Well, it wasn't designed for it. No SDK, and most of the modding being done are exe hacks. So no, it is not moddable in the modern sense of the word. Not when compared to Unreal or Half-Life games.
Yeah. Not moddable at all. That's why there are no multiplayer mods, no full conversion mods, no new mission/location mods...oh wait, yes there are. Just because it isn't set up how *you* want for modding doesn't mean it's not moddable. The very existence of so many mods for it would indicate that it is moddable. Maybe not as much as you'd like, but still. Why would you compare GTA to two First-Person Shooters? It's not the same kind of game at all. Also, I would personally prefer the developers of games to put most of their time into making the actual game itself fun rather than releasing full suites of modder-friendly tools. I realize not everyone feels the same way. It's just my opinion. Great modders have historically made great mods regardless of the existence of first-party modding support.
Friend of mine said "at least they didn't show us some french guy in Paris: wearing a beret, baquette of bread under his arm, with a cigarette dangling from his frozen lips"
Dammit, now I have no reason to watch this thing. Guess I'll have to stay home Friday night and read/. instead.
As with so much of life, moderation is the key. Most times I find extremist positions dumb. I'm not saying we should all be in the exact middle of the road; just that the fringe is not usually the most rational place.
I was thinking I'd just hang a lifesized painting of someone else's house in front of my house . ..
My first thought was that Kia commercial. Make a false front for your house that looks totally crappy for when you're not home. Then, when you get home, look furtively around to make sure there's no vans or robbers nearby, and pull off the canvas to reveal your true house.
Actually, I worked on the Space Shuttle too. STS-111. Payloads. Can you believe it? You must be stalking me, you know so much.
I work in the automotive industry, for a tier 1 supplier. Our major customers are GM and Ford, and the automatic transmissions for pretty much every card within one of those two will be dependent on something I designed after MY08. Some will be dependent earlier. Neat, ain't it?
I can fly without mechanical aid. I can also predict the future. Once, I ate an entire anvil with just a little salt. Plus I'm good at everything. My major customers are Globochem and Omni Consumer Products (OCP). No, really.
Actually, I have worked on the design for SUVs; specifically, their transmissions. It's nice that you think that makes me cool.
I am a jerk, but I'm also right. It's part of what makes arguing with me frustrating.
Sure. I designed the Space Shuttle, you know. You're right about being a jerk, the rest of it, nah. Think what you wish, but just because something is used for one purpose which you see (as SUVs are sometimes used to commute) does not mean, logically, rationally, or otherwise, that that is the ONLY use to which it is put or even the MAIN use. Would you expect someone to buy a vehicle for each purpose? A pickup for when they need to carry around furniture, a car for when they need to carry a few friends around, a motorcycle for commuting, and an SUV for carrying families or people + luggage? Not everyone can afford to buy multiple vehicles, and if you regularly need the passenger/cargo capacity of an SUV, it's better to just buy one and use it for commuting *ALSO* than to buy it plus another vehicle. I realize that you think you know everything, but the fact that you cannot even understand this simple point tells me all I need to know about you. Just because you only see them during your commute does not mean that the rest of the time that vehicle is not in use, and just because you only see one person in them *right then* does not mean that only one person is ever in them. Get over yourself. Also, even if you *did* 'work on the design' for some SUV's transmission...that is a far cry from designing the SUV itself. You are teh dumb.
Everyone's different, and not everyone reacts the same way to anything. I know a guy who acts that way when he takes cold medicine, but I don't go around telling people not to take cold medicine.
I am the judge, when I sit in traffic for an hour, watching these SUVs in DOWNTOWN CHICAGO, with one person inside of them. SUVs are not designed to be commuter vehicles. Thus, I'm right. End of story.
Now you're not only all-seeing and all-knowing, you also designed SUVs...man, you sure are cool. You can have your opinion that SUVs are bad all day long. Just don't try to claim that just because you think it, that makes it absolutely true. I mean, I think you're a jerk, but I allow for the possibility that you just come off that way.
...dogmatic (yes, dogmatic)......No, your dogmatic believe......You do not belong to a religion, but this does not prevent you from having "dogmatic beliefs"...
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
If you say you consider any opinion to be dogma, then you're just grasping at straws. (Is that a dogmatic belief in your book?) My stated belief is not an authoritative tenet. It is not put forth as authoritative with any grounds, adequate or otherwise. It isn't part of the doctrine or body of any religion. It is a feeling that there *may be* something out there which *may or may not* be knowable. If you still claim that that is an authoritative statement, you can look up the definition of authoritative yourself. If you can't even get this right, why should I bother with the rest of your post? You say we know little about the origin of the universe, but you still claim to know what *didn't* happen. You have a right to your opinion. However, just because mine is different, you start in with the name calling. Then you tell me over and over that I'm being dogmatic, even though my belief is only very slightly removed from 'I have no idea.' That's not dogma. I never said that I think I know *what* or *if* God is. Had I said something like 'I believe there's a God that created the world,' that would be an authoritative statement. I said that God is unknown (meaning there's no concrete evidence of the existence or non-existence of God) and possibly unknowable (meaning *if* there is some sort of God, it's possible that we couldn't possibly ever know it) This is different from atheism in that I'm allowing for the possibility, because the universe exists, and either came from somewhere...or has always existed in some form or another. I'm not claiming any definite answers, which you seem to be accusing me of. I'm not claiming there *is* a God, only that there is a *possibility* of one. You can twist it however you want, but there's no authoritative or religious statement there. I'm sorry if you equate open-minded or non-know-it-all with arrogance and dogma, but that isn't my problem. Have a nice life, or don't. *shrug*
Sigh. Firstly the term "smack in the mouth" is of course not a serious one since we are on the internet.
The term "if I had you here in person, you'd get a smack in the mouth" sorta negates that internet thing, doesn't it? If I were there in person, we wouldn't be talking on the internet, now would we? Of course, if I were there in person you wouldn't smack me in the mouth anyhow. You'd pretend you never said anything or run like a girl.
Its[sic] an expression of my extreme anger.
You don't say? I thought it was an expression of love.
Second, don't patronise me and tell me laughter is good for you. I'm aware of that.
Ok, I'll patronize you some other way then.
If you read the original post, it was someone who was very vulnerable and in relation to a sensitive topic. Laughter is incredibly hurtful sometimes.
That someone went to a geek news internet message board for medical advice. Sorry, but if you go to a high school boy's locker room looking to talk about how you're fat and ugly, you shouldn't expect sensitivity. If you don't like that...too bad. (There, I've found a new way to patronize you)
Well done, you'd press charges, so would I.
For what? Laughing at someone? That's not illegal where I live. You were the one talking about hitting people, not me.
You're misled in your interpretation, read the original post, re-read mine, examine whom my anger is directed at, consider that I've given a thoughtful and supportive response to the original author, and leave things be.
No. You set yourself up as the joke police, buddy. Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean you can tell everyone else not to. You don't like people making jokes about a serious topic, then don't make any. Don't read them, or stop as soon as you realize what it is. Mod them down, if you have mod points. Just don't tell everyone else what they can and can't say.
ISDN would cost more, and dialup wouldn't work; I regularly send large layout files back and forth, and can't afford to spend the time waiting. Cable or DSL are most fitting for my needs. How hard is it for you to understand?
I see. So you get to have whatever you wish because it 'fits your needs', but you also get to decide for other people that what they have does not fit theirs. How hard is it for you to understand that you might not know what someone else's needs are? That's the point I was trying to make, but you refuse to get it. I was trying to be subtle, by telling you what you need or don't need... instead of saying 'you don't know what I need...hey wait maybe I don't know what someone else needs either,' you just get all mad and justify why you need what you have and then proceed to still tell me that you also know what everyone else needs. Nice going.
Oh, that's right, you're one of those people who confuses needs with "things you'll die without". The things I own, I own because they are the best fit for what I need them for. I don't own a 52" plasma TV, because I don't need a TV that big. I own a TV because I like to watch movies. Living within your needs (as I define it; if you don't like my definition, fuck off and live on a commune) is simply considering what you actually are going to use something for, and buying the most suitable thing for that set of uses. SUVs don't fit that definition for most of their owners.
You're one of those people who considers something you don't like as unneeded, whether it is or not. As I said before, you can't possibly know what everyone who owns an SUV is using it for 24/7. To try and pretend you do is just dumb.
I'm about as far from a hippie as it gets.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
You can think whatever you want, but I have perfectly valid reasons for disliking SUVs, and they relate to:
Of course I can think whatever I want. When did I ever say or imply that I couldn't?
They make my life more dangerous when I drive.
SUVs don't make anything more dangerous. If anything, it's the drivers' poor driving skills. If you want to rail against bad drivers, please remember that they drive all kinds of things, not just SUVs. Anthropomorphism of SUVs is pretty common; you aren't original. It's dumb. If you're talking about their heavier frames, or their propensity for rollovers, why aren't you protesting about vans? They've been the same way for far longer than SUVs have even existed. Oh yeah, I know why: you don't have an unreasoning hatred of people who choose to drive vans.
They're not necessary for their drivers, and are in fact a worse choice than other available vehicles.
Again, what makes you the end-all be-all judge of what's neccessary for OTHER PEOPLE?
I bet you wish you were smart. Too bad you aren't, though, because unlike becoming a hippie (don't wash, smoke pot, say "Dude" a lot) you can't suddenly become smart. Instead you just try to sound smart, and wind up looking like a jackass.
Oh, sir, you've wounded me to the quick! Some fucking jerk online thinks I'm not smart! This is the same guy who thinks he knows what everyone on Earth does with their SUVs 24 hours a day. I take what you say *very* seriously./sarcasm
One entry found for agnostic. Main Entry: 1agnostic
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
They're driving them because they think it makes them look good, or because they like feeling powerful. 18-wheelers, on the other hand, serve a functional purpose.
Not all 18-wheelers serve a useful purpose. Many of them are used to cart Yu-Gi-Oh! and Pokemon crap around. Many others are used to carry other useless consumer goods around. Also, many SUVs are used for hauling, carting large numbers of people around, and driving off road. I live in Texas, and there are still many many functioning ranches here. SUVs are great for ranches. Also, there is a lot of unused land here...like places where you can drive for over an hour seeing no man-made structure at all. SUVs are great for people who live in these regions too. Just because not everyone uses something for its intended purpose does not mean that no one does, and just because something is usually useful does not mean that it always is. You are saying that SUVs are no exceptions useless and 18-wheelers are no exceptions useful. That's silly. Also, I *know* Land Rovers are British. That was the point. I was responding to the 'SUVs are an entirely American conceit' statement.
No, agnosticism is the belief that if there is or is not a god is undecidable.
That's only one definition. The one I subscribe to is that the existence of God is unknown currently, and is possibly unknowable. It's the first one, according to m-w.com and it's the one I've held for over 15 years.
You can beleif there is a god feel that to attempt to prove so is futile. You are content that your beleif is your own. Similarly, one can bleive there is no god and to feel that to attempt to disprove the existance of a god is similarly silly.
True.
My issue with prayer is not a "time waste" issue. It is an arrogance and insult issue.
I can understand that. I have known people for whom it was a condescending put-down, and I have also known people for whom it was a sincere, ulterior-motive-free statement. It's hard to tell which is which online, but I can certainly see how it can be taken this way. I choose to take it as though the person is sincerely concerned, and I just sort of ignore it. Usually I just say..ok. Then I go about my business. It's just not worth it to me to hassle people about it....but then again, I don't have a problem with people who do. I figure if you're telling someone you don't know that you're going to pray for them, you're opening yourself up to possible conflict.
When I hear, "I'll pray for you!" I want to tell the person that when I get home I'm going to masterbate while thinkiing about them.
I think it's fun to respond with 'Thanks, I'll sacrifice a virgin for you.' Then cry religious freedom if they get mad.
Religion can and does get used as a tool to manipulate people. This manipulation can only happen when there are multiple followers and thus we get organized religion.
The way I see it, most religions stop being about God the second they start having power. I don't and never will like organized religion. I am agnostic, so I don't subscribe to any religious creed, yet I do study religion and I find it offensive that so many religions don't even come close to acting the way their own religious documents say they should.
But, I don't think we should let religion go unchecked simply because it might be good for some people and maybe be bad sometimes. Religion is like guns, people should be allowed to have one (or more) or not, and I think they should go monitored.
I have to disagree here. However, I also don't think guns should be monitored, and for the same reason. People who are going to use a gun to commit a crime will not balk at breaking laws to get one. Also, people who will not balk at misusing religion will likewise not balk at breaking the law to do so. I'm a libertarian, and I believe that each individual should have the responsibility for defending him or herself. I don't trust government to have my best interests in mind, nor do I trust government monitoring.
Organized religion is like a bus terminal. For many it provides a needed guidance on the road of life, yet for some reason it attracks all of the weirdos from society.
That is a truly great line. Freaking awesome! Mind if I use it?
Maybe if the church was more closely monitored this wouldn't have gone as unchecked.
While I admit that it's possible, I don't like the idea of monitoring of a segment of society, because, as the saying goes, 'who watches the watchers?'
When someone doesn't want to have a background check for a gun doesn't that make you a little suspicious?
Nope. I have my gun, they can have theirs. If they try to come in my house or they want to rob me, I can defend myself. I don't believe that background checks should be neccessary to buy guns.
No, I am not suggesting a police state whever everyone is always monitored in an Orwellean style. But the church exists tax-free, owns more land than anyone else, and weilds gigantic power. I just think something of that size should perhaps be investigated routinly, religion or not.
I think that if people weren't so used to having the government do all the monitoring and thinking for them, they'd do a little more of it themselves. That's my Libertarian bias talking. I don't disagree with your basic point, but I do think it isn't the government's place to keep people from being stupid.
You and I are probably in a lot of agreement about a lot of things.
It does sound that way:) I'm glad to hear from an atheist who isn't just interested in getting everyone to think just like them. I know that's a generalization and I'm sure it doesn't apply to a lot of people, but it does seem to be what I encounter most here on/.
I could be called an "agnostic atheist", that is, even though you can't "know" god with the numerous excuses theists throw out, I think it probably doesn't exist. That is, it is more likely than not that no deity exists. But surely I could be wrong. This is the scientific position-- if evidence of a deity's existence pops up, then we'll talk. But there is none.
To me, the existence of the universe is evidence enough. That doesn't tell me what God is or how things came to be, I just see the intricacy of physics and the physical universe and take it as evidence. You don't have to do so, therefore to me there is evidence, while to you there is none. That's fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine in that regard. However, I'll not agree that there is no evidence, just as you'll not agree that there is.
The fact that prayer has no outcome on reality seems adequate to call it a lie.
I know people that claim it has. You claim it hasn't. I haven't experienced it, but I also haven't tried it. I have no proof that it works, no proof that it doesn't. I choose to let people pray if they want, but I'd never force anyone to. I just don't understand why YOU care if someone else prays. You still haven't managed to explain that one.
I'm not claming absolute knowledge, but ignorant simpletons like you don't think in scientific terms.
I see. I disagree with you, therefore I must be an ignorant simpleton. Wow. I bet you're a hit at parties. If you get invited to any. If you ever leave the musty basement of your parents' house.
While absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, it does not justify a belief in something.
Who said it did? I never said anyone's belief was justified. I just said that they're free to have whatever belief they want, regardless of any belief of mine, and that negative evidence isn't evidence. I have no evidence that you live in your parents' musty basement, but I choose to believe it anyhow. I know it's unscientific, but I also don't need to justify my every thought by using science. If you do, good for you. Hope that works out for you.
Just because there is no evidence that aliens landed on earth doesn't make it a likely scenario, hence Occam's razor (and not by the way you mistakingly intepret it...
Some people believe that aliens have landed on earth, and if they want to, that's fine with me. To me, the simplest explanation for the universe existing is one that doesn't involve hundreds of millions of random chances happening one right after the other, but instead that there was some sort of design involved. I don't posit what kind, by who, or how, because I don't have any evidence of it.
Many scientists, if not most, are atheists, according to a study by Nature magazine.
So? Unlike you, I give people the freedom to believe whatever they want. Did I ever say that science and atheism were mutually exclusive? Of course not. So why did you feel the need to quote this statistic? To show that you're aligned with other people? Who cares?
I don't know why you're constantly attributing strawman arguments to atheism-- I never said I can't be wrong, in fact, I've stated the opposite.
Yes, in the post I'm quoting, not previous to it. Straw man, huh...I was making a comment based on my personal experiences. You're now admitting that you could be wrong because I pointed out that many, if not most, atheists will not do so. That is based on my personal experience and I don't really care if you believe it or not.
You ignore this in order to defend your dogmatic belief in creation.
Dogmatic belief? Do you know what words mean? My 'dogmatic belief' is that maybe there was something other than random chance involved in the creation of the universe, but we don't know what and probably can't. It's just a feeling I have. Wow, I bet I can be made a priest just for that. What religion, exactly, holds this 'dogmatic belief?'
Actually, I have a computer. Of course, I use it as part of my job, so I need it. Likewise with my cable modem.
I'm sure you need a cable modem. You could probably get by with ISDN. Of course, you choose not to.
I own a TV, but I didn't (until I moved in with a roommate who asked for it) have cable.
How come you get to have things you don't *need* but others can't?
I can't fucking stand granola.
Yeah, I wasn't being literal there. Good for you, though.
When I say they don't need an SUV, the corollary to that is "they have voluntarily chosen a vehicle less suitable to their uses than is available". Most of the people I see driving SUVs use them for one person, commuting. Exactly how is an SUV a good fit for that?
Do you follow these people around? Do you know what they do with their SUV 24 hours a day? Perhaps they have large families and they are homeschooled. Perhaps they regularly haul stuff around. Perhaps they like to go camping with tons of equipment. How do you know they only use them for one person commutes? Just because that's all you see doesn't mean that's all they're used for. What qualifications do you have for deciding that an SUV is less suitable to someone else's needs? How is an SUV a good fit for a commute? Well, for starters, they're very comfortable, as a rule. They offer great road vision. Most of them have tons of head and legroom, which is great for a commute. Many of them now get better gas mileage than pickups, which are also used quite often for single person commutes...but which may not be used ONLY for that purpose. Also, maybe they like the way their SUV looks. You didn't pay for it, they did, so they can use it for whatever they want. If I were rich, I'd buy 50 SUVs and hire people to drive them around all day just to piss off people like you. Why do you think you should be able to tell everyone else what to do because of how YOU feel about the subject?
Get off my dick. I live within my needs, and I sure as fuck am not a hippie.
I wouldn't be anywhere near your dick. I'm straight, and I'm also certainly not sucking up to you or biting your style. You can hope, but in vain. You live within your needs, huh? I guess you'd die without a TV...and a 6-person place setting for dinner parties...whatever. You're the one telling people to only use what they need, not me, but you can't have it both ways. Maybe you're not a hippie, but I bet you wish you were. They wouldn't take you, though, because it's against the hippie code to tell other people what to do.
You don't understand Atheism. There is a difference in saying "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god." That last one requires faith, just like any other religion.
It's not "NOT believing something." It is "believing in nothing."
Wow. You sure can split those semantic hairs fine. "Oh, no, you see it's not that I don't believe *in* God, it's that I believe that there *isn't* a God...it's different, somehow!" If I said 'It isn't that I don't believe in ghosts, it's that I believe there aren't any ghosts,' that would somehow constitute a difference to you? I mean, sure, one's phrased positively "I believe there are no ghosts" and one is phrased negatively, "I don't believe in ghosts," but it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Well now, that's not very agnostic of you. If you were indeed agnostic you would beleive that knowledge of any deities would be *impossible*, and for anyone to claim such knowledge (for any way) would be against your basic tenet. There would be no... "of course, I could be wrong." How then, are you agnostic? It sounds more like you are uncertain as to what to believe. That is not agnostic.
The definition of agnosticism that I subscribe to is: God is unknown and possibly unknowable. That's a far cry from knowledge of dieties is impossible, it's *possibly* impossible, but possibly possible, in which case I'd be wrong saying that it is impossible. My basic tenet is that God is unknown. my secondary tenet is that God is possibly unknowable. That *is* agnostic. It's the very definition.
You have the same problem that a lot of other atheists have: you confuse religious authority with religion itself. The things you speak of were/are opposed by people in power afraid of losing their grip on their followers. If you want to say organized religion is bad, I'll agree with you. If you want to say that the existence of religion itself is bad, I won't. The crusades, the spanish inquisition, and many other travesties that have been laid at the feet of 'religion' were in fact the products of greed and hatred, just as so many other historical events have been. Pretending that the people responsible for the things you say and the things I mentioned were true followers of their stated religion is silly. If you want to say we'd have been healthier without the existence of oppression, you'd get more support from me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it wasn't designed for it. No SDK, and most of the modding being done are exe hacks. So no, it is not moddable in the modern sense of the word. Not when compared to Unreal or Half-Life games.
Yeah. Not moddable at all. That's why there are no multiplayer mods, no full conversion mods, no new mission/location mods...oh wait, yes there are. Just because it isn't set up how *you* want for modding doesn't mean it's not moddable. The very existence of so many mods for it would indicate that it is moddable. Maybe not as much as you'd like, but still. Why would you compare GTA to two First-Person Shooters? It's not the same kind of game at all. Also, I would personally prefer the developers of games to put most of their time into making the actual game itself fun rather than releasing full suites of modder-friendly tools. I realize not everyone feels the same way. It's just my opinion. Great modders have historically made great mods regardless of the existence of first-party modding support.
I think they've done a great job considering it IS an imaginary place.
Not to mention that it's a seaport, a resort town, a mountain town, a river town, a small town, and a big city as required by episodes.
Silly me - I was just thinking "if only GTA was actually moddable, this would be a neat setting"... and had forgotten about Hit 'n' Run.
Who says GTA isn't moddable?
Friend of mine said "at least they didn't show us some french guy in Paris: wearing a beret, baquette of bread under his arm, with a cigarette dangling from his frozen lips"
/. instead.
Dammit, now I have no reason to watch this thing. Guess I'll have to stay home Friday night and read
It seems that both extremes are...well...dumb.
As with so much of life, moderation is the key. Most times I find extremist positions dumb. I'm not saying we should all be in the exact middle of the road; just that the fringe is not usually the most rational place.
Typical of an american to assume control of the entire planet.
Homer: I get jokes!
I was thinking I'd just hang a lifesized painting of someone else's house in front of my house . . .
My first thought was that Kia commercial. Make a false front for your house that looks totally crappy for when you're not home. Then, when you get home, look furtively around to make sure there's no vans or robbers nearby, and pull off the canvas to reveal your true house.
Actually, I worked on the Space Shuttle too. STS-111. Payloads. Can you believe it? You must be stalking me, you know so much.
I work in the automotive industry, for a tier 1 supplier. Our major customers are GM and Ford, and the automatic transmissions for pretty much every card within one of those two will be dependent on something I designed after MY08. Some will be dependent earlier. Neat, ain't it?
I can fly without mechanical aid. I can also predict the future. Once, I ate an entire anvil with just a little salt. Plus I'm good at everything. My major customers are Globochem and Omni Consumer Products (OCP).
No, really.
Actually, I think it was the DMT that did it to him.
Not sure about that though.
Would you want this venting on Wall Street?
Better there than many other places I can think of.
Actually, I have worked on the design for SUVs; specifically, their transmissions. It's nice that you think that makes me cool.
I am a jerk, but I'm also right. It's part of what makes arguing with me frustrating.
Sure. I designed the Space Shuttle, you know. You're right about being a jerk, the rest of it, nah. Think what you wish, but just because something is used for one purpose which you see (as SUVs are sometimes used to commute) does not mean, logically, rationally, or otherwise, that that is the ONLY use to which it is put or even the MAIN use. Would you expect someone to buy a vehicle for each purpose? A pickup for when they need to carry around furniture, a car for when they need to carry a few friends around, a motorcycle for commuting, and an SUV for carrying families or people + luggage? Not everyone can afford to buy multiple vehicles, and if you regularly need the passenger/cargo capacity of an SUV, it's better to just buy one and use it for commuting *ALSO* than to buy it plus another vehicle. I realize that you think you know everything, but the fact that you cannot even understand this simple point tells me all I need to know about you. Just because you only see them during your commute does not mean that the rest of the time that vehicle is not in use, and just because you only see one person in them *right then* does not mean that only one person is ever in them. Get over yourself. Also, even if you *did* 'work on the design' for some SUV's transmission...that is a far cry from designing the SUV itself. You are teh dumb.
Everyone's different, and not everyone reacts the same way to anything. I know a guy who acts that way when he takes cold medicine, but I don't go around telling people not to take cold medicine.
I am the judge, when I sit in traffic for an hour, watching these SUVs in DOWNTOWN CHICAGO, with one person inside of them. SUVs are not designed to be commuter vehicles. Thus, I'm right. End of story.
Now you're not only all-seeing and all-knowing, you also designed SUVs...man, you sure are cool.
You can have your opinion that SUVs are bad all day long. Just don't try to claim that just because you think it, that makes it absolutely true. I mean, I think you're a jerk, but I allow for the possibility that you just come off that way.
...dogmatic (yes, dogmatic)... ...No, your dogmatic believe... ...You do not belong to a religion, but this does not prevent you from having "dogmatic beliefs"...
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
If you say you consider any opinion to be dogma, then you're just grasping at straws. (Is that a dogmatic belief in your book?)
My stated belief is not an authoritative tenet. It is not put forth as authoritative with any grounds, adequate or otherwise. It isn't part of the doctrine or body of any religion. It is a feeling that there *may be* something out there which *may or may not* be knowable. If you still claim that that is an authoritative statement, you can look up the definition of authoritative yourself. If you can't even get this right, why should I bother with the rest of your post? You say we know little about the origin of the universe, but you still claim to know what *didn't* happen. You have a right to your opinion. However, just because mine is different, you start in with the name calling. Then you tell me over and over that I'm being dogmatic, even though my belief is only very slightly removed from 'I have no idea.' That's not dogma. I never said that I think I know *what* or *if* God is. Had I said something like 'I believe there's a God that created the world,' that would be an authoritative statement. I said that God is unknown (meaning there's no concrete evidence of the existence or non-existence of God) and possibly unknowable (meaning *if* there is some sort of God, it's possible that we couldn't possibly ever know it) This is different from atheism in that I'm allowing for the possibility, because the universe exists, and either came from somewhere...or has always existed in some form or another. I'm not claiming any definite answers, which you seem to be accusing me of. I'm not claiming there *is* a God, only that there is a *possibility* of one. You can twist it however you want, but there's no authoritative or religious statement there. I'm sorry if you equate open-minded or non-know-it-all with arrogance and dogma, but that isn't my problem. Have a nice life, or don't. *shrug*
Sigh. Firstly the term "smack in the mouth" is of course not a serious one since we are on the internet.
The term "if I had you here in person, you'd get a smack in the mouth" sorta negates that internet thing, doesn't it? If I were there in person, we wouldn't be talking on the internet, now would we?
Of course, if I were there in person you wouldn't smack me in the mouth anyhow. You'd pretend you never said anything or run like a girl.
Its[sic] an expression of my extreme anger.
You don't say? I thought it was an expression of love.
Second, don't patronise me and tell me laughter is good for you. I'm aware of that.
Ok, I'll patronize you some other way then.
If you read the original post, it was someone who was very vulnerable and in relation to a sensitive topic. Laughter is incredibly hurtful sometimes.
That someone went to a geek news internet message board for medical advice. Sorry, but if you go to a high school boy's locker room looking to talk about how you're fat and ugly, you shouldn't expect sensitivity. If you don't like that...too bad. (There, I've found a new way to patronize you)
Well done, you'd press charges, so would I.
For what? Laughing at someone? That's not illegal where I live. You were the one talking about hitting people, not me.
You're misled in your interpretation, read the original post, re-read mine, examine whom my anger is directed at, consider that I've given a thoughtful and supportive response to the original author, and leave things be.
No. You set yourself up as the joke police, buddy. Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean you can tell everyone else not to. You don't like people making jokes about a serious topic, then don't make any. Don't read them, or stop as soon as you realize what it is. Mod them down, if you have mod points. Just don't tell everyone else what they can and can't say.
ISDN would cost more, and dialup wouldn't work; I regularly send large layout files back and forth, and can't afford to spend the time waiting. Cable or DSL are most fitting for my needs. How hard is it for you to understand?
/sarcasm
I see. So you get to have whatever you wish because it 'fits your needs', but you also get to decide for other people that what they have does not fit theirs. How hard is it for you to understand that you might not know what someone else's needs are? That's the point I was trying to make, but you refuse to get it. I was trying to be subtle, by telling you what you need or don't need... instead of saying 'you don't know what I need...hey wait maybe I don't know what someone else needs either,' you just get all mad and justify why you need what you have and then proceed to still tell me that you also know what everyone else needs. Nice going.
Oh, that's right, you're one of those people who confuses needs with "things you'll die without". The things I own, I own because they are the best fit for what I need them for. I don't own a 52" plasma TV, because I don't need a TV that big. I own a TV because I like to watch movies. Living within your needs (as I define it; if you don't like my definition, fuck off and live on a commune) is simply considering what you actually are going to use something for, and buying the most suitable thing for that set of uses. SUVs don't fit that definition for most of their owners.
You're one of those people who considers something you don't like as unneeded, whether it is or not. As I said before, you can't possibly know what everyone who owns an SUV is using it for 24/7. To try and pretend you do is just dumb.
I'm about as far from a hippie as it gets.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
You can think whatever you want, but I have perfectly valid reasons for disliking SUVs, and they relate to:
Of course I can think whatever I want. When did I ever say or imply that I couldn't?
They make my life more dangerous when I drive.
SUVs don't make anything more dangerous. If anything, it's the drivers' poor driving skills. If you want to rail against bad drivers, please remember that they drive all kinds of things, not just SUVs. Anthropomorphism of SUVs is pretty common; you aren't original. It's dumb. If you're talking about their heavier frames, or their propensity for rollovers, why aren't you protesting about vans? They've been the same way for far longer than SUVs have even existed. Oh yeah, I know why: you don't have an unreasoning hatred of people who choose to drive vans.
They're not necessary for their drivers, and are in fact a worse choice than other available vehicles.
Again, what makes you the end-all be-all judge of what's neccessary for OTHER PEOPLE?
I bet you wish you were smart. Too bad you aren't, though, because unlike becoming a hippie (don't wash, smoke pot, say "Dude" a lot) you can't suddenly become smart. Instead you just try to sound smart, and wind up looking like a jackass.
Oh, sir, you've wounded me to the quick! Some fucking jerk online thinks I'm not smart! This is the same guy who thinks he knows what everyone on Earth does with their SUVs 24 hours a day. I take what you say *very* seriously.
You forgot www.m-w.com:
One entry found for agnostic.
Main Entry: 1agnostic
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Read the first definition. That's what I said.
They're driving them because they think it makes them look good, or because they like feeling powerful. 18-wheelers, on the other hand, serve a functional purpose.
Not all 18-wheelers serve a useful purpose. Many of them are used to cart Yu-Gi-Oh! and Pokemon crap around. Many others are used to carry other useless consumer goods around. Also, many SUVs are used for hauling, carting large numbers of people around, and driving off road. I live in Texas, and there are still many many functioning ranches here. SUVs are great for ranches. Also, there is a lot of unused land here...like places where you can drive for over an hour seeing no man-made structure at all. SUVs are great for people who live in these regions too. Just because not everyone uses something for its intended purpose does not mean that no one does, and just because something is usually useful does not mean that it always is. You are saying that SUVs are no exceptions useless and 18-wheelers are no exceptions useful. That's silly. Also, I *know* Land Rovers are British. That was the point. I was responding to the 'SUVs are an entirely American conceit' statement.
No, agnosticism is the belief that if there is or is not a god is undecidable.
That's only one definition. The one I subscribe to is that the existence of God is unknown currently, and is possibly unknowable. It's the first one, according to m-w.com and it's the one I've held for over 15 years.
You can beleif there is a god feel that to attempt to prove so is futile. You are content that your beleif is your own. Similarly, one can bleive there is no god and to feel that to attempt to disprove the existance of a god is similarly silly.
True.
My issue with prayer is not a "time waste" issue. It is an arrogance and insult issue.
I can understand that. I have known people for whom it was a condescending put-down, and I have also known people for whom it was a sincere, ulterior-motive-free statement. It's hard to tell which is which online, but I can certainly see how it can be taken this way. I choose to take it as though the person is sincerely concerned, and I just sort of ignore it. Usually I just say..ok. Then I go about my business. It's just not worth it to me to hassle people about it....but then again, I don't have a problem with people who do. I figure if you're telling someone you don't know that you're going to pray for them, you're opening yourself up to possible conflict.
When I hear, "I'll pray for you!" I want to tell the person that when I get home I'm going to masterbate while thinkiing about them.
I think it's fun to respond with 'Thanks, I'll sacrifice a virgin for you.' Then cry religious freedom if they get mad.
Religion can and does get used as a tool to manipulate people. This manipulation can only happen when there are multiple followers and thus we get organized religion.
:) I'm glad to hear from an atheist who isn't just interested in getting everyone to think just like them. I know that's a generalization and I'm sure it doesn't apply to a lot of people, but it does seem to be what I encounter most here on /.
The way I see it, most religions stop being about God the second they start having power. I don't and never will like organized religion. I am agnostic, so I don't subscribe to any religious creed, yet I do study religion and I find it offensive that so many religions don't even come close to acting the way their own religious documents say they should.
But, I don't think we should let religion go unchecked simply because it might be good for some people and maybe be bad sometimes. Religion is like guns, people should be allowed to have one (or more) or not, and I think they should go monitored.
I have to disagree here. However, I also don't think guns should be monitored, and for the same reason. People who are going to use a gun to commit a crime will not balk at breaking laws to get one. Also, people who will not balk at misusing religion will likewise not balk at breaking the law to do so. I'm a libertarian, and I believe that each individual should have the responsibility for defending him or herself. I don't trust government to have my best interests in mind, nor do I trust government monitoring.
Organized religion is like a bus terminal. For many it provides a needed guidance on the road of life, yet for some reason it attracks all of the weirdos from society.
That is a truly great line. Freaking awesome! Mind if I use it?
Maybe if the church was more closely monitored this wouldn't have gone as unchecked.
While I admit that it's possible, I don't like the idea of monitoring of a segment of society, because, as the saying goes, 'who watches the watchers?'
When someone doesn't want to have a background check for a gun doesn't that make you a little suspicious?
Nope. I have my gun, they can have theirs. If they try to come in my house or they want to rob me, I can defend myself. I don't believe that background checks should be neccessary to buy guns.
No, I am not suggesting a police state whever everyone is always monitored in an Orwellean style. But the church exists tax-free, owns more land than anyone else, and weilds gigantic power. I just think something of that size should perhaps be investigated routinly, religion or not.
I think that if people weren't so used to having the government do all the monitoring and thinking for them, they'd do a little more of it themselves. That's my Libertarian bias talking. I don't disagree with your basic point, but I do think it isn't the government's place to keep people from being stupid.
You and I are probably in a lot of agreement about a lot of things.
It does sound that way
I could be called an "agnostic atheist", that is, even though you can't "know" god with the numerous excuses theists throw out, I think it probably doesn't exist. That is, it is more likely than not that no deity exists. But surely I could be wrong. This is the scientific position-- if evidence of a deity's existence pops up, then we'll talk. But there is none.
To me, the existence of the universe is evidence enough. That doesn't tell me what God is or how things came to be, I just see the intricacy of physics and the physical universe and take it as evidence. You don't have to do so, therefore to me there is evidence, while to you there is none. That's fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine in that regard. However, I'll not agree that there is no evidence, just as you'll not agree that there is.
The fact that prayer has no outcome on reality seems adequate to call it a lie.
I know people that claim it has. You claim it hasn't. I haven't experienced it, but I also haven't tried it. I have no proof that it works, no proof that it doesn't. I choose to let people pray if they want, but I'd never force anyone to. I just don't understand why YOU care if someone else prays. You still haven't managed to explain that one.
I'm not claming absolute knowledge, but ignorant simpletons like you don't think in scientific terms.
I see. I disagree with you, therefore I must be an ignorant simpleton. Wow. I bet you're a hit at parties. If you get invited to any. If you ever leave the musty basement of your parents' house.
While absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, it does not justify a belief in something.
Who said it did? I never said anyone's belief was justified. I just said that they're free to have whatever belief they want, regardless of any belief of mine, and that negative evidence isn't evidence. I have no evidence that you live in your parents' musty basement, but I choose to believe it anyhow. I know it's unscientific, but I also don't need to justify my every thought by using science. If you do, good for you. Hope that works out for you.
Just because there is no evidence that aliens landed on earth doesn't make it a likely scenario, hence Occam's razor (and not by the way you mistakingly intepret it...
Some people believe that aliens have landed on earth, and if they want to, that's fine with me.
To me, the simplest explanation for the universe existing is one that doesn't involve hundreds of millions of random chances happening one right after the other, but instead that there was some sort of design involved. I don't posit what kind, by who, or how, because I don't have any evidence of it.
Many scientists, if not most, are atheists, according to a study by Nature magazine.
So? Unlike you, I give people the freedom to believe whatever they want. Did I ever say that science and atheism were mutually exclusive? Of course not. So why did you feel the need to quote this statistic? To show that you're aligned with other people? Who cares?
I don't know why you're constantly attributing strawman arguments to atheism-- I never said I can't be wrong, in fact, I've stated the opposite.
Yes, in the post I'm quoting, not previous to it. Straw man, huh...I was making a comment based on my personal experiences. You're now admitting that you could be wrong because I pointed out that many, if not most, atheists will not do so. That is based on my personal experience and I don't really care if you believe it or not.
You ignore this in order to defend your dogmatic belief in creation.
Dogmatic belief? Do you know what words mean? My 'dogmatic belief' is that maybe there was something other than random chance involved in the creation of the universe, but we don't know what and probably can't. It's just a feeling I have. Wow, I bet I can be made a priest just for that. What religion, exactly, holds this 'dogmatic belief?'
Actually, I have a computer. Of course, I use it as part of my job, so I need it. Likewise with my cable modem.
I'm sure you need a cable modem. You could probably get by with ISDN. Of course, you choose not to.
I own a TV, but I didn't (until I moved in with a roommate who asked for it) have cable.
How come you get to have things you don't *need* but others can't?
I can't fucking stand granola.
Yeah, I wasn't being literal there. Good for you, though.
When I say they don't need an SUV, the corollary to that is "they have voluntarily chosen a vehicle less suitable to their uses than is available". Most of the people I see driving SUVs use them for one person, commuting. Exactly how is an SUV a good fit for that?
Do you follow these people around? Do you know what they do with their SUV 24 hours a day? Perhaps they have large families and they are homeschooled. Perhaps they regularly haul stuff around. Perhaps they like to go camping with tons of equipment. How do you know they only use them for one person commutes? Just because that's all you see doesn't mean that's all they're used for. What qualifications do you have for deciding that an SUV is less suitable to someone else's needs?
How is an SUV a good fit for a commute? Well, for starters, they're very comfortable, as a rule. They offer great road vision. Most of them have tons of head and legroom, which is great for a commute. Many of them now get better gas mileage than pickups, which are also used quite often for single person commutes...but which may not be used ONLY for that purpose. Also, maybe they like the way their SUV looks. You didn't pay for it, they did, so they can use it for whatever they want. If I were rich, I'd buy 50 SUVs and hire people to drive them around all day just to piss off people like you. Why do you think you should be able to tell everyone else what to do because of how YOU feel about the subject?
Get off my dick. I live within my needs, and I sure as fuck am not a hippie.
I wouldn't be anywhere near your dick. I'm straight, and I'm also certainly not sucking up to you or biting your style. You can hope, but in vain. You live within your needs, huh? I guess you'd die without a TV...and a 6-person place setting for dinner parties...whatever. You're the one telling people to only use what they need, not me, but you can't have it both ways. Maybe you're not a hippie, but I bet you wish you were. They wouldn't take you, though, because it's against the hippie code to tell other people what to do.
You don't understand Atheism. There is a difference in saying "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god." That last one requires faith, just like any other religion.
It's not "NOT believing something." It is "believing in nothing."
Wow. You sure can split those semantic hairs fine. "Oh, no, you see it's not that I don't believe *in* God, it's that I believe that there *isn't* a God...it's different, somehow!"
If I said 'It isn't that I don't believe in ghosts, it's that I believe there aren't any ghosts,' that would somehow constitute a difference to you? I mean, sure, one's phrased positively "I believe there are no ghosts" and one is phrased negatively, "I don't believe in ghosts," but it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Well now, that's not very agnostic of you. If you were indeed agnostic you would beleive that knowledge of any deities would be *impossible*, and for anyone to claim such knowledge (for any way) would be against your basic tenet. There would be no... "of course, I could be wrong." How then, are you agnostic? It sounds more like you are uncertain as to what to believe. That is not agnostic.
The definition of agnosticism that I subscribe to is: God is unknown and possibly unknowable. That's a far cry from knowledge of dieties is impossible, it's *possibly* impossible, but possibly possible, in which case I'd be wrong saying that it is impossible. My basic tenet is that God is unknown. my secondary tenet is that God is possibly unknowable. That *is* agnostic. It's the very definition.
You have the same problem that a lot of other atheists have: you confuse religious authority with religion itself. The things you speak of were/are opposed by people in power afraid of losing their grip on their followers. If you want to say organized religion is bad, I'll agree with you. If you want to say that the existence of religion itself is bad, I won't. The crusades, the spanish inquisition, and many other travesties that have been laid at the feet of 'religion' were in fact the products of greed and hatred, just as so many other historical events have been. Pretending that the people responsible for the things you say and the things I mentioned were true followers of their stated religion is silly. If you want to say we'd have been healthier without the existence of oppression, you'd get more support from me.