need to keep the air temperature at a normal level, because that was the complaint. They cells were to hot or cold,how dare we,also, the Liberals are supporting Durban, they agree with his statements.
Yeah, because this is all over a little chill in the air. Nothing else went on... it's all a sham... I'm sure you heard it from Rush, so it must be true, right?
No i am saying the information Bush recieved was false, what politicial party these people were are of no concern. Bush recieved false information, it's not his fault that this info can't be proven. the result was bad...HOW DARE HOW TAKE OUT A LEADER WHO KILLS HIS OWN PEOPLE!!
Wait, did you just say something about a political affiliation being of no concern? I disbelieve. But then again, you completely glossed over the fact that I pointed out that the false information still places the blame squarely on the Bush Admin's shoulders. Funny that.
And I never said that the getting Saddam out of power was, in and of itself a bad thing. i just think how we got there was dirty.
But the ends justify the means, right?
He was found not to have at the time of the second war, he did try to make them in the past though
And failed. Our ENTIRE case for going to Iraq was that he was an IMMEDIATE threat to the US with WMD's RIGHT NOW! That was a blatant lie.
I didn't say that Saddam helped Osama, i said Saddam train terrorists, which ones, i don't know, i didn't say, don't shove words i my mouth that i didn't say.
So, Saddam trains terrorists, eh? But you don't know which ones... and you don't really have a source for proving this... so it's all speculation. So... going to war with a country that MIGHT train some terrorists is justified when the country we KNOW TRAINED NEARLY EVERY 9/11 TERRORIST continues to be our "ally" in the war on terror.
Listen that person wasn't even doing anything at that time, she was...undercover, but now isn't. and if you remember the rights the cops read to people when they get arrested they say "innocent until proven guilty" If we can't prove he's guilty he's innocent moron!
No, if we can't prove he's guilty, we can't incarcerate him. It doesn't mean he didn't do it. And by the way, the Miranda Rights have nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty". And just because an agent isn't in the field at a specific time is meaningless. Now all the people she "duped" while undercover KNOW WHO SHE FUCKING IS! Do you really think they all don't care that their 'trusted" ally was working for the feds and'll let it all slide like nothing ever happened? Whatever. Blown cover is what gets people fucking killed.
well i don't see any fault, i was acctually thinking why not arm both? They're just killing themselves...these people who want to kill us. Sounds good to me.
Absolutely amazing...
You figure it out.
Can a brothah get a WHOOOOSH!?
I corrected myself earlier say better than those freaking Liberals, and you know who we're ticking off? The terrorists...it's kinda normal for your enemy to hate you. Terrorists hate our lifestyle and want us all dead. All terrorists must die.
I knew what you meant, and I wrote my response as if you had not mistyped. By the way, please reread your last 2 sentances... notice any similarities of view here?
Really, so why are we fighting Iraq on the bigger war on terror...because the fact that Saddam housed and let terrorists train in his country wasn't good enough for Liberals. Then we picked up so information that couldn't be proven when we went in. Liberals still agreeed on the war none the less.
That was a hurried attempt by the Bush Admin to give themselves some actual basis for going to war after it was found that there were no WMDs and never had been. There is NO connection between terrorist attacks on US soil (or as far as I know anywhere else) and training in Iraq.
Ummm, we already shut them up. We are now looking for Osama. And...given the amount of time...he could be any freaking where. Kinda hard to look all over the world. It would have been a waste of time just to focus on Osama since we still can't find him, multi-tasking.
And of course having more manpower and intel on the job certainly couldn't help us find him and his cronies, could it? Naaaaw....
I wouldn't expect you to know this but now you will, Osama and the fun little terrorist group that he has is bunkered in all over ASIA. Which if you haven't noticed is pretty freaking big. Also it has a lot of coutries that are terroristic, not good, also when you are talking about taking out Afghanistan we took them out in what, a month? If you ask me that's a pretty good head start for Osama.
So you're saying we never had any chance of catching him at all? Why exactly are we at war again?
Valkyrie Profile.
or Xenogears
one of the two... I really can't decide...
At 7/16/05 01:50 AM, deadafterall wrote:
I think it was in an e-mail this was stated, and it was the husbands name of that person. Karl Rove did nothing wrong, Liberals are just trying to get Americans all starteled emotionally to have the people lash out at the republicans. Like I said, Rush is all over this, listen to one of his shows and you will see that there is nothing to be said here.
So, because he said that soandso's WIFE was a UCA, and didn't actually give the wife's name, he's innocent of treason? Whatever.
Stop parroting Rush and THINK.
At 7/16/05 01:33 AM, deadafterall wrote: I have accepted this fact being proven over and over again by conservatives trying to wrok with Liberals, but they don't accept.
Yeah... I'm SURE the conservatives are all open-arms, let's work together, lovey-dovey. Get a clue. The lack of cooperation is on both sides.
:The Liberals are destroying America, because they all are lawyers.
LMAO! All liberals are lawyers! That's a good one.
I can't trust a party that supports the statement of comparing our troops to Nazis.
One politico drops a moronic comment and all of a sudden, the entire party is chanting it up and down the streets? Yeah, whatever. Fact of the matter is, if torture IS going on there, it needs to stop. While the degree and severity of torture might not be to Nazi level, the spirit is the same. Or would you rather we likened it to the Spanish Inquisition (que Monty Python reference)? Would that be more palatable to your sensitive constitution.
Bush was given that information. He had nothing to do in bringing it up, he just reacted to what the people who were seeing if they did have WMD's told him.
Yeah. Right. And I'm sure every single one of those people was a Democrat, right? Even if the intel was faulty, that's STILL his bork. It's his responsibility to get people of qualified status getting his info. The info was bad, the result was bad, it was his fault.
That's because we gave Saddam a great amount of time to get them out of there... Saddam most likely did have WMD's and at one time tried to make WMD's, but we shut him up.
Lol... so which is it, he DID have WMDs? He did and he shooed them out of the country? Or he tried to make them, but we stopped him? Which spin do you want to put on this... pick one, or you'll sound like you're grasping at excuses for...
waitaminute.... >_>
Saddam housed and let the terrorists train. I think that's pretty freaking big support.
Whatever, dude. FYI Osama considers Saddam as big of an infidel as he considers the Americans. As a matter of fact, most of the 9/11 terrorists were trained in Saudi Arabia, NOT Iraq.
No he did not, no capital offense can be proven and there was no danger. Listen to Rush's show and he'll tell you all about it.
I'm sure he will. And I'm also sure that he has all of the information, too. Cuz I'm sure he was there while all this happened and knows exactly who said what to whom and when. By the way, inability to prove guilt doesn't mean he isn't guilty. And the identity of an UNDERCOVER AGENT was revealed. how the FUCK can you say that there "was no danger"? Do you have any idea what undercover means?
We did not give Iran weapons. I haven't heard such a thing. We did give Saddam weapons to fight the Iranian country though. Why? Because Iran is much worse than Saddam when it comes to treating it's people, and their veiws towards us.
Ever heard of the Iran Contra scandal? Yeah, the Reagan administration was arming BOTH SIDES of the war, in order to keep the region unstable. This is one of the main reasons we're gaining so much animosity now.
More so, holding all that oil wouldn't have been good also. Then Iran probably would have eyed Kuwait.
What's that about oil...?
what does "GG" stand for? good going? Yeah, we are doing better than those freaking conservatives.
Good Going, Good Game, take your pick. Yep... kicking ass, taking names, and pissing everon in the world off. Doing REAL good. England and Poland got your backs...
Yes, I think the world knows that we are in Iraq now...it's been about a couple years or so...and we are going to stay there until they are stable. That was the plan. Why couldn't it have waited? I don't see a point in taking a break...We need to kill these terrorists now before they kill us. All terrorists and terroists supporters must die.
Umm... you do know we're in Iraq because of WMD's right? The tenuous (even at the time) link to Al-Quaeda, has long since been dispelled. All I ask is that we finish our current military tasks before taking on any others. We already had one war to fight, in Afghanistan... and we split up and went to Iraq, too. Had we concentrated on one at a time, we could have brought our entire force to bear and gotten the goddamn job DONE, instead of still diddling around with the Afghanistan thing 4+ years leater.
Oil is a stupid argument. That has nothing to do with the war. We were in there because Saddam helped the terrorists. Why can't you people get that?!
Umm... WMD's... links to Al-Quaeda have been dispelled long ago... thank you drive through.
A politican has the same religious freedoms. What's wrong if he tries to infulence people with his beliefs? I see no reasonable argument.
A politician is the mouth of the people he represents. In a perfect world, he would follow only the word of his constituents and his own personal beliefs wouldn't come into play. Granted it wouldn't be a complete separation as it is likely that the people who agree with his beliefs would have elected him. However, this should never be the driving force behind a politicians job. He is there to follow the will of the people, not prosteletize to them.
I said it is mostly Christians that DO! read what i said moron. why is that? Because I would be surpised if Liberals believed in a god, which i would like to know which one.
Maybe if you typed a slightly more coherant sentance I could. Just because your man-crush Rush says what's in your sig doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be as clear as possible... and you are not.
So you're saying that religion interferes with government... and that it is mostly the christian religion that interferes... and that Liberals don't believe in the christian god... and that religion SHOULDN'T interfere... which means that the Liberals, to you, are doing the right thing by not bringing religion to the table as a tool of lawmaking... and thus not allowing religion to interfere with the government.
Or is this not what you're saying?
Do please clear this up.
This is the kind of over-generalization that regularly comes out of conservative mouths every goddamn day. People like you are the reason liberals are reluctant to work with you. That kind of bigotry and intolerance of anything you might not like is disgusting. No liberal believes in god? Wtf kind of logic is that? And you accuse liberals of being unwilling to compromise?
At 7/15/05 11:39 PM, deadafterall wrote:
:: I would love the same
Says the guy who started this thread spewing some of the most venemous hate I have ever heard on this board...
The hypocrisy and irony is staggering.
Then again I know what he really means: I would love all liberals to change to neocon views immediately, then we'd all get along.
The Liberals don't trust the conservative to do anything to start off with. We cannot simpily experiment with different styles of economic solutions, this would take far to long. One side has to take control over the other and work their ideals then. Both parties simpily cannot just trade off.
Considering the conservative government's current track record, can you blame them?
WMD's?
Weren't there.
Splitting our forces between a man the entire country wants found and the conquer of a country that was no threat to us.
Karl Rove (allegedly) leaking information on undercover CIA operatives to the media.
And that's just in the last few years. Nevermind the fact that we armed Iraq, Iran AND Osama in Afghanistan, giving them the ability to do what they do and be what they are.
GG conservatives.
What is most disturbing is that no one talks about the war going on here. This story is very true, go on a government website and search there if you don't believe me. We trained and 60 Mexicans and gave them our weapons to go into Drug labs in Mexico and take them out. What happened is they went in, got captured, some died, the rest were bought off by the drug lords. The Mexicans we trained then trained the drug producers men. Now they are attacking Texas. We need to tighten our borders. To keep these illegal immigrants out of here. We need to keep the country safe before we think about other countries. Liberals want us to focus more on Afghanistan, we are still hunting for Saddam.
Hows about we focus on the shitstorms the conservatives have already stirred up, eh? We're IN Iraq now... kinda stuck there until we get them rebuilt enough to sustain themselves. Now tell me exactly why that couldn't have waited 2 years, for once we'd already found the REAL terrorists and helped rebuild Afghanistan?
Oh wait, that's right... Oil and election year. No wartime pres has ever lost reelection. I'm sure that didn't have ANYthing to do with the timing... >_>
Yes i agree that religion should not interfer with government, but there are limits. Party members still have beliefs that they want to ful-fill. A party will try to influence their ideas, and for the conservatives that's also mostly Christianity. Liberals...I'd be surprised if they even believe in god.
Wow... in the same breath. Holy contradictions, Batman.
So religion shouldn't "interfere" with government as you put it, but only christians should be allowed to govern?
-pox, if you haven't added this guy to your list yet, you should. I think he should take the #1 spot, too.
Hmmm... favorite song, eh? Well considering my extremely varied tastes, there are several that qualify as my favorite... simply because they can't really be compared. I don't really mind if you don't rate them, but I would suggest you (and everyone else) listen to them... because it's good music. Let me open your eyes to new and interesting horizons.
1) Flovilla Thatch vs. the virile Garbageman - The Cherry Poppin' Daddies
Funk so nasty you'll need a wet-nap. Close second by them is Suicide Kings... coolest sax solo ever. Tight horns, a kicking funk guitar, and some of the nastiest lyrics ever. I love it!
2) One - Metallica (S&M version. Live with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra)
Wow. Greatest metal song ever. Add the orchestra and it's almost orgasmic.
3) Around the World - Daft Punk
Coolest bass line ever... and the video is damn cool, too. Try to find the one where they explain the video... basically every note in the song is represented in the video... pretty cool.
4) 7th Symphony, mvmt. 2 Allegretto - Beethoven
Ohnoes, not classical music!! >_< This can be found easily on the Mr. Holland's Opus Soundtrack (and that's the best version I've heard so far, to be honest, a close second is the second collection of symphonies by Herbert von Karajan). Gives me chills every time I listen to it. Usually played too fast by orchestras, though :(
5) Dance of Curse - Yoko Kanno
From the Vision of Escaflowne Soundtrack. Can't get over that violin riff ^_^
6) Holy Order (Be Just or Be Dead) - Guilty Gear X Soundtrack
Shameless rock 'n' roll... and holy crap does it ever rock.
7) Valhalla - Motoi Sakuraba
From the Valkyrie Profile soundtrack. Some of the most beautiful sonorities and harmonies ever in a video game.
Here's hoping I opened some eyes to some new music. I know some will hate almost all of the stuff I listed, but oh well. I guess this is more of a "Hey guys, listen to this stuff." than a "rate my taste" post... so be it ;-P
This is one of the basic tests for sociopathy... well, at least it's a famous one (whether or not it's true I don't know). By their logic, killing the sibling would create another chance for them to meet (at yet another funeral)... nevermind that the situation would still not warrant actual contact (they felt it was inappropriate at the first one, they would feel the same at the second) and the cycle would repeat.
They create an emotionally (for them) "safe" way to see their object of affection again. They have no risk of rejection because the situation prevents them from actually asking the person out, and yet they get the "pleasure" of seing the one their attracted to again.
Yes, it's disturbed, but then again, this is sociopathy we're talking about.
At 7/8/05 05:25 PM, MetalMonkey212 wrote: damn it, why won't anyone reply?
This is a messageboard, dude, not a chatroom.
At 7/8/05 01:02 PM, ---goodGOD--- wrote:At 7/8/05 02:41 AM, Ravariel wrote:so, wait, there's the math for that? Or is that just a theory he uses to make his own math work? Or is that supposed to be some philosophicaly crap?
Makes not much sense when you just explain it this way I guess :p
There is indeed. Unfortunately it's a bit beyond me yet. For a couple of sources that might explain it better then I can, check Here and Here and Here.
but like I said, what exactly is this way of thinking? Is that seriously how the guy thinks the universe works? Or is it just math jargon that he uses to calculate atoms n' shit?
It is the way the universe works. There IS math for it and there is also more observational evidence for it than for any other current theory. The only reason Newtonin physics is still taught in schools is because it does work on a general level and the math is about a bajillion times easier.
and yet it "knew" which way its pair collapsed from the other side of the earth.man I'm tired. This is hard for me to read. Are you saying this happened or what?
No, it's a thought experiment... but one backed up by math. If this were to happen, the electrons would instantly know which way the other spun upon observation.
but quantum mechanics are just fucked up maths to make electrons work : (
Nope. they're fucked-up maths that explain how electrons work. It just so happens that those maths also explain how every other subatomic particle and their related forces (except gravity atm) work.
oh I see this is just your "way of thinking". LIke "I know I'm wrong, but let's pretend" :o
No, for ME, nothing happens until I see it or hear about it. But that don't help me understand notin' :p
It's not easy to change your entire paradigm of thinking about the universe. Hell, it's taken me YEARS to get to the level of understanding I am at now, and I'm still not even close to fully grasping it. I first read A Brief History when I was about 16 (more than 10 years ago). Nowadays, it's a bit dated, because the theories have developed and changed a bit, but the second and third books I linked to pretty much cover what's been updated since History.
yeah, for instance, you can learn a lot about why religion is insane when you speak with religious people a lot.
No kidding >_>
At 7/7/05 03:27 AM, ---goodGOD--- wrote:At 7/7/05 01:01 AM, Ravariel wrote:what, wait up. What makes perfect sense? The realm of what things? Who's "we"? Humans or like the universe, or what?
Sorry. The whole, subatomic partice, has X position and Y velocit at Z time and will act in Such and such a predetermined manner based on previous states, nakes perfect sense when thinking about things in a newtonian way.
hehe
well how does it help us ( just logicaly speaking ) to say that the cat is both dead and not dead when we can't check in the box anyways?
That's like saying God both exists and doesn't exist until we figure out one or the other. I'm just trying to get away from the math and explain this thing to myself :o
What does his experiment mean to me, who is not a mathematician?
Per se, it doesn't... What it does is give us an easier glimpse into how the universe actually works. Because the cat is, mathematically, both alive and dead (seeming paradox), we can then pose the question for every instance where multiple outcomes are possible. Basically, both outcomes exist until observed. No action that has multiple outcomes can actualy HAVE those outcomes until it is seen (or heard, or whatever). Every possibility LITERALLY exists, until someone checks.
What this can also do for determinism is this: What effect, other than the collapse of possibilities into one, does the observation have on that which is observed? if the universe WERE deterministing we could predict every outcome BEFORE it happened and WITHOUT observation. With this way of looking at it, we see that every outcome IS as random as it's probability, not just because WE can't tell, but because neither can the universe until it is observed.
I guess, but in a different less freaky way.
I'm trying to freak people out here. You're not helping. Gimme some evil facts.
You want freaky facts? Here's one.
Hydrogen Atom... has 2 electrons. By definition, they have opposite spins. Thought experiment time again (because our current technology doesn't have the ability to do this yet).
Imagine we can separate both electrons from the parent atom and contain them, before determining their spin. Take them to opposite sides of the earth. Now observe ONE of the electron's spin. The probability waveform of that electron breaks down into one or the other... now what about the other electron? It has to have the opposite spin... but since it was also in that same probability frame of having both at once, because it hadn't been observed, HOW DOES IT KNOW which way the other electron collapsed? Is there a way that the two transfer information? Because the "knowledge" of which way the first electron spun would be instantaneously transferred to the other. It could not possibly collapse into a state that was inconsistent with it's pair... And it could not "know" which way it's pair WOULD collapse into before observation (as observation is the catalyst that creates the collapse)... and yet it "knew" which way its pair collapsed from the other side of the earth.
Instantaneously. Not in a fraction of a second, not at light speed... ZERO TIME.
This isn't a logical problem when thinking of things in a Newtonian way. Obviously one electron spins one way, one the other, and they don't have to know which the other is to satisfy the requirement. But when you use Quantum mechanics (a system that satisfies many more observationsal evidences)... it becomes... this... completely absurd and illogical... particles transferring information instantaneously... things being in two states at once... things that make us, raised on Newton, scratch our heads and say "WTF?"
Basically, yeah. But it's even deeper than that. Observation determines reality. It's not just that we don't know what happens or can't know... it DOESN'T HAPPEN until observed.don't you mean that the fact we observe it is what changes it? Like that uncertainty thing. I don't remember what it was, but I remember that if you tried to check on either of the factors at a given time, you end up disturning the particles or whatever, so you fuck up the other measure, and the more closely you observe it, the more you disturb it.
Well, yeah, that too. But that goes mostly for the subatomic particles... because the light we use to determine position or velocity is of an energy level so much higher than that of the particle we're detecting that the particle is moved by the light itself. It's like finding a pinata with a bat... sure you find it, but the act of doing so moves the pinata. On the large scale, it is also true, but the effect is so exceedingly minimal as to be unnocticable (when we jump up in the air, we actually move the earth... when we observe the earth, the light we use to do so moves the earth so our measurement cannot be perfectly precise).
But my point was this: In any situation with multiple outcomes, the outcome is not determined until observation. Obsertvation can also determine events RETROACTIVELY. A Star blew up 600 light years away, and the light is just now reaching us to be observed. Technically that star didn't really blow up until we observed it doing so. Even though it "happened" 600 years ago.
I mean hell... if that idea and the electron bit isn't freaky, I'm not really sure what is :P
riiiight :o
See it this way: what matter to you, freedom or fun?
If you have freedom, what would you use it for?
Fun.
Hence, no matter what, as long as you can have fun, its alright. I had a lot of fun, so that's pretty much all that I care about anyways.
Guess I can't argue that ^_^
Sorry if new stuff came up in the course of this discussion that would have helped understanding back in the beginning. This has been good for me... made me think about what I know, and how that affects stuff... and jarred loose a lot of knowledge that I had. A lot of this is me getting posed questions I hadn't thought of and trying to figure out the answer.
Here's hoping some minds were blown.
At 7/7/05 07:08 AM, Tyrant_Doomhammer wrote:At 7/6/05 08:11 PM, Ravariel wrote: I'm afraid that not only IS it your faultHow, exactly? By being born in a good country?
By doing nothing.
According to who, you? I don't need you to tell me where my moral responsiblity lies concidering that the state already has through taxation.
You have a moral obligation to act to preserve the well being of your fellow human. By doing nothing you are then morally responsible for any suffering those people experience.
Wow, how symbolic, I like totally respect that-- Not. Too bad you're missing the point: The average person wouldn't logically give thousands of dollars to private charities (which you apparently deny as an option) if there wasn't the threat of the state throwing them in jail like a criminal had they not.
What? Where did THAT come from? What is this about going to jail for not funding private charities? What on earth are you talking about? Are you even in the right thread?
There was really nothing to ponder. All you did was make a direct contradiction of my first statement and made up a comical (and irrelevant) comparison. If you really want me to ponder over this then you are giving yourself too much credit. Shape up on how to debate, I'm not impressed.
You claim that because they don't live on the same continent as you, their plight doesn't effect you. Wrong. Continents are not isolated, especially not in the globalization made so prevalent by easy travel and information exchange. The entire world is connected. If one area is empoverished, it brings the whole system down. To think that you are unaffected by the plight in Africa is a bigoted and narrowminded view that makes me almost as disgusted with you as I was with the capn back there.
I guess the selfishness of people can never be overestimated.
