StrangeSox

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) Oh yeah, definitely. Someone is right* and everyone else is wrong. It's impossible to know. Hell, maybe everyone is wrong. I guess it boils down to I believe more in me being right than someone else being right, which doesnt mean I'm not wrong. Who knows, maybe i'll come back as a snail. Being an agnostic myself, I have no qualms at all with that and I wouldn't call you weak-minded for holding those beliefs. *edit: except for that part. It's possible (likely?) that we're all wrong.

It's just Pascal's Wager restated. The primary problem with the argument is that it assumes a binary state -- believe or not -- when it reality there's infinitely many belief choices. Who's to say that god wouldn't punish someone who believed in a false idol more than someone who didn't believe in any religion? I don't particularly care for Dawkins' theological writings, but I think he summed it up fairly nicely: "We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) Turtles, all the way down. Best response ever to any prime mover argument.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) After all, we're all just a clusterf*** of cells running around that evolved from a cesspool of rocks. Ameobas I'm sure came from rocks. Or something. Besides that, we sure do have a lot of free will from evolving from amoebas, don't we? Proving or disproving the exisitance of God is something that can't be done from a scientific viewpoint, so I wish people would stop trying to view it from that prism. You either have faith that there's a God or you don't. It's your choice. I don't condemn people for thinking one way or the other, but just hope you're not on the wrong side of it the day you die. You can't prove or disprove a supernatural entity working from methodological naturalism, as science does. You can, however, falsify or support various ideas such as special creation or common descent with modification. When claims of the supernatural reach into the physical realm (evolution, abiogenesis, a 6k year earth), they can be tested scientifically. To keep with the spirit of the thread, I think all forms of pseudo-science such as ID should be kept as far away from the science classroom as possible. It's religion re-branded to get around Supreme Court decisions and nothing more.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) So what does science say was there before the big bang? A singularity in which known physical constraints wouldn't hold. I'm not up on my cosmology so I don't know if its currently thought that this pre-bang "molecule" or what it was like before or during its existence is knowable or not. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) I know that, but still, by a lot of definitions, you could certainly call the appearance of our universe due to the collision of 2 11-dimensional membranes the appearance of something out of nothing. You're in an infinite regress problem--where did those membranes come from? What existed before those? And before that etc. etc.

Now we're to the part of the thread where people start insulting each other.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 10:19 AM) I realize the Obama Adminsitration is different than the CBO, and I should have said Barry and friends there instead, that was a mistake on my part. However, I was replying to this post: I don't see the CBO mentioned in that post or in the link... The CBO is not Obama's "friend".

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 10:02 PM) Outlaw eugenics. Who practices eugenics?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) Any able bodied or minded person who receives government money directly should do community service to pay back the people who are funding them. QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) There is no God.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 03:18 PM) The "MSM" hasn't. And obviously those Demcrats on the Hill like to twist it around as "no big deal". It's mentioned in just about every report about her nomination. No, they haven't attacked her over it, but ideally that's not the media's job to do anyway.

$100k pre-'05 without question. That's enough to pay off my debts and make a pretty nice down-payment on a house. $5 I guess. Same for a MLS or La crosse championship.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) I'd rather be dead then be a politician. Eh, not exactly my point. There's more to "politics" than being a politician. Perhaps I should have said "complex social hierarchies" that exist in most aspects of life. Also, I'd love to hear how Obama has helped kill babies.

I don't think you'd get very far in diplomacy or politics, BearSox.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 13, 2009 -> 05:45 PM) my paper keeps having these discussions about the online comments continually being derided by racist and ignorant comments. I just tell them that if they don't want hate-filled, childish, racist commentary in their comment section, they shouldn't have a comment section. The only times it works are in niche sites, usually involved in the technical aspects of something rather than general politics, fueled by emotion. Comments at the end of articles are just painful to read. I really don't know what purpose they serve.

It's always disappointing to see the Sox robbed of an extra base hit and at least one extra run, but that was a pretty amazing catch.

Wow. That was a hell of a catch.

I love broad and vague strike zones.

Hey! An out!

Just as NSS pointed out the difference between intelligence and education, I think there's a clear difference between intelligence (capacity for thought) and how much someone actually uses that capacity. When someone gets on a heavy ideological bent, they're not thinking critically because they're blindly applying pre-determined conclusions to every situation. QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 10, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) That doesn't make him stupid, it just means he supports some dumb ideas. Even dumber that he tried to link it to fighting terrorism. lol. There is no reason for the average American to have a machine gun or any automatic weapon, honestly, and I'm a big 2A supporter. The only reason you'd need to use one is if you need to spray on a crowd and kill as many people as possible as fast as you can, that's what they're used for in combat. How many people need to do that? Military, sometimes police. And also people whose houses are getting stormed by like 12-15 terrorists close together, which is pretty much... nobody. So yeah, dumb idea. Or to shoot pumpkins and watermelons. NSS hit on the common theme in most libertarian and conservative arguments for less restrictive gun access -- defense against an oppressive state. You might say "what chance does a 'militia' with some M-16's have against the US Army?" but then we can look to Iraq or Afghanistan to see how well a technologically and numerically inferior fighting force can cause havoc or to Iran for how defenseless protesters are being gunned gown by armed thugs. There's a strong anti-government theme ("all regulations are bad" and "private business can always do better at everything always") in the lib/con movements, so its not too surprising to see that they'd want protection from what could become an oppressive and illegitimate government. I'm ok with the situation as it is now -- there's a lot of red tape and it is expensive, but you can purchase a fully-automatic weapon. Since they've been heavily restricted ('34 or '36?), there's only been one murder committed with a legally-owned one and it was by an off-duty cop. The high price of ownership and stringent background checks helps to assure that only people who are interested in it as a hobby and not gang bangers can purchase these guns legally.

The CIA is disagreeing with the notion of the letter.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) Summary of what she is saying: "We belong in the kitchen making men sandwiches and women who think they belong anywhere else are ruining America." I read WND like its The Onion because my mind refuses to accept that people say those sorts of things seriously.

A lot of the right-wing blogs out there are going around about Section 304 of the "cap-and-trade" bill. Here's the most prominent google search article on it. Basically, the argument is that you'll have to have a state-mandated energy audit before being able to sell your home. One thing I noticed is that this actually seems to be in section 204, not 304. 304 is about building codes while 204 is about a labeling program. So, I tried reading Sections 204 and 304, but legalese isn't a natural language for me. Can someone else determine if the way they are characterizing it is correct or not? http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454...;nid=t0:rh:2317

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 10:17 PM) I can see that. Great point. If you get the tickets for free, it's go for broke on all the food, beers, shirts, hats, etc., especially if you get a parking pass too. Yep. I get decent work tickets (145 maybe?) every once in a while and I'll definitely spend a little more than I would if I was paying the $35-45 a seat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) Nuclear power is a terrible idea. And that's just speaking economics; it costs vastly more than any other form of electricity generation out there right now. I'll guarantee you Chu knows this, and he's playing politics for potential votes here. If I'm remembering my coursework correctly, that simply is not true when you take into account all of the externalities, fuel costs and subsidies. edit: and the hypothetical carbon taxes/ costs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_...t_per_kW.C2.B7h

A pitch several inches lower has been called strike a few times on Sox hitters