Messages

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.

31

General / Re: Excellent breasts.

« on: February 02, 2014, 01:21:44 AM »

32

General / Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold

« on: February 02, 2014, 01:20:01 AM »

This happens to me often. My mother and I will have be having a wonderful conversation, especially about the state of the US and when I think I'm making progress, I hear, "Were God's people, he's not giving up on this nation...promises, plan etc."

Then I just get pissed because it's the functional equivalent of a three year old plugging her hears with her fingers shouting, "I can't hear you la la la la..."

It makes me want to shove my head through a mirror while licking the inside of a battery.

33

General / Re: Ban Voluntaryism Petition

« on: February 02, 2014, 01:16:01 AM »

Barack Obummer I have 2 words for these voluntaryists:

"Predator drones."

Typical conservative.

34

General / Re: Ban Voluntaryism Petition

« on: February 02, 2014, 01:14:02 AM »

In my head, this is who wrote this document.

ZOMG a "cuuullllt" it's eeeevill.

35

General / Re: *** Pedo Leech Dave ***

« on: February 02, 2014, 12:43:14 AM »

Holee fuck! LOL....

36

General / Re: I hereby offer my letter of resignation

« on: January 30, 2014, 05:17:43 PM »

Yeah, there's images. Bing it. Lot's of fun to be had.

37

General / Re: I hereby offer my letter of resignation

« on: January 30, 2014, 01:51:10 PM »

Fuck, I think I hit notify not reply the first time...total accident. sorry.

But...

Have you ever seen Archer porn?

38

General / Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold

« on: January 30, 2014, 01:50:03 PM »

I have a hard time letting go of the concept of having one universal protector of rights that's unbiased and acts only in the interest in defending rights. e.g. Police...nothing like what we have today, but someone to look into murders, theft and so forth.

I really don't know where I sit on this.

39

General / Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold

« on: January 29, 2014, 02:31:03 PM »

Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial,

Right. Because it doesn't present an argument that would represent evidence against a deeply held religious belief.

However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible.

First off, is there really a guy (Jesse D.) with a sword and a bible? That's sound comically cartoonish. If so, you just compared a guy with a sword and an unscientific ancient text written by primitives with a guy without a sword and with a modern scientific text.

And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.

I probably should have used that TBN guy...whats his face, who does 1000 lb leg presses. Anyhow, I was using metaphor. And my point is to juxtapose debate and defense . As you said, science is a debate. Dawkins comes across as an ass and a fundamentalist. No different than a TBN. There's no functional debate being had, kinda just a bomb throwing session.

Intra-scientific squabbles are preferable and probably unavoidable. It's part of the hard path to the truth. The attack on evolution is a real thing. It's not a debate between two scientific theories. If someone has a scientific alternative to it, it should be presented and up for discussion. Science IS debate. Dawkins and others are defending science itself when they defend evolution.

Well, no. The attack on "m" theory was a real thing too. You're getting into the merit of the debate rather than the characteristics. Two different things.

I really did have a least liberty position, but I absolutely forgot it.

EDIT by Dale: I took the liberty of a quick editing (code only) for readability.

40

General / Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold

« on: January 29, 2014, 11:44:37 AM »

Science "expert" presenting bad science: Here's is what I believe to be true and here is the evidence for what I believe. *Presents poor evidence that didn't use good scientific method. Might even say any evidence to the contrary is "bad science" in a hypocritical fashion.*

I think that is very foundational to most religions. My mother will sit down and tell you that her faith isn't just a belief, that she's actually spoken with God, seen angles and miracles. There are plenty of "faithers" who have "evidence" that makes their case.

Is that evidence recordable, testable and reproducable... amongst the millions who think they have it, yeah sure in their own way and that's an essential part of the scientific method.

However, I think that mostly what I'm getting at is the attitude towards certain sectors of science that becomes like a religion. Science in and of itself isn't a religion, it's the observers attitude that is. Better way of saying it, I guess.

Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial, so we don't have frothingly mad scientists out there defending it like Dawkins who go above and beyond in presenting their case. It's the Ideal Gas Law and just is. No one cares. However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible. The similarities are striking. And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.



Welcoming debate = science
Shutting down debate = religion

Very simplistic but the best way I can relate what's floating about my head.

41

General / Re: Don't call them meat curtains. They're natural.

« on: January 29, 2014, 11:12:46 AM »

After seeing something like 9.2 billion vagina's I can say that there really isn't a porn industry standard, which I think is what you're getting at.

I saw a brief documentary recently about it. They were talking about photos and not video, fwiw, and how women would see shooped photos and think there was something wrong with them. It definitely happens but maybe it's not as widespread as the documentary made it out to be. I have no idea. It's obviously not an area of particular concern for me.

Every woman is beautiful in her own way, I just prefer one kind of beauty over another.

My preferences are my preferences... can't help it. BTW, I like small to medium boobs mostly.

Def no reason to feel guilty about your preferences. It seems to me that most of the pressure on women to conform to a certain image comes primarily from other women anyway.

QFT

I think men are much more forgiving than women... I've had this conversation with many women and usually they call bull shit, but when we start talking about characteristics that we like, men end up throwing a wider net.

My wife loves women. Yay me, but whenever I point out someone that I think is gorgeous, she finds an issue. Not always, but usually. I like the variety, she likes the ideal woman.

I'm sure there is a shit load of photoshopping going on (sorry can't get down with the shoop) and one only has to look at some of the Playboy photo-sets to see it. Yet there are plenty of set, even some on Playboy, where the women are as natural as can be complete with stretch-marks and some of them are wildly popular and never inhibit my own fap-time.

I think the idea that porn presents an unrealistic image of woman is largely a myth. There's shit porn out there for sure that idolizes the fake tits, fake tan, fake hair, plasticy looking models... but I think that's mostly passe and really a dying niche.

42

General / Re: Don't call them meat curtains. They're natural.

« on: January 29, 2014, 08:49:20 AM »

Listening to your pod-cast right now.

Yes, I understand all about pussy.

Vaginas come in all shapes and sizes. Some with labia's that are bigger or smaller than others.

Just like boobs are bigger and smaller than others.

Most labia's are not photo-shopped or have been the victims of labiaplasty. In my personal life, I have seen labia's of all kinds and I've come to prefer one kind over another. The labs that I posted in the ex-breast thread were of a girl Dominika from Femjoy and Joymii (hugely popular sites), her's are definitely on the larger side of the spectrum. The other labs may have been operated on, I just Bing searched labia and found one. Just saying that was on the smaller. There really is a thing for large labia's... and small... and medium and all other kinds. After seeing something like 9.2 billion vagina's I can say that there really isn't a porn industry standard, which I think is what you're getting at.

Every woman is beautiful in her own way, I just prefer one kind of beauty over another.

My preferences are my preferences... can't help it. BTW, I like small to medium boobs mostly.

43

General / Re: Saint Stanislaus Church Pleasant Valley

« on: January 27, 2014, 02:09:55 AM »

Grew up in NY. Wish I could return, but cant because I love my guns much too much.

44

General / Re: Excellent breasts.

« on: January 27, 2014, 01:25:00 AM »

45

General / Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold

« on: January 27, 2014, 12:00:32 AM »

I still don't understand the necessity for teaching any kind of origin theory in any school.

The only reason it's called a theory is for political reasons; not scientific ones--for people who don't accept it, and always for religious reasons. Politics is always corrupting science, e.g. the one we probably largely agree on--global warming. As to why it's taught, you could ask that about any subject. It's pretty foundational to a lot of biology in terms of biological classification.

Politics is foundational to people. People conduct science. Therefore, politics will never be separated from science. Eliminate all government, egos will still prevail and politics will always play a role in the scientific community.

I agree in a well rounded education... but by choice, not requirement. If I choose to go to school for astronautical engineering, I should not have to learn the history of rocketry. It's a benefit as it creates a well rounded person, and perhaps may provide inspiration to a solution for a problem some time down the future. Nevertheless, it should be a choice. Likewise, knowing that Australopithecus Afarensus is in our evolutionary history does little in providing a mitochondrial solution, even if I observe the same problems in a chimpanzee and want to extrapolate their process to our own. I can do so through the use of the scientific method. I do not necessarily need knowledge of evolution. Indeed, there are plenty of effective biologists who are creationists. If it were vital, they simply could not function. Yet, they do.

I went to school for a Environmental Science and I had to take six biology courses. Yet, not one fig of fuck is given about evolution when I had to apply practical knowledge to my specialty.

It wasn't applicable in my computer science field either but I learned a lot of things in school that were not part of my career. Neither was chemistry or history. I'm glad I learned a lot of science about the world around me besides just what I need to make a living. Knowledge has enriched my life and seeing how questions have been answered prior is helpful to my critical thinking skills. A lot of people would like to know how life came to be.

Read above.

A note on science: It's always evolving and knowledge we hold to be "facts" today, even amongst the hardiest science supporters, is sure to be much different 100 years from now. And in many ways it's a religion in it's own right.

No, it's not. If it's religious at all, it's not science. You can always point to a particular case and argue for why it's badly done science, but science isn't a set of beliefs. Science represents a rigorous method for arriving at those beliefs. You should be welcome to make a case for why something is bad science that did not apply the scientific method well and should not be taught and you may very well be right. But there's no such ambiguity with religion. There should simply be a proverbial trap door underneath that is triggered by the word "faith" and SWOOSH--out it goes.

In the sense that people adhere to a group of beliefs that organize the nature of their universe. Often on faith, because most of us cannot maintain all the scientific disciplines necessary in order to understand our universe and origin of our own accord. We rely on other people to relay that message.

In so doing, many people accept blindly what "experts" tell them and become as dogmatic and passionate about their beliefs, complete with all the darkness of what most would consider "actual religion", to pollute the system.

Without people to conduct it, science does not exist...it's not a thing, it's a practice. You cannot separate ego and politics from science.   ergo... it's a religion. Or religious-esque