By that same notion, I don't really choose a religion. I have a certain connection with God, I feel it, it's there, it predates even the notion of religion in my life. I can only assume it would be the same for someone being gay or straight or bi - they choose their behavior, but the preference itself is sort of built in.
Dear Mr. Born with Religious Inklings,
Thank you! You admit you can't help being religious, now please talk your fellow churchgoers into admitting that I can't help not being religious and tell them they're wasting their time trying to recruit^H^Hconvert^H^Hsave me...
Thank you in advance, Happy Apathetic Agnostic
P.S. Recent evidence suggests you may actually be correct, scientifically speaking.
Agnostics are halfies. They have one foot in the door, one foot out the door. They are "There is a god but I don't know who it is". At least people in organized religion take a stance and say my god could kick your gods ass.
Guess you didn't read my earlier reply... Agnostics aren't "there is a god but I don't know who it is." Agnostics are "sure, it's possible, it's also possible god doesn't exist. What matters is that it's impossible for us to know." To take this one step further, an apathetic agnostic says "I don't know, I can't know, and I don't care. There's absolutely no evidence at all on this subject, and it doesn't matter one bit. Let me repeat myself: I don't care". And that's me. My issue is with the way people think, and the errors I perceive in their logic. Their seeming ability to actually perform doublethink on religious matters. If you replace every "jesus" in the bible with "alien" you're a fucking lunatic? How is it any different? How can all people be right even though everyone has a different set of opinions?
Well if he can't affect any change in the world, and we can't detect that he's there, the big question is why does it matter? If there is a god and he's all knowing and allmighty, yet he won't interfere with us, and no where we have looked in the universe has shown him to exist, and physics itself shows that he couldn't exist, then does it really matter if you believe or not? In the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter if god exists or not, the same way it doesn't really matter if that alien exists because either way we are unchanged.
Uhh, I thought you said you weren't an agnostic? Well, I'm glad you've switched over to the logical side...
But yeah, I agree with the rest. A lot of people have been killed in the name of religion, and I don't think it's a useful tool for getting people to do the "right" thing.
I put line breaks in while I'm typing it and slashdot takes em out. I had hoped that I would get less twits with nothing to say and a hard on for line breaks.
Try selecting the "plain old text" option and just hitting enter to start a new line. I think it's evident from my other posts that I'm not just "a twit with nothing to say", and I'm obviously willing to help you with your line break problem. You sound more and more like a stupid fundie, though...
However, I asked why belief in god(s) would make one illogical, and since you fail to give any logical (or other kind, for that matter) proof against the existance of god(s), you fail to answer that question.
Because there is no real evidence of any sort FOR the existence of a god, as Bertrand russel said "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." The fact that you start at Point A and arrive at Point D is, by definition, illogical, because there was no reason to go there, no evidence suggesting you had to, and, in reality, no reason to believe the point even exists. I hope that helps to answer your question about why it's illogical. If you want some good, well-written logical arguments on the matter please read The End of Pascal's Wager and Is God an Accident?.
As to how these views are evidence of critical thinking, it's a great indicator of critical thinking when people can independently arrive at a logical conclusion despite all of the threats against them by society, religious groups, and simply the large number of people who disagree with them. The fact that it's logical is well-outlined in the above two articles, and, I think, evident to anyone who doesn't believe in fairies.
A somewhat-good example of the difference between logical thinking and religious thinking:
Scenario A: A man sees an apple fall from a tree, determines God must have done it, and decides to make his children wear nothing but white cotton to please God.
Scenario B: A man sees an apple fall from a tree, determines Gravity must have done it, and decides to wear a hard hat whenever sitting below tall trees.
In Scenario A, the man takes a seemingly random action and uses it to derive a logical impossibility (all-knowing, all-powerful being which prefers to communicate through omens) and takes a further illogical step of determining that this implies anything. Simply seeing a natural event and assigning it a supernatural meaning is illogical! You don't say "I got herpes because jesus hates me", you say "I got herpes because I fucked that skanky girl when I was in Tijuana".
In Scenario B, on the other hand, the man makes a logical (and correct) hypothesis about gravity pulling the apple towards the ground. He creates a realistic way to protect himself from being harmed.
If you can't see the difference between logic and, well, illogic, I'm sorry, but it helps prove the GP's point as well as mine. Studies have shown that partisans actually can't see the logic in perfectly logical statements from their "opposition", and the same is true of religion. Most religions have logical inconsistincies, or illogical consistencies, but most believers are unable to recognize them as such. Logic can be defined as "valid reasoning", and, despite your desire to exclude whether or not you're correct from the decision about whether or not you're logical, it is a perfectly valid test.
But I think it's easier to define faith:
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
-H. L. Mencken
Despite your new-found atheism, you still sound like a damned fundie. On top of not being able to use proper line breaks, you don't know what an agnostic is but you're making claims about it. I think hard atheists are ignorant of the fact that, despite the evidence for god being vacuous at best, there is no reason or evidence to actively believe that there is no god anywhere. Hence, some of us, who don't claim to know everything, have chosen to be soft atheists or agnostics. It's not a too-scared-to-blasphem version of atheism. Just to prove myself, fuck Zeus, Hera, Allah, God, and the Easter Bunny!
Also, please realize that, even if you ARE Ellen Johnson, you still don't speak for all atheists.
While it is scary that Texas has that in their constituion, I take solitude in the "no idiot shall vote" in New Jersey's constitution...
What?! I'd volunteer for this procedure! Every time you're with a woman, you're better and better at it, but it's your first time with her (mentally). Every time you play ping pong or something you've got this huge ego because of your natural talents when playing it your first time. I'll be it's a hell of a defense in court AND against creditors. I really can't see the down side. I mean, sure, you can't learn new facts or remember people, but YOU don't KNOW that! I'll take it!
This reminds me of the days when a lobotomy was believed to cure bad behavior. Much in the same way that killing someone outright would stop their bad behavior.
Much in the same way that circumcision was thought to reduce sexual misconduct, masutrbation, and, later, disease? Oh, wait, most of the west still believes that one, too. I think the difference, though, is that a lobotomy actually DOES cure bad behavior, we just found better ways of doing it. So maybe I'm off a bit in this post...
There is no similar "Dirty Thirty" list for extreme right-wing professors.
Of course not. I guess you've never been to UCLA. They'd be hard-pressed to find two (outside of the four ROTC professors/assistant professors) at the school.
I don't know about you, but I've sat in classes where the teacher was more concerned about us understanding why feminism was so important, then gone to another class where the teacher spent the whole class explaining the virtues of socialism. Many I've met feel it's their duty to train/teach their students what to think instead of how to think (substituting "research" and "read" and "believe" for "think" also holds true).
-- END IMPORTANT PART OF THE POST --
Now, in typical LEFTIST fashion, I'll probably be accused of being an "idiot christian neo-con", so I'll defend myself ahead of time. My beliefs:
Gay marriage? Just as bad as straight marriage
War? Always bad, sometimes the better alternative
Marijuana/Drugs? Why the FUCK is prohibition still in effect?!
Abortion? Murder once it [the baby] becomes conscious and self-aware, even if it's 2 months after birth. I don't know enough about the issue to say when that is.
HARM Principle? All for it
Feminism? Bullshit
Political Correctness? Bullshit, too
Affirmative Action? Piled Higher and Deeper
Now I'd consider myself to be fairly logical and attempt to ignore my own biases, but it seems I can't discuss any of these topics reasonably with the majority of profs and undergrads alike. They're so entrenched in their own ideas that they simply write mine off as moronic, idiotic, and uneducated, regardless of actual IQ scores or facts/logic supporting me.
I constantly ask myself why so many of the people I know have turned out this way, and there's a startling correlation: All of my friends who have turned extreme leftist have done so during college (UCLA, UCSC and UCSD in particular), and many have remained this way for at least a few years after graduation. They constantly quote their professors when arguing ridiculous viewpoints (e.g. people who watch pornography are more likely to rape women), and seem completely incapable of hearing the opposition's response to such claims (e.g. How many people who enjoy raping women wouldn't watch porn?). This does raise questions about the quality of modern american education as well as the content.
I am very concerned that it has turned from education, with a focus on logic and scienctific thought, to political activism where people sit around reading books that support their own pre-arrived conclusions. Keep in mind that I'm not just attacking leftists here, I feel the same way about the indoctrination that goes on in religious schools, military academies, and some of the more conservative universities, particularly the entire state of Kansas.
Then you clearly didn't *need* the credit card to *pay* for the emergency. The context of this discussion was over folks who carry a balance month to month, which you just said you didn't. Yes, credit cards are convenient. If at all possible, pay them off every month. If that's not possible, do what you need to do, but recognize that it's a bad, bad, bad situation. Too many people think it's just a normal part of life to revolve a balance month to month.
But I needed a credit card to pay for it, because it was the only way I could pay that day. Accessibility is a huge issue. I agree with everything you said, I was just pointing out that having a credit card for emergencies can be really useful, and the GP had stated "if you need credit cards to pay for emergencies, you have a whole different set of problems that have nothing to do with credit card rates."
Credit cards are very useful tools. When I was younger and hardly had any savings credit cards bailed me out a few times because I couldn't budget properly and would be out of gas money before payday. They're great for businesses/governments to send their employees to conferences, meetings, etc. since they're much easier to use than company checks and make life easier for accounting. And I'll always carry one with a decent credit limit just in case something like my christmas emergency comes up again but for some reason I don't have access to my other accounts.
I agree with what you said, though. It's a huge poblem when the average american household has 15 credit cards and $7,000 in revolving (high interest) debt, although I guess it's representative of the current federal budget and mentality of most of the population...
It is like saying that stealing a candy bar is right, as long as you tell all your friends how good it is so they buy it.
Not at all. It's like saying you made your own candy bar at home after seeing the candy bar your friend purchased in the store. Loss of a possible sale != actually STEALING something from somebody. In the former, a company fails to make a profit they had hoped to make. In the latter, a company loses physical posession of something which cost them money to produce, ship, design, and stock.
To reiterate, we're talking actual losses versus perceived, theoretical "losses".
Imagine if I were to whistle at an attractive prostitute, which would lead her to believe she's going to make a sale. Hell, I even ogle her! But then I go home and sleep with my girlfriend. Should the prostitue sue me? Sure, if I raped her or didn't pay her for it, but if I never slept with her? What if I went home and masturbated to her image?
Speaking of which, if you promise to pay a prostitute, but don't, what crime is it, exactly? Assuming prostitution is legal, of course...
And if you need credit cards to pay for emergencies, you have a whole different set of problems that have nothing to do with credit card rates.
I'd disagree. I'm guessing you're referring to keeping a decent savings aside for emergencies, but unless you have a credit card AND checks tied to that account, it doesn't always work as well. A good example was that, this christmas I was overseas when I found out a family member was in the hospital in terminal condition. Just a week before christmas I had to get a ticket to see her before she passed away, and this cost over $2,000. I don't keep that much money in my checking account because it's a waste (~4% interest in savings), and the place I was purchasing the ticket from didn't even accept checks. Luckily I had my credit card (for emergencies) and was on a plane within 24 hours. I couldn't transfer the money from my savings account fast enough, but I certainly did before the credit card company's bill came.
No interest charged to me. 1.25% cash back from the credit card company. Add that VISA travel insurance (rental car insurance, etc.) that comes with it and it was a great deal for me. I'd definitely do it again if I had to.
I agreed with you until you said "or 2001-12-09 (or 2001-09-12)". Without already knowing that we're taling about the 12th of September, I'd have no idea if you were talking about december or september unless you gave me a contextual clue.
Next to stardate, 12 Sep 01 is clearly the best format. 2001-09-12 is just arbitrarily repositioning them so it's YEAR-MONTH-DAY instead of MONTH/DAY/YEAR(OPTIONAL).
Are there any sources for this, or are you using some folk knowledge with no evidence behind it? I did a fairly length search of PubMed for evidence even tangentially related to human multitasking and could find nothing on it.
You're not looking hard enough. Unfortunately I can't find the studies on it right now, but I do remember seeing multiple studies on the issue. I think it was even one of the dupes on slashdot a couple of years back.
I was about to tell the same story. My brother went through exactly the same thing. If I remember right, it took about four years for a slot to open up for them to hire a white male. He's glad he waited though; he certainly loves his job.
I was also angered at his claim about having a picture of a disgusting toilet seat, then I realized he was talking about his filthy, disgusting fucking keyboard.
Reasons not to masturbate within 1 foot of your keyboard: Reason #45: A picture of your shedded, bloody pubic hairs may end up on slashdot.
You kind of answer your own question... The point is that in a simulation you can do the stuff you wouldn't normally do...
...Or to get really, really good at it and explore all the possibilities to prepare you for actually doing something.
I wouldn't mind having a perfect model of the city, with all the police departments and response times correctly entered, in a detailed map so I could practice robbing the bank over and over and try to find the perfect timing and method of escape.
Last I checked Marriage wasn't a right in the US, it is a privaledge granted by society...
I'm glad you told me! I've been looking to outlaw, erg, revoke the priviledge of black men marrying white women. It offends me, and they haven't earned that priviledge!
What's the big deal with duplicates anyhow? If someone didn't see it yesterday, they'll see it now, and if someone _did_ see it yesterday; they don't have to RTFA, ya know?
Good point. Why does the Los Angeles Times put all that effort into writing a NEW newspaper every day? They should just change the date. If somebody has already read the articles, they can just skip them. If they missed them, then they can go ahead and read it! It's like a second chance. Forever!
.. and if some doomsday scenario starts there'll be some signs so it's still possible to stock up supplies. Not that I wake up tomorrow morning and suddenly hear on the radio that country X started nuking country Y..
Judging by the Hurricane Effect (so coined by me), you have about three days from the date of the announcement until the date people actually go to the store and stock up on supplies. If you simply head to the store immediately upon hearing the world is going to end, you'll be able to buy everything you need. Don't forget to stop for beer on your way home!
Re:that's right boys, stick your heads in the sand
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 1
Too bad all those nice paintings and poems will go with us though.
Yeah, Dogs Playing Poker and that infamous Man from Nantucket, such a loss.:P
The thing which scared me most was that it seems a lot of people are convinced the end of the world is coming soon and they're preparing for it..
The thing that scares me most is that, for thousands of years, people have honestly believed that the world was going to end in their lifetimes, yet every new generation continues to believe the world will end in their time.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mr. Born with Religious Inklings,
Thank you! You admit you can't help being religious, now please talk your fellow churchgoers into admitting that I can't help not being religious and tell them they're wasting their time trying to recruit^H^Hconvert^H^Hsave me...
Thank you in advance,
Happy Apathetic Agnostic
P.S. Recent evidence suggests you may actually be correct, scientifically speaking.
Guess you didn't read my earlier reply... Agnostics aren't "there is a god but I don't know who it is." Agnostics are "sure, it's possible, it's also possible god doesn't exist. What matters is that it's impossible for us to know." To take this one step further, an apathetic agnostic says "I don't know, I can't know, and I don't care. There's absolutely no evidence at all on this subject, and it doesn't matter one bit. Let me repeat myself: I don't care". And that's me. My issue is with the way people think, and the errors I perceive in their logic. Their seeming ability to actually perform doublethink on religious matters. If you replace every "jesus" in the bible with "alien" you're a fucking lunatic? How is it any different? How can all people be right even though everyone has a different set of opinions?
Uhh, I thought you said you weren't an agnostic? Well, I'm glad you've switched over to the logical side...
But yeah, I agree with the rest. A lot of people have been killed in the name of religion, and I don't think it's a useful tool for getting people to do the "right" thing.
Try selecting the "plain old text" option and just hitting enter to start a new line. I think it's evident from my other posts that I'm not just "a twit with nothing to say", and I'm obviously willing to help you with your line break problem. You sound more and more like a stupid fundie, though...
Because there is no real evidence of any sort FOR the existence of a god, as Bertrand russel said "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." The fact that you start at Point A and arrive at Point D is, by definition, illogical, because there was no reason to go there, no evidence suggesting you had to, and, in reality, no reason to believe the point even exists. I hope that helps to answer your question about why it's illogical. If you want some good, well-written logical arguments on the matter please read The End of Pascal's Wager and Is God an Accident?.
As to how these views are evidence of critical thinking, it's a great indicator of critical thinking when people can independently arrive at a logical conclusion despite all of the threats against them by society, religious groups, and simply the large number of people who disagree with them. The fact that it's logical is well-outlined in the above two articles, and, I think, evident to anyone who doesn't believe in fairies.
A somewhat-good example of the difference between logical thinking and religious thinking:
Scenario A: A man sees an apple fall from a tree, determines God must have done it, and decides to make his children wear nothing but white cotton to please God.
Scenario B: A man sees an apple fall from a tree, determines Gravity must have done it, and decides to wear a hard hat whenever sitting below tall trees.
In Scenario A, the man takes a seemingly random action and uses it to derive a logical impossibility (all-knowing, all-powerful being which prefers to communicate through omens) and takes a further illogical step of determining that this implies anything. Simply seeing a natural event and assigning it a supernatural meaning is illogical! You don't say "I got herpes because jesus hates me", you say "I got herpes because I fucked that skanky girl when I was in Tijuana".
In Scenario B, on the other hand, the man makes a logical (and correct) hypothesis about gravity pulling the apple towards the ground. He creates a realistic way to protect himself from being harmed.
If you can't see the difference between logic and, well, illogic, I'm sorry, but it helps prove the GP's point as well as mine. Studies have shown that partisans actually can't see the logic in perfectly logical statements from their "opposition", and the same is true of religion. Most religions have logical inconsistincies, or illogical consistencies, but most believers are unable to recognize them as such. Logic can be defined as "valid reasoning", and, despite your desire to exclude whether or not you're correct from the decision about whether or not you're logical, it is a perfectly valid test.
But I think it's easier to define faith:
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
-H. L. Mencken
Despite your new-found atheism, you still sound like a damned fundie. On top of not being able to use proper line breaks, you don't know what an agnostic is but you're making claims about it. I think hard atheists are ignorant of the fact that, despite the evidence for god being vacuous at best, there is no reason or evidence to actively believe that there is no god anywhere. Hence, some of us, who don't claim to know everything, have chosen to be soft atheists or agnostics. It's not a too-scared-to-blasphem version of atheism. Just to prove myself, fuck Zeus, Hera, Allah, God, and the Easter Bunny!
Also, please realize that, even if you ARE Ellen Johnson, you still don't speak for all atheists.
While it is scary that Texas has that in their constituion, I take solitude in the "no idiot shall vote" in New Jersey's constitution...
What?! I'd volunteer for this procedure! Every time you're with a woman, you're better and better at it, but it's your first time with her (mentally). Every time you play ping pong or something you've got this huge ego because of your natural talents when playing it your first time. I'll be it's a hell of a defense in court AND against creditors. I really can't see the down side. I mean, sure, you can't learn new facts or remember people, but YOU don't KNOW that! I'll take it!
Much in the same way that circumcision was thought to reduce sexual misconduct, masutrbation, and, later, disease? Oh, wait, most of the west still believes that one, too. I think the difference, though, is that a lobotomy actually DOES cure bad behavior, we just found better ways of doing it. So maybe I'm off a bit in this post...
Of course not. I guess you've never been to UCLA. They'd be hard-pressed to find two (outside of the four ROTC professors/assistant professors) at the school.
I don't know about you, but I've sat in classes where the teacher was more concerned about us understanding why feminism was so important, then gone to another class where the teacher spent the whole class explaining the virtues of socialism. Many I've met feel it's their duty to train/teach their students what to think instead of how to think (substituting "research" and "read" and "believe" for "think" also holds true).
-- END IMPORTANT PART OF THE POST --
Now, in typical LEFTIST fashion, I'll probably be accused of being an "idiot christian neo-con", so I'll defend myself ahead of time. My beliefs:
Now I'd consider myself to be fairly logical and attempt to ignore my own biases, but it seems I can't discuss any of these topics reasonably with the majority of profs and undergrads alike. They're so entrenched in their own ideas that they simply write mine off as moronic, idiotic, and uneducated, regardless of actual IQ scores or facts/logic supporting me.
I constantly ask myself why so many of the people I know have turned out this way, and there's a startling correlation: All of my friends who have turned extreme leftist have done so during college (UCLA, UCSC and UCSD in particular), and many have remained this way for at least a few years after graduation. They constantly quote their professors when arguing ridiculous viewpoints (e.g. people who watch pornography are more likely to rape women), and seem completely incapable of hearing the opposition's response to such claims (e.g. How many people who enjoy raping women wouldn't watch porn?). This does raise questions about the quality of modern american education as well as the content.
I am very concerned that it has turned from education, with a focus on logic and scienctific thought, to political activism where people sit around reading books that support their own pre-arrived conclusions. Keep in mind that I'm not just attacking leftists here, I feel the same way about the indoctrination that goes on in religious schools, military academies, and some of the more conservative universities, particularly the entire state of Kansas.
But I needed a credit card to pay for it, because it was the only way I could pay that day. Accessibility is a huge issue. I agree with everything you said, I was just pointing out that having a credit card for emergencies can be really useful, and the GP had stated "if you need credit cards to pay for emergencies, you have a whole different set of problems that have nothing to do with credit card rates."
Credit cards are very useful tools. When I was younger and hardly had any savings credit cards bailed me out a few times because I couldn't budget properly and would be out of gas money before payday. They're great for businesses/governments to send their employees to conferences, meetings, etc. since they're much easier to use than company checks and make life easier for accounting. And I'll always carry one with a decent credit limit just in case something like my christmas emergency comes up again but for some reason I don't have access to my other accounts.
I agree with what you said, though. It's a huge poblem when the average american household has 15 credit cards and $7,000 in revolving (high interest) debt, although I guess it's representative of the current federal budget and mentality of most of the population...
Not at all. It's like saying you made your own candy bar at home after seeing the candy bar your friend purchased in the store. Loss of a possible sale != actually STEALING something from somebody. In the former, a company fails to make a profit they had hoped to make. In the latter, a company loses physical posession of something which cost them money to produce, ship, design, and stock.
To reiterate, we're talking actual losses versus perceived, theoretical "losses".
Imagine if I were to whistle at an attractive prostitute, which would lead her to believe she's going to make a sale. Hell, I even ogle her! But then I go home and sleep with my girlfriend. Should the prostitue sue me? Sure, if I raped her or didn't pay her for it, but if I never slept with her? What if I went home and masturbated to her image?
Speaking of which, if you promise to pay a prostitute, but don't, what crime is it, exactly? Assuming prostitution is legal, of course...
I'd disagree. I'm guessing you're referring to keeping a decent savings aside for emergencies, but unless you have a credit card AND checks tied to that account, it doesn't always work as well. A good example was that, this christmas I was overseas when I found out a family member was in the hospital in terminal condition. Just a week before christmas I had to get a ticket to see her before she passed away, and this cost over $2,000. I don't keep that much money in my checking account because it's a waste (~4% interest in savings), and the place I was purchasing the ticket from didn't even accept checks. Luckily I had my credit card (for emergencies) and was on a plane within 24 hours. I couldn't transfer the money from my savings account fast enough, but I certainly did before the credit card company's bill came.
No interest charged to me. 1.25% cash back from the credit card company. Add that VISA travel insurance (rental car insurance, etc.) that comes with it and it was a great deal for me. I'd definitely do it again if I had to.
I agreed with you until you said "or 2001-12-09 (or 2001-09-12)". Without already knowing that we're taling about the 12th of September, I'd have no idea if you were talking about december or september unless you gave me a contextual clue.
Next to stardate, 12 Sep 01 is clearly the best format. 2001-09-12 is just arbitrarily repositioning them so it's YEAR-MONTH-DAY instead of MONTH/DAY/YEAR(OPTIONAL).
Sorry, I meant to say "to practice picking up women". I wouldn't mind having an attractive bank-robbing cohort, though!
You're not looking hard enough. Unfortunately I can't find the studies on it right now, but I do remember seeing multiple studies on the issue. I think it was even one of the dupes on slashdot a couple of years back.
Of course I did find this older article which says that there is no definitive correlation in humans...
SHHH! Quiet! This is slashdot. They don't know yet!
I was about to tell the same story. My brother went through exactly the same thing. If I remember right, it took about four years for a slot to open up for them to hire a white male. He's glad he waited though; he certainly loves his job.
I was also angered at his claim about having a picture of a disgusting toilet seat, then I realized he was talking about his filthy, disgusting fucking keyboard.
Reasons not to masturbate within 1 foot of your keyboard:
Reason #45: A picture of your shedded, bloody pubic hairs may end up on slashdot.
I wouldn't mind having a perfect model of the city, with all the police departments and response times correctly entered, in a detailed map so I could practice robbing the bank over and over and try to find the perfect timing and method of escape.
Plus it's a great way to pick up women!
If we were in a video game, somebody would sleep with me!
I'm glad you told me! I've been looking to outlaw, erg, revoke the priviledge of black men marrying white women. It offends me, and they haven't earned that priviledge!
Good? I'd say excellent
Good point. Why does the Los Angeles Times put all that effort into writing a NEW newspaper every day? They should just change the date. If somebody has already read the articles, they can just skip them. If they missed them, then they can go ahead and read it! It's like a second chance. Forever!
Judging by the Hurricane Effect (so coined by me), you have about three days from the date of the announcement until the date people actually go to the store and stock up on supplies. If you simply head to the store immediately upon hearing the world is going to end, you'll be able to buy everything you need. Don't forget to stop for beer on your way home!
Seconded. And don't forget Paris Hilton.
The thing that scares me most is that, for thousands of years, people have honestly believed that the world was going to end in their lifetimes, yet every new generation continues to believe the world will end in their time.
Wishfull thinking, perhaps?