All that said, I agree wholeheartedly that at the very least, any scheduled maintenance and commonly replaced parts (alternators, starters) should be easily done by a competent consumer. I had to change the fuel pump on my car a few years ago & found it a bit odd that the pump itself (mounted inside the gas tank, but accessible from a hidden door under the easily removed back seat) took about 15 minutes to change, but that the fuel filter (a scheduled maintenance item, I think you're supposed to change it every 30,000 miles) took well over an hour due to it's almost completely inaccessible location. This could easily have been moved just a few inches, and it would have been trivial to change, but as others have pointed out, that would have cut out some of the after sale service revenue...
Um, all the commonly replaced parts are easy to change.;) The only times I ever spent dealing with a stupid fuel filter was when either the tool I was using was a cheap little piece of shit that someone bought from Autozone and expected me to do professional work with or when it was a completely new fuel filter that I had never seen and it wasn't immediately obvious how to change it *and* I had inexperience working against me.
As for other parts, alternators, starters, and the like aren't supposed to be "commonly replaced parts". They're not supposed to fail either! Of course, they do, but the focus isn't on making *those* parts easily accessible for service. Make a choice, with cars getting smaller and requiring more devices (not just to be legally compliant, but also to have decent performance and all the other crap consumers demand), there just isn't nearly as much space under the hood as they're used to be.
That said, I've actually had a harder time fixing old cars than newer cars. With newer cars there's no weird mental block about removing parts to get at the broken one, it's generally accepted that you need to take some shit off that isn't broke to get to the broke part. With older cars, there's a strong emphasis on only removing the part that's broke because there's so much room to work with. It's bullshit, but it's what I've had to deal with.:(
The outer shell of my rear bumper is made of brittle plastic and painted to match the rest of the car body. If some poor bastard accidently rear-ends my car at 5 MPH, the bumber will have to be replaced ($400), and then a body-shop worker will have to carefully match the faded paint on the rest of the car when painting the new one ($350) and that's not even counting the lights and stuff. Also, if he hits me at anything over 15 MPH, the bumper will fail to absorb all the shock, causing damage to the body and running the repair bill into the thousands. All of our rates are higher because of cars like mine.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
There's a plastic bumper cover, yes indeedy. Then there's usually half an inch to a whole inch (sometimes more) of styrofoam. In a collision, that styrofoam will crush, absorbing kinetic energy and distributing it across the entire area of the bumper. Both the plastic cover and the styrofoam are one-use parts and are designed to be replaced after each collision.
Then, underneath all that, you typically find a regular steel bumper (although a bit lighter, thanks to the benefits of styrofoam) and--get this--shock absorbers.
Bumpers today work completely different than the ones put out 30 years ago. Bumpers today distribute the energy of the collision and absorb it in more places before it even gets to the frame. This allows car manufacturers to manufacture lighter "weaker" frames (unibodies, mostly), giving us better gas mileage, better performance, and generally cheaper cars (adjusted for inflation, of course, but I read recently that a $10k car today was actually less expensive than a $2k car in the '50s).
We've learned a lot about what actually happens in a collision.
Now let's take a look at my truck (and yes, truck frames haven't changed much). My truck is a '71 Chevy Custom 10 with trailer mirrors and a positrac rear end (that's what the "custom" means). It rolled off the dealer floor like this. It has two big-ass steel bumpers on the front and back, and they are bolted directly to the frame. So, in a collision, all of the kinetic energy that the truck must absorb must be absorbed in the frame. This makes the likelihood that even a small collision will cause more structural damage to my truck much higher than, say, my wife's 2001 Toyota Corolla, with the plastic bumper cover, styrofoam, and shock absorbers. Sure, it's more expensive to replace the bumber crap on her car than my truck, but in a *serious* collision, is it more expensive to fix her car or my truck? Probably my truck. IN fact, it's probably more expensive to fix my truck than it is to buy a brand new Toyota Corolla to replace her old one (it's a disposable car, let's face it).
So, now we get to the meat of the issue. The same wreck that bent my frame that would've probably totalled her car also probably saw her walking away from the wreck while I was being loaded into an ambulance. When it's all said and done, which wreck was more expensive?
Finally, there are laws in place that require cars manufactured to meet certain standards in a collision, and the 5 mph test is just one of them. The focus of the laws is to save lives, of course. There are numerous occasions where manufacturers have designed cars that are specifically designed to sacrifice itself to save the passengers (cab-forward design is a good one, the passenger compartment rises to the top of the wreck, more or less untouched, while the rest of the car buckles). If car manufacturers were to focus on the monetary damages to the car instead of the health and safety of the passengers, we'd see injuries skyrocketing (again) and the death toll rising. Instead we see both injuries and deaths falling while number of drivers are rising (this is based on a vague recollection of numbers I read a few years ago).
Of course, if money is more important to you than your fucking ass living through a wreck, feel free to go pick up an older car that matches your safety requirements. Mind you, that's no guarantee it'll cost less to fix, what with supply and demand and how it'll affect the price of body parts. Best thing to do is to just not get into a wreck in the first place.
I've noticed new markers being installed on the highways. The markers in the opposite lane illuminate red, your lane is white, and the sides are yellow. I noticed the ones in the opposite direction aren't always visible though. any idea if this is related?
Almost completely unrelated.
Markers are setup to show white on one side and red on the other, so if you're going the opposite direction down the lane you should see red all over, and if you're going the right direction you see white. The sides are yellow on both sides, but there's something about the yellow markers that's supposed to distinguish no-passing zones from passing zones, I just don't remember it right off hand. The reflectors are specially designed to only light up when hit from certain angles, generally. When you see the markers in the opposite lanes, it's usually due to ambiant lighting, not actual reflection. If you go over to the opposite lane, I just about guarantee you'll see the reflectors all light up, RED. Try it sometime on a very very low traffic road. (I discovered the red part of the reflectors in Waco once, accidentally turned down a one-way. Scary)
Blue markers indicate fire hydrants, and there's some other colors for other things, I think. Someone will probably google up a site with more information than I've given.;)
Oh yeah, in express lanes that have to go both directions, the markers are white on both sides, obviously.
Man, as much as the new movies suck, there are plenty of wonderful lines to quote. From your post:
"If I have no independant evidence of something, it doesn't exist."
"If it does not exist in our records, it does not exist."
I get sick of people asking "So you only believe that which you can see and hear and otherwise sense yourself?" The answer is obviously "no", because it would be impossible to function under such conditions. But the answer, "no", doesn't automatically mean I *have* to believe in God, which is usually the implication. If that's the case, there are many many things I can dream of that have no evidence to disprove their existence.
The most important question isn't "Is there a God?", it's "what does it matter?". If you like to be nice to people, and aren't looking for trouble, it doesn't matter one bit if there is or isn't a God.
What's wrong with more than three minutes? I mean, when you're working with yourself there's no reason to hurry usually....
You know, sometimes, yeah, great, stretch it out. Other times, it's even better to get it done as quickly as possible. But I was trying to indicate that if it *must* take 3 minutes or more, that indicates a lack of skill, not necessarily a desire for prolongment.
In my house, my wife and I are rarely able to claim more than one minute at a time, and in that minute we have to get undressed (enough, anyway), do the deed, clean up (if needed), and get dressed again. So, to do the deed, we both have to reach orgasm, generally speaking, in 30 seconds.
When my kids are all older, and we can leisurely screw our brains out again, I'm looking forward to some really hot sex.;)
In fact, recently, with the Bush administration, it's become "unpatriotic" and those who might have openly disagreed before keep quiet now.
That's scary. I suppose. Of course, there's only one way Bush can silence me.;)
It's interesting, I think, your point about most people that swear off religion come by their beliefs (or lack thereof) on their own. I've noticed that religion is losing ground like crazy in more intellectual/intelligent circles (no, intellectual != intelligent), but it continues to gain ground in other places. Since it's natural human development to tend towards becoming smarter, I'm not overly concerned about religion maintaining its grip on humanity. Quite the contrary, I'm finally happy to see that religion is losing ground altogether, albeit slowly, but the dominos are starting to fall. At the risk of making projections, I'm thinking that religion will lose dominance in another 2-3 generations, even if it maintains a majority in mindshare.
But it'll probably maintain a majority in mindshare for several more centuries at least.:( But the 20th century wasn't a total loss for us, since religion has taken huge hits.;)
Ok, try this on for size. Both partners reaching orgasm in 30 seconds or less. Does that indicate sexual prowess?;) Then take those 30 second or less orgasms and turn *that* into an all-nighter.
That's because your post didn't make any sense. I understand it only now after reading your response to the other guy's post, apparently saying the same thing.
Rule #1: If you don't want to get bumped for being offtopic, make sense.
Man, I can't *wait* for the movie to come out about this. The only thing I'm worried about (well, two things) are that it'll be one of them 4-hour marathon movies, and that Tom Cruise might wind up playing Darl. Personally, I'd like to see Danny Oldman playing Darl.;)
I just don't get the fascination with large breasts. You can't blame it on lack of breast feeding as a child - I spent my first six months in a state run orphanage so I *know* I was a bottle baby. Its been ten years since I dated someone who could fill more than a B cup and I don't feel like I'm missing out a bit...
Can you even titty-fuck a B cup? I've never dated anyone smaller than a D cup, and my wife is now in an F (I think, I'd have to check, but her boobs cycle depending on how much milk they have in them).
In any case, if you've never titty-fucked, then I wouldn't expect you to understand the fascination with big breasts.;)
Well, my karma stands as proof that you are talking through your ass.:) My flamebaiting posts in religious discussion typically find "5, Informative" or "5, Insightful".;)
Thank you! That was, by far, the best dialog between a stupid human and an omnipotent being. If Joseph Smith had translated those words instead of a bunch of books where every sentence starts with "And it came to pass", I'd have to be a Mormon.;)
Instead, Q is my God. So does that make me a Qist? Or a Qtian? OH, I know.
Heh, dude, that's not *my* logic. If it were my logic, it would be bulletproof and you'd have to bow to it. Or so I like to think.
We can explain the existance of man without having to resort to a creator.
Actually, we can't, completely. But resorting to a creator still doesn't get us all the way, either. But as you demonstrated, if you apply the logic properly, then you wind up in infinite recursion, and before you know it there isn't even room enough in the universe for all the gods to fit!
But who needs an explanation? Granted, I'd sure love to know all about that stuff, you know, how man came to be, and have it be certainty. But we don't have the technological capabilities to determine it, and we have to constantly (or at least occasionally) refine our working hypotheses to account for new discoveries. The new discoveries are not likely to end anytime soon, but do appear likely to ultimately disprove any God and leave out all possibilities of God. On the other hand, new discoveries might demonstrate that there *is* a God, but the primitive language of the Bible is completely inadequate to explain His Nature (i.e. God might be an extra-terrestrial civilization capable of cloning, terraforming, and planetbuilding. If that's true, 100% of the Bible can be revised to accurately explain this fact without actually changing it significantly from its primitive meaning).
Better, I think, to just say "I don't know, and I'm not a scientist, and it's not a pursuit of mine."
You could call any post that people might disagree with "flamebait". It's a stupid mod option.
Yeah yeah, obviously there are just a bunch of mods who, like you, don't know the meaning of the word "flamebait".
Flamebait is any post that is written with the sole purpose of inciting flames, i.e. making people mad enough to post back and flame you. A flame is a direct attack on someone, usually personal, and generally quite funny.
Just because you're an idiot who just got his first dialup connection yesterday doesn't mean the "-1, Flamebait" mod option is stupid.
And finally, this post was written with the intent of demonstrating flamebait. It contains useful information, on-topic in the sense that I replied to the poster's topic, and might be considered +1, Insightful, if it wasn't written to be inciteful instead.
Not to mention that Christianity, as far as I know, at least, was the original anti-competitive embrace and extend monopoly.;)
But if I were you, and I'm not, I wouldn't worry so much about offending people. Fuck 'em. Why is it concerned acceptable in modern society to preach about God, but questioning God is so offensive? Fuck that. Fuck God, for that matter. Fuck Jesus, fuck 'em all. Moses was a twerp, the Pharoah was just a pussy to give in to that guy (oh wait a minute, he never gave in, did he? Moses needed the power of God to save his people from the pharoah, didn't he?). Jesus is the role-model pothead: smoke too much, start believing you're the son of God, preach about peace and love. We had millions of 'em in the '60s and '70s, and those fuckers are still around, and they all look like Jesus. Jesus was just a psychedelic drug abusing bad smelling hippy. Fuck 'im. Who needs him?
I take the view that, having failed to find any convincing evidence for the existence of God, I must accept the null hypothesis - that God does not exist.
Man, that's just as bad as the religionist idea that there must be a God, because there's no convincing evidence that there isn't. You've just flipped the reasoning around. Granted, you've applied it in a more "correct" fashion, with more consistency, but the reasoning itself is still bad.
What is so wrong with just admitting "I don't know"? Why can't we all just admit our ignorance and move on? If there is a God, we'll know soon enough. If there's not, then it doesn't really matter much. In the meantime, there's as much proof against the existence of God as there is for the existence of God, so long as you don't get caught in the circular trap of God Proof.
Not to mention the timescale involved. Suppose we have evolved late enough that most habitable planets are no longer capable of supporting life, and the ones that are (or were) all look like Mars, now. Suppose that in the whole Universe there are 200 million intelligent, spacefaring civilizations, each with an average recorded lifespan of approximately 10,000 Earth years. Now, what is the likelihood that there is another intelligent, spacefaring civilization close enough for us to encounter it in the next 5,000 years of our average lifespan? Just in the current age of the Earth, there doesn't seem to be much chance, and the universe is HUGE, but 200 million civilizations is a *lot*. Still, it's very improbable that we'll ever see more than ruins, if there are even ruins left.
Alien life is a scientific possibility. What proof is there? We exist.
Direct from the mouth of a missionary (and through my hands and memory):
God is a scientific fact. What proof is there? I exist.
Yeah, there was more, but the basic circular reasoning is "I exist, therefore someone must've made me, he must be God, I'll worship him. How do I know he's god? Because he created me, otherwise I wouldn't exist. Therefore, the proof of God is that I exist"
Number of known gods in the universe: 0
Number of known civilizations in the universe: 1
You might want to amend your numbers slightly. According to the Bible, the number of known gods in the universe is 1. *IF* the bible is true, then there's as much proof of His Holy Penis as there is of our civilization, because *IF* the bible is true, our civilization is proof that His Holy Penis created us. Remember, the circular dependency involved here is quite acceptable, should it turn out to be true.
Unfortunately for you, you used the same reasoning to demonstrate the "scientific possibility" of extra-terrestrial life as is used to demonstrate the existence of God. Unfortunately for me, you're a fucking Anonymous Coward, and you're not likely to reply so I can properly flame you.
Women use words differenly than we do. Once you learn that, you'll get a lot more chicks.
I used to know a guy that used to hit on girls by saying "Let me hit 'dat!"
I think he's still a virgin.
Conversely, I used to have to carry a stick around, because when a chick asked me what I did, I told them I hung mufflers, or I fixed broke-ass cars, or something to that effect. Then I had to beat them with a stick, because it's more fun than wearing a wedding ring (and besides, the stick works better than the ring).
Slashdot Mirror
or lies, because if it doesn't agree with a Texan's view of the world, it is a lie)
Ooooo, what a lie! You're lying! You from New Mexico or something? Everybody there lies. And Washington state. You from WA?
No?
Liar. ;)
All that said, I agree wholeheartedly that at the very least, any scheduled maintenance and commonly replaced parts (alternators, starters) should be easily done by a competent consumer. I had to change the fuel pump on my car a few years ago & found it a bit odd that the pump itself (mounted inside the gas tank, but accessible from a hidden door under the easily removed back seat) took about 15 minutes to change, but that the fuel filter (a scheduled maintenance item, I think you're supposed to change it every 30,000 miles) took well over an hour due to it's almost completely inaccessible location. This could easily have been moved just a few inches, and it would have been trivial to change, but as others have pointed out, that would have cut out some of the after sale service revenue...
Um, all the commonly replaced parts are easy to change. ;) The only times I ever spent dealing with a stupid fuel filter was when either the tool I was using was a cheap little piece of shit that someone bought from Autozone and expected me to do professional work with or when it was a completely new fuel filter that I had never seen and it wasn't immediately obvious how to change it *and* I had inexperience working against me.
As for other parts, alternators, starters, and the like aren't supposed to be "commonly replaced parts". They're not supposed to fail either! Of course, they do, but the focus isn't on making *those* parts easily accessible for service. Make a choice, with cars getting smaller and requiring more devices (not just to be legally compliant, but also to have decent performance and all the other crap consumers demand), there just isn't nearly as much space under the hood as they're used to be.
That said, I've actually had a harder time fixing old cars than newer cars. With newer cars there's no weird mental block about removing parts to get at the broken one, it's generally accepted that you need to take some shit off that isn't broke to get to the broke part. With older cars, there's a strong emphasis on only removing the part that's broke because there's so much room to work with. It's bullshit, but it's what I've had to deal with. :(
The outer shell of my rear bumper is made of brittle plastic and painted to match the rest of the car body. If some poor bastard accidently rear-ends my car at 5 MPH, the bumber will have to be replaced ($400), and then a body-shop worker will have to carefully match the faded paint on the rest of the car when painting the new one ($350) and that's not even counting the lights and stuff. Also, if he hits me at anything over 15 MPH, the bumper will fail to absorb all the shock, causing damage to the body and running the repair bill into the thousands. All of our rates are higher because of cars like mine.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
There's a plastic bumper cover, yes indeedy. Then there's usually half an inch to a whole inch (sometimes more) of styrofoam. In a collision, that styrofoam will crush, absorbing kinetic energy and distributing it across the entire area of the bumper. Both the plastic cover and the styrofoam are one-use parts and are designed to be replaced after each collision.
Then, underneath all that, you typically find a regular steel bumper (although a bit lighter, thanks to the benefits of styrofoam) and--get this--shock absorbers.
Bumpers today work completely different than the ones put out 30 years ago. Bumpers today distribute the energy of the collision and absorb it in more places before it even gets to the frame. This allows car manufacturers to manufacture lighter "weaker" frames (unibodies, mostly), giving us better gas mileage, better performance, and generally cheaper cars (adjusted for inflation, of course, but I read recently that a $10k car today was actually less expensive than a $2k car in the '50s).
We've learned a lot about what actually happens in a collision.
Now let's take a look at my truck (and yes, truck frames haven't changed much). My truck is a '71 Chevy Custom 10 with trailer mirrors and a positrac rear end (that's what the "custom" means). It rolled off the dealer floor like this. It has two big-ass steel bumpers on the front and back, and they are bolted directly to the frame. So, in a collision, all of the kinetic energy that the truck must absorb must be absorbed in the frame. This makes the likelihood that even a small collision will cause more structural damage to my truck much higher than, say, my wife's 2001 Toyota Corolla, with the plastic bumper cover, styrofoam, and shock absorbers. Sure, it's more expensive to replace the bumber crap on her car than my truck, but in a *serious* collision, is it more expensive to fix her car or my truck? Probably my truck. IN fact, it's probably more expensive to fix my truck than it is to buy a brand new Toyota Corolla to replace her old one (it's a disposable car, let's face it).
So, now we get to the meat of the issue. The same wreck that bent my frame that would've probably totalled her car also probably saw her walking away from the wreck while I was being loaded into an ambulance. When it's all said and done, which wreck was more expensive?
Finally, there are laws in place that require cars manufactured to meet certain standards in a collision, and the 5 mph test is just one of them. The focus of the laws is to save lives, of course. There are numerous occasions where manufacturers have designed cars that are specifically designed to sacrifice itself to save the passengers (cab-forward design is a good one, the passenger compartment rises to the top of the wreck, more or less untouched, while the rest of the car buckles). If car manufacturers were to focus on the monetary damages to the car instead of the health and safety of the passengers, we'd see injuries skyrocketing (again) and the death toll rising. Instead we see both injuries and deaths falling while number of drivers are rising (this is based on a vague recollection of numbers I read a few years ago).
Of course, if money is more important to you than your fucking ass living through a wreck, feel free to go pick up an older car that matches your safety requirements. Mind you, that's no guarantee it'll cost less to fix, what with supply and demand and how it'll affect the price of body parts. Best thing to do is to just not get into a wreck in the first place.
I've noticed new markers being installed on the highways. The markers in the opposite lane illuminate red, your lane is white, and the sides are yellow. I noticed the ones in the opposite direction aren't always visible though. any idea if this is related?
Almost completely unrelated.
Markers are setup to show white on one side and red on the other, so if you're going the opposite direction down the lane you should see red all over, and if you're going the right direction you see white. The sides are yellow on both sides, but there's something about the yellow markers that's supposed to distinguish no-passing zones from passing zones, I just don't remember it right off hand. The reflectors are specially designed to only light up when hit from certain angles, generally. When you see the markers in the opposite lanes, it's usually due to ambiant lighting, not actual reflection. If you go over to the opposite lane, I just about guarantee you'll see the reflectors all light up, RED. Try it sometime on a very very low traffic road. (I discovered the red part of the reflectors in Waco once, accidentally turned down a one-way. Scary)
Blue markers indicate fire hydrants, and there's some other colors for other things, I think. Someone will probably google up a site with more information than I've given. ;)
Oh yeah, in express lanes that have to go both directions, the markers are white on both sides, obviously.
They're not trying to improve traffic safety. They're trying to maximize their traffic-ticket revenue.
Bottle Rockets, for this:
Schedule 19 on a special election
Got our money problems right in hand
Droppin' them limits like a hot potato
50 down to 30 oh man, oh man
From "Radar Gun" ;)
Nope. It indicates a man who loses control too quickly, and a woman who lies to her partner.
You mean you have to depend on your woman to *tell* you when she's had an orgasm? You can't sense her orgasm for yourself?
Man, as much as the new movies suck, there are plenty of wonderful lines to quote. From your post:
"If I have no independant evidence of something, it doesn't exist."
"If it does not exist in our records, it does not exist."
I get sick of people asking "So you only believe that which you can see and hear and otherwise sense yourself?" The answer is obviously "no", because it would be impossible to function under such conditions. But the answer, "no", doesn't automatically mean I *have* to believe in God, which is usually the implication. If that's the case, there are many many things I can dream of that have no evidence to disprove their existence.
The most important question isn't "Is there a God?", it's "what does it matter?". If you like to be nice to people, and aren't looking for trouble, it doesn't matter one bit if there is or isn't a God.
What's wrong with more than three minutes? I mean, when you're working with yourself there's no reason to hurry usually....
You know, sometimes, yeah, great, stretch it out. Other times, it's even better to get it done as quickly as possible. But I was trying to indicate that if it *must* take 3 minutes or more, that indicates a lack of skill, not necessarily a desire for prolongment.
In my house, my wife and I are rarely able to claim more than one minute at a time, and in that minute we have to get undressed (enough, anyway), do the deed, clean up (if needed), and get dressed again. So, to do the deed, we both have to reach orgasm, generally speaking, in 30 seconds.
When my kids are all older, and we can leisurely screw our brains out again, I'm looking forward to some really hot sex. ;)
In fact, recently, with the Bush administration, it's become "unpatriotic" and those who might have openly disagreed before keep quiet now.
That's scary. I suppose. Of course, there's only one way Bush can silence me. ;)
It's interesting, I think, your point about most people that swear off religion come by their beliefs (or lack thereof) on their own. I've noticed that religion is losing ground like crazy in more intellectual/intelligent circles (no, intellectual != intelligent), but it continues to gain ground in other places. Since it's natural human development to tend towards becoming smarter, I'm not overly concerned about religion maintaining its grip on humanity. Quite the contrary, I'm finally happy to see that religion is losing ground altogether, albeit slowly, but the dominos are starting to fall. At the risk of making projections, I'm thinking that religion will lose dominance in another 2-3 generations, even if it maintains a majority in mindshare.
But it'll probably maintain a majority in mindshare for several more centuries at least. :( But the 20th century wasn't a total loss for us, since religion has taken huge hits. ;)
Ok, try this on for size. Both partners reaching orgasm in 30 seconds or less. Does that indicate sexual prowess? ;) Then take those 30 second or less orgasms and turn *that* into an all-nighter.
My statement stands.
That's because your post didn't make any sense. I understand it only now after reading your response to the other guy's post, apparently saying the same thing.
Rule #1: If you don't want to get bumped for being offtopic, make sense.
Man, I can't *wait* for the movie to come out about this. The only thing I'm worried about (well, two things) are that it'll be one of them 4-hour marathon movies, and that Tom Cruise might wind up playing Darl. Personally, I'd like to see Danny Oldman playing Darl. ;)
like fish and fishes
Um, that's supposed to be "fish and fii"
I just don't get the fascination with large breasts. You can't blame it on lack of breast feeding as a child - I spent my first six months in a state run orphanage so I *know* I was a bottle baby. Its been ten years since I dated someone who could fill more than a B cup and I don't feel like I'm missing out a bit ...
Can you even titty-fuck a B cup? I've never dated anyone smaller than a D cup, and my wife is now in an F (I think, I'd have to check, but her boobs cycle depending on how much milk they have in them).
In any case, if you've never titty-fucked, then I wouldn't expect you to understand the fascination with big breasts. ;)
Oh come on, that's just pathetic. It takes me more than three minutes when I'm by myself!
I can't believe you're admitting your sexual incompetence so publicly.
Well, my karma stands as proof that you are talking through your ass. :) My flamebaiting posts in religious discussion typically find "5, Informative" or "5, Insightful". ;)
I never post anonymously.
Thank you! That was, by far, the best dialog between a stupid human and an omnipotent being. If Joseph Smith had translated those words instead of a bunch of books where every sentence starts with "And it came to pass", I'd have to be a Mormon. ;)
Instead, Q is my God. So does that make me a Qist? Or a Qtian? OH, I know.
I must be a Q-bert. ;)
Heh, dude, that's not *my* logic. If it were my logic, it would be bulletproof and you'd have to bow to it. Or so I like to think.
We can explain the existance of man without having to resort to a creator.
Actually, we can't, completely. But resorting to a creator still doesn't get us all the way, either. But as you demonstrated, if you apply the logic properly, then you wind up in infinite recursion, and before you know it there isn't even room enough in the universe for all the gods to fit!
But who needs an explanation? Granted, I'd sure love to know all about that stuff, you know, how man came to be, and have it be certainty. But we don't have the technological capabilities to determine it, and we have to constantly (or at least occasionally) refine our working hypotheses to account for new discoveries. The new discoveries are not likely to end anytime soon, but do appear likely to ultimately disprove any God and leave out all possibilities of God. On the other hand, new discoveries might demonstrate that there *is* a God, but the primitive language of the Bible is completely inadequate to explain His Nature (i.e. God might be an extra-terrestrial civilization capable of cloning, terraforming, and planetbuilding. If that's true, 100% of the Bible can be revised to accurately explain this fact without actually changing it significantly from its primitive meaning).
Better, I think, to just say "I don't know, and I'm not a scientist, and it's not a pursuit of mine."
You could call any post that people might disagree with "flamebait". It's a stupid mod option.
Yeah yeah, obviously there are just a bunch of mods who, like you, don't know the meaning of the word "flamebait".
Flamebait is any post that is written with the sole purpose of inciting flames, i.e. making people mad enough to post back and flame you. A flame is a direct attack on someone, usually personal, and generally quite funny.
Just because you're an idiot who just got his first dialup connection yesterday doesn't mean the "-1, Flamebait" mod option is stupid.
And finally, this post was written with the intent of demonstrating flamebait. It contains useful information, on-topic in the sense that I replied to the poster's topic, and might be considered +1, Insightful, if it wasn't written to be inciteful instead.
Not to mention that Christianity, as far as I know, at least, was the original anti-competitive embrace and extend monopoly. ;)
But if I were you, and I'm not, I wouldn't worry so much about offending people. Fuck 'em. Why is it concerned acceptable in modern society to preach about God, but questioning God is so offensive? Fuck that. Fuck God, for that matter. Fuck Jesus, fuck 'em all. Moses was a twerp, the Pharoah was just a pussy to give in to that guy (oh wait a minute, he never gave in, did he? Moses needed the power of God to save his people from the pharoah, didn't he?). Jesus is the role-model pothead: smoke too much, start believing you're the son of God, preach about peace and love. We had millions of 'em in the '60s and '70s, and those fuckers are still around, and they all look like Jesus. Jesus was just a psychedelic drug abusing bad smelling hippy. Fuck 'im. Who needs him?
And if this offends anybody, fuck off.
:)
I take the view that, having failed to find any convincing evidence for the existence of God, I must accept the null hypothesis - that God does not exist.
Man, that's just as bad as the religionist idea that there must be a God, because there's no convincing evidence that there isn't. You've just flipped the reasoning around. Granted, you've applied it in a more "correct" fashion, with more consistency, but the reasoning itself is still bad.
What is so wrong with just admitting "I don't know"? Why can't we all just admit our ignorance and move on? If there is a God, we'll know soon enough. If there's not, then it doesn't really matter much. In the meantime, there's as much proof against the existence of God as there is for the existence of God, so long as you don't get caught in the circular trap of God Proof.
Not to mention the timescale involved. Suppose we have evolved late enough that most habitable planets are no longer capable of supporting life, and the ones that are (or were) all look like Mars, now. Suppose that in the whole Universe there are 200 million intelligent, spacefaring civilizations, each with an average recorded lifespan of approximately 10,000 Earth years. Now, what is the likelihood that there is another intelligent, spacefaring civilization close enough for us to encounter it in the next 5,000 years of our average lifespan? Just in the current age of the Earth, there doesn't seem to be much chance, and the universe is HUGE, but 200 million civilizations is a *lot*. Still, it's very improbable that we'll ever see more than ruins, if there are even ruins left.
I can't believe this piece of junk got modded up.
Alien life is a scientific possibility. What proof is there? We exist.
Direct from the mouth of a missionary (and through my hands and memory):
God is a scientific fact. What proof is there? I exist.
Yeah, there was more, but the basic circular reasoning is "I exist, therefore someone must've made me, he must be God, I'll worship him. How do I know he's god? Because he created me, otherwise I wouldn't exist. Therefore, the proof of God is that I exist"
Number of known gods in the universe: 0
Number of known civilizations in the universe: 1
You might want to amend your numbers slightly. According to the Bible, the number of known gods in the universe is 1. *IF* the bible is true, then there's as much proof of His Holy Penis as there is of our civilization, because *IF* the bible is true, our civilization is proof that His Holy Penis created us. Remember, the circular dependency involved here is quite acceptable, should it turn out to be true.
Unfortunately for you, you used the same reasoning to demonstrate the "scientific possibility" of extra-terrestrial life as is used to demonstrate the existence of God. Unfortunately for me, you're a fucking Anonymous Coward , and you're not likely to reply so I can properly flame you.
Have a nice day!
You have never seen 'Return of the Jedi'?
You must be new here...
I don't know why this was modded as such, seeing's how these two statements are logically unrelated. Maybe those fascist star wars mods got it, eh?
Anyways, just move in close to the star destroyers and the Death Star won't be able to fire on us.
Women use words differenly than we do. Once you learn that, you'll get a lot more chicks.
I used to know a guy that used to hit on girls by saying "Let me hit 'dat!"
I think he's still a virgin.
Conversely, I used to have to carry a stick around, because when a chick asked me what I did, I told them I hung mufflers, or I fixed broke-ass cars, or something to that effect. Then I had to beat them with a stick, because it's more fun than wearing a wedding ring (and besides, the stick works better than the ring).