It was you who generalised, you said an ounce, I was treating an ounce as an absolute value that can be exactly measured. If you two amounts of copper that you knew where both exactly an ounce (I know, you couldn't ever be that precise) they would both have the same number of copper atoms in them. Also the statement science has no application in reality is just beyond ridiculous; ever heard of medicine? Or wonder what made that computer you're using (you yourself mention computer chips)? Ever wonder how the engine in your car makes it go? Or what magically produced the paint on your walls? I could literally go on forever with real life examples of where science is applied but I won't.



There is proof actually, statistical mechanics can be used to predict values that come from actual measurement in thermodynamics. The Ergodic Hypothesis has nothing to do with purity, I was just applying it to the example you gave. Chemistry does teach that objects are in a state of equilibrium yes, but that's precisely it, just because copper is interacting with the air (producing holes where there weren't any before as a defect, whatever) does not mean that the overall properties of the object change (as the same number of holes that where already present seal up due to movement of the metal atoms). That is what equilibrium is about, though on a microscopic level things are changing dynamically these things are in balance, so overall nothing changes macroscopically and properties of the material remain the same.



Computer chip manufacturers won't care about tiny insignificant differences on the microscopic level. Where impurities are is really macroscopic, and they can easily produce things on the macroscopic level; there will of course be small variations from place to place when you look at these impurities on a microscopic level but these have no bearing on the bulk properties of the material.

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

When the alien overlords come, women will serve men with onions and horseradish.



Unless he's absolutely sure that what he's saying is true, which, I beleive, you could deduct from Xyle's earlier behavior.

Considering this arguing back and forth, I wonder if we aren't performing the exact same experiment over and over, and expecting a different result, like madmen.

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

After reading Xyle's recent essays, I just feel sorry for him. It's like he's trying to be a decent guy and behave in nice way while still adhering to his religion, but really he lacks the intellectual rigor necessary to reach any meaningful conclusions. I have this image of him as a lost child wandering around a world of half-truths. trying to make sense of it, but not being sophisticated enough to discriminate between important sounding empty phrases, and unpleasant but true facts.

Then we all pile on top of him, and he does his best to regurgitate things he's heard from other sources, or interpreted for himself, but without a solid foundation he doesn't really stand a chance.

He's quite harmless really, I just hope he doesn't fall under the influence of any of the more devious representatives of evangelism.

To my mind, he's some idiotic, arrogant prick who thinks there's some merit in twisting words. He thinks there's something mystical about it; that he's reaching some 'Truth', as he puts it, whereas he's just viewing things in a certain way to suit himself and then claiming to have some insight because he can't use a fucking dictionary, and barely even knows how to speak, or has a bastardized view of it; and he probably genuinely thinks that his sophistry has some deep meaning that we don't understand; but it's clear to me that's it's all just resultant of the way he was brought up, and that he fancies himself an intellectual who's seen the world and is privy to its arcana, when he's just a close-minded moron who can't lay a hand on his keyboard without fucking up whatever stupid point he thinks he has and prominently exhibiting what an absolute gobshite he is.

Foolish people are one thing; arrogant foolish people are another; but I've never encountered anyone who, not even really possessing the inability to admit that they're wrong, simply can't imagine that they are, and I'd say that from Xyle's attempts to show he's right, if he's for real, it's quite obvious that he's out-straight dull-witted, since he can't see that he's not making sense or answering arguments at all, and he ignores when we mention this because he thinks there's something to what he's saying that we can't see or can't accept.

_________________

Didn’t your parents ever teach you that you shouldn't insult the dead? It's bad karma and accomplishes nothing.

Have you never heard the childish taunt "I know you are, but what am I?" The faults in we see in others tend to be our own which is why this childish taunt still persists.

=============



How about the simple fact that men don't talk about emotions? [Generalization] (To disprove generalization, talk about your emotions.)


How often does she HIT you? And is she more likely to Hit you before or after she talks to her friends?

Fact: Anger is not a violent act. (And as such I rescind the description "violent emotions" and change it "emotions related to violence".)

----
I concede the points (mostly) that your ladyfriend brought up. (Which leaves a huge whole left to be filled, hence the mostly.)
----



When I used the word Cause, I did not mean Reason. Cause : "a principle or movement earnestly supported"

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

Sorry Freud, but that's not always true; and certainly bears no relevance here.


Similar fact: Crying is not a foot.


You are an absolute moron. I honestly can't bring myself to believe that such an idiot can exist. Is English your first language? Perhaps this is the sort of nonsense they teach you in rhetoric, in order to try to trick people? All you're doing is looking at how a word is used in context and replacing its meaning with how its used in another context, and even then you fucked up royally.

_________________

There was no distinction until after Gentiles became Christians which occurs in Acts. As for the question of whether or not The Law applies to non-Jews, you must of missed the discussion of circumcision in Romans 2.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) -- Romans 2:14-15

First, you ignored my argument(s) that "superior" and "inferior" do not exist in Scripture in regards to the relationship between husband and wife. It is a question of authority, not supermacy. Do you believe that the lawmakers of your nation are superior than you? If so, Christianity has a different view of who is greater.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37-40

How can you love another in the manner that you love yourself while killing them? Do you not love your own body enough to feed it and keep it alive?



Misrepresenting to the point of deception...

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

So, believing in the same God and Scripture (to an extent), do you then believe that Jews should be doing all this killing that's mentioned in the Bible?


The law-makers of my country were voted in by a democracy. Wives don't ever seem to have the power of authority, by what you're saying, and I wonder why you think that this is the case and whether it's really justified.


Oh wow; I'm really stuck here. A Bible verse that contradicts another Bible verse? Or one that only applies to Gentiles, still not clearing up whether God says that Jews should be out murdering in his name or not.


Then how do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?

_________________

Language wasn't my first language, if you can wrap your mind around that. But since you are bound by language, I doubt it.


When I used the word Cause in the content of person with Cause entering into a combat situation while speaking of the base hormones that affect ability, I assumed personnal experience with those biochemical responses to create the understanding of what I meant. Apparently, you have none.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

Shit, I wish I hadn't used up the Godzilla-facepalm already...


You're simply replacing what words usually mean in a certain context with what they mean in another, and then supporting that position. After you seem to have said one thing, that seems controversial &c., it turns out that you mean another, which is simple common sense and which there's pretty much no point in saying.

"There isn't always a cause for violence"

was interpreted as,

"There isn't always a reason for violence"

but really meant,

"There isn't always a personal goal or zealous dedication accompanying violence"

which is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said.

_________________

Excuse me, I'd just like to state that you are the biggest moron who I have ever had the displeasure of encountering on the internet. Congratulations, want a fucking medal?
__________

*Sigh* Alright, let's dig into this shitstorm:


I am currently annoyed at your generalizations that prove precisely nothing. I don't talk about my emotions if people don't want me to because it's irritating as shit. For that matter, neither do the vast majority of the women I know.

If it's any of your business whatsoever (it isn't), our relationship is built on mutual respect and admiration, and neither of us would ever strike the other. That's irrelevant however, because no matter what strange directions you twist your wording and ever so malleable definitions, emotions remain emotions and emotions, not actions, are what we are discussing.

Which points? Allow me to fill that gaping hole in your head.

Ignoring, of course, that changing your quicksilver definition of the word makes the original statement sound completely moronic, or at least more than it already was.

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

None of you are ever going to be Jedi with this amount of hate.

_________________

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil.

_________________

I suppose it is all about perspective isn't it. Depending on how you look at it too I suppose the Sith weren't such bad people to begin with however they were pushed into it.

_________________

Come to the Dark side, Zanza... We teach you to use question marks, commas, and semicolons in all the right places!

_________________

Why do people keep saying these things to me. I use grammar...

_________________

Clearly your jaunty hat has driven them into an insane, jealous rage. But remember, Z.:

_________________

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

Traditional Chinese Kung Fu teaches that you should love everyone. And also teaches you how to beat people up with the least amount of force necessary. And the code of Bushido teaches you not to fear death, you should do what is right, even if it costs you your own life. But you must not throw away your life in vain, so "think before you act" is a wise adage (where did I learn that word?).



"Tea wasn't the first tea," yes it was. What else could it be? Saying that "language wasn't [your] first language," makes no sense. And don't think you can get all philosphical on me, because a rock is a rock, a roll is a roll, and Rock & Roll is awesome.

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

You could if you had a sort of Kerghanesque outlook.


This is exactly what I'm talking about, Xyle. "Language wasn't my first language" might appear deep and mystical or something to you because it doesn't seem to make sense initially; but fuck me if you don't come back and write several paragraphs simply to explain that you meant, 'Words weren't my first form of communication', and then think there's something philosophical about that. Essentially, what you expressed doubt about was my ability to wrap my mind around the concept that you gestured, made faces, cried, &c. to communicate before you could speak. It actually looks, to me, like you read a bit of Plato and took it too seriously/didn't really get it.

_________________

But clearly you can't wrap your mind around that plebeian! After all, you are bound by language.

Also, This.

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

"How to combat these techniques," huh? We just keep hammering in basic facts until the thread collapses into a black hole, because some people never change their minds. Even though they are wrong.

By the way, are all practicing Christians like that, 'cause I didn't think that's normal behaviour for someone who truly believes in a single benevolent diety.

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

WS, Are you a liberal peacenik that can't reconcile the fact that Murder is illegal with the fact that War, Self-Defense and Capital Punishment are not? Even in nations where capital punishment is no longer legal, War is still legal. Here is my challenge, name a single verse that condones killing outside of War, Self-Defense and Capital Punishment. Keep in mind the fact that the right to exercise Capital Punishment was not limited to government in ancient Israel. As for as I am concerned, War, Self-Defense and Capital Punishment are not contrary to the law "Thou shall not murder." (And that is an understanding that I had before I was sixteen. & Whether or not you take the challenge is irrelevant to me.)



Hypocrisy is a contradiction between Word and Deed. Stating your beliefs is not forcing your beliefs upon others, it is a declaration of who you are. Therefore how can the stating of my beliefs in reply to the questions that YOU asked about those beliefs be called a belief in my own authority? For only an indication that I am exercising authority can be treated as a contradiction to the claim that I have none.

Furthermore, do I not tend to allow You to make the debate a matter of Scripture? If you do not wish to hear my views on Scripture, then you should not challenge me to answer questions of belief.

I firmly believe that "forcing" others to believe a thing has no impact on whether or not they believe, it merely turns them into liars. Therefore, I can only say what I believe and allow you to judge for yourself whether to agree or disagree. Also, I have no authority, because I have no means of enforcing any authority. To say that I believe that I have no authority is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the reality of posting here.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

Whether or not I agree it with is inconsequential. A woman in labor experiences pain regardless of what I believe. A woman will forever feel something (whether it be hate or love) for her first love regardless of what I believe. (I have never met a female who has forgetten her first love.) A woman, who does not submit to the rule of her husband, will experience the karmic reality of that decision regardless of what I believe. My belief in such only means that I must forgive my wife everytime she fails to submit. And unless you consider the union of souls between my soulmate and me marriage, I have no wife. And if you do so happen to believe that the union is a form of marriage (a spiritual one), then I forgive her daily for that trespass. For every day I ask her to do the same thing, and every day she doesn't.


Only if she contradicts her husband in public. Unless, of course, there was an immediate need for the truth so that her silence would have been immoral, she should correct him in private (or perhaps by whispering in his ear if she can't hold her tongue). But as for the friend, I don't see how that would shame her husband. -- Wouldn't it be a bur under your saddle if you were publically contradicted by someone you were close to?

And please don't forget that I believe in forgiveness and the corresponding imperfections that requires that forgiveness. To seperate the law and morality from forgiveness is a grave injustice: The sole purpose of the law is to show that we have need of forgiveness. To show others of the need for forgiveness and then deny them the fulfillment of that need is a terrible evil. Immoral acts are just actions that require forgiveness in order to maintain a close relationship. The failure to forgive destroys relationships. So look at this way, does a wife's standing with her husband diminish when she pubically contradicts him? If yes, then the wife is in need of her husband's forgiveness in order to restore the relationship. Therefore, the morality of any action can be judged by the impact of that action upon the relationships that surround you (including relationships with God).

============



Reminds me of the dream that I had that told me the story of my life when I was seven: I begin by walking out of a dark woods with my eyes focused on the trail before me. Then, with light all around me, I look up and see the ruins of a past civilization. I leave the path to explore the ruins. But, when I move to return to the path, I cannot find my way for the ruins prevent me, even when I can see the trail. Then after a sequence of images that are unclear to my memory, but included the meeting a female who sits in a pile of rubble of her own making, I find my myself once again on the trail with the ruins behind me while I accommpanied by one who feels like an angel. The dream, now as vivid as the first part, has me following a trail across a field until I can see a darkness on the horizon that is another forest. Because I don't want to go into the forest, I find myself falling. ... I encounter mines (the spiky, exploding kind that is normally found underwater, only in the air) and remember Faith in order to pass through them (and them through me). Then I see heaven (or New Earth) below and it feels like home. And sometime during my fall (I can't remember when) I remember the Angel that stood beside me after I found the trail again, but my mind is directed away from looking back to the world I left and towards the world that lays ahead.

So the ruins are half-truths...both philosophical and religious. And nobody here cares to know what the ruins are like? But take heart, I shall eventually leave the ruins behind me.


BTW, What do you think of this approach to half-truths:
Woman are emotion-base creatures. This is a half-truth. For woman are as much emotion-based creatures as men are with both being swayed from by emotions and intelligence. But it is important half-truth, for allows men to accept the reality of a woman's emotions while ignoring our own. ... [Work in Progress] ...



I do have a chance, it is That which has you calling me decent and harmless.

------------



Man, are you behind on your tech. Do you even have any idea of much circuitry is in a small chip the size of pin head?
Visualize ... Take a pure man-made insulator, carefully place "defects" one atom thick in substance so that the impurities are conductors surrounded by the insulator and manufacture a complex circuit the size of the head of a pin ...

I have also read that Silicon Valley is currently researching the development of quantum computers, so if you think that control at the atomic level is still science fiction then even your science fiction is dated. ("Today's science fiction becomes tomorrow's science fact.")


It was I who said "engineering deals with the values that include plus-&-minuses." It was you who failed to tie that into the meaning of "an ounce". I may not have articulated with proper flow, but if you Want to understand others, you need to occasionally step back and consider the "Forest" (the whole of what is being said) instead of just analyzing each sentence independent of every other sentence (the "trees"). Of course, if you Want to be like wayne-scales, with his blatant disregard for everything except pure logic and his own prejudices that is your prerogative. Just don't expect me to like it.


Science is not the application of Science. The application of Science is Engineering. Science is published knowledge. Published knowledge (or written knowledge) does not convey understanding. (i.e. Any idiot can read, but not everyone can understand.) Therefore Science is knowledge without understanding. Science must therefore be "translated" from theory (/mere words) into application by Engineers, and the "translating" of knowledge into a useable form is a function of Understanding. Also, any scientist who applies knowledge in practical applications is both Scientist and Engineer.
Without understanding, science has no REAL application to reality. As understanding does not reside within the words themselves, but rather resides within the people who read the words, Science, in and of itself, has no REAL application, because Science is an abstraction and not reality. Consider this, What application does Science have among those that do not understand it?

This does not demean the scientist. For not only does it take understanding to apply science, it takes understanding of both words and what is being put into words to be a scientist. (Or Scientist/Science writer combo -- I have heard of scientists who employ others to do their writing or rather "rewriting".)

Furthermore, the lack of initial clarity with that comment was an attempt to "yank your chain." Loosen up.

============

Quote of the day:
"Kung-Fu. Hard work over time to accomplish skill. A painter can have kung-fu. Or the butcher who cuts meat every day with such skill his knife never touches bone." "Learn the form, but seek the formless. Hear the soundless. Learn it all, then forget it all. Learn The Way, then find your own way." "The musician can have kung-fu or the poet who paints pictures with words and makes emperors weep. This, too, is kung-fu." "But do not name it, my friend, for it is like water. Nothing is softer than water yet it can overcome rock. It does not fight. It flows around the opponent." "Formless, nameless, the true master dwells within. Only you can free him." -- Jackie Chan & Jet Li in The Forbidden Kingdom

===========



Paragraphs? How about two sentences: When I was four, I had to take classes in order to learn how to speak. Conceptualization was my first "language" because instead of knowing "a thing" by its name, I had to find another way to know "a thing".

In an English class I had, we were taught to assume ignorance on the part of the reader(s). I shall endevour to adapt to the fact that idiots don't play the games that draw people to this forum.

BTW, my words aren't mystical, deep, Platonian or philosophical. They specifically designed to make people Think because if you tell it to people straight they don't remember it. And, damn, I wrote three paragraphs anyways.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

No, not really. If you don't agree with it, why the FUCK do you believe it?

This is so absurdly irrelevant to the topic at hand I am almost at a loss for words. Not completely however, I can still tell you that that is flat wrong.

Karmic reality? What karmic reality? Do you really intend to imply, in a serious debate, that a woman refusing to submit to her husband and instead demanding to be treated as an equal and as a human is somehow immoral? You pathetic waste of space.

Forgive her for WHAT? She's done nothing wrong! She has merely demanded she be treated as an equal, not committed some crime!

If she refuses to submit to you, you have better taste in women than I thought. She, by comparison, has terrible taste in men.

Would you mind explaining by what asinine rule that is immoral?

I fail to see how silence can be immoral.

No, it wouldn't, because I afford those close to me the luxury of free thought. Obviously, you do not.

A woman refusing to submit is not an imperfection. She does not need to be forgiven for it. Jackass.

Really? Because, you know, I was pretty sure it was around to make sure that there is a system of rules that holds a community from anarchy.

I refuse to forgive an unrepentant murderer for his crimes. Am I evil?

Nope.avi

It shouldn't.

No, she is in need of her husband to not be a massive jackass.

Yet different relationships have different things they are based on. Let us say you choose to watch a movie with your friends instead of having dinner with your girlfriend. One of those relationships is positively impacted and the other has a negative impact. Was your choice moral or immoral? A system of morality must have a clear, immutable set of rules in order to function.

Why are you telling us this stupid and irrelevant bullshit? It's not prophetic, it makes you look like a raving lunatic. Which you are, so, fitting.

Behold Xyle, the precise number of fucks given by any member of this forum: 0
Also behold, the percentage of that that was relevant to the topic at hand: 0%

I think you're stupid.

Then WHY bring it up? You've made an incredibly redundant statement.

Er, no.



That's still on the macro level. Just pointing that out.

Visualize it doing nothing...

Which simply means that a new transistor will have roughly 8 settings instead of two, or perhaps even more, allowing computers to run on hex code instead of binary. However, we're not there yet, so it's not relevant.

I'm seriously laughing really hard right now.

"I'm throwing big words at you! May the power of bullshit repel thee!"

That would be Technology you're thinking of there, bub.

This is tied for the most absurdly erroneous thing I have ever witnessed you spray forth from your accursed keyboard. Knowledge implies understanding, and Science is entirely understanding. It's not just written knowledge you fool! It's the power to understand and the drive to keep understanding more. It's the understanding itself and the advancement thereof.

WROOOOOOOOONG. Fuck. My head. Ow. OW. OW.

Science IS understanding you dolt.

Similarly, what application does technology have among those that do not know how to use it?

Oh your god, are you a toddler?

Yeah, "yank your chain," as the kids say these days. On the same note, I hope you "lose your internet connection."

Pretty much not.

You had to take classes to speak? What am I dealing with here?

Which is incredibly obvious, since animals and pretty much anything with senses does the same thing. Derp.

No ignorance I have ever assumed has been low enough to cater to individuals such as yourself. I must apologize.

Perhaps you ought to try telling it straight then, because either you're a gigantic raging moron, or you're making your posts so obtuse as to be unreadable. Either way, I'm only seeing a mess of fallacies.

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

I



quotes.



about



guys?



could



this



day...

_________________