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.
Topics - Dustin
61
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:28:02 PM »
Like you
62
« on: February 08, 2015, 02:53:13 PM »
t4r
63
« on: February 08, 2015, 01:23:12 PM »
Just asking a friendly question pls no fighting or getting angry
64
« on: February 07, 2015, 10:39:21 PM »
On average, is this true or false?
What is your opinion?
65
« on: February 07, 2015, 09:56:21 PM »
A true American hero is far more important than some edgy teenagers on the internet.
66
« on: February 07, 2015, 09:37:27 PM »
 You don't have to be an expert to see how much damage that can cause.
67
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:06:30 PM »
Empirical ruling you fucking retards.
Same sentences for everyone.
68
« on: February 07, 2015, 07:44:50 PM »
You can't ban all the entertaining members. Every forum's demise is inactivity, not drama.
69
« on: February 07, 2015, 07:38:58 PM »
t4r
70
« on: February 07, 2015, 07:12:38 PM »
71
« on: February 07, 2015, 07:09:13 PM »
If you're still a socialist and you don't plan on converting in the future, you're just fucking stupid.
If you were never a socialist when you were young, you were probably indoctrinated by American propaganda or you just have no heart for other people.
Any disagreements?
72
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:56:45 PM »
As well as anthropologists/archaeologists, art majors, music majors, gender studies majors, etc?
Or do they deserve to be jobless in the future for not spending five minutes to research what they should and should not do?
73
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:52:08 PM »
In the first world?
74
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:47:02 PM »
t4r
75
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:42:45 PM »
You know those error codes they have for animals? 
76
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:33:46 PM »
Everything it can tell us is what nihilism can tell us. It's fucking pointless and probably even harmful.
77
« on: February 05, 2015, 09:21:14 PM »
He's homeless! LOL
78
« on: February 05, 2015, 09:11:32 PM »
79
« on: February 05, 2015, 09:07:22 PM »
I mean, you'd have to be against social justice, equality, and personal freedom to say no.
80
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:59:55 PM »
There are so many genders to choose from.
So glad I finally get to use the government funded private bathroom for other kin and special people today as mandated by Obama's new executive order requiring equal bathroom privileges for all kins and genders.
81
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:49:27 PM »
We won't judge you, but bear in mind (lol pun totally intended) that human-kin is scum.
Also Verbatim, what kin do you identify as (since you hate humans)?
82
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:33:33 PM »
Isn't that kind of oppressive towards the transgenders, Cheat?
83
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:05:12 PM »
I'm just mad how easy they had it. They were handed the world on a golden fucking platter, and there were fucking jobs for everyone, degree or not. Nowadays, even an engineering degree doesn't guarantee a fucking job, and that's all because of the way the shitty baby boomer generation has handled things.
84
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:58:18 PM »
http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/I'm not saying what I got, but I didn't agree with it (I am far more privileged than that).
85
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:40:00 PM »
Perfects arms or perfect abs? Keep in mind that your abs are pretty much concealed to 99% of all people you will ever meet. pic 4 ref: 
86
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:18:25 PM »
That's right, ask rc2381 anything!
87
« on: February 05, 2015, 06:59:52 PM »
I wrote a post a few days ago (that didn't grab much attention but whatever) where I made the claim that the basis of all logic (think of logical laws and physical laws as one in the same) is the notion that two things cannot exist in the same place at the same time, or more easily stated, that contradiction cannot exist (a better physical definition for contradiction could be constructed but this should work fine for the purposes of this thread). For example, the sentiment that 'correlation doesn't equal causation' is logical because if every correlation was a causation, you would have an ambiguity and that would constitute as a contradiction. Another example is the law that 'an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon yadda yadda yadda'. That's logical because if the object were to stop for some reason, its current energy displacement would contradict the amount of energy it was given by the force that put it in motion. And the reason why energy can neither be created nor destroyed will also ultimately deduce back to the sentiment that contradiction cannot exist (it's just that deductional logic is severely limited to mathematics so we can't use this method to discover the unified theory of the universe).
So with all that said, the question I'm asking is whether or not our universe functions this way because it is demanded to, or because it cannot work any other way, because contradiction those actions. For example, when you kick a ball is it moving because you kicked it or because contradictions would exist if the ball were to not move, or if it were to move a little to the left or right, or essentially exist in any other state than what it moves in? The difference here is not semantics; the difference entails that there is no active reason why things function they way do, there are just severe limitations on the other possible movements and states of being an object could take. This idea is applicable to two topics: quantum mechanics and the unified theory. For quantum mechanics, we wonder why particles can pop in and out of existence, or how photons pop into existence when you turn on a light, or how electrons can be everywhere around an atom at once, or how they can teleport around an atom. These mass-less objects don't cause a contradiction when they behave like this. The reason they behave this way is because their threshold for possibilities is much greater than it is for objects with sufficient mass (the amount of possibilities for objects with mass is presumably just one). The other application is the unified theory, or the origin of the universe. Does the universe exist for a reason, or because there is no contradiction for it not to exist?
I think this way of looking at physics might be the right way, but I'm really not an expert here. Really, these are all just ideas and if an intelligent person thinks they're good then great. But otherwise these ideas don't mean anything, not even to me. So if anyone wants to tell me where I went wrong or if what I said made sense you're free to do so.
88
« on: January 30, 2015, 07:47:25 PM »
Whether the problem is what there is or what there should be, it's clear that people always reach different conclusions. I'm not going to pretend that I actually know the answer to this question, I'm just going to throw out an idea and hope to get some feedback from you guys. Usually there is a trend or a consensus of some kind among the experts, but not always. You might often ask yourself, why do some high level scientists believe in god while other do not?
Personally I think it has to do with logic (this is all conjecture from a non-expert so take everything with heavy skepticism). But logic is a lot more complicated than one would think. Logic, in a sense, can be understood as an extension of the scientific method (the scientific method, of course, does not encompass all the laws of logic), but it's actually far more fundamental than that, in fact it's radically fundamental. Now what exactly is logic? It's essentially what most physicists are looking for: a unified theory. We don't exactly know what that is, but we can still extrapolate a fundamental law all logic abides by: that two different actions cannot occur at the same time and same place, or in other words, that contradiction is illegal.
Hopefully the above makes sense but if not you can still understand the next part of this. While contradiction may be illegal, and while that idea may seem fairly simple, when applied to situations it can get rapidly more complicated. You cannot answer, 'is six plus seven thirteen' simply by bearing in mind that contradiction cannot exist. And thus, new laws of logic are 'invented' to grant more meaningfulness in how to apply logic to a problem. For example, the sentiment that correlation does not equal causation exists because of ambiguity. To assume that high obesity rates takes place in countries with high intelligence levels would give two possible solutions, and that creates a contradiction.
While everything may fundamentally be understood by the law of no-contradictions, it is still especially complicated for a human being to properly apply it to all problems correctly. So thus the conclusion here is that intelligent people can properly apply some logic to problems, but they don't properly apply all of it. This is why (or as I believe it to be) how multiple intelligent people can come to multiple different conclusions.
Thoughts? Questions? Disagreements?
89
« on: January 30, 2015, 06:14:38 PM »
Sort of anarchy spillage, but I'm genuinely curious. How exactly do you know (or think you know) that there are more than two genders?
|
Show Posts
