3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
Well, since the new polling numbers show Huckabee in second and quickly closing the gap with Mormonguy in Iowa, I thought it might be a good time to resurrect this thread and again ask the question:
Are we, as a people, comfortable with a leader who is willing to disregard the entire scientific community (on any subject)?
In case you got distracted by the pages of flame-drenched discussion, Huckabee is one of the three that raised their hand when asked if anyone didn't believe in evolution. He is now poised to take the lead in the republican primary race. If we ask so little from our leaders, how can we expect anything but failure from them?
At 11/29/07 10:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote: aha, referring to the calls i've made about recently created redundant threads?
Actually, saying I wouldn't be so quick as to label Zorth an idiot... that he would have to do better next time or I would.
At 11/29/07 10:48 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 11/29/07 10:35 PM, SolInvictus wrote:Nope.At 11/29/07 10:34 PM, Ravariel wrote: While that number does seem to be growing (unfortunately).... the "us" I was referring to was the intelligent posters.is Zorth supposed to be one of them?
...wait... did you think the second half of that sentence was directed at you?
"that" sentence referring to my original post in this discussion, of course... just to clear up any confusion...
or make more... whatever
At 11/29/07 10:35 PM, SolInvictus wrote:At 11/29/07 10:34 PM, Ravariel wrote: While that number does seem to be growing (unfortunately).... the "us" I was referring to was the intelligent posters.is Zorth supposed to be one of them?
Nope.
...wait... did you think the second half of that sentence was directed at you?
At 11/29/07 10:39 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 11/29/07 08:15 PM, Imperator wrote: Haven't watched em all yet (I'm doin a little pick and choose) but thus far I like Huckabee.Careful... he's one of the three candidates that don't believe in evolution. (cue Memorize)
It should also be mentioned that Huckabee's polling second in Iowa right now, behind Romney and is on a HUGE upward curve that'll see him (if the trend continues) overtaking him in the next month or two.
I expressed outrage when three of our top 10 republican candidates expressed without hesitation, on national TV, that they didn't "believe" in evolution. I must now simply hang my head in disgust that one of them is about to win in Iowa.
I never thought my disdain for humanity could drop so low.
Apologies for the double-post
At 11/29/07 08:15 PM, Imperator wrote: Haven't watched em all yet (I'm doin a little pick and choose) but thus far I like Huckabee.
Careful... he's one of the three candidates that don't believe in evolution. (cue Memorize)
My boy Ron Paul was impressive (to me at least). Crushed McCain on that bullshit attack about Isolationism and Hitler.
Y'know... I would LOVE to see a general election between Paul and Obama.
Just how fucking refreshing would that race be?
At 11/29/07 10:17 PM, SolInvictus wrote:At 11/29/07 10:06 PM, Ravariel wrote: I won't be as quick as Sol, but you're going to have to do better than that to garner any respect from most of us.well if most of us means other people who seem to believe science automatically means atheism, i'll pass on that respect.
While that number does seem to be growing (unfortunately).... the "us" I was referring to was the intelligent posters.
I swear, we either need to resurrect Heathenry or find some way of attracting some decent minds, because the pool's getting shallow in here.
At 11/29/07 10:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:At 11/29/07 10:00 PM, Ravariel wrote: When trying to imply a religious basis for all morality and law, then yes, it does.People can figure some things out for themselvs you know.
...exactly.
Besides law and morality are different things. especialy back then.
Eeeeh... not so different as you would have us believe. Laws are based upon morality. Often an objectivist morality... more often (unfortunately) a religious one.
At 11/29/07 07:18 PM, Zorth wrote: The Big Bang theory has many large flaws. The most serious one is: Where did that energy come from?
2 words: quantum vacuum.
Matter does not come from nowhere. That is one of the most basic laws of chemistry.
Well, then it's a damn good thing that the Big Band Theory is Physics, isn't it?
Yes, why do we need ANOTHER religious thread?
Any answers?
Uh... this is the Official Religion Thread... and has been around FAR longer than most of the other religious threads on here. It predates Heathenry by several months and that was created long, long ago.
I won't be as quick as Sol, but you're going to have to do better than that to garner any respect from most of us.
At 11/29/07 09:48 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:His point wasn't about which one was better, they both suck. His point was about which one was first.Does it matter?
When trying to imply a religious basis for all morality and law, then yes, it does.
At 11/27/07 05:15 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: How is a noose racist?
It is a well-recognized symbol of White oppression of Blacks. Sort of like how a Swastika is now considered Anti-semetic, even though the symbol has many different meanings.
Just be glad you never had to use the phone registration system. Now that was a nightmare.
At 11/22/07 11:00 PM, Metalmyth wrote: I think it's sad that I'm having a hard time figuring out whether or not this site is legit.
It's not really that hard to imagine. That site is only slightly over the top to be able to tell that it is satire.
At 11/22/07 02:59 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Well if what you're saying is true, now seems an appropriate time for god to pull out his global flood act.
Can you say "Global Warming"? ^_^
At 11/21/07 04:25 PM, ClickToPlay wrote:
1) You spelled "The Same" wrong in your topic title.
2) This has been done a hundred times on this site. Try out the "ORT". 79 pages of just this sort of thing.
3) You'll be lucky to even see some of the more intelligent people posting in here. Most of us with experience arguing these issues will most likely be sitting back and laughing while you give us all a bad name. Basically, yes, you're right... but if you can't back it up, then the stance is worthless.
4) http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_god -fuse-10-things-christians-atheists-can-
agree-on.html
Carry on.
strike the "first dude" part of that sentence... mixing up Mohammad and Abraham here... been a long day.
At 11/20/07 06:46 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 11/20/07 06:05 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:He was a human after all and had faults like humans do.He is supposed to be a fucking prophet, worshipped by billions. I don't think it's fair to pass this off as "he's only human."
Why not?
He is (was) "only" human. He has no claims to divinity himself (unlike future prophets)... was just the first dude to believe in God. He may have talked to God, but did that remove the flawed nature ascribed to humans?
At 11/19/07 05:20 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Try this and post your scores!
;
328,650 was like 10k from passing level 9. You can generally pass through it pretty easy if you know about where the country is. :/
Note to self: Sobering reminders of mortality suck.
Earlier this year, I had a good friend die in a drunk driving accident. Just today I learned a friend of mine has Stage 4 Hodgkin's Lymphoma. You never really think of 27-year-olds as cancer patients... usually kids or the over-40 crowd.
Does, however, make me want to start keeping in better touch with people. Hadn't talked to my friend that died in several years, only recently caught up with the one with cancer.
Hooray for having a cancer-free family history, though. Just gotta deal with the rampant alcoholism. :P
And now, children, we see why there are so many different branches of Christianity. Because, way back when, two fucktards with delusions of granduer and inferiority complexes couldn't agree on an interpretation of a vague piece of metaphorical text.
Trying to prooftext with the bible? You both should be ashamed.
God just went "click", after all.
God has tricked me. And many others. He has convinced us by his own creation that he doesn't exist.
Prior to 9/11 90% of military enrollees had a high school diploma or equivalent. Now the number is like 70% but that's mostly because of the military's loosening of it's standards in order to boost enrollment (multiple fronts, surge, etc). Many go to the military because they're smart and want to go to college and realize it's probably the most economical solution for them. Hell, I almost did (navy band/pilot/whatever).
If we weren't meant to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.%u2660
At 11/12/07 02:07 AM, Black487 wrote: http://www.dontpassgas.org/?gclid=COC57L Df1o8CFQYqgAod6T4Xug
Apparently you pulled that "fact" out of your ass.
I had an inkling someone would rise to the bait.
Just from the intro I can tell you they're already practicing very deceptive advertising. Hydrogen cyanide is a natural byproduct of burning (any) organic material. You're exposed to more of it while sitting near a campfire than in a smoke-filled bar. The word cyanide is awfully scary, though. Too bad it's not the kind that will kill you instantly if you ingest it. The "especially harmful to children" bit is nice, too. Sure, in high doses both hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide can be harmful. However, the levels of both in second hand smoke are negligible.
Now, to be fair, there are new studies out of England that do indicate a slightly more significant risk of lung cancer due to second hand smoke. We'll have to see if further study supports their findings.
However, the EPA's "estimate" of 3-18,000 (holy wide range, batman) cases a year of asthma attributed to second hand smoke is (deep breath) statistically insignificant. In 2004 approximately 4 MILLION children had an asthma attack. Even at the EPA's top estimate, that's less than .5% of cases. At the low end that's less than .1%... and the vagueness of the numbers indicate a huge amount of uncertainty. Nevermind that the EPA isn't really equipped to determine the causes of disease. Had your site said CDC or JAMA and been a bit more precise, we might have something to talk about.
Now, to head off a possible counter-argument, yes second hand smoke can act as an irritant that triggers an asthma attack in someone who already has it, however there is no real evidence that it causes asthma.
Now I'd love to take on the rest of the points in your propaganda website, but it's 2:30 am and I have to go to work in the morning. If you've found some decent rebuttals (i.e. actual case studies) by then, then maybe we can discuss it.
At 11/12/07 02:06 AM, Bolo wrote: I already paid for my lunch, so I sit and eat, glaring at her the whole time.
Speak with your wallet. Ask for your money back and leave, informing the management why you are doing so. If it happens enough, I bet there will be some restrictions on where people can and cannot smoke there. If you don't care enough to make the effort to rectify the situation, why should anyone, smoker or not, care if you allow yourself to be miserable for whatever length of time.
I feel the need to nip something in the bud right now.
There is NO evidence that second hand smoke is a danger to anyone's health. All studies that show an increased risk to any diseases have been statistically insignificant.
All it does is make you breathe stinky air.
Don't like the fact that an establishment allows smoking? Then take your business elsewhere. In a capitalistic society that's the loudest statement you can make. If there's enough incentive to an establishment to be completely non-smoking... then they'll do it. So those of you who dislike smoking so much, take your business to those places that pander to your style. Just like I go to places that I like, you should to.
Basically: the gummn't can futt the buck out of this issue... it isn't their purview.
At 11/10/07 11:28 PM, Elfer wrote: How about we just change it to a single large barbiturate injection? Hell, rub on some local anasthesia too if you want no pain at all.
This way, they die of an overdose instead of an induced heart attack, and there's no chance of anesthesia awareness.
...
/sigh
some days I feel like Smilez...
At 11/11/07 01:27 AM, Zeistro wrote: The fact the government tells every individual citizen what sort of firearm they can and cannot own strikes a cord as tyranny to me.
Because a complete deregulation of all firearms is TOTALLY a good idea!
The best government is no government, but sadly, government is a necessary evil.
Then Iraq is doing GREAT!
My point remains: Firing someone for idiot statements =/= violation of freedom of speech.
Truf.
You're right, in college dormitories they go on for years as ritualistic initiations.
Actually it usually only goes on for a few weeks, and certainly not on as continuous basis as it does for inmates. And there's nothing like waterboarding in most initiations. If you don't think that's torture, you should try it sometime.
Do you think the government should prosecute fraternity heads for forcing pledges to drink liter among liter of water and performing other such humiliating acts?
Actually... they do. Frat boys can go to prison/get their license revoked/get fined heavily if their hazing rituals are too severe.
Everything you've listed isn't torture in my book and if it was, I wouldn't give a damn about the welfare of insurgents or terrorists.
And hey, if a few innocents get caught up in the mix, then oh well, right? Whatever it takes to make sure them insurgents and terrorists suffer! It's so much easier to take the low road and not uphold our own standards of treatment. It's so inconvenient to apply our basic rights on people who aren't "our kind"... easier to just treat them like animals.
I wouldn't like having someone sit on my head and fart, but I do not consider it torture. I'm just going to throw everything I said out the window for a second and say that even if these things were torture, that it's still legally acceptable to use against these Islamofascists because they do not apply for Geneva Convention protocols.
Lol... using legal loopholes to justify barbarism against other humans... Ain't rationalization grand!
You and Memorize should get along famously...
Ironic that the completely humane method we use to euthanize animals isn't used on humans.
Just give 'em an OD of Phenobarbitol. Peaceful passing, no pain (it's a pain killer and a barbituate), self- anesthetizing.
