Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54

Thread: We need Ron Paul as president To save American

  1. #26
    Banned Reputation: 72

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA Wisconsin Language: English only Disability: Language-Based Hates: Grammar Trolls
    Posts
    3,452
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olaph View Post
    Yeah, no it isn't.



    The best politicians are those who do not want to be in politics.

    because they dont want to be label as lie if they can't do if the goverment stop them every time

  2. #27
    Bladin's Sword Sharpener Reputation: 35
    Dot_Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Under Your Sheets!
    Posts
    1,189
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olaph View Post
    Yeah, no it isn't.



    The best politicians are those who do not want to be in politics.
    Olaph for President 2012

    We'll just ignore the whole being Australian thing
    Quote Originally Posted by hybridchic View Post
    American Politicians are liars. They say whatever they think they need to say to get the position they are running for.
    He can say whatever he wants but at the end of the day he's as honest and wants to do as much good for the American Populace as an angel. But "the road to Hell was paved in good intentions"
    Let's be honest though, the American public is, in general, pretty stupid. If they didn't lie they wouldn't be elected. The people just pick whoever tells them what they want to hear. That was the whole point of them setting up the Electoral College, because they knew that the lay person would do something stupid and vote for the crappiest candidate, but I guess that failed.
    Last edited by Dot_Hack; 01-20-2012 at 04:27 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Quote Originally Posted by V-Opolis View Post
    or sick as in she got Leonidas drop kicked in the stomach by a cop? In which case i can agree.

  3. #28
    Bongo Crazy Kong Reputation: 29
    hybridchic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania, US
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    Reglion is actally law tool to make people think before they do somthing they would regrat back thousand of year ago. Reglion still teach you to be nice people and treat them respec but super Reglions people cant see over that they think they need force fake law they made up in reglions
    Religion offers a set of morale for living a happy prosperous life. It is not the thing used to shape laws int he US just the scape goat some politicians use when they need a reason to justify why they do things that aren't in accordance with the law.
    Notice that a man will never go to jail for cheating on his wife even though that goes against most religions.
    But a woman will go to kail if she cheats on her loose husband.

    See the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dot_Hack View Post
    Let's be honest though, the American public is, in general, pretty stupid. If they didn't lie they wouldn't be elected. The people just pick whoever tells them what they want to hear. That was the whole point of them setting up the Electoral College, because they knew that the lay person would do something stupid and vote for the crappiest candidate, but I guess that failed.
    There's no doubt in my mind that there's a large number of stupid people in America. On the other hand I am very fond of the Constitution so I tolerate their existence as best I can.

    As for voting... while SOPA/PIPA is a big issue at the moment, any American citizen of any age can do something about it to have their voice heard. Meanwhile they're about to pass a Voter ID Bill in some states which will actually discourage people from voting in some places.

    For instance I live in PA, a swing state. Apparently dead people vote in my state. I am all for showing photo identification when I vote. But I know that in some parts of PA where voter intimidation is alive and well, this will be a problem. And then it also becomes a privacy issue because when you go to a your polling place depending on how it's set up, no one is supposed to see exactly who you are or have access to your age, date of birthday, residence etc aside from voting officials. On most photo identification cards they put everything except your social security number and even then I swear it might be there embedded in that filmy covering.
    Then you have to consider that when they pass this bill, I think they're expecting you to spend 11-20 dollars for a photo id specifically meant to be used for when you go to vote.

  4. #29
    Bladin's Sword Sharpener Reputation: 35
    Dot_Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Under Your Sheets!
    Posts
    1,189
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hybridchic View Post
    Religion offers a set of morale for living a happy prosperous life. It is not the thing used to shape laws int he US just the scape goat some politicians use when they need a reason to justify why they do things that aren't in accordance with the law.
    Notice that a man will never go to jail for cheating on his wife even though that goes against most religions.
    But a woman will go to kail if she cheats on her loose husband.

    See the difference?
    I agree with this statement. Religion is more of a means of how to live your own life. It cant be used as law simply because of the fact that people have different religions, thus different laws. Plus, what I find funny is how people pick and choose what they would want to become a law.

    i.e. I used to have a Facebook friend who used to sleep (no joke) with at least 2 different guys a week. But, she said in a wall post that Gay Marriage goes against the Bible. I guess she missed the part about sexual immorality. I'm not saying that she has to change her lifestyle, I'm just implying that people shouldn't judge others if they're not going to judge themselves. Religion is supposed to be personal, not forced onto other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by hybridchic View Post
    There's no doubt in my mind that there's a large number of stupid people in America. On the other hand I am very fond of the Constitution so I tolerate their existence as best I can.

    As for voting... while SOPA/PIPA is a big issue at the moment, any American citizen of any age can do something about it to have their voice heard. Meanwhile they're about to pass a Voter ID Bill in some states which will actually discourage people from voting in some places.

    For instance I live in PA, a swing state. Apparently dead people vote in my state. I am all for showing photo identification when I vote. But I know that in some parts of PA where voter intimidation is alive and well, this will be a problem. And then it also becomes a privacy issue because when you go to a your polling place depending on how it's set up, no one is supposed to see exactly who you are or have access to your age, date of birthday, residence etc aside from voting officials. On most photo identification cards they put everything except your social security number and even then I swear it might be there embedded in that filmy covering.
    Then you have to consider that when they pass this bill, I think they're expecting you to spend 11-20 dollars for a photo id specifically meant to be used for when you go to vote.
    It would definitely decrease the number of voters, but I've also noticed that more and more young people are choosing not to vote. My brother, 1 year younger than I am (he's 18) said he that he's not going to vote next year. When young people dont vote, it allows older people who know nothing about technology to be elected. SOPA is being supported by a bunch of old people who have been voted in by our parents and grandparents. If the youth are really pissed off about the new rules, they need to get out and vote instead of just posting a petition on twitter or facebook.

    lol what they need to do is allow voting through facebook (like a facebook poll) :3

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Quote Originally Posted by V-Opolis View Post
    or sick as in she got Leonidas drop kicked in the stomach by a cop? In which case i can agree.

  5. #30
    Codename: Duchess Reputation: 195
    olaph's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Scolding Woodhouse
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    because they dont want to be label as lie if they can't do if the goverment stop them every time
    I don't know what you are smoking, but it appears to have interesting effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dot_Hack View Post
    I agree with this statement. Religion is more of a means of how to live your own life. It cant be used as law simply because of the fact that people have different religions, thus different laws. Plus, what I find funny is how people pick and choose what they would want to become a law.

    i.e. I used to have a Facebook friend who used to sleep (no joke) with at least 2 different guys a week. But, she said in a wall post that Gay Marriage goes against the Bible. I guess she missed the part about sexual immorality. I'm not saying that she has to change her lifestyle, I'm just implying that people shouldn't judge others if they're not going to judge themselves. Religion is supposed to be personal, not forced onto other people.
    Most people who are against equality always seem to share the same personality type and all use religion to mask their bigotry.

    It would definitely decrease the number of voters, but I've also noticed that more and more young people are choosing not to vote. My brother, 1 year younger than I am (he's 18) said he that he's not going to vote next year. When young people dont vote, it allows older people who know nothing about technology to be elected. SOPA is being supported by a bunch of old people who have been voted in by our parents and grandparents. If the youth are really pissed off about the new rules, they need to get out and vote instead of just posting a petition on twitter or facebook.

    I'd wager they are doing it BECAUSE it makes certain people less likely to vote and in turn influence public policy.
    Last edited by olaph; 01-20-2012 at 05:54 AM.

  6. #31
    Marineking's Minion Reputation: 366
    hian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    JAAAPAAAAAN
    Posts
    2,966
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    I'd vote for Obama if I could. Or if I was really politically interested I'd try to gather a crowd and create a demonstration against the incompetancy of candidates and the general U.S electorate, by launching anti-voting campaigns. Probably nothing would change, but still, it's a matter of principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by olaph View Post
    Which is why the smart countries have compulsory voting.
    You have an example of a country like that?
    In any case, the problem with voting isn't that people don't vote - It's that there are 10 idiots to counteract every 1 smart voter.
    If anything, we should restrict voting by demanding that anyone who wants to vote must first engage in some sort of written test to prove that the person knows the issues enough to make an informed opinion on who to vote for.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonneau_14 View Post
    I know. It's stupid people who do stupid things. Religion is a great thing when it's not being abused. I wish more people would examine religion from a more logical stand-point, instead of buying into the typical brainwashed-for-years magical nonsense.
    This is completely counter-productive thinking, and certainly not a logical standpoint.
    Are you implying then that people are born stupid, and that they somehow tend to end up being religious? Blaming the bad in religion on "stupid" people makes no sense what so ever. How did the people get "stupid" to begin with?
    In any case, what is so great about religion?

    What you refer to as "brainwashed for years" is actually fits the bill much better in terms of what we know from science on the minds of religious people, although I agree that exact phrasing might be an exaggeration.

    Years of unchecked acceptance of faith claims, enforced by authoritarian figures, and conformation biases in combationation with an attitude lacking consistant critical thinking is a necessity for unfounded belief structures like religious to function.

    Does this mean all religious people are stupid, or "brainwashed"? No, but it says something about a quality which all religious people share, whether they belong to the extremist factions or not - namely that they are all intellectually dishonest and labouring under a system kept in check by their ignorance, rather than their knowledge.

    The "logical" way of looking at religion in light of this, is as a system better to forgo, than to keep.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonneau_14 View Post
    Magic and Gods were a necessity. It explained everything they didn't understand, and what people don't understand, they fear. People yearned for answers and purpose... They had no real way of finding that, but religion/magic could provide a placebo effect. Ignorance is bliss, right?
    Nope. They were never necessary.
    Providing someone a wrong explanation for something, is factually equal to explaining nothing. Explaining nothing, is not a necessity.

    Although some people might fear what they don't understand or what they don't know, humanity have several ways of combating that fear appart from religion that makes more sense - One is called acceptance of ignorance, the other is callled science.
    Religion and magical "explanations" are intellectually lazy cop-outs of people who spun magical tales out of simple phenomenon because they lived dreary existences fighting for their lives one inch at a time in a dark and hostile environment - It was one way of dealing with the shait they experienced.
    However, just because it was a function of the old mankind, does not mean it was good, smart, or that it's worth keeping around except as a cultural/historical oddity.

    Quote Originally Posted by hybridchic View Post
    Religion offers a set of morale for living a happy prosperous life.
    wut? I hope for gods sake you're refering to Buddhism, or something to that effect.
    Most religion are morally bankrupt because they are internally inconsistant, and try to enforce morality - not by appealing to empathy and common ground - But by threating us with punishment, promising us rewards, or simply asserting moral statements as gospel truth because some divine entity has decreed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    Reglion is actally law tool to make people think before they do somthing they would regrat back thousand of year ago. Reglion still teach you to be nice people and treat them respec but super Reglions people cant see over that they think they need force fake law they made up in reglions
    Religion doesn't effectually make people do much in and of itself.
    Whenever you read a moral statement in a book, you make a judgement yourself, on the basis of past experience etc, whether you take that sentence to heart or not.
    Reading in the bible that killing is wrong, isn't going to change your mind in and of itself.
    This why religious people often have deeply divergent moralities(some people saying homosexuals should be killed etc). Moral judgements come from the individual, not the religion. The religion only serves as buffer in that confirms the views of the person engaging in it, and strengthens them.

    That's why "religion provides morality" is a completely moot point. Humans provide morality, with basis in our upbringing and faculty for empathy.

    When a religious person hates gays, it's not because he is religious - It is because he has a hatred for gays, that his religion reflects that hate.
    Some religions serve as better buffers for hatred than others though, because the lore is less clear, and more violent(the Abrahamic Religions in particular).
    Last edited by hian; 01-20-2012 at 02:35 PM.
    The Common Sense United Front
    ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA

  7. #32
    春光乍泄 Reputation: 193
    Raiyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Iguazu Falls
    Posts
    13,561
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hian View Post
    You have an example of a country like that?
    In any case, the problem with voting isn't that people don't vote - It's that there are 10 idiots to counteract every 1 smart voter.
    If anything, we should restrict voting by demanding that anyone who wants to vote must first engage in some sort of written test to prove that the person knows the issues enough to make an informed opinion on who to vote for.
    This. Seriously.

    If you rescue me, I'll be your friend forever. -- Loric
    Last.fm
    Hey Raiyne

  8. #33
    Banned Reputation: 101

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,832
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hian View Post
    This is completely counter-productive thinking, and certainly not a logical standpoint.
    Are you implying then that people are born stupid, and that they somehow tend to end up being religious? Blaming the bad in religion on "stupid" people makes no sense what so ever. How did the people get "stupid" to begin with?
    In any case, what is so great about religion?

    What you refer to as "brainwashed for years" is actually fits the bill much better in terms of what we know from science on the minds of religious people, although I agree that exact phrasing might be an exaggeration.

    Years of unchecked acceptance of faith claims, enforced by authoritarian figures, and conformation biases in combationation with an attitude lacking consistant critical thinking is a necessity for unfounded belief structures like religious to function.

    Does this mean all religious people are stupid, or "brainwashed"? No, but it says something about a quality which all religious people share, whether they belong to the extremist factions or not - namely that they are all intellectually dishonest and labouring under a system kept in check by their ignorance, rather than their knowledge.

    The "logical" way of looking at religion in light of this, is as a system better to forgo, than to keep.



    Nope. They were never necessary.
    Providing someone a wrong explanation for something, is factually equal to explaining nothing. Explaining nothing, is not a necessity.

    Although some people might fear what they don't understand or what they don't know, humanity have several ways of combating that fear appart from religion that makes more sense - One is called acceptance of ignorance, the other is callled science.
    Religion and magical "explanations" are intellectually lazy cop-outs of people who spun magical tales out of simple phenomenon because they lived dreary existences fighting for their lives one inch at a time in a dark and hostile environment - It was one way of dealing with the shait they experienced.
    However, just because it was a function of the old mankind, does not mean it was good, smart, or that it's worth keeping around except as a cultural/historical oddity.



    wut? I hope for gods sake you're refering to Buddhism, or something to that effect.
    Most religion are morally bankrupt because they are internally inconsistant, and try to enforce morality - not by appealing to empathy and common ground - But by threating us with punishment, promising us rewards, or simply asserting moral statements as gospel truth because some divine entity has decreed it.



    Religion doesn't effectually make people do much in and of itself.
    Whenever you read a moral statement in a book, you make a judgement yourself, on the basis of past experience etc, whether you take that sentence to heart or not.
    Reading in the bible that killing is wrong, isn't going to change your mind in and of itself.
    This why religious people often have deeply divergent moralities(some people saying homosexuals should be killed etc). Moral judgements come from the individual, not the religion. The religion only serves as buffer in that confirms the views of the person engaging in it, and strengthens them.

    That's why "religion provides morality" is a completely moot point. Humans provide morality, with basis in our upbringing and faculty for empathy.

    When a religious person hates gays, it's not because he is religious - It is because he has a hatred for gays, that his religion reflects that hate.
    Some religions serve as better buffers for hatred than others though, because the lore is less clear, and more violent(the Abrahamic Religions in particular).
    I read about 10%, laughing too hard to continue.

  9. #34
    Retired Staff Reputation: 75
    Eriond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,790
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Ron Paul is a creationist. 'Nuff said. While I'm not saying you can't be a creationist and have realistic policies, it's somewhat indicative of how far you're willing to take something, based on absolutely nothing.
    THIS MA SIGNATURE

  10. #35
    Fabio_R's Fruitcup Reputation: 91
    Akeras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,619
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    really we dont need gay Marriage. we need to fix american first
    Just.......just......just ****ing shut up right god damn now. Just stop blaze, just ****ing think about what you say for once in your life.

    People like you ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN AMERICA CURRENTLY.

    Jesus ****ing christ, saying we don't need legal gay marriage in America is like saying we don't need equal rights.


    Edit: Ugh sorry, just every time Blaze makes some political post it never fails to piss me right the hell off.
    Last edited by Akeras; 01-21-2012 at 03:00 AM.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cingal View Post
    Generally, if the game has characters which would put you on an FBI watchlist, you're playing an Asian game.

  11. #36
    Phantom's Freak Reputation: 200
    Hizumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,543
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.

  12. #37
    Bladin's Sword Sharpener Reputation: 35
    Dot_Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Under Your Sheets!
    Posts
    1,189
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Does that mean that I can finally marry my PS3?

    On topic: Eriond, I would be just as afraid of a beilever of the BB Theory. I love science and I think that it will eventually answer many of our life's question (i.e. how did we get here?), but you must also understand that for the specific theory of how the universe and life started, science and religion are in the same boat.

    God created everything > Never been proven or observed
    Big Bang Theory > Never been proven or observed
    (Or really any guess of how the universe started)

    God created Adam and Eve > Never been proven or observed
    Evolution > Never been proven or observed.

    Now, I will admit that science has at least followed a more logical path, the truth still remains that all theories and ideas, both scientific and religious, about how the earth came to be are still yet to be proven, so in all honesty I would be afraid of creationists and evolutionists.

    Also, as a side note, I know that there is actual evidence that may prove both evolution and the BB theory to be true, but as we've seen with the latest Higgs Boson debacle, just because there is evidence that supports the idea, doesn't always mean that you're following the right path.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Quote Originally Posted by V-Opolis View Post
    or sick as in she got Leonidas drop kicked in the stomach by a cop? In which case i can agree.

  13. #38
    Retired Staff Reputation: 75
    Eriond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,790
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dot_Hack View Post
    Does that mean that I can finally marry my PS3?
    Nope, 'cause PS3s can't form legal contracts (nor can animals, children, etc..).

    On topic: Eriond, I would be just as afraid of a beilever of the BB Theory. I love science and I think that it will eventually answer many of our life's question (i.e. how did we get here?), but you must also understand that for the specific theory of how the universe and life started, science and religion are in the same boat.

    God created everything > Never been proven or observed
    Big Bang Theory > Never been proven or observed
    (Or really any guess of how the universe started)

    God created Adam and Eve > Never been proven or observed
    Evolution > Never been proven or observed.

    Now, I will admit that science has at least followed a more logical path, the truth still remains that all theories and ideas, both scientific and religious, about how the earth came to be are still yet to be proven, so in all honesty I would be afraid of creationists and evolutionists.

    Also, as a side note, I know that there is actual evidence that may prove both evolution and the BB theory to be true, but as we've seen with the latest Higgs Boson debacle, just because there is evidence that supports the idea, doesn't always mean that you're following the right path.
    While you are, of course, entitled to believe, whatever you wish to believe, you must know that the scientific consensus on evolution is absolutely, crazilly, overwhelming, to the point that is as close to a proven theory as a theory of such a nature is likely to get. To reject such an overwhelming scientific consensus would require you to make some logical argument and present evidence to back up your claims; creationism does not do this.

    And while you do have a point about the whole beginning of the universe thing, that there are indeed large gaps in our understanding, it doesn't mean that the theories we currently have are flat out wrong (this is extremely unlikely, infact, though possible).

    I'll use the theory of gravity as an analogy here. Newton's theory of gravity was, according to all (I think) of the observations he could make, correct. It reasonably accurately described the motions of the planets, objects, etc.. However, for extremely precise measurements, and special circumstances, the theory is inaccurate; we use instead General Relativity to calculate the effects of gravity today when we want precision. However, even though they are wrong, we still do use Newton's laws to calculate gravity's effects when we don't care about being too precise!

    This doesn't mean that Newton theory was completely wrong; rather, we simply have to adjust it to account for new observations. So while scientists today do not accept Newton's theory of gravitation as being accurate, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't a 'believer' in gravity. Simply because these theories are not 'proven', as it is impossible to prove a theory is accurate in all cases, since we cannot observe everywhere, is not a reason to not accept them as the most reasonable explanation, and, for all intents and purposes, act as if they are 'true'; especially when they have the sheer amount of evidence behind them that evolution and the BB do. (though of course, the jury is still out on just what started the BB )

    Basically, for me, it boils down to this. Saying you are just as afraid of someone who accepts the scientific consensus on a topic, be it evolution, or cosmology, as someone who accepts a theory that is not based on evidence, to me, is crazy.

    It's like saying you're just as worried about someone who claims, based on past experience, that when someone lets go of a rock, it will fall to the ground, as someone who claims that the same rock will fly away into the sky, for no reason. One person is reasonable, and extrapolating from observed fact, and the other is insane.

    Will this rock always, in absolutely all circumstances, fall to the ground? No, possibly not. But you can be damn sure that in almost all cases, it will. Does the guy who believes the rock will fly away have a right to believe what does? Of course he does. But I'd rather have the person who thinks the rock will fall making decisions on my behalf, be it as a president, senator, congressman, member of parliament, etc.. then the guy who pontificates about flying rocks.
    Last edited by Eriond; 01-21-2012 at 04:52 PM.
    THIS MA SIGNATURE

  14. #39
    Banned Reputation: 101

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,832
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    The word queer used to mean: odd, different, weird, and peculiar.

  15. #40
    Bladin's Sword Sharpener Reputation: 35
    Dot_Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Under Your Sheets!
    Posts
    1,189
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eriond View Post
    Nope, 'cause PS3s can't form legal contracts (nor can animals, children, etc..).



    While you are, of course, entitled to believe, whatever you wish to believe, you must know that the scientific consensus on evolution is absolutely, crazilly, overwhelming, to the point that is as close to a proven theory as a theory of such a nature is likely to get. To reject such an overwhelming scientific consensus would require you to make some logical argument and present evidence to back up your claims; creationism does not do this.

    And while you do have a point about the whole beginning of the universe thing, that there are indeed large gaps in our understanding, it doesn't mean that the theories we currently have are flat out wrong (this is extremely unlikely, infact, though possible).

    I'll use the theory of gravity as an analogy here. Newton's theory of gravity was, according to all (I think) of the observations he could make, correct. It reasonably accurately described the motions of the planets, objects, etc.. However, for extremely precise measurements, and special circumstances, the theory is inaccurate; we use instead General Relativity to calculate the effects of gravity today when we want precision. However, even though they are wrong, we still do use Newton's laws to calculate gravity's effects when we don't care about being too precise!

    This doesn't mean that Newton theory was completely wrong; rather, we simply have to adjust it to account for new observations. So while scientists today do not accept Newton's theory of gravitation as being accurate, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't a 'believer' in gravity. Simply because these theories are not 'proven', as it is impossible to prove a theory is accurate in all cases, since we cannot observe everywhere, is not a reason to not accept them as the most reasonable explanation, and, for all intents and purposes, act as if they are 'true'; especially when they have the sheer amount of evidence behind them that evolution and the BB do. (though of course, the jury is still out on just what started the BB )

    Basically, for me, it boils down to this. Saying you are just as afraid of someone who accepts the scientific consensus on a topic, be it evolution, or cosmology, as someone who accepts a theory that is not based on evidence, to me, is crazy.

    It's like saying you're just as worried about someone who claims, based on past experience, that when someone lets go of a rock, it will fall to the ground, as someone who claims that the same rock will fly away into the sky, for no reason. One person is reasonable, and extrapolating from observed fact, and the other is insane.

    Will this rock always, in absolutely all circumstances, fall to the ground? No, possibly not. But you can be damn sure that in almost all cases, it will. Does the guy who believes the rock will fly away have a right to believe what does? Of course he does. But I'd rather have the person who thinks the rock will fall making decisions on my behalf, be it as a president, senator, congressman, member of parliament, etc.. then the guy who pontificates about flying rocks.
    I understand what you're saying, and I dont disagree. The only point that I was trying to make is that people need to stop believing in Absolutes (other than death, which IMO is the only Absolute). As in, people need to stop putting 100% of their faith in either science and religion, because both can change.

    The example I was trying to provide was of the Standard Model of particle physics. This is a theory that some claim to be 99% proven, but recently scientist are beginning to believe that there is no Higgs Boson particle, therefore making the SM useless (until it is changed).

    Before I make my next claim I hope that we can both agree that there are no Absolutes in science. Science is a field that is always growing and changing, thus no scientific theory can forever be true without altering it.

    I think humans are flawed. When we begin to believe in something it begins to blind us. If something was to oppose our way of thought, we tend to ignore or deny it (i.e. battles vs religion and science). In order for us to evolve fully without bias, I think that we should look into all ideas, but at the same time realize that they may not be true, thus we shouldn't base our future on something that is questionable.

    I know this may sound stupid, but it's what I believe. If we, as humans, want to better ourselves we must understand that these laws are true, but at the same time, we need to keep looking past these theories of science and by doing that we can better ourselves.

    Take the case of the bacteria : Helicobacter pylori. This bacteria was discovered in the 1970/80s ( I dont remember the exact time), but it took the scientific community about 10 years to accept that it was this bacteria that caused ulcers. Previously, scientists thought that it was excess stomach acid that caused ulcers, so they ignored the results even though they were true. If people cant let go of what they believe in (even in the scientific community) than we only stifle our own evolution.

    TL;DR I think that only thing that is Absolute is Death. Everything else should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Quote Originally Posted by V-Opolis View Post
    or sick as in she got Leonidas drop kicked in the stomach by a cop? In which case i can agree.

  16. #41
    Norrin Radd's Nerd Rage Reputation: 64
    djfizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    ....um....yes, no wait false
    Posts
    1,674
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    so you hate this? sound better then all other ones

    COMMON SENSE REFORMS
    If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

    * Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

    As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.

    As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties.


    i love the end of birthright citizenship that what destory american right now. remove this law make it so they have to go mexico is a good thing to do. mexico need to learn how to stand up fix there own dam country or just take the test to get in american
    who are we to turn away immigrants, when we are a country built of uneducated, pennyless immigrants. Why study history if noone refers to it?
    Leagues of Legends:The Disciple (US)

    Steam:The Otterpus

  17. #42
    Codename: Duchess Reputation: 195
    olaph's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Scolding Woodhouse
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hian View Post
    You have an example of a country like that?
    Australia has compulsory voting for any citizen who is 18 years of age and it has always had more positive effects then negatives.

    For example the last election ended up as a minority government(neither major party has a mandate for power) and the greens controlling the senate who denied the draconian bills such as the national internet filter and data retention to be blocked/killed.

    Had we not had compulsory voting, most people wouldn't have voted for one of the minor parties in protest and we would have ended up with either a full Labor or Liberal government(which would put us in the same state the US is in).

  18. #43
    Retired Staff Reputation: 75
    Eriond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,790
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dot_Hack View Post
    I understand what you're saying, and I dont disagree. The only point that I was trying to make is that people need to stop believing in Absolutes (other than death, which IMO is the only Absolute). As in, people need to stop putting 100% of their faith in either science and religion, because both can change.
    I agree! I definitely think that we shouldn't believe in the 100% 'truth' of either science or religion! However! I definitely think that, for theories that have been rigorously verified and tested (such as evolution and the BB ), we should act as if they're true. Let's say that I think we should put anywhere from 0-99% of our faith into a particular theory, based on the degree to which it has been accepted and verified by evidence (but not 100%! because I don't ever believe that anything can be known with absolute certainty, as we cannot observe everywhere).

    The example I was trying to provide was of the Standard Model of particle physics. This is a theory that some claim to be 99% proven, but recently scientist are beginning to believe that there is no Higgs Boson particle, therefore making the SM useless (until it is changed).
    I think this is the big thing I disagree with; the standard model wouldn't be made useless, it would simply mean that it does not accurately describe all events in all circumstances. The SM is still a perfectly fine thing to use to base your calculations on, for example, fission reactors, chemical engineering, and almost everything else, except extremely high energy physics, and a small number of other things.

    Before I make my next claim I hope that we can both agree that there are no Absolutes in science. Science is a field that is always growing and changing, thus no scientific theory can forever be true without altering it.
    I'll definitely accept that science is always growing, and changing, and that the SM is certainly not a truly accurate representation of reality

    I think humans are flawed. When we begin to believe in something it begins to blind us. If something was to oppose our way of thought, we tend to ignore or deny it (i.e. battles vs religion and science). In order for us to evolve fully without bias, I think that we should look into all ideas, but at the same time realize that they may not be true, thus we shouldn't base our future on something that is questionable.
    Very, very true; we do get blinded by ideologies, be they religious, scientific, political, to the point where we do tend to shut our minds and eyes to opposition; it's just a thing humans do. Everyone's probably guilty of it, definitely myself included.

    But the thing is, while we should obviously look into other ideas, we must also accept compelling evidence when it is provided. And while of course, the standard model of particle physics may not be a completely accurate representation of reality, you must agree that is does provide a reasonably accurate prediction for how a mass of uranium-238 will decay. Just as you might also say that the modern theory of evolution may not make completely accurate claims of exactly how life has evolved, down through the eons, but you must also admit that the mechanism does accurately account for almost all forms of life on this planet, and that we do share seem to share a close common ancestor with other primates.

    I know this may sound stupid, but it's what I believe. If we, as humans, want to better ourselves we must understand that these laws are true, but at the same time, we need to keep looking past these theories of science and by doing that we can better ourselves.

    Take the case of the bacteria : Helicobacter pylori. This bacteria was discovered in the 1970/80s ( I dont remember the exact time), but it took the scientific community about 10 years to accept that it was this bacteria that caused ulcers. Previously, scientists thought that it was excess stomach acid that caused ulcers, so they ignored the results even though they were true. If people cant let go of what they believe in (even in the scientific community) than we only stifle our own evolution.
    Very true, and this kind of indoctrination does happen, even among scientists. I think that in that case, in order to convince people that he was on to something the scientist actually drank the culture he had of the bacteria to show it would give him an ulcer!

    However, given the data, the scientists changed their minds. And this is the important difference between empiricism and faith-based reasoning. Given enough data, the scientific community, as a whole (if not individual scientists, because, you know, scientists are people too ), will change their minds, when a theory is contradicted by data.

    This is why I have that point about listening to the scientific community. If the vast majority of them say something is accurate, it most likely is (though not always!), because by its very nature, science is self-correcting, changing itself to fit all of the available facts. And if you're not an expert, which most of us aren't, and we have no reason to doubt the conclusions (no contradicting evidence), then we should listen and put faith into the fact that those conclusions are accurate; especially to theories that have mountains of supporting evidence (like BB and evolution)!

    So while even though we should not be blinded by ideologies, like we frequently are, we should recognize the fact that most of us aren't experts on the field of evolution, or particle physics, or whatever, and we should accept the prevailing empirical view, because it has been vetted by people who are experts, and it's most likely the closest approximation of what is that we have.

    TL;DR: Don't believe things that are contrary to mountains of evidence without evidence of your own, and we'll get along fine
    Last edited by Eriond; 01-23-2012 at 09:06 AM.
    THIS MA SIGNATURE

  19. #44
    Phantom's Freak Reputation: 200
    Hizumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,543
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    some of the smartest scientists are christians and a lot of christians accept science. a good number of the most creative minds ever born have said time and time again for people to stop making religion and science mutually exclusive in life for it is pretty boring lol.

  20. #45
    Marineking's Minion Reputation: 366
    hian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    JAAAPAAAAAN
    Posts
    2,966
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bonneau_14 View Post
    I read about 10%, laughing too hard to continue.
    Care to elborate, or is this just another weak attempt at discrediting my position because you're to inept to actually comment on it?

    Quote Originally Posted by olaph View Post
    Australia has compulsory voting for any citizen who is 18 years of age and it has always had more positive effects then negatives.

    For example the last election ended up as a minority government(neither major party has a mandate for power) and the greens controlling the senate who denied the draconian bills such as the national internet filter and data retention to be blocked/killed.

    Had we not had compulsory voting, most people wouldn't have voted for one of the minor parties in protest and we would have ended up with either a full Labor or Liberal government(which would put us in the same state the US is in).
    I'm glad it worked out for your country - But then again, it depends on what kind of political system you're working with to begin with. Not all political systems accept minority governments to begin with - In fact, in some two party systems the winner will be aknowledged as the majority in any case, and there won't be any third parties to balance things out either.
    Also, in times of turmoil, a status quo political environment can sometimes be a really large problem.

    You could also have bad luck - If a majority of voters are uneducated, forcing everyone to vote isn't going to help. Australia, last time I checked, ranks above the U.S on almost every index, hence better voters.
    Forcing all U.S citizens to vote, when a large portion of them are completely unable to pick the party that most accurately represents their interests, as a lack of proper education and access to information, is hardly a good idea IMO.
    When you see people with low-income(or no income), without health-insurance etc, vote towards the right, then you know there's a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    some of the smartest scientists are christians and a lot of christians accept science. a good number of the most creative minds ever born have said time and time again for people to stop making religion and science mutually exclusive in life for it is pretty boring lol.
    Scientists can be religious, because they don't advocate their religion in a science setting. How many of them though, do you think have critically examined their faith with the same method they examine their theories with?

    Anyways, the large majority of scientists are atheists.
    It should also be said that most the scientists that are proclaimed "religous", are deists of one kind or another.

    The problem in any case, doesn't lie in religion and science being mutually exclusive, because religion or faith can a lot of things - Many which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    People simply state, and rightly so, that many religious claims are mutually exclusive with what we have discovered through science.
    Furthermore, for a person to have one standard of evidence when it comes to his daily life and science, and another standard of evidence for his religious beliefs - is hypocritical, or at least intellectually dishonest.

    The fact at the end of the day though, is that if your approach to science(your work) and to your religion, has different standards of evidence - A lot of people find that objectable - I am one of them.

    Who can, with a straight face, ask me for justification of my opinions, or ideas, if they ultimately think that beliefs can reasonably be held despite, or contrary to evidence?

    If anyone on this forum object to one of my opinion, and I counter with:
    "Well that's just my belief, and it's just as valid as scientific theories in light of that!" - that wouldn't fly for a second, I imagine.
    It only flies when it's about religion - This is an obvious discrepancy.
    The Common Sense United Front
    ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA

  21. #46
    Pipster's Punk Reputation: 83
    M1nGs3N4yuk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    2,485
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    This thread is turning into a religious debate...

  22. #47
    Banned Reputation: 72

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA Wisconsin Language: English only Disability: Language-Based Hates: Grammar Trolls
    Posts
    3,452
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    YouTube Video
    ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


    Chuck Norris Approve


    YouTube Video
    ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


    this is true we need to stop help other country in money we dont have.


    YouTube Video
    ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
    Last edited by xBlazex; 01-26-2012 at 06:05 AM.

  23. #48
    OnRPG Elite Member! Reputation: 640
    Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hitman Victor
    Posts
    6,295
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    @ COMMON SENSE REFORMS

    The problem the world faces is?

    Oh it's immigrants.

    If he is a "sincere" candidate, he must be a moron too.
    On the other hand I believe those 2 things:
    A) He isn't sincere at all (politician, go figure)
    He is saying that because he caters morons (politician, go figure)

    Honest man from Washington.
    Good branding. Would be a "change" from the state of things, right?
    L o ****ing L

    Won't state my mind on the candidate, because I really don't know him well, but that pre-campaign is balls.
    Last edited by Ronin; 01-26-2012 at 10:56 AM.

    Stay frosty.

  24. #49
    Banned Reputation: 72

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA Wisconsin Language: English only Disability: Language-Based Hates: Grammar Trolls
    Posts
    3,452
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
    @ COMMON SENSE REFORMS

    The problem the world faces is?

    Oh it's immigrants.

    If he is a "sincere" candidate, he must be a moron too.
    On the other hand I believe those 2 things:
    A) He isn't sincere at all (politician, go figure)
    He is saying that because he caters morons (politician, go figure)

    Honest man from Washington.
    Good branding. Would be a "change" from the state of things, right?
    L o ****ing L

    Won't state my mind on the candidate, because I really don't know him well, but that pre-campaign is balls.
    watch his video and read up on him. News and other polication keeping ignoring him because they love lying and use company money to make them self rich. He want to stop that and he not sugar coating your life like other one trying to do


    he want to lower President pay to point be average worker pay he want to reduce Military pay and remove Military out of other country and stop help other country wars that we should not help in the first place. and stop mexico have baby in american thinking they can stay in american if they have child in american that going to be remove and sent back to mexico
    Last edited by xBlazex; 01-26-2012 at 01:09 PM.

  25. #50
    ChimaeraOne's Cookie Reputation: 107
    gratscorpio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    District 9
    Posts
    1,348
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Does it really matter who wins? All the republican candidates are complete morons and Obama is no better. We mine as well reelect Obama so he can continue to decline of the middle class and finish what he and dip shit Bush set out to do.

    Lets face it most world influencing countries where brought down by internal strife (bad economy? Social tension?) and dip shit leaders (Bush, Obama (any of these republican candidates). So yeah we are ****ed our economy will take a turn for the worse soon enough and the best part is I will get mugged by some guy who got his broken leg taken care of because my taxes helped pay for his health care.

    So why are we waiting so long lets hurry up and finish America off with the "Social Justice Knife". It's all bull shit nothing good has ever came from expanded government the free market system does just fine. Yes it has it's downs but it also has it's ups.....something expanded government doesn't have. The 30% coalition will win in the end regardless of what the 70% coalition does because the 70% caters to hard working people and self sacrifice. While the 30% coalition caters to government hand outs and lazy people.


    So vote Ron Paul in 2012? Sure why not he is no better than all these other morons.

    scorpio
    [SIGPIC]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •