This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Dustin
Pages: 1 ... 596061 6263 ... 194
1801
« on: January 03, 2015, 03:21:43 AM »
Except we didn't lol
No we didn't dustbin
We repelled the invasion
Keep telling yourself that, Dusty.
Okay, so tell me what territory we lost in that war?
Because not losing territory in a war is totally the same thing as winning it...
Umm... yeah? They attacked us and we repelled them. It gets no simpler than that.
1802
« on: January 03, 2015, 03:19:13 AM »
Except we didn't lol
No we didn't dustbin
We repelled the invasion
Keep telling yourself that, Dusty.
Okay, so tell me what territory we lost in that war?
1803
« on: January 03, 2015, 03:13:27 AM »
Except we didn't lol
No we didn't dustbin
We repelled the invasion
1804
« on: January 03, 2015, 03:08:33 AM »
I woke up with this poster on my wall An even better way to start the day 
1805
« on: January 03, 2015, 02:52:08 AM »
And Vietnam doesn't count because Congress never signed a declaration of war.
Yep
1806
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:50:00 AM »
1807
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:43:55 AM »
Hey, where did the anonymous option go?
1808
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:42:21 AM »
t4r
1809
« on: January 02, 2015, 10:29:19 PM »
Wow didn't take you for an anti semite Max.
He's rebelling against his liberal jew overlords.
1810
« on: January 02, 2015, 07:58:02 PM »
The Nazis were 30 years ahead of the rest of the world technologically speaking
Maybe five.
The show I watched on the history channel ten years ago that I vaguely remember said twenty or thirty.
1811
« on: January 02, 2015, 07:55:37 PM »
Muslims aren't nearly the threat the Nazis were. The Nazis were 30 years ahead of the rest of the world technologically speaking and their genocide was mechanical and efficient. Muslims just aren't that smart, in fact they're rather pitiable in how third world and pathetic they are.
You're overselling the Reich, there.
The Nazis were a horribly inefficient mess who managed to put on a good show.
I'm sure the conservatives in western governments will elevate them from "terrorists" to "worthy enemy" if they can manage to threaten NATO, but I still doubt they're anywhere near that point. But who knows, it only takes one rallying cry for shit to get going. I do agree though that Islamic nations are fascists even though you almost never hear them labelled that way.
1812
« on: January 02, 2015, 07:48:49 PM »
Muslims aren't nearly the threat the Nazis were. The Nazis were 30 years ahead of the rest of the world technologically speaking and their genocide was mechanical and efficient. Muslims just aren't that smart, in fact they're rather pitiable in how third world and pathetic they are.
1813
« on: January 02, 2015, 05:14:32 PM »
The singularity dictates us to convert matter and higher forms of energy into heat energy. Without us, the singularity wouldn't equal zero and this universe wouldn't be possible.
1814
« on: January 02, 2015, 04:26:48 PM »
Nobody's claiming that robots will be able to pull of lawyering in a court-room. nvm
1815
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:36:08 AM »
Evolution and the Big Bang don't seem to have all the answers, but the Bible does.
1816
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:05:40 AM »
I think the sentiments relegating it to being a coping mechanism or list of instructions for the weak-minded are unbelievably shallow. Religion is integral to understanding humanity and our culture, psychology, science, and past. I think it's embarrassingly arrogant to disregard the cultural and moral knowledge of our species since before written language, and claim to know better. It's a very sophomoric statement, and it's no surprise to see the younger of the users espouse it, but a little disheartening to see it from the older members.
So intelligent design or no godly intervention in evolution? How seriously do you take the Bible; how do you take the Bible?
1817
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:13:37 AM »
max = sentra
1818
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:07:07 AM »
t4r
1819
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:53:46 PM »
It must suck being a virgin
you would know
1820
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:52:10 PM »
It must suck being a virgin
1821
« on: January 01, 2015, 10:13:02 PM »
get 3000 posts numb nuts
That's only one of the requirements
It's all I needed to do
That's because you are active and had a low bad-trust score. It's different for everyone, depending on how they go about using the forum.
Nah some users like max abuse the system and dish out as many down votes as they possibly can.
1822
« on: January 01, 2015, 10:10:43 PM »
 pic4ref
1823
« on: January 01, 2015, 06:21:10 PM »
Is bombing North Korea a good idea?
Okay, okay, how exactly can North Korea become stabilized?
1824
« on: January 01, 2015, 04:58:12 PM »
you better be the real lukeanatr
1825
« on: January 01, 2015, 04:57:13 PM »
This is Kinder's 
I'm curious, how did you get the info/picture?
Rocketman is my alt. The whole fling between us is just a cover up. The IPs don't match because of the Tor network.
1826
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:21:07 PM »
OVER 40 MEMES IN ONE SONG
1827
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:02:33 PM »
Okay now how about a tl;dr
>morality necessarily relates to the flourishing and well-being of conscious creatures
>therefore questions about morality have objectively correct or incorrect answers
I'm honestly a bit annoyed I didn't get more of a ruse out of you
1828
« on: January 01, 2015, 02:55:36 PM »
I'll watch it later when I'm in the mood, but I can get a tl;dw pls
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".
Okay now how about a tl;dr
1829
« on: January 01, 2015, 02:34:09 PM »
I'll watch it later when I'm in the mood, but I can get a tl;dw pls
1830
« on: January 01, 2015, 01:40:35 PM »
Also the two smartest people on the forum believe in god (Turkey anf Goji), so there's definitely some truth to behind creationism
Goji isn't religious. . .
stay mad christfag
Pages: 1 ... 596061 6263 ... 194
|
Show Posts