Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

while i'm not one for thinking thunderstorms require sacrificing to, there does seem to be a correlation between escalations of natural hardships (mainly what shit El Niño stirs up) and conflict. but this points more to people being less chummy when things go to hell than their institution of the divine's plan.

and we can't forget those who do think that way. fun to know magical thinking is defined.

---

At 9/1/11 12:42 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/31/11 11:23 PM, djack wrote: Well, I'm sorry if I didn't take the time to thoroughly elaborate that there were multiple recent natural disasters in a brief post on an internet forum. Clearly I need to take time to spell every little detail out word for word so that you can understand me.

Or, the other "disaster" of which you spoke of was so insignificant that it wasn't on my mind, much less anyone else.

I wish I could find the newsradio clip where a guy in california called dc's 5.9 earthquake "no worse than my phone going off on vibrate." Or, I could always just point to the joke groups that have popped up on facebook about it. Either way, it was a non-event, one which leaves you one "disaster" short of a "series" since people are no longer focused on it.

Just because it wasn't on your mind doesn't mean it isn't on anyone else' mind. It may have only been a 5.9 but it was still a rarity given its location. You also can't listen to what people in California say about earthquakes in other parts of the world. They experience frequent and severe earthquakes. Even the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile were relatively common for people California.

Also, at what point did I ever call them major disasters? It doesn't take a major disaster to get peoples attention.

And people tend to not pay attention to minor ones, so where does that leave you?

First, people always notice natural disasters regardless of the severity of the damage even if they only notice briefly. Second, before you started arguing with me my last post in this thread was made before the damage of Irene could be assessed. A disaster that hasn't struck cannot be considered minor.

The very fact that they weren't major just means that there aren't a bunch of victims for people to obsess over which means that their attention is more likely to be brought to the government.

What negative attention has been brought to the government in any of this? Or are you one of those types who follows in magical thinking and expects anarchy in the streets every time the wind blows a little to strongly?

Like I said above, my only post before this argument with you was before Irene's damage could be assessed and it was about why peoplecould use Irene and the earthquake as a reason to change who was in power. You came into the thread two days later to argue with my use of the phrase recent series. At no point did I say it would happen for sure, I merely explained why it could happen.

Does FEMA's major fuck up ring a bell for you? If not, how about the massive industrialization projects that worsened the effects Katrina? Not to mention the entire war on terror that saturated every aspect of the Bush administration whether it belonged there or not.

And yet, at no point did anyone "rise up" and take notice of the mandate of heaven and make any effort to replace the government in charge, yet you expect people to all of the sudden get up NOW and change the government?

You're either terribly naive or foolish to a point that science cannot yet quantify, I'm not sure just yet.

"Like I said above, my only post before this argument with you was before Irene's damage could be assessed and it was about why peoplecould use Irene and the earthquake as a reason to change who was in power. You came into the thread two days later to argue with my use of the phrase recent series. At no point did I say it would happen for sure, I merely explained why it could happen.", again. Don't act like you're intelligent just because it's been a few days and one of many possible future events has not come to pass.

---

At 9/1/11 10:55 AM, djack wrote: Just because it wasn't on your mind doesn't mean it isn't on anyone else' mind. It may have only been a 5.9 but it was still a rarity given its location.

To which I say; so what? There was 5.4 earthquake in Illinois that shook far enough to wake me out of bed back in 2008 click. A rare earthquake? For that area, sure, but it wasn't a major earthquake or anything to get upset about. People shrugged it off and by the next week they had forgot about it, much like they will the DC earthquake.

Non event + a society full of people with short attention spans = forgotten in a week.

You also can't listen to what people in California say about earthquakes in other parts of the world. They experience frequent and severe earthquakes. Even the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile were relatively common for people California.

So I shouldn't listen to what people who experience earthquakes on a regular basis as to how serious we ought to take an earthquake? Really? I suppose I should just yield to your superior knowledge on the matter, hm?

First, people always notice natural disasters regardless of the severity of the damage even if they only notice briefly.

If they only notice it breifly, then chances are they're not going to pay attention to it for very long, now are they?

Second, before you started arguing with me my last post in this thread was made before the damage of Irene could be assessed.

Your "last post" was YESTERDAY, long after the storm had moved through New York and gone out to sea, so don't tell me that you couldn't open up a random news site and find out about what kind of damage Irene did you illiterate little twerp.

You came into the thread two days later to argue with my use of the phrase recent series.

Well EXCUSE ME for asking for asking you to clarify your statements, I'll remember not to do that next time.

---

At 9/2/11 12:58 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/1/11 10:55 AM, djack wrote: Just because it wasn't on your mind doesn't mean it isn't on anyone else' mind. It may have only been a 5.9 but it was still a rarity given its location.

To which I say; so what? There was 5.4 earthquake in Illinois that shook far enough to wake me out of bed back in 2008 click. A rare earthquake? For that area, sure, but it wasn't a major earthquake or anything to get upset about. People shrugged it off and by the next week they had forgot about it, much like they will the DC earthquake.

Non event + a society full of people with short attention spans = forgotten in a week.

You also can't listen to what people in California say about earthquakes in other parts of the world. They experience frequent and severe earthquakes. Even the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile were relatively common for people California.

So I shouldn't listen to what people who experience earthquakes on a regular basis as to how serious we ought to take an earthquake? Really? I suppose I should just yield to your superior knowledge on the matter, hm?

No, you should look at what the area that experienced the earthquake says. The Haiti quake in 2010 was only a 7.0 which wouldn't have had any impact in California because the entire state is built to withstand earthquakes. Japan was expecting and was prepared to handle a 7.5 quake when instead it got that 9.0. Earthquakes, like most things, are relative and to an area built to withstand earthquakes with a people accustomed to experiencing them most earthquakes will seem minor regardless of the destruction they are capable of causing.

First, people always notice natural disasters regardless of the severity of the damage even if they only notice briefly.

If they only notice it breifly, then chances are they're not going to pay attention to it for very long, now are they?

They don't need to notice it long just long enough for the next natural disaster to strike the area. Then it isn't noticed briefly it becomes a compounded effect, regardless of how minor the disasters are if you keep adding them the effect still gets larger.

Second, before you started arguing with me my last post in this thread was made before the damage of Irene could be assessed.

Your "last post" was YESTERDAY, long after the storm had moved through New York and gone out to sea, so don't tell me that you couldn't open up a random news site and find out about what kind of damage Irene did you illiterate little twerp.

Notice how I clarified with "before you started arguing with me", because the post I made before you started arguing with me about what qualifies as a series of natural disasters was on the 29th hours before there could be an accurate assessment of how much damage Irene had done and even then it was not a claim that people would rise up only a response to your question about why people might rise up after experiencing a natural disaster. Perhaps you should work on reading comprehension before calling someone else an illiterate twerp.

You came into the thread two days later to argue with my use of the phrase recent series.

Well EXCUSE ME for asking for asking you to clarify your statements, I'll remember not to do that next time.

You're free to ask for clarification but that isn't what happened. You started arguing that the earthquake and Irene didn't count as a recent series of natural disasters and then you claimed that I was stupid because of something I had never even said. Perhaps you should go back and review the thread if you're confused about what's going on because if you continue like this you'll just keep making an ass out of yourself.

---

At 9/2/11 10:03 AM, djack wrote: No, you should look at what the area that experienced the earthquake says.

Cherry Picking. You're picking and choosing who you listen to and ignoring that which does not fit in with your arguments. You don't want to listen to what people who have far more experience with earthquakes say about the DC earthquake, you ignored what I said about the Illinois earthquake, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that people have moved on from the dc earthquake, you just want to keep talking about your little magical-thinking conspiracy theory about how people are slowly but surely "noticing" how bad their government is because of some minor disasters that the government had nothing to do with.

They don't need to notice it long just long enough for the next natural disaster to strike the area. Then it isn't noticed briefly it becomes a compounded effect, regardless of how minor the disasters are if you keep adding them the effect still gets larger.

What effect? Where are the gathering forces to overthrow the overnment who subsribe to the same magical-thinking thought process that you claim they do? Show me SOMETHING that validates your argument or drop it already, because I can go on like this far days and weeks, just ask somebody.

Perhaps you should work on reading comprehension before calling someone else an illiterate twerp.

You started arguing with me, not the other way around. I asked the topic starter a question, you answered for him, and we went from there. There was no post "before I started arguing with you," there was just what you initiated.

And by the way? On the 29th, Irene was on it's way through New York, the rest of the country was already assessing the damage and working on cleanup, so don't tell me that I couldn't have known on that night that it was or was not as bad as it was when we had newcasters blathering on and on about how it wasn't anywhere near as bad as they originally expected it to be.

You're free to ask for clarification but that isn't what happened.

Uh, yeah, it is what happened. You answered for the topic starter, I asked you to clarify your statement.

You started arguing that the earthquake and Irene didn't count as a recent series of natural disasters and then you claimed that I was stupid because of something I had never even said.

Yeah, because you are stupid if you think the population at large subscribes to the magical thinking required for the mandate of heaven to take place. Welcome to the 21st century, where people don't automatically think they need to overthrow the government just because the weather around the capital wasn't 72 degrees and sunny one day.

---

At 9/2/11 11:14 AM, Proteas wrote: Yeah, because you are stupid if you think the population at large subscribes to the magical thinking required for the mandate of heaven to take place. Welcome to the 21st century, where people don't automatically think they need to overthrow the government just because the weather around the capital wasn't 72 degrees and sunny one day.

I have to both agree and disagree with prot here. The population IS able to subscribe to the mandate of heaven, but I agree in that two wimpy diasters would not convince anyone, but those who are actively seeking to be convinced of a mandate.

Shit, a 5.8 quake and a category .9 hurricane as a mandate of heaven? If that's all heaven can muster, heaven's got serious problems. That's kind of like shooting an M16 at a battleship and calling it a warning shot.

Now it DC had an 8 pointer (or stronger) followed by a category 4 (or stronger) THEN maybe the mandaters might have some believability.

Until then, people should put things in perspective and stop whining about wimpy 'canes and puny 'quakes. I have slept through stronger quakes and have played in stronger winds. All I have to say to this 'mandate' is, "really?"

---

At 9/2/11 11:14 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/2/11 10:03 AM, djack wrote: No, you should look at what the area that experienced the earthquake says.

Cherry Picking. You're picking and choosing who you listen to and ignoring that which does not fit in with your arguments. You don't want to listen to what people who have far more experience with earthquakes say about the DC earthquake, you ignored what I said about the Illinois earthquake, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that people have moved on from the dc earthquake, you just want to keep talking about your little magical-thinking conspiracy theory about how people are slowly but surely "noticing" how bad their government is because of some minor disasters that the government had nothing to do with.

First, when it comes to highly relevant subject matter, the person who is affected is going to be the most reliable source. Like my example of the 7.0 that hit Haiti, to California it is nothing but do you really believe that that makes it nothing? Second, I ignored the Illinois earthquake because it is an irrelevant example. I was defending the earthquake as part of a series of natural disasters because that is how this started, the Illinois earthquake was an isolated incident. Third and most importantly, I have not once claimed that people would take notice because of this. I said that they could, my initial response to your question was about why people might use natural disasters to encourage the mandate of heaven.

They don't need to notice it long just long enough for the next natural disaster to strike the area. Then it isn't noticed briefly it becomes a compounded effect, regardless of how minor the disasters are if you keep adding them the effect still gets larger.

What effect? Where are the gathering forces to overthrow the overnment who subsribe to the same magical-thinking thought process that you claim they do? Show me SOMETHING that validates your argument or drop it already, because I can go on like this far days and weeks, just ask somebody.

I didn't say that people were rising up. I was defending the earthquake as being part of a series of natural disasters. You claimed it was too minor for people to remember it and I said that it didn't have to be powerful when other natural disasters strike soon afterwards. If you stopped trying to put words in my mouth and actually read what I wrote for once maybe you'd see that.

Perhaps you should work on reading comprehension before calling someone else an illiterate twerp.

You started arguing with me, not the other way around. I asked the topic starter a question, you answered for him, and we went from there. There was no post "before I started arguing with you," there was just what you initiated.

You asked a question, I responded. You questioned my use of the term series, I defended it. You claimed I said something which anyone can see I didn't by reading the posts thus starting this argument.

And by the way? On the 29th, Irene was on it's way through New York, the rest of the country was already assessing the damage and working on cleanup, so don't tell me that I couldn't have known on that night that it was or was not as bad as it was when we had newcasters blathering on and on about how it wasn't anywhere near as bad as they originally expected it to be.

I posted in the middle of the day not that night, I knew nothing about the extent of the damage until hours after that post.

You're free to ask for clarification but that isn't what happened.

Uh, yeah, it is what happened. You answered for the topic starter, I asked you to clarify your statement.

You started arguing that the earthquake and Irene didn't count as a recent series of natural disasters and then you claimed that I was stupid because of something I had never even said.

Yeah, because you are stupid if you think the population at large subscribes to the magical thinking required for the mandate of heaven to take place. Welcome to the 21st century, where people don't automatically think they need to overthrow the government just because the weather around the capital wasn't 72 degrees and sunny one day.

Clearly you are the idiot if you think the mandate of heaven is solely religious. "The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven (%u5929; Tian) would bless the authority of a just ruler, as defined by the Five Confucian Relationships, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler." It isn't about bad rulers being killed off by magic it is about people overthrowing an unjust ruler without having to fear divine retribution. Clearly history is another area where your reading comprehension abilities have been found lacking.

---

At 9/2/11 03:27 PM, djack wrote: First, when it comes to highly relevant subject matter, the person who is affected is going to be the most reliable source. Like my example of the 7.0 that hit Haiti, to California it is nothing but do you really believe that that makes it nothing?

A 7.0 earthquake isn't "nothing," it is catastrophic and very damaging. Anything in the 5 to 6 point range is considered a moderate earthquake, one which causes minor damage at most (click). So when people in California laugh off a 5.4 magnitude earthquake, I have no reason not to take them seriously in the matter. The very definition of "disastrous earthquake" doesn't even apply to what happened in DC. Get over yourself.

Second, I ignored the Illinois earthquake because it is an irrelevant example. I was defending the earthquake as part of a series of natural disasters because that is how this started, the Illinois earthquake was an isolated incident.

You ignored it because it didn't fit in with the crap you're spewing; it was a minor event and people forgot about it.

Third and most importantly, I have not once claimed that people would take notice because of this. I said that they could, my initial response to your question was about why people might use natural disasters to encourage the mandate of heaven.

I could grow wings and fly any minute now. Hell, I could turn my right arm into an electrical arc, reach through my cable modem and fry your whole computer if I wanted too, it could happen. Will it happen? Probably not. So why even argue the point?

I didn't say that people were rising up.

So people aren't raising up and they aren't taking notice... what exactly do you have going for you at this point, then? Why are you even posting?

I was defending the earthquake as being part of a series of natural disasters.

And you were wrong. Irene was not a disaster either, it was a run-of-the-mill hurricane and it did what hurricanes do; strong winds, lots of rain. Just because these two things converged on Washington DC at the same time does not mean a damn thing.

You asked a question, I responded.

Are you the topic starter's alt account or something?

I posted in the middle of the day not that night, I knew nothing about the extent of the damage until hours after that post.

Then you must be living under a rock.

Clearly you are the idiot if you think the mandate of heaven is solely religious.

I didn't say a thing about religion.

It isn't about bad rulers being killed off by magic it is about people overthrowing an unjust ruler without having to fear divine retribution. Clearly history is another area where your reading comprehension abilities have been found lacking.

I've been arguing against the supposed that was presented of how natural "disasters" converging on DC all around the same somehow were the will of a divine force showing dissatisfaction with ruling party, and that the population at large would SOMEHOW take notice of this mandate and overthrow the ruling party. That's magical thinking, and you are not only defending it, you're putting words into my mouth on the issue.

Yeah, you got me on misreading a post. Big deal, I work for a living and I made the mistake of coming on here in the middle of the night after getting off late; it happens. But your last response was in the middle of the fucking DAY, and you managed to misread and misrepresent my entire argument, not just one part of it, on top of admitting to not really "saying" anything. You have no argument, you're just here trying to get the last word by arguing semantics when you have nothing really substantive to stand behind.

---

At 9/3/11 02:12 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/2/11 03:27 PM, djack wrote: First, when it comes to highly relevant subject matter, the person who is affected is going to be the most reliable source. Like my example of the 7.0 that hit Haiti, to California it is nothing but do you really believe that that makes it nothing?

A 7.0 earthquake isn't "nothing," it is catastrophic and very damaging. Anything in the 5 to 6 point range is considered a moderate earthquake, one which causes minor damage at most (click). So when people in California laugh off a 5.4 magnitude earthquake, I have no reason not to take them seriously in the matter. The very definition of "disastrous earthquake" doesn't even apply to what happened in DC. Get over yourself.

Even your link describes anything between a 5 and 6 as being capable of doing major damage. It actually uses the term major damage. There's also a difference between a disastrous earthquake and a natural disaster. Any force of nature that can cause catastrophic damage is a natural disaster, a disastrous earthquake is an earthquake that has caused catastrophic damage.

Second, I ignored the Illinois earthquake because it is an irrelevant example. I was defending the earthquake as part of a series of natural disasters because that is how this started, the Illinois earthquake was an isolated incident.

You ignored it because it didn't fit in with the crap you're spewing; it was a minor event and people forgot about it.

No, it was completely irrelevant. Even if it wasn't, how forgettable is it when you remembered it well enough to bring it up 3 years after the event?

Third and most importantly, I have not once claimed that people would take notice because of this. I said that they could, my initial response to your question was about why people might use natural disasters to encourage the mandate of heaven.

I could grow wings and fly any minute now. Hell, I could turn my right arm into an electrical arc, reach through my cable modem and fry your whole computer if I wanted too, it could happen. Will it happen? Probably not. So why even argue the point?

None of those things could happen. People following the mandate of heaven is a reasonable possible result of a natural disaster or series of natural disasters occurring

I didn't say that people were rising up.

So people aren't raising up and they aren't taking notice... what exactly do you have going for you at this point, then? Why are you even posting?

I had never claimed that people were or even that there was a guarantee that they would, why are you still claiming that the lack of a revolt means I'm wrong?

I was defending the earthquake as being part of a series of natural disasters.

And you were wrong. Irene was not a disaster either, it was a run-of-the-mill hurricane and it did what hurricanes do; strong winds, lots of rain. Just because these two things converged on Washington DC at the same time does not mean a damn thing.

Of course there is no meaning to why they hit that area but that doesn't make me wrong it just means that the people who need natural disasters to realize how much they dislike the government aren't thinking rationally or logically. Take a minute to think about the people you know in real life, do you really think that they are all rational enough that they would never need a natural disaster to get their attention or attribute meaning to something that has none?

You asked a question, I responded.

Are you the topic starter's alt account or something?

No, does that mean I can't reply when someone wants to know something?

I posted in the middle of the day not that night, I knew nothing about the extent of the damage until hours after that post.

Then you must be living under a rock.

No, I just would rather spend my lunch break checking the forums for anything new than obsessing over a hurricane that isn't hitting the area I live in. There's plenty of time after work for me to learn the results of hurricanes.

Clearly you are the idiot if you think the mandate of heaven is solely religious.

I didn't say a thing about religion.

You're right, you (incorrectly) used the term magical thinking.

It isn't about bad rulers being killed off by magic it is about people overthrowing an unjust ruler without having to fear divine retribution. Clearly history is another area where your reading comprehension abilities have been found lacking.

I've been arguing against the supposed that was presented of how natural "disasters" converging on DC all around the same somehow were the will of a divine force showing dissatisfaction with ruling party, and that the population at large would SOMEHOW take notice of this mandate and overthrow the ruling party. That's magical thinking, and you are not only defending it, you're putting words into my mouth on the issue.

There was no claim that it was the will of a divine force. The OP commented on the current problems caused by government and pointed out that in the past people have used natural disasters to bring attention to bad rulers who, according to the Mandate of Heaven, should be overthrown. It also is not magical thinking. Magical thinking is the belief that certain actions will bring the favor or wrath of God and is more akin to the rituals of football fans than to the Mandate of Heaven. Also, aside from replacing magical thinking with the word religious, when did I ever put words into your mouth on the issue? You have repeatedly claimed that I was saying that people were or soon would actively rise up against the government, I can't remember, or find in the posts, any instance of me doing something similar to you.

Yeah, you got me on misreading a post. Big deal, I work for a living and I made the mistake of coming on here in the middle of the night after getting off late; it happens. But your last response was in the middle of the fucking DAY, and you managed to misread and misrepresent my entire argument, not just one part of it, on top of admitting to not really "saying" anything. You have no argument, you're just here trying to get the last word by arguing semantics when you have nothing really substantive to stand behind.

What are you talking about? Most of my last post was about what I wasn't saying because your reading comprehension seems to be about on par with a 3 year old. The rest was about why you were wrong to claim I was cherry picking, how this whole thing started, and the definition of the Mandate of Heaven to show that it doesn't require magical thinking. What exactly did I misread? What was it I misrepresented?

---

At 9/3/11 11:22 AM, djack wrote: Even your link describes anything between a 5 and 6 as being capable of doing major damage.

Capable, yes. Did it happen in this instance? No.

No, it was completely irrelevant. Even if it wasn't, how forgettable is it when you remembered it well enough to bring it up 3 years after the event?

Because unlike most of the population, I don't have a short attention span.

None of those things could happen. People following the mandate of heaven is a reasonable possible result of a natural disaster or series of natural disasters occurring

How likely is it that it will happen, though? About as likely as me growing wings, actually.

I had never claimed that people were or even that there was a guarantee that they would, why are you still claiming that the lack of a revolt means I'm wrong?

Because you are defending a stupid idea.

Oh, waitaminute, let me save you the trouble of typing up a few characters; you're not really defending the concept of the mandate of heaven, and you're not really wrong. I'm just that stupid as to read through your whole argument and fail to perceive you as not defending the concept, right?

Of course there is no meaning to why they hit that area but that doesn't make me wrong it just means that the people who need natural disasters to realize how much they dislike the government aren't thinking rationally or logically.

What people?

I'm really curious, because you say this could happen, but you keep alluding to "people" whom you cannot/willnot define further, but as you're about to find out... those people don't exist in large enough numbers to ever successfully overthrow the U.S. Government.

You're right, you (incorrectly) used the term magical thinking.

On a second read through, you're right. The Mandate of Heaven is nothing more than a superstitious idea based in Chinese Philosophy that would never get off the ground in the United States, due in large part to the fact that we don't follow Chinese philosophies here. It might be subscribed to here by small portions of the population, but the majority is Christian and does not subscribe to these concepts. The most you'll ever see here is crackpots like Pat Robertson using natural disasters of unfortunate events to further their own political agendas, which the majority tend to ignore because he represents the lunatic fringe of the belief.

Still want to defend the idea that this could ever happen?

There was no claim that it was the will of a divine force.

Do you think Heaven as it applies to the mandate refers to the skies and clouds up above?

What exactly did I misread? What was it I misrepresented?

You claimed that I thought that the government would be destroyed by "magic," not by people I erroneously though subscribed to magical thinking.

Snacks are on the table, nap time is after lunch. Hands off my crayons.

---

I heard there weren't that many deaths and I am glad of that. I was thankful that it had not effected where I lived in Florida, but I have heard that there is a tropical storm that is coming towards my area, which is why the people around there have actually adviced people not to go to the beaches. It's a pity that this had to be at the same time Labor Day weekend came, but at least there's still people going out to eat and stuff.