3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
At 1/18/08 03:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: FUCKING FUCK FUCK.
I want to say "don't feed the trolls"... but I think they're serious.
lol
At 1/18/08 03:23 AM, KupaMan wrote: There's plenty of proof that Evolution isn't real, including support from several famous people:
Hah! Bring it. I DARE you to show one piece of evidence that goes against evolutionary theory.
Clearly, someone who is running for president isn't dumb enough to buy into this concept of people being cousins with monkeys and grandchildren of fish.
Step up your game or ne ignored.
Only an idiot would believe that I can turn into a dog in a thousand years. Idiots like this guy:
You're right. You won't turn into a dog in 1000 years. You'll be dead in less than 100.
At 1/18/08 12:52 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I need to be up real early tomorrow, but I'm freaking out too much to sleep. There's a potential I may end up a high school librarian, temporary or otherwise. That is, if they even take me.
Would this be a good or a bad thing?
Also, what's with the influx of idiocy lately? Lots of new names being retarded on here... or is this just the next cycle of n00bs and I'm just getting old?
At 1/15/08 09:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now, in case people didn't know, this Romney's second win. He won Wyoming as well.
>_>
<_<
When the hell did Wyoming have their primary?
Also, how many delegates do they have? Theoretically one person could come in second in every state and still win the nom because the delegates are assigned proportionally.
33% uncommitted vote, though, lol.That's for Democrats.
Yes... sorry for the confusion.
Blah... CNN is already calling it for Romney.
33% uncommitted vote, though, lol.
Here we go! Well, in 20 minutes when the polls close. This should be interesting...
At 1/15/08 02:33 AM, Imperator wrote: Of course this is just my personal opinion, but don't vote for this guy.
Yeah, I really really want Romney to lose Michigan... 's why I'm so torn. He's got a big base of support here since Daddy was a 3-term guvernator. But if he loses this state as well, his stock nationwide will plummet. So voting McCain seems the logical thing to do as he has a real chance of winning both Michigan and the nomination (and he's one of the fer Reps I can see voting for). Then again I kinda want him to lose the rep nom because he'd be an awesome VP for Obama... talk about covering all the weak spots... and a multi-party ticket may just be exactly what this country needs.
One way or another tomorrow should be interesting... or I guess it's "today" now... I should get some sleep >_>
At 1/14/08 11:16 PM, Musician wrote: I see, If that's the case then it seems like Michigan's fault for pushing forward their primaries. Why would you blame the Dems?
2 reasons:
1) Michigan SUCKS right now. We have the highest unemployment rate in the country, we're second-hardest hit by the housing crash/mortgage fiasco behind California, the auto and tourist industries are slumping because of fuel costs and we can't balance our own budget. Attention on a national scale might be what this state needs and an earlier primary will do that without cocking up everyone's (read: Iowa's and NH's) ego because "super tuesday" is still super for the states that aren't in the shithole.
B) The DNC could have found a way to look sternly at us without completely fucking every democrat in the state. What do you think this is going to do for the general election? Will we "forgive" Obama for giving us the finger or will we vote for McCain or Romney come general election? We're a swing state, believe it or not. If you piss off the democratic elite in Detroit/Ann Arbor/Grand Rapids... we might just go for a moderate republican like McCain.
Basically, the DNC may have just handed every one of our electoral votes to the Republicans. This may or many not be a bad thing, but you can believe it's not what the DNC wants. And if we get our delegates back in time for the convention, how do you think a heavy "uncomitted" vote will look for the dems?
Sure, we (Meechigan) kinda fucked ourselves, but the DNC is fucking everyone more by taking this stand... so what is there to gain other than a more distant wet spot in some pissing contest?
CONSPIRACY!
lolcaps
Summary:
Levin, Granholm and others decided that Michigan, having its primary on super tuesday, wasn't relevant enough in th election and wanted to get more facetime with the candidates. So they decided to move our primary up to the 15th, behind only Iowa and NH. This angered the DNC ans RNC, so the DNC basically said "Yall won't get any delegates at the convention" which basically means that our votes don't count at all. The RNC looked at us sternley but did nothing. Then everyone but Hillary and Dodd (now no longer running) actually removed their names from the ballot.
The irony is that Kucinich is actually campaigning here... somewhere that even if he won, would net him no delegates in the primary. GG.
So... yeah. Michigan Dems for McCain!
wewt?
So... what do we do tomorrow?
Do we vote uncommited to embarrass the Dems (cuz they kinda deserve it) or vote in the Repub primary to keep Romney from taking any of the early states?
At 1/14/08 03:32 AM, Drakim wrote: Comments and/or extension to my logic?
Um... "duh".
At 1/13/08 01:58 AM, Frag-Reaper wrote: AND the Lord sperated the forum into two halves: the one half Politics and the other Religion. And He saw that it was good.
Apparently this land of the Religion Forum is as mythical as your Heaven... because I don't see it.
WTF is this post doing here? And btw, arguing in this topic is about as productive and meaningful as arguing about the color of a unicorn's mane.
It's pink. Duh.
Don't like the discussion? Don't waste our (or your) time by spamming it with messages about how little the discussion means to you.
At 1/12/08 05:57 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:At 1/12/08 05:35 PM, HaloKing336 wrote:Yep.At 1/12/08 03:58 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: You're making a large assumption in that God created the Universe intentionally.Is there any other possibility?
A higher form of energy being a catalyst for the Big Bang.
And what would be the source of this energy? We must have a "prime cause" before which came nothing, something self-existant, causeless. And as there are only two ways for something to be created: 1) by slow gradual changes that gain complexity as time progresses, or 2) by deliberate action of an "intelligent" being.
Now, it may be a large assumption that it (said intelligent creator) is omniscient... but it is also a large assumption that it is not. As the discussion is about why it would create humans, we must assume that it meant to do so... otherwise there is no "why" and we just kinda fall into an uncomfortable silence and watch the thread drift off the front page never to be seen again.
Also, to be kind of pedantic, you did say "God" capital G, which is the proper name for the christian deity. As such, he is only differentiated from other possible deities by his own personal characteristics... one of those being omniscience. As such to say that it's a large assumption that he is omniscient is somewhat disingenuous, considering it is a necessary assumption.
So my question stands: Can God do something unintentionally?
If not, does this clash with his omnipotence?
If SO, does it clash with his omnipotence... or omnibenevolence?
At 1/12/08 05:13 PM, Rakonas wrote: However, killing them costs more than keeping them in jail for life...
And how do you get this?
I'm all for killing the worst of our criminals. Really, child rapists, multiple murderers. They deserve to die. However, killing them costs more than keeping them in jail for life... which ultimately ends up with the same result: dead shithead.
Since it's cheaper to just let them rot (and far more humiliating/cruel) I'm all for abolishment. I just don't think it's all that important.
At 1/12/08 03:58 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: You're making a large assumption in that God created the Universe intentionally.
Can an omniscient being have an unintentional action?
I've taken one like this before and it came out similarly:
Mike Gravel at 79.55%. Followed closely by Richardson and Biden.
My candidate of choice, Obama, only scored 56%.
My second choice, McCain, scored 48.8%
Hmmm.... maybe it's because I put a medium/low emphasis on many of the things everyone seems all worked up about and a high one on things others seem kinda blase' about this year?
At 1/11/08 05:27 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 1/11/08 05:07 PM, Malachy wrote:Guys, let's not argue. Let's all just revel in how fucking sweet it is darth vader will be in soul caliber four. This may just be the move that makes me upgrade.At 1/11/08 02:47 PM, Grammer wrote: I dunno if you guys can see any pictures, but I can't, and I was wondering what the Hell was the problem.I can see the pictures fine..
the problem here is that you are reading up on a totally gay game.
Actually, as a fan of 1 and 2, I think the addition of Yoda and Darth is the single most retarded thing I've ever heard. Link? Sure... fantasy setting... works fine. Heihachi? Sure... Namco game, works fine. Spawn? Ghey, but whatever... demons and hell are a staple of SC, fine. Space jedi? FUCK. THAT.
Namco has officially jumped the shark. They better not fuck with Tekken or they're never going to be bought by this gamer ever again.
At 1/11/08 08:14 PM, RommelTJ wrote: We need more public channels, and an effective state-owned corporation that can inform, educate, and entertain us. What do you think?
I think we already have that. We call it the internets.
it's a series of TUBES!
wait... how the fuck did I get myself defending the bible's veracity?
2008 pontificate award, here I come!!
lol
At 1/11/08 07:26 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'm saying that I know the current interpretation of Christianity is massively unreliable and illogical.
Except you don't know that. There are certain parts that, taken from a literal standpoint, seem to be paradoxical, illogical and self-contradictory. However, we don't know that these aren't simply parables, or even a deliberate misleading by god in order to set us up for another revelation after death.
At 1/11/08 02:01 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 1/11/08 01:18 AM, Ravariel wrote: Because you assume that only through necessity would god ever deign to create a universe. Why do people climb mountains? Because they can.Climbing mountains doesn't risk the ETERNAL SUFFERING of potentially billions of people, and god knew his actions would.
If, and only if, christianity is 100% correct and nothing got lost in the translation (both literally and figuratively). We don't know that "hell" is eternal suffering. Dante was not a prophet. We can assume that no omnibenevolent being would allow eternal suffering, thus the suffering had by people not worthy of heaven must not be eternal. Or there is some other factor that we don't know about... maybe something only revealed after death. We don't know that the Bible is all there is on the religion... we only believe it is all that we have here on Earth... while we live. More revelations may yet come to us after death.
Also, many sects believe that "hell" is simply a state of being in the absence of god. Not the fire and brimstone, demons and torture that is oft depicted. As this is a state in which most atheists and nonbelievers already live, this is no big change. It might not be as orgasmic as heaven, but it's certainly not eternal suffering.
Or we could assume that since no omnibenevolent being would allow eternal suffering, that our creator isn't omnibenevolent... and only said he was to make himself more appealing. And as such doesn't really care what happens to us, similar to how scientists don't really care what happens to lab rats.
Basically you're assuming too much correct knowledge of god. You're also assuming too much correct knowledge of the people who wrote the bible.
At 1/11/08 01:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: God is supposed to be a perfect being, meaning any change, such as an orgasm, would be for the worse.
How do you figure? Is a pear any less delicious than a steak? No, and yet they are very different. As such differences in perception can be equally pleasing.
And how is this relative to my question?
Because you assume that only through necessity would god ever deign to create a universe. Why do people climb mountains? Because they can. We don't need to. Why did god create the universe? Because he could (given)... and had a whim (assumption).
Just because we can't imagine a motive doesn't mean there isn't one. We just might not have enough information to figure it out.
At 1/10/08 09:00 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Would you refrain from fishing or hunting if you knew it harms animals?
...is it actually news to people that hunting/fishing harms animals?
At 1/10/08 05:09 PM, reviewer-general wrote: In short: is there one?
Of course! The best thing is that it's whatever you want it to be.
sorry for the dp... but it now appears that the gap between Obama and Hillary is closing. Once as large as 4%, it's now about 2% with more than 60% of the numbers in.
At 1/8/08 09:22 PM, TheMason wrote: Also, will NH really prove to be a make it or break it?
It depends on who wins, really. McCain will certainly get a much-needed national bump by the win... but Romney and Huckabee still have strongholds of support in some of the larger states.
If Hillary loses NH, then she's probably done. If she wins, then it's a dogfight to the end.
At 1/4/08 12:44 AM, FatherTime89 wrote: In case the government ever decides to go tyrannical the public (armed with guns) would be able to rise up and get squished by tanks.
Fixed for accuracy.
yes, I know what you meant.
