Re:Spoilerific Plot-Hole question....
on
Reviews: Star Trek
·
· Score: 1
This post has been purged of spoilers.
How else was he supposed to save **** from the **** with the **** and the **** to have him **** and **** with the other Spock? C'mon, you act like you've never seen a **** where the **** **** the ****. Jeez...
...a vain, paranoid demagogue, who knows that if his people ever come in contact with the outside world and realize that the rest of the world is mostly full of nice, reasonable people... they'll all rise up and murder him in his sleep.
Are you talking about Glen Beck?
--
A Free Market is only free for the people who can afford it.
I throw out a topically appropriate Adam Sandler quote and get Flamebaited!? Who are these mods? Informative? That guy didn't make a single substantive claim anywhere in that mess of an argument. He just shouted things and insulted stuff. This place is losing its cred and fast.
I just wasted my time reading that post and what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Right. I forgot that the definition of serious consequences includes killing 100,000 civilians. And lying to the public. And being a total bag of knobs.
--
"I owned slaves and had several illegitimate children I never took responsibility for." - Ben Franklin
I think what you are referring to is Plato's "forms". The objects we encounter merely participate in the -ness of the perfect forms which reside in what is playfully (or pejoratively) called Plato's Heaven. So my chair is a chair because it has the property "chairness", that is, there is a perfect chair that resides outside of our perceptual reality that lends its form to my chair. It is a bit more detailed but that is the gist. Aristotle was right to abandon it.
And as for the comments below about the distinction between philosophy and physics, both Descartes and Newton were considered philosophers. Most contemporary philosophy, though, relies heavily on the natural sciences to support or confute philosophical theories. Philosophy of mind works with cognitive science, philosophy of language with various natural sciences, and metaphysics with chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc... I prefer Wittgenstein's definition of philosophy from the Tractatus. He calls philosophy an "activity" that is meant to sharpen and hone the critical thinking necessary in scientific inquiry. There are many cases where philosophical theories have been supported by scientific investigation just as many have been thrown out because certain scientific hypotheses do not support them.
Off Topic - for any of you new to moderating; do it responsibly or don't do it at all. Wasting mod points is not like wasting precious resources on inefficient means of transferring power from one source to another, nor is it like wasting time discussing such silly, excessive technology.:)
I believe the geocentric model was based on some story about god stopping the sun in the sky to help some biblical hero's army win some war. It was thought that because god stopped the sun revolving around the Earth and not the earth's revolution yaddayaddaya... Earth is the center of everything. I have bored myself...
Religion - n
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
It is not a "code of behavior," that is a little branch of philosophy called ethics.
And I said "possibility for empirical verification." I also said "reality as is." If you posit things/objects/events/beings - the burden of proof is on you. And it isn't about believing or not believing in God, it's about such beliefs being arbitrary. They have nothing to do with my life or reality as is. Except when people's beliefs influence cultural/political systems. And that is a rant for another day. My so called "code of faith" is built up from the information I have received "since birth." If that makes me an agnostic, fine, have fun with your bullshit labels. I don't particularly care either way. "True agnostic", does that label make you feel better about yourself, are you defined and complete. "Oh you atheists try to include us, oh no stay away!" All labels change, it is the nature of our culture; paradigms shift. I am an atheist until proven agnostic, I don't care about the modality involved in supernatural positing. When it is revealed, I'll say hey, cool, I guess this is the way it is. Until such a time, shut up and stop throwing labels around. Atheist, agnostic, I don't care what you call me, as long as it's not "religious."
I don't care if you believe that the world was created by an 8 year-old with an ice-cream stain on his Osh-Kosh-B'gosh overalls, positing a supernatural entity or entities or force or power or what have you, that doesn't even have the remote possibility of being empirically verified, as the creator/first cause of the universe and building an ideological framework around it qualifies a religion. Fine, cool, have at it. I question empirical verification's ability to deal with certain ontological questions anyway. My point is every religion supposes that their god/gods/force/power's effects are made manifest in the reality we "seem" to encounter in the day to day. All I do is skip to the reality part. I exclude the supernatural. I deal with what is. If new information is provided to me via sense-experience, then gravy. That is, if a monkey with lazer eyes walks up and says, "I am God behold my power," I'll take that for what it is worth and contrast it with the information I already have on hand. Rock. This is what qualifies me as an atheist. I don't have to see proof that there aren't unicorns, not having any evidence to support their existence is enough to not believe in them. Furthermore, trying to argue with someone about an ontological question maybe makes you a zealot but not a religious one. So shut up about atheism being a religion, or science being a religion, or philosophy being a religion. Religion is a well defined term. These people might be annoying, they may even be wrong, but they are not religious.
Some people, me for example, thrive in situations where they are constantly tested and assessed. And I mean thrive as in retention, not just memorizing what's needed for an exam the night before. University isn't just about getting the degree, it's a chance (for me) to compare and discuss what is learned with other people under the careful tutelage of... wait, crap, I can do that on the interweb. I have wasted so much time!
Well said. Ozy is putting himself up for judgment because he is not a supervillain, the guy was trying to stave off a world war. Is it morally permissible to kill a few to save a lot, especially without the consent of the few - the greatest utilitarian moral dilemma facing the republic. I thought Comedian looked spot on and I love the Caligulaesque Ozy suit. Smooches.
The Discovery Institute is almost certainly completely fuckered though, and likely bigger idiots than you (which implies bigger idiots than me). Maybe we can help them together? Just kidding. I fucking hate you.
I for one welcome this less "fucking idiotic" overlord. Thank you for this post.
Can a technical solution exist that will simultaneously stop the illegal pirating of movies and TV shows (which would be good)
Whose a pirate? Prove it.
I for one welcome our Wonkavision utilizing overlords.
"A stretch, I know, but the only way out is through."
Slashdot Mirror
I wish there was a mod -1 Wet Blanket.
Finally, tomacco!
This post has been purged of spoilers.
How else was he supposed to save **** from the **** with the **** and the **** to have him **** and **** with the other Spock? C'mon, you act like you've never seen a **** where the **** **** the ****. Jeez...
Don't sue me bro!
Fixed it for you.
...a vain, paranoid demagogue, who knows that if his people ever come in contact with the outside world and realize that the rest of the world is mostly full of nice, reasonable people... they'll all rise up and murder him in his sleep.
Are you talking about Glen Beck?
--
A Free Market is only free for the people who can afford it.
You are a racist because you want less straw men. And what about straw women? Sigh, you logically proper folk always be taking our women.
Crap that wasn't supposed to post anonymously.
I throw out a topically appropriate Adam Sandler quote and get Flamebaited!? Who are these mods? Informative? That guy didn't make a single substantive claim anywhere in that mess of an argument. He just shouted things and insulted stuff. This place is losing its cred and fast.
I just wasted my time reading that post and what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Right. I forgot that the definition of serious consequences includes killing 100,000 civilians. And lying to the public. And being a total bag of knobs.
--
"I owned slaves and had several illegitimate children I never took responsibility for." - Ben Franklin
This makes me wish I could mod the mods "funny".
I think what you are referring to is Plato's "forms". The objects we encounter merely participate in the -ness of the perfect forms which reside in what is playfully (or pejoratively) called Plato's Heaven. So my chair is a chair because it has the property "chairness", that is, there is a perfect chair that resides outside of our perceptual reality that lends its form to my chair. It is a bit more detailed but that is the gist. Aristotle was right to abandon it.
And as for the comments below about the distinction between philosophy and physics, both Descartes and Newton were considered philosophers. Most contemporary philosophy, though, relies heavily on the natural sciences to support or confute philosophical theories. Philosophy of mind works with cognitive science, philosophy of language with various natural sciences, and metaphysics with chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc... I prefer Wittgenstein's definition of philosophy from the Tractatus. He calls philosophy an "activity" that is meant to sharpen and hone the critical thinking necessary in scientific inquiry. There are many cases where philosophical theories have been supported by scientific investigation just as many have been thrown out because certain scientific hypotheses do not support them.
Off Topic - for any of you new to moderating; do it responsibly or don't do it at all. Wasting mod points is not like wasting precious resources on inefficient means of transferring power from one source to another, nor is it like wasting time discussing such silly, excessive technology. :)
So that's where Macgyver went! I always new he could do better than the Phoenix foundation. I hear he's also developing a paperclip hypodermic.
I believe the geocentric model was based on some story about god stopping the sun in the sky to help some biblical hero's army win some war. It was thought that because god stopped the sun revolving around the Earth and not the earth's revolution yaddayaddaya... Earth is the center of everything. I have bored myself...
Religion - n 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. It is not a "code of behavior," that is a little branch of philosophy called ethics. And I said "possibility for empirical verification." I also said "reality as is." If you posit things/objects/events/beings - the burden of proof is on you. And it isn't about believing or not believing in God, it's about such beliefs being arbitrary. They have nothing to do with my life or reality as is. Except when people's beliefs influence cultural/political systems. And that is a rant for another day. My so called "code of faith" is built up from the information I have received "since birth." If that makes me an agnostic, fine, have fun with your bullshit labels. I don't particularly care either way. "True agnostic", does that label make you feel better about yourself, are you defined and complete. "Oh you atheists try to include us, oh no stay away!" All labels change, it is the nature of our culture; paradigms shift. I am an atheist until proven agnostic, I don't care about the modality involved in supernatural positing. When it is revealed, I'll say hey, cool, I guess this is the way it is. Until such a time, shut up and stop throwing labels around. Atheist, agnostic, I don't care what you call me, as long as it's not "religious."
I don't care if you believe that the world was created by an 8 year-old with an ice-cream stain on his Osh-Kosh-B'gosh overalls, positing a supernatural entity or entities or force or power or what have you, that doesn't even have the remote possibility of being empirically verified, as the creator/first cause of the universe and building an ideological framework around it qualifies a religion. Fine, cool, have at it. I question empirical verification's ability to deal with certain ontological questions anyway. My point is every religion supposes that their god/gods/force/power's effects are made manifest in the reality we "seem" to encounter in the day to day. All I do is skip to the reality part. I exclude the supernatural. I deal with what is. If new information is provided to me via sense-experience, then gravy. That is, if a monkey with lazer eyes walks up and says, "I am God behold my power," I'll take that for what it is worth and contrast it with the information I already have on hand. Rock. This is what qualifies me as an atheist. I don't have to see proof that there aren't unicorns, not having any evidence to support their existence is enough to not believe in them. Furthermore, trying to argue with someone about an ontological question maybe makes you a zealot but not a religious one. So shut up about atheism being a religion, or science being a religion, or philosophy being a religion. Religion is a well defined term. These people might be annoying, they may even be wrong, but they are not religious.
So this is what deus ex machina means.
Spring is in the air! Higgs bosons everywherrrrrrrre!
These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along. Move along.
Some people, me for example, thrive in situations where they are constantly tested and assessed. And I mean thrive as in retention, not just memorizing what's needed for an exam the night before. University isn't just about getting the degree, it's a chance (for me) to compare and discuss what is learned with other people under the careful tutelage of... wait, crap, I can do that on the interweb. I have wasted so much time!
Man, I can't stand God. He has such a Jack-complex lately.
Well said. Ozy is putting himself up for judgment because he is not a supervillain, the guy was trying to stave off a world war. Is it morally permissible to kill a few to save a lot, especially without the consent of the few - the greatest utilitarian moral dilemma facing the republic. I thought Comedian looked spot on and I love the Caligulaesque Ozy suit. Smooches.
The Discovery Institute is almost certainly completely fuckered though, and likely bigger idiots than you (which implies bigger idiots than me). Maybe we can help them together? Just kidding. I fucking hate you.
I for one welcome this less "fucking idiotic" overlord. Thank you for this post.
Can a technical solution exist that will simultaneously stop the illegal pirating of movies and TV shows (which would be good) Whose a pirate? Prove it. I for one welcome our Wonkavision utilizing overlords. "A stretch, I know, but the only way out is through."