1761
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Snupes' Must-Listen-To List (Recommend me albums!)
« on: January 04, 2016, 08:18:45 AM »
Listen to The Flaming Lips' The Soft Bulletin.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1762
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars ep 7 (with spoilers)
« on: January 04, 2016, 08:11:53 AM »>assumes I disliked it
When did I do that? All I really said was that you would have looked for things to nitpick about it, and I have like eight years of history backing me up on that.
1763
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: McDonalds all day bfast
« on: January 04, 2016, 08:07:38 AM »
This is by far the best thing to ever happen in the history of mankind.
1764
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the notion of recent bans and the editing of posts.
« on: January 04, 2016, 08:05:45 AM »
Wait, there are rules now?
1765
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
« on: January 04, 2016, 07:59:53 AM »
*even more to shit.
1766
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
« on: January 04, 2016, 07:59:15 AM »
This is still something people are talking about?
I know it might seem odd coming from Daniel's former biggest supporter, but his forum has gone to shit and we're all better off without this happening.
I know it might seem odd coming from Daniel's former biggest supporter, but his forum has gone to shit and we're all better off without this happening.
1767
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars ep 7 (with spoilers)
« on: January 03, 2016, 05:38:35 PM »
I'm not reading through this entire thread to see what others have had to say. I saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it. If FES is the reflection of the rest of the internet that it has tended to be in the past then I am sure some people are complaining that it's too much like the original movie, or that there's too much pandering to the fanbase.
Both arguments are stupid.
I enjoyed it. I thought the new characters were engaging and I liked the actors playing them. It was a good story. Even if it did borrow a little heavily from the original movie, the original movie borrowed heavily from myth, spaghetti westerns, and pulp serials itself, so who cares? I appreciated that the look of the originals was recaptured by shooting on 35mm film and that those ridiculous digital effects that cluttered the prequels were minimized. They were never going to please everybody, and certain people (Saddam, for example, or Thork I'm sure) were probably looking for things to nitpick the whole time they were watching the movie. That's fine; everybody thinks they're a critic. I left the theater satisfied and looking forward to seeing where they're going with the story and that's what matters to me.
Both arguments are stupid.
I enjoyed it. I thought the new characters were engaging and I liked the actors playing them. It was a good story. Even if it did borrow a little heavily from the original movie, the original movie borrowed heavily from myth, spaghetti westerns, and pulp serials itself, so who cares? I appreciated that the look of the originals was recaptured by shooting on 35mm film and that those ridiculous digital effects that cluttered the prequels were minimized. They were never going to please everybody, and certain people (Saddam, for example, or Thork I'm sure) were probably looking for things to nitpick the whole time they were watching the movie. That's fine; everybody thinks they're a critic. I left the theater satisfied and looking forward to seeing where they're going with the story and that's what matters to me.
1768
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth is flat
« on: January 03, 2016, 05:28:50 PM »Why is earth flat?
By this I mean:
What distinct observation supports the idea that earth is flat, and remember that if the observation can be explained by something else then it can not be a valid scientific hypothese.
Well, I look down, I see a flat Earth, I have no reason to believe it is not flat. It is up to you to provide evidence that the Earth is not flat. Just remember that if the observation can be explained by something else then it can not be a valid scientific hypothesis.
1769
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moving in a straight line and coming back on the same spot
« on: January 03, 2016, 05:24:32 PM »On a globe, you can go in a straight line and come back on the same spot. On a flat surface you cannot, no matter what you say.
Yes, I'm sure you've done this yourself a million times.
1770
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cynicism
« on: May 08, 2015, 04:06:00 PM »No, that isn't what I said. Being of nature (natural) is not the same as being nature and artificial (not natural) is not the same as supernatural. But then I should have expected you not to understand.Because humans are not nature. Think of it this way: Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer. Who do you trust?You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point. Everything in the world is natural by your logic. Spaceships are natural. Robots are natural. Nuclear bombs are natural. Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.
I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.
Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?
So humans are supernatural then?
I have difficulty understanding nonsense. I absolutely get that there's a distinction between something being "natural" and "artificial" but I think the distinction is an invention we created because of our natural tendency to consider ourselves above nature, which was actually seriously believed even by intellectuals until very recently in our history, and is clearly utter claptrap when considered from any reasonable modern scientific or philosophical framework on the subject. If you're not saying we're supernatural, then what are we? Are we extranatural?
By making a statement like "nature invented marijuana" you are positing that nature is capable of having a purpose and possessing creativity. You are imbuing nature with what we commonly regard as "will". Do you know that this flies in the face of conventional scientific wisdom?
If you are trying to make a serious scientific or philosophical point you should really try doing so with something resembling serious scientific or philosophical terms.
Most people would consider a beehive or a spiderweb as part of nature. I would submit a house is just as much so a part of nature, despite being according to the strictest definition of the word artificial. We are products of nature and unless you posit a supernatural (or extranatural, if you prefer) aspect having been added to our existence it follows that everything we create is also a product of nature.
QED, bitch.
1771
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cynicism
« on: May 08, 2015, 07:35:12 AM »Because humans are not nature. Think of it this way: Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer. Who do you trust?You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point. Everything in the world is natural by your logic. Spaceships are natural. Robots are natural. Nuclear bombs are natural. Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.
I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.
Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?
So humans are supernatural then?
1772
Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club
« on: May 08, 2015, 01:41:42 AM »
I just read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. It was great. Such a shame he died before his career as a novelist had even started.
1773
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek
« on: April 26, 2015, 12:32:12 AM »
They should have had Riker give the "Space" The Final Frontier" speech at the beginning of the second part. As a tease.
1774
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek
« on: April 26, 2015, 12:28:38 AM »
Right now I'm at the midpoint of one of the high points of TNG: "Best of Both Worlds".
1776
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Same Sex Marriage as such, anywhere.
« on: April 14, 2015, 07:04:39 AM »
I answered that I don't think the state should regulate marriage at all but in hindsight I see that such a policy would be inherently impractical. The point of marriage after all is that some higher body officially recognizes a union between people. For some, religion might be enough, but I wager that a lot of the gays wouldn't see it that way; even the ones who somehow consider themselves religious despite the obvious blasphemy they perform on a regular basis might have trouble getting his or her church to recognize a union between two members of the same sex (or five, or what have you).
So the only recourse is for it to be recognized by the government, and why not? Marriage comes with financial benefits too. It comes with a lot of other baggage as well, as Yaakov pointed out. If it's up to the state to officially sanction a marriage, obviously they're going to regulate it to some degree. It's unavoidable. So in the end government regulation of marriage and the right of gays to marry aren't mutually exclusive concepts; the existence of the latter is actually indirectly dependent on the existence of the former. The choice against the government regulating marriage is essentially nonsensical. The only question that matters is how restrictive the government should be allowed to be in their regulation of marriage (my opinion being not very). As far as I can tell that's what the fight is about.
So long story short if I could I would change my answer to the last, saying all the relationships should be permitted.
So the only recourse is for it to be recognized by the government, and why not? Marriage comes with financial benefits too. It comes with a lot of other baggage as well, as Yaakov pointed out. If it's up to the state to officially sanction a marriage, obviously they're going to regulate it to some degree. It's unavoidable. So in the end government regulation of marriage and the right of gays to marry aren't mutually exclusive concepts; the existence of the latter is actually indirectly dependent on the existence of the former. The choice against the government regulating marriage is essentially nonsensical. The only question that matters is how restrictive the government should be allowed to be in their regulation of marriage (my opinion being not very). As far as I can tell that's what the fight is about.
So long story short if I could I would change my answer to the last, saying all the relationships should be permitted.
1777
Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?
« on: April 11, 2015, 04:25:30 PM »This has been gone over many times. Einstein's entire career was intended to prove the Earth is flat. All of his work points that way.Hmm... Maybe that's why he had so much trouble trying to unify gravity with the 3 other fundamental forces.
Why?
1778
Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?
« on: April 11, 2015, 04:02:48 PM »
This has been gone over many times. Einstein's entire career was intended to prove the Earth is flat. All of his work points that way. The excitement to so radically challenge the conventions of science is the impetus that drove him out of that stuffy patent office and into the realm of academia. Throughout his work from beginning to end it's clear that he was trying to prove the Earth is flat. He always came just a step short of actually saying so because he realized that no matter how succinctly he proved his premiss, it would never be enough for the globularists who were so fanatically devoted to their beliefs. But it's all there. I want you to do something for me, markjo. I want you to reread Einstein's entire body of work with the idea in mind that he was trying to prove the Earth is flat. Go ahead and tell me it doesn't force you to look at his life's work in a new light.
1779
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek
« on: April 11, 2015, 03:16:33 PM »Anyway, "Q Who" is probably where TNG really started to get interesting. The first appearance of the Borg and it was actually excellent in almost every way... easily, I think, the best episode of the first two seasons. You put "The Royale" above this, Parsifal?
Oh, was that in season 2? I thought it was season 3. Q Who is a fantastic episode, yes, although since it comes after The Royale, I'd still say that The Royale is where TNG starts getting good.
I'm not sure how I'd compare them episode-for-episode. They're both great in very different ways.
I see your point but I'd still contend "Measure of a Man" is the first really good TNG episode.
1780
Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?
« on: April 10, 2015, 08:49:21 PM »Einstein proved the Earth is flat. Case closed.How does mass warping space-time prove that the earth is flat?
i mean seriously, nothing?
What part of "Case closed" do you not understand?
