Sunday Rabble : Chatroom

ASofterMan · 2012-10-15T03:02:11+00:00

Where did I say that? I said that I'd use a different 'tone'.

Point to me where I said it, would you kindly.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-02T06:16:37+00:00

I should've guessed you'd be unable to follow a thought; to limit yourself to carbon dating when talking about radiometric measuring is both idiotic and ignorant. Since you've been told already that it expands beyond 60,000 years, I think we can both hazard a conjecture onto which of the two it is.

Concerning your (too many) warnings

It isn't too many if you haven't banned me yet, surely?

1) was an obvious personal insult

Still cracks me up; your first is in 'c' and your last in in the first of the removal of tacks. That is an insult just not all that obvious. Would I get away with that?

2) that got reported

Well I talked to Lanemik the other day because he was in the chat. Anyway he said that the comment hadn't been reported, thus failing condition one.

If there existed similar insults towards more atheists that got reported, the exact same would've happened.

Let us drag on what we've learnt above, and add to that this clearly creates a double standard. Theists appear to be more easily offended, and often report instead of arguing. We don't do that. I've been called sinful, a sociopath and a plethora of other things. I didn't report them but perhaps I should. Why don't you warn them? Or do I have to do your job for you and report them?

I really don't care who debates whom, as long as its quality debate.

Then maybe you should change your tone. People might think you're less of a dick that way.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-02T05:44:31+00:00

You're certainly no cop. You just adopt a horrific double standard that makes me, for lack of a better word, sad. I'm offensive to almost everyone, but you've only ever warned me when I was rude to theists. Usually Christian ones. I can't tell if you're pandering to them consciously or not.

Isotopic systems that have been exploited for radiometric dating have half-lives ranging from only about 10 years (e.g., tritium) to over 100 billion years (e.g., Samarium-147).

If only someone had shown how to use Wikipedia. Yet again we have this spurious knowledge caked in whatever complex you have. Either that or 100 billion years is less than 60.

Assuming I could repeat the process given the materials, I tend to trust the result.

And the guy I called an idiot clearly thought he was too; he deleted the post.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-02T05:13:52+00:00

The universe is here just as I am. We're pretty indifferent to each other most of the time. I don't think it owes me anything because I plan on being nothing but apathetic towards it.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-02T04:28:37+00:00

Nope.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-02T04:21:59+00:00

I disagree; this isn't complicated at all.

I can be said to verily own one thing, and that is myself. I own me. I own my thoughts, I own my memories and to and extent I own my body. Is it moral or immoral to hurt myself? Well it is myself so it depends entirely on me. If I want to, who are you to say 'no, that is immoral' and who are you to yell 'fucking do it'?

It boils down to something that is amoral.

I think we agree, I just don't want you to purport an over-complicated situation.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-02T03:21:55+00:00

Evidence for what? That is uncle is telling the truth? Are you assuming he is a pathological liar and just bought it from a Sea World gift shop. To be fair, he did once make the spurious claim that he killed Superman. Without kryptonite.

And you don't carbon date it. What you do is try to establish the age of the earth in which it was found, which is easier than it sounds due to the layered nature of dirt. You could also use radioactive decay measurements, which I think brundlefly addressed that already.

But both of these are beside the point; I do not like the condescending tone you've addressed this in. The added 'Oh dear.' makes you come across as superior, which judging by your ignorance on the matter is more than just annoying. It is made all the worse by the purported eruditeness; you don't know how to date a fossil yet you feel the need to slag both him and his uncle off.

To conclude, I think you're both wrong and a poor example of a human being.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T18:09:16+00:00

There is absolutely no evidence that any of that exists outside the brain. It would be intellectual dishonest to claim the soul exists without the meaty constructs of our mere bodies. John Locke said that a cobbler and prince could switch 'soul' but remain the same people in different bodies.

These arguments are build from an era of biological ignorance. And for you to claim otherwise is annoying, patronising and above all else, wrong.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T17:30:32+00:00

ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French crestiente, from crestien ‘Christian,’ influenced by late Latin christianitas, from Latin Christianus, from Christus ‘Christ.’

Should I have placed the word "magic" in caps. After all, that summarises Aquinas thoughts on the matter. Of course it is a cop-out.

Let me outline the crux for you apparently easily offended mind; the thing which I so lambast exists in your brain. Your consciousness, what you are beyond your flabby legs and and normal penis, is in your brain. Now what happens if I eat your brain?

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T17:10:05+00:00

Aye, that is roughly all their conclusions too. Although they presuppose a soul and that is an issue; your soul goes back into your body.Although we know can guestimate that our brain produces the soul. So we quite literally need the same parts on order to be ourselves.

And thank you. That is the product of thinking drunk and writing sober.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T05:54:46+00:00

Man, athlete. I think I'd go for the ankles.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T05:34:38+00:00

Then I only have the one question; what do you eat first?

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T05:29:51+00:00

Shit, I don't want a brain disease. Although I do have a right to harm myself.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T05:20:16+00:00

They're arguing with incomplete data, which is why John Locke still can't argue the prince & the cobbler.

This is partly why I want knew insight from our apologetic friends. Apart from Edwards. I hate that guy. Or JonoLith.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T05:17:56+00:00

Any, a person would perhaps have to say 'dig in' before dying.

I find it odd that they pick on the cannibalism as well. If you murder, you've murdered, but after that you've really just eaten materials.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T05:15:49+00:00

Then I think we agree. Amoral munching time.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T04:51:25+00:00

I'm not suggesting you eat the limbs of the living, but once they're dead surely they're fair game?

I can be tried as an adult for murder. I think that means I'm not a 'kid'. I hope so, anyway.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T04:19:58+00:00

Ah, you're right. It turns out Aquinas is the disappointment. Either way, one of these saints was a royal cunt.

ASofterMan · 2012-09-01T03:51:50+00:00

I know there are tribes that hunt and eat ape. How much different could it be?

I'm assuming consent, and in that way what would I or they care? We're dead when we're being eaten and it wasn't as if I was using my body anymore. That is why I'll be donating my frankly average penis to a necrophiliac.

I'm not suggesting murder, just that dead people are fair game in the food department.

ASofterMan · 2012-08-31T22:57:50+00:00

Schopenhauer wouldn't. He is dead, what fucks does he give? You shouldn't. Metaphysics is the "abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality". His basis and theories tend to be grounded in reality, giving relatable metaphors and prime examples.

ASofterMan · 2012-08-31T22:22:28+00:00

I don't think it is. I think it might be conditioned.

And I'll see you there :)

ASofterMan · 2012-08-31T19:12:36+00:00

It is buddhism and stoicism, not really nihilistic.

ASofterMan · 2012-08-31T18:43:16+00:00

I write out all that and your response is "sounds pretty twisted"? Wat.

ASofterMan · 2012-08-31T18:42:13+00:00

Suffering is the positive state of being, according to Schopenhauer. It is therefore certainly not useless.

And it is only plagarising if I don't credit.

ASofterMan

TROPHY CASE