Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Ace in the Spade probably says this to all the girls:
Yes, yes I do. Because Im feeling lucky and thats means I could be an all powerful cookie monster who will subjugate you in the near future. SO deal.
Okay, I'll be waiting with some shotgun shells.
We'll see who's right on this matter. 
quote:
Bloodsage thought about the meaning of life:
You seem to know almost as little of philosophy as you do physics. I suggest you read Gell-Mann's The Quark and the Jaguar as a primer before you put your foot in your mouth regarding quantum theory.Jeebus.
By your logic, it's perfectly intelligent to invest one's complete paycheck in playing the lottery. . .routinely. Hey, it could happen, so if I believe it will I'm golden. No matter the odds are several hundred million to one against. Nah. Anyone who calls that sort of belief system silly is just closed-minded. And doesn't understand quantum mechanics. Or fluid dynamics. Or thermobaric weapons. Or something.
See Drak's other thread. The monkeys could, indeed, type Shakespeare. But they don't. So it's stupid to base your beliefs around, "Hey, it could happen!"
Reading what others write is a skill. Invest in it. and I quote myself. look like two posts above. "Im not saying to make an entire system of belief out of them and use them to determine the path of your life." What I am saying is that it could happen so don't dismiss it because it doesnt happen. And give it a few hundred million years and when that evolution that you believe in makes monkeys capable of writing and understanding Shakespear then we'll see where we stand.
quote:
Where's Waisz? screamed this from the crapper:
Okay, I'll be waiting with some shotgun shells.We'll see who's right on this matter.
Pssst! Just tell him that Planck's constant is large so that the bullets will most likely miss him!
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Aw, geez, I have Ace in the Spade all over myself!
And give it a few hundred million years and when that evolution that you believe in makes monkeys capable of writing and understanding Shakespear then we'll see where we stand.
Oh, this is too good.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
I once called someone on a quote from the movie "The Negotiator" while we were playing Halo.
That movie kicked so much ass.
"Well in the Marines they teach us not to piss on our hands!"
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about pies:
Pssst! Just tell him that Planck's constant is large so that the bullets will most likely miss him!
Actually, I'm going to use buckshot.
I figure that way there's a better chance he'll survive the encounter (and spend several days in pain). [ 09-14-2003: Message edited by: Where's Waisz? ]
quote:
Where's Waisz? had this to say about Captain Planet:
Okay, I'll be waiting with some shotgun shells.We'll see who's right on this matter.
Fine you wait with your shells and I'll wait with my finger on the trigger of my loaded shotgun. And thats the reason why my cookie monsterness will subjugate you. Because you forget the shotgun where as I don't 
And in the famous words of over 400+ Ricky Lake/Springer guests, "And what? And what?"
quote:
Ace in the Spade thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Fine you wait with your shells and I'll wait with my finger on the trigger of my loaded shotgun. And thats the reason why my cookie monsterness will subjugate you. Because you forget the shotgun where as I don'tAnd in the famous words of over 400+ Ricky Lake/Springer guests, "And what? And what?"
You should take the advice of the A-Team.
quote:
Where's Waisz? attempted to be funny by writing:
Actually, I'm going to use buckshot.I figure that way there's a better chance he'll survive the encounter (and spend several days in pain).
Buckshot == Bigger Pellets == Bigger Wound Channel == Greater Likelyhood of Death or Incapacitation.
Birdshot is used on small animals, like, you know, birds, and buckshot is used on larger animals, like, you know, deer.
So which would be the better choice to maim, but not kill, a human? Come on, Waisz, you can redeem yourself here.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Where's Waisz?!
You should take the advice of the A-Team.
What spray bullets around like mad while not killing/hitting a single person?
quote:
Koosh Man stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Buckshot == Bigger Pellets == Bigger Wound Channel == Greater Likelyhood of Death or Incapacitation.Birdshot is used on small animals, like, you know, birds, and buckshot is used on larger animals, like, you know, deer.
So which would be the better choice to maim, but not kill, a human? Come on, Waisz, you can redeem yourself here.
I meant compared to slug since I probably won't be waiting for him to get near before pulling the trigger.
Birdshot works, though. 
quote:Let me open my punctuation kit for you. Borrow some, I insist.
i wnt Ace in the Spade's blz 2 die:
What spray bullets around like mad while not killing/hitting a single person?
,,,....;'''::""""????!!!
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Ace in the Spade gently hums:
Reading what others write is a skill. Invest in it. and I quote myself. look like two posts above. "Im not saying to make an entire system of belief out of them and use them to determine the path of your life." What I am saying is that it could happen so don't dismiss it because it doesnt happen. And give it a few hundred million years and when that evolution that you believe in makes monkeys capable of writing and understanding Shakespear then we'll see where we stand.
Is this international Idiots Annoy Bloodsage Day, or something?
You're telling us, essentially, not to bet against something simply because the odds are astronomical. It's absurd on the face of it.
And the little you understand of quantum theory is frightening, given your comfort level basing your arguments upon it. The odds that a dropped pencil will fall up, for example, are zero. Quantum factors, as Drak has pointed out, don't come into play at that scale.
If you're saying, as you allege, that making a belief system out of tarot isn't correct, then why are your arguing that no one should debunk such belief systems? The belief systems don't rely on the fact that, in theory, the cards will sometimes correctly foretell the future; they rely on there being some sort of mystical powers inherent in the cards or the reader, depending.
Please go back under whatever rock you normally hide, or find an argument that makes the least bit of sense.
{edit: double punctuation} [ 09-14-2003: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Ace in the Spade had this to say about Cuba:
What spray bullets around like mad while not killing/hitting a single person?
Don't be a fool, stay in school.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Where's Waisz? said:
I meant compared to slug since I probably won't be waiting for him to get near before pulling the trigger.Birdshot works, though.
Point taken.
Carry on. 
quote:
Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Is this international Idiots Annoy Bloodsage Day, or something?1. You're telling us, essentially, not to bet against something simply because the odds are astronomical.
2. And the little you understand of quantum theory is frightening, given your comfort level basing your arguments upon it.
3. If you're saying, as you allege, that making a belief system out of tarot isn't correct,
4. then why are your arguing that no one should debunk such belief systems
5. The belief systems don't rely on the fact that, in theory, the cards will sometimes correctly foretell the future; they rely on there being some sort of mystical powers inherent in the cards or the reader, depending.
6. Please go back under whatever rock you normally hide, or find an argument that makes the least bit of sense.
{edit: double punctuation}
1. No. I said, dont dismiss it because the probability is slim. [ 09-14-2003: Message edited by: Ace in the Spade ]
2. Yes my knowledge of Quantum theory is very limited, but Im sure you have so much experience in the field right?
3. I said you shouldnt make a system of belief based around Tarot, letting it determine your actions and such. I did not say that a belief in Tarot is incorrect. What I said was that letting it determine everything you do is wrong. Using it as guidelines or as a means to use randomness to generate different povs, then yes that would be correct. Once again, reading what others write is a skill.
4. Im arguing that you should be accepting and understanding of others belief due to the slim chance that they are right. That doesnt mean you should believe what they do, but I am saying that you should try to understand their veiws rather than simply dismissing it since it does not coincide with your own.
5. Belief does not have to mean there is something being done by a divine force. 2. Mental acceptance of a statement, fact, doctrine, thing, etc., as true or existing. (Foll. by in a thing, in or of a statement etc., that something is the case.) ME. Argue with that and you argue with the OED and Tolkien.
6. You've been categorically denied.
quote:
Ace in the Spade startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
1. No. I said, dont dismiss it because the probability are slim.
2. Yes my knowledge of Quantum theory is very limited, but Im sure you have so much experience in the field right?
3. I said you shouldnt make a system of belief based around Tarot, letting it determine your actions and such. I did not say that a belief in Tarot is incorrect. What I said was that letting it determine everything you do is wrong. Using it as guidelines or as a means to use randomness to generate different povs, then yes that would be correct. Once again, reading what others write is a skill.
4. Im arguing that you should be accepting and understanding of others belief due to the slim chance that they are right. That doesnt mean you should believe what they do, but I am saying that you should try to understand their veiws rather than simply dismissing it since it does not coincide with your own.
5. Belief does not have to mean there is something being done by a divine force. 2. Mental acceptance of a statement, fact, doctrine, thing, etc., as true or existing. (Foll. by in a thing, in or of a statement etc., that something is the case.) ME. Argue with that and you argue with the OED and Tolkien.
6. You've been categorically denied.
For someone who writes as poorly as you do, continually telling others to learn reading skills is not only ironic, but annoying. If you'd like to go down that path, though, we can certainly compare reading and writing skills. Just say the word.
You, like so many other morons, assume that those of us who disprove illogical bullshit are simply closed-minded and unable to understand anything with which we disagree. Where do you get that notion?
The fact is, though, you've not taken on any of the actual arguments most of us have made. Just because some moron believes something totally improbable, which violates the most basic principles of current scientific understanding, doesn't mean I shouldn't debunk the belief.
Nor does the act of debunking something illogical and silly point to any lack of empathy. The empathy may or may not be there, but that's a different discussion, divorced from the analysis of tarot as a belief set.
Yes, I'm more qualified to discuss quantum theory than you are. Quite obviously so. Search the archives for any number of discussions on the topic, then go read the primer I recommended. Until then, do us all the favor of not basing your arguments on things you admittedly don't understand.
Why on earth should I be accepting of stupidity just because you think there may be a one-in-a-gazillion chance a ridiculous belief set may be correct? That makes no sense. It's that logic thing again: one doesn't accept something on the off chance it might be true despite the evidence--one accepts the evidence.
Belief does, indeed, imply some sort of divinity. Almost by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't be belief, but a rational opinion based on observed phenomena. Whether one calls the divinity God, or the Great Spirit, or random factors, or ESP, or whatever doesn't really matter.
You've used your reference rather poorly in this instance, as so many do. Lots of people confuse "believe," which means to hold true in the absence of evidence, and "think," which means to hold true because of evidence--hence the dictionary definitions cover both bases. Which is why one should very rarely, if ever, argue from the basis of a dictionary definition.
I don't argue with the OED--but that's because I know how to use it.
Finally, you should probably re-think your use of probabilities. To quote Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You seem to be arguing that, based upon your sketchy understanding of quantum theory, anything at all is theoretically possible. Meaning one should not discount anything, because there's always a slim chance it might happen. Like gravity suddenly not working with your pencil example. Karnaj succinctly debunked that crap, and so has Drakkenmaw.
Hate to break it to you, but anything imaginable is not actually possible.
{edit: tpyo} [ 09-14-2003: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
From the book of Bloodsage, chapter 3, verse 16:
You, like so many other morons, assume that those of us who disprove illogical bullshit are simply closed-minded and unable to understand anything with which we disagree.
Where do I get this idea. I get this idea from when people, you, decide to begin insulting people in threads. What this does is degrade the level of the discourse being have and also shows you as a person of low character. It also tells people that you try to cloud the issue, or drive home your points with personal attacks rather than simpyl facts. Learn to have arguments with otu insults and you will be better respected for it.
The fact is, though, you've not taken on any of the actual arguments most of us have made. Just because some moron believes something totally improbable, which violates the most basic principles of current scientific understanding, doesn't mean I shouldn't debunk the belief.
Once again. Im not saying you shouldnt debunk the belief. But you should remain open to the possibility of the validity of that claim. For years the Heliocentric theory was debunked by people because they did not have enough evidence to convince themselves to believe in it. But look at what we believe now. So I ask you not to agree but merely to keep your own opinions while others keep theirs. And if you are moved in some manner to speak your mind. Do so in a respectable manner that gives evidence to your conclusion rather than trying dismiss the quilificatiosn of the other person.Nor does the act of debunking something illogical and silly point to any lack of empathy. The empathy may or may not be there, but that's a different discussion, divorced from the analysis of tarot as a belief set.
Once again, stop saying that Tarot is a belief. I did not say this. Only you have. I have only said using it as a method of examining other povs can be beneficial.Yes, I'm more qualified to discuss quantum theory than you are. Quite obviously so. Search the archives for any number of discussions on the topic, then go read the primer I recommended. Until then, do us all the favor of not basing your arguments on things you admittedly don't understand.
Yes you might be more familar one the subject but I am only speaking on what I do know. There have been experiments and theories used to examine the possibilty of multiple realities. However I do not claim to fully understand quantum theory where as you have. "Until then, do us all the favor of not basing your arguments on things you admittedly don't understand." This would imply that you understand. And I highly doubt the fact that you fully understand quantum theory. You've probably read a little more on the subject than I have, but I doubt you have activeley studied it and are up to date on what is transpiring with the most current theories and the reasons for those theories.Why on earth should I be accepting of stupidity just because you think there may be a one-in-a-gazillion chance a ridiculous belief set may be correct? That makes no sense. It's that logic thing again: one doesn't accept something on the off chance it might be true despite the evidence--one accepts the evidence.
Once again, try not to go with insults and you'll come out as a more respectful person. And yes accepting the fact that something could happen is stupid. I mean really who would ever accept the idea that a person could win the lottery when the odds are so high. Thats so stupid right? So all those people who won money from the lottery are stupid because they accepted the possibility that they might win. Hmm, you've convinced me on this one. And I have not claimed to accept Tarot, or pencils falling upwards. What I do accept is there might be an occasion where it will not fall downwards or random cards could predict things. The evidence says that I can make a pencil fall anyways I choose depending on the type of gravitational field I put it in. If the center of the feild is above me and I let go of the pencil it will fall upwards.Belief does, indeed, imply some sort of divinity. Almost by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't be belief, but a rational opinion based on observed phenomena. Whether one calls the divinity God, or the Great Spirit, or random factors, or ESP, or whatever doesn't really matter.
Random factors? So are you calling most of what transpires in the universe divinity? All these random fators dictating the path things take, like molecules and birds, and people, and weather, and metoers, etc. So is this divinity, or just something happening in nature?You've used your reference rather poorly in this instance, as so many do. Lots of people confuse "believe," which means to hold true in the absence of evidence, and "think," which means to hold true because of evidence--hence the dictionary definitions cover both bases. Which is why one should very rarely, if ever, argue from the basis of a dictionary definition.
So now you're telling me a word I used that can mean multiple things is wrong while a word I didnt use that can also mean what the first word I used meant is correct.
I don't argue with the OED--but that's because I know how to use it.Finally, you should probably re-think your use of probabilities. To quote Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You seem to be arguing that, based upon your sketchy understanding of quantum theory, anything at all is theoretically possible. Meaning one should not discount anything, because there's always a slim chance it might happen. Like gravity suddenly not working with your pencil example. Karnaj succinctly debunked that crap, and so has Drakkenmaw.
Well I never claimed gravity wouldnt work now did I? I said the pencil wouldnt be falling down. Suppose for a moment there was some hugely dense object near the earth with enough gravitational pull to override the earth's. Then the pencil wouldn't be falling down. It would falling towards that hugely dense object. Now what could do that. Black holes could, and there is a possibilty that our galaxies could be swept into a supermassive black whole in the distant future.
{edit: tpyo}
You've got to do work if you want people to read your side of this.
Stop for a second, and recognize something. You are arguing the same point we have been arguing, if what you said about the "POV" in Tarot is something you actually believe in.
You are just trying to justify it in the stupidest manner I have ever seen.
You BELIEVE something. Good for you. STOP TRYING TO USE SCIENCE TO PROVE YOUR BELIEF. Yes, science shows that several near-impossible things could, conceivably, happen. So? That is not a justification for "everyone is right in what they believe." That is a PHILOSOPHY. The worlds of those two disciplines are FAR APART.
I do not disagree with the conclusion you come to, I disagree with the argument you use to back up your conclusion. For one reason, and one reason only - NOTHING can prove a philosophy. Just as nothing can disprove it. And you're going to all this effort to try and prove something that CANNOT BE PROVEN.
Your talk of Quantum Theory is making Einstein spin in his grave so much, we could strap magnets to him and power a small city. Quantum theory is meant to explain the activities of subatomic particles, not provide an out to explain how a genie could suddenly pop into existence and grant you wishes. So stop abusing science for your proof. Just believe in the damn thing, and be done with it.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Falaanla Marr wrote:
Using big words doesn't make you intelligent, Ace.
Find me the big words I have used.
quote:
Drakkenmaw thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:Yes, science shows that several near-impossible things could, conceivably, happen. So? That is not a justification for "everyone is right in what they believe."
No you're right. But it is a justification that everyone COULD be right in what they believe.
1. I don't remember claiming to believe anything Ive writen.
2. And you agree with my point? Then good like Machiavelli said the ends justifies the means. If my means is an irrational argument that leads to a rational conclusion then so be it. Thats how we do things here.
quote:
Ace in the Spade had this to say about pies:
Find me the big words I have used.
I'm using "big words" here as a term meaning talking about stuff you really have no idea about.
I'm sorry, but people are riping you up one side, down the other and you keep goin. 
Right... I'll just leave Bloodsage to respond to that, as he's better at it than I am. As for everything else...
Machiavelli was a POLITICAL THEORIST. You don't seem to understand this concept, but it's an important one - theories do not transcend the areas of study they were composed to explain. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" does not apply to politics, economics, or anything else except PHYSICS. If someone finds a rule that explains everything in existence, let me know. Also, let the Nobel committee know. They've been looking for that sort of thing.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Ace in the Spade liberally with Old Spice!
1. I don't remember claiming to believe anything Ive writen.
Exactly. You posited an explanation. Bloodsage, Drak and I tore it to shreds independently of each other. You have been defeated.
quote:
2. And you agree with my point? Then good like Machiavelli said the ends justifies the means. If my means is an irrational argument that leads to a rational conclusion then so be it. Thats how we do things here.
Bullshit. Saying "I AM A PANCAKE DONKEY" will not allow you to discern how a finite state automaton works.
But thanks for playing!
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
You're just trying to save face after being torn to shreds by the most persistant flame warrior, the most scrutinizing flame warrior, and the big one that's more persistant and scrutinizing than either of them.
In this case, there is no shame in just admitting that your argument fails and backing out. It's a helluva lot more graceful than the shit you're pulling now.
*craps in someone's sock drawer*
quote:
Drakkenmaw probably says this to all the girls:
"That's how we do things here."Right... I'll just leave Bloodsage to respond to that, as he's better at it than I am. As for everything else...
Machiavelli was a POLITICAL THEORIST. You don't seem to understand this concept, but it's an important one - theories do not transcend the areas of study they were composed to explain. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" does not apply to politics, economics, or anything else except PHYSICS. If someone finds a rule that explains everything in existence, let me know. Also, let the Nobel committee know. They've been looking for that sort of thing.
I know who Machiavelli was. And I did not refer to him or his works in any way shape or form about wether or Tarot cards and all that are correct are justifiable. What I did refer to was his basic concept of the end justifies the means. In this case, I give an argument that may or may not be valid but it leads to the point I want. That is the ends justifies the means. Im not using his concept to explain physics or economics. Im using it as an example for what I did. I presented an arguement that might have been rather irrational to you (the means), and it lead to a conclusion that we both agreed on (the end). Thats the point of an arguement, is to convince or arrive at some mutual understanding.
The next time you feel up to giving me a lecture on the principles of Machiavelli, let me know. I wont be there. I won't listen, and I don't care. And above all stop wasting my time by telling me Im saying something other than what I've written. If you want justification of my reading skills, ask Zair he knows what I got on my ACT for it.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan's fortune cookie read:
Time to shut up, Spade. The whole "oho, my insane logic is too bizarre for you to comprehend" card has been played before. Ask Roinn where it got him.You're just trying to save face after being torn to shreds by the most persistant flame warrior, the most scrutinizing flame warrior, and the big one that's more persistant and scrutinizing than either of them.
In this case, there is no shame in just admitting that your argument fails and backing out. It's a helluva lot more graceful than the shit you're pulling now.
*craps in someone's sock drawer*
I would've of assumed that saying that your argument is irrational is admitting that it didnt do the job. Maybe thats just me though... Hows that college education working out for you Parce?
quote:
Nobody really understood why Ace in the Spade wrote:
I know who Machiavelli was. And I did not refer to him or his works in any way shape or form about wether or Tarot cards and all that are correct are justifiable. What I did refer to was his basic concept of the end justifies the means. In this case, I give an argument that may or may not be valid but it leads to the point I want. That is the ends justifies the means. Im not using his concept to explain physics or economics. Im using it as an example for what I did. I presented an arguement that might have been rather irrational to you (the means), and it lead to a conclusion that we both agreed on (the end). Thats the point of an arguement, is to convince or arrive at some mutual understanding.The next time you feel up to giving me a lecture on the principles of Machiavelli, let me know. I wont be there. I won't listen, and I don't care. And above all stop wasting my time by telling me Im saying something other than what I've written. If you want justification of my reading skills, ask Zair he knows what I got on my ACT for it.
Look, going "LA LA LA LA LA~~ I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOOOOOOU!" is not going to make you any friends or get you any supporters here. Your argument is flawed. DEAL WITH IT.
quote:
Ace in the Spade enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
I would've of assumed that saying that your argument is irrational is admitting that it didnt do the job. Maybe thats just me though... Hows that college education working out for you Parce?
I wouldn't go there, bro. We can take this thread and do a vote as to which of us is smarter.
I guarantee you, even Al Gore will be silenced at the count.
quote:
Drakkenmaw attempted to be funny by writing:
Look, going "LA LA LA LA LA~~ I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOOOOOOU!" is not going to make you any friends or get you any supporters here. Your argument is flawed. DEAL WITH IT.
How stupid must you be, look at my latest post. and the one above it where I state my argument didnt do it, was irratioanl. How many times do I need to type the same thing before you understand. Reading comprehension, it is a skill my friend. Learn it, use it, love it.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan said this about your mom:
I wouldn't go there, bro. We can take this thread and do a vote as to which of us is smarter.I guarantee you, even Al Gore will be silenced at the count.
Touchy all of a sudden, eh? Have some fun [ 09-14-2003: Message edited by: Ace in the Spade ]
quote:
Ace in the Spade had this to say about Robocop:
Touchy all of a sudden, eh? Have some fun
Ah, now I see you're adopting the: "Since I'm losing, I'll start making shit up" method.
I'm not feeling particularly touchy, kid. You're just a mosquito buzzing in my ear, and that annoys me.
And really, you should stop spewing that "omg I realize my argument = irrational, so must u" line. If you truly realized your argument was irrational and pitiful, you would have stopped arguing.
Instead, you chose to try to carve a name for yourself by taking the big dogs on. You're fighting for the right to be recognized and special. Like a double-edged sword, however, while people think you're special now, it's not the kind you were aiming for.
