31

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: December 18, 2012, 08:03:52 PM »

Most places require many training programs just to have a gun license and more to carry in public.

Are you sure? According to this, a large portion of the states have very few laws regarding the ownership of guns.

In my state, Arizona, all you need to be is 18 to buy a firearm. You do not need a license, and you do not need to register your weapon. You are allowed to openly carry your firearm wherever you want, and if you are 21 you do not need a concealed carry license. I live in a state where it is not uncommon for people to carry a weapon, yet shootings still happen. At a political rally a person pulled out a gun, ran up, and shot the politician. There were many people in the crowd that had guns on them, yet not one of them used it. Just because people have a gun on them, does not mean any more lives will be saved. (Though in this case she was lucky enough to survive a bullet through the brain)

On Facebook, it is not uncommon to see people posting "I just bought a gun everybody!" and then show pictures of themselves shooting cacti.

32

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: December 14, 2012, 11:27:28 PM »

Your opinion does not constitute fact.  Not all guns are made to kill people. 

The guns that were used in the shootings were designed to kill people.

If ballistic missiles were legal to buy at a store, and it was on the news that some guy shot one into a movie theatre, would you be saying "Ballistic missiles should still be legal, it was the man the killed them, not the missile!" along with other arguments such as "I should be allowed to own missiles. I just like shooting them in the range!"

Ballistic missiles do not compare to guns.  If he used a toaster to kill 20 people would there be an outcry to ban toasters?  See the problem in your argument? Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Actually they do. Guns are designed to kill people, a toaster is not.

33

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RET Destroyed: Objects do not fall at the same rate

« on: December 14, 2012, 09:43:23 PM »

Nice try. On his website Dimitre Karamanev himself acknowledges the use of this equation in text books, for this very purpose, and in fact he has created several equations that are in use.

calculation of the terminal velocity of freefalling solid particles

Look at this pdf: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2816&context=theses

Then search "Karamanev" and look at the first result.

Oh crap, what is that equation they show? It is identical to the one I give. 

Go ahead and read the pdf some more if you are lost.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: December 14, 2012, 09:32:16 PM »

Clearly the legality of a device is irrelevant to its use.

I was pointing out you gaining nothing by saying, "Look! A banned item killed more people than a non-banned item!"

The kind of people that would do a school shooting are also the kind that would be willing to go to extremes to do it.

If he was willing to go to extremes to do it, he would have gone to those extremes (such as bombing). If he did not have access to a gun, then he most likely would not have killed as many people as he did. People have a sense of power when they have a gun because it is so easy to kill somebody with it. At Columbine, if those boys only had access to knives, do you think for a second they would try going on a rampage at their school? They could have tried stabbing people, but they would have failed, or at the very least far less people would have been hurt.

The point is that the person, not the gun, is killing people. There is no real way to stop the person. Like you said, Englsh, we can't ban oxygen, but you seem to be trying to ban the next best thing. Ultimately you're doing what you seem to think is ridiculous in the first place.

Yes, the person is killing, but it the they tool that allows them to bring so much destruction. If grenades and C4 were allowed to be bought at a gun store, he would have killed even more people. Hence those sorts of items are not allowed to be sold to civilians, because their primary use is to harm other people. The primary use of a gun is to harm another person. That is it. It doesn't matter if you have found other recreational uses for them.

If ballistic missiles were legal to buy at a store, and it was on the news that some guy shot one into a movie theatre, would you be saying "Ballistic missiles should still be legal, it was the man the killed them, not the missile!" along with other arguments such as "I should be allowed to own missiles. I just like shooting them in the range!"

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: December 14, 2012, 07:51:46 PM »

Do you deny that if he did not have a gun, he would not have killed as many, if any, people? Your car and school examples are ridiculous because they were not used to kill anybody. The killer breathed oxygen, better ban oxygen! Your argument makes no sense.

It would have been harder but not impossible. It would be impossible for me to go target shooting with no gun.

As for the school and car thing.  Of course it's ridiculous. School doesn't kill people and cars didn't kill anyone in the event we are talking about.  But what did? The shooter or the guns?

The gun enabled him to kill them. He killed 6 adults and 20 kids. A gun is a deterrent to people fighting back because there is nothing they can do. If there was a knife instead several of the adults could have overpowered him.

It was brought to my attention that the biggest school mass killing used no guns. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

How does this help your case at all? It isn't as though bombs are legal.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: December 14, 2012, 06:19:44 PM »

My point is beorn and now you, are ignoring the underlying problem.  Crazy people are capable of killing people.  It has nothing to do with guns. Obviously not every murder or gun crime is done by a crazy person though. People should look at the whole incident when something happens. And in this case the whole incident leads to more that just guns, which more will become apparent as the investigation continues. But this of course is just my opinion.

Do you deny that if he did not have a gun, he would not have killed as many, if any, people? Your car and school examples are ridiculous because they were not used to kill anybody. The killer breathed oxygen, better ban oxygen! Your argument makes no sense.

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: December 14, 2012, 03:09:08 PM »

So 5 dead children is better than 18?

Is this a real question? Yes 5 dead children is better than 18.

Zero dead children is the correct answer.

I agree, but what you are talking about is the crime never happening, which is a different discussion. The crime has happened, the presence of a gun directly correlates to an increase in deaths.

It's not guns.

Look at the Jessica Ridgway case that happened here in Colorado after the movie theater shooting. 
No guns involved, she was just dismembered.

What point are you trying to make here? That it is possible to harm a single person without a gun? Nobody denies this. You would have more of a case if it said that the man ran into a room with nothing but a hachet and dismembered a dozen people.

38

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration Due to Gravity

« on: December 10, 2012, 11:10:55 AM »

They mean two very different things, actually.

Thanks for the information, now I know they mean two very different things, actually.

You are very welcome. Long are the days in which you thought they were practically the same.

39

Flat Earth General / Re: Proper Nomenclature

« on: December 10, 2012, 11:09:14 AM »

You never test your claims

Mine mine

Mine mine mine.

40

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration Due to Gravity

« on: December 10, 2012, 10:04:16 AM »

They mean two very different things, actually.

41

Flat Earth General / Re: Proper Nomenclature

« on: December 10, 2012, 10:00:58 AM »

So if he had said,

You never test your claims

Italics mine.

you would have been equally confused? How about:

You never test your claims

Emoticons mine.

42

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Two steps from hell

« on: December 10, 2012, 09:09:37 AM »

Let me tell you a story. five months ago i couldn't run for more than thirty seconds ,was 250 pounds, had a dead end job, ate fast food regularly,and feared social interaction. one day, one fateful day, i clicked this video. it woke me up. i decided to make that moment change my life. i downloaded 3.5 gigs of two steps from hell, and began running at the gym. ridiculously short spans at first, but longer every time, today i stepped off of the treadmill after an hour straight of running.

5.5 miles.this is my normal now. i answer a call from my girlfriend,and visit the scale that now displays 197.5pounds. it took months. there are no shortcuts,run hard, eat right. i always had it. i always told myself i could do it. so i did. reasons are just true excuses. you posses it as well. show your power,flex your will, call on it,this strength of soul, let the body mirror the heart. run swift and powerful with the beat of this, this thrum of warmth, this iron will, this heart of courage.

43

Flat Earth General / Re: Proper Nomenclature

« on: December 10, 2012, 09:04:07 AM »

Guess what, genius. Not all sentences need verbs for them to be understandable.

"So far so good." is a perfect example of this.

Well his didn't work like that. I couldn't understand his 'sentence.'

Then I suggest you gain some reading comprehension because his 'sentence' made sense and actually is used in scholarly works. It is funny, because a simple Google search of "emphasis mine" would have made you understand this. Do you treat everything that you do not initially understand as false?

44

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration Due to Gravity

« on: December 10, 2012, 08:56:45 AM »

So you have universal acceleration and gravity too?

I recommend that you read the FAQ if this conundrum confuses you.

I did, it says nothing about gravity besides universal acceleration, unless there are more than one faq.

Look again. It is near the bottom portion of the "physics" section.

45

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why vanishing points don't work that way [Math intensive]

« on: December 10, 2012, 08:54:23 AM »

You also have to consider that the atmosphere is not perfectly translucent, as well as waves getting in the way of your field of view.

46

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration Due to Gravity

« on: December 10, 2012, 08:50:38 AM »

So you have universal acceleration and gravity too?

I recommend that you read the FAQ if this conundrum confuses you.

47

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RET Destroyed: Objects do not fall at the same rate

« on: December 10, 2012, 08:49:05 AM »

I suspect he is in a period of solitary introspection after inadvertently proving to himself that the Earth is flat. We all know how shocking that realization can be. One day he will reply.

Indeed. The maths in the OP alone are enough to demonstrate that some basic teachings of RET are incorrect.

48

Flat Earth General / Re: Proper Nomenclature

« on: December 10, 2012, 08:29:38 AM »

You never test your claims

Emphasis mine.

Your sentence contains two nouns and is incomprehensible.

Wow that didn't take long to show that you're still in high school. I always wonder why people feel they need to lie about their education (especially saying you're a undergrad, it's not that special), as if that would make their silly round earth ideas more valid. Ah well.

I'm not still in high school you stupid fuck. I wouldn't lie about something like that. His sentence was clearly not understandable because it contained two nouns and no verb. God you people are stupid. You are the laughing stock of society because of how goddamn stupid you are. Christ, I'm done playing.

Guess what, genius. Not all sentences need verbs for them to be understandable.

"So far so good." is a perfect example of this.

49

Flat Earth General / Re: Proper Nomenclature

« on: December 09, 2012, 05:29:46 PM »

All you guys do is cite the Bedford Levels experiment, which was found to be flawed. What amazes me is that you believe this account, without having actually observed it for yourself, but every experiment or scrap of evidence toward a round earth, you dismiss on the spot.

Members of the society have also posted photographs showing the perspective effect and more.

Is this flat earth thing tied to Christianity or some other religion? Do you guys accept the theory of evolution?
Also I wasn't trying to impress you with what I'm doing in school, I was just telling you why I consider myself to be scientifically literate.

For a minority of the members there are ties to Christianity, but to the majority of us we have come to this conclusion due to the vast amount of scientific evidence that supports it.

I also whole-heartedly support the theory of evolution.

50

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RET Destroyed: Objects do not fall at the same rate

« on: December 09, 2012, 05:24:54 PM »

Does anybody know if EireEngineer conducted his experiment? I think the findings will prove very useful to FET as we know it.

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The scariest time of the year

« on: December 03, 2012, 08:44:03 AM »

Let's talk about the people who will undoubtedly go into debt this season.

Why would people go into debt? You don't have to be buying gifts outside your means...

52

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Question about loading screens

« on: November 16, 2012, 02:47:45 PM »

Excuse me, 'cause this might be a really dumb question, but why do old games ported to new consoles have loading screens? For example, I got Sonic Adventure 2 (a Dreamcast game) on the PS3's Playstation Store. The game's resolution's been increased so it's in 720/1080p, no actual graphical changes, but the loading screens are exactly as long as they'd always been. You'd think that a system with so much more power would render those obsolete, yeah

If someone could explain why I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it. :]

I highly recommend the first Sonic Adventure as well. I still play both on my Dreamcast, and the first is my favorite. There is a lot more running around, and well, adventuring!

53

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US election

« on: November 07, 2012, 07:33:39 PM »

I would also like to point out right now that the latino group is going to be a real factor next election season. Latinos tend to be democrats, and this time 1 in 4 latinos voting were voting for the first time, which means that young voting block will only get bigger next year. I thought it was a bit apparent in states like Texas where it is known for being extremely conservative, and yet it was much closer of a race there than in other Southern states.

54

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Romney is winning by a landslide

« on: November 07, 2012, 03:04:40 PM »

Is that in person voter fraud?

I remember the recount, I remember Bush getting fewer popular votes, I remember the hanging chads, but I don't remember a county reporting a negative amount of votes. I don't even know what that means.

Some voting was done electronically, and some of the computers got bugged out (or hacked as the conspiracy people say) which resulted in the computers telling the main hub it had a negative amount of votes, making Gore's overall votes decrease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error

That isn't in person voter fraud. In person voter fraud is when an individual intentionally votes in a way that is illegal. Like impersonating a registered voter, or voting in person and by absentee ballot.

Ya, and if somebody had tried to rig the machines so they produced those results, it would be voter fraud. That is my point.

55

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Romney is winning by a landslide

« on: November 07, 2012, 01:11:58 PM »

Is that in person voter fraud?

I remember the recount, I remember Bush getting fewer popular votes, I remember the hanging chads, but I don't remember a county reporting a negative amount of votes. I don't even know what that means.

Some voting was done electronically, and some of the computers got bugged out (or hacked as the conspiracy people say) which resulted in the computers telling the main hub it had a negative amount of votes, making Gore's overall votes decrease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Romney is winning by a landslide

« on: November 07, 2012, 08:22:39 AM »

I don't remember Dems claiming in person voter fraud. I think they were pissed about the popular vote vs the electoral college.

You don't remember the fraud in Florida when a county had a negative amount of votes which caused Gore to lose his lead and the news organizations to start saying Bush won early, only to then have to retract their statements and wait for recounts?

57

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Romney is winning by a landslide

« on: November 06, 2012, 10:54:56 PM »

The speech is commendable, although rife with religious references.

I can forgive the guy his faith. He's made no secret of it. What was nice was hearing the moderate-Romney making an appearance after all this time.

If he had came out earlier the election could have been completely difference. Maybe now that it is all over he feels relaxed and feels as though he can be himself.

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US election

« on: November 06, 2012, 09:09:36 PM »

To another four years!

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Romney is winning by a landslide

« on: November 06, 2012, 09:08:55 PM »

Obama won!

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US election

« on: November 06, 2012, 04:36:09 PM »

None of the states have been decided yet, and as more votes come in, Indiana becomes more of a close race.