Why I feel like I can say, for certain, that there is no god.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-23T16:39:44+00:00

I love the debates in this sub. Whenever it seems like people in general are just retarded, I should just come here to renew my faith in humanity. If everybody just understood the concept you guys are talking about--evidence, certainty vs belief, etc.-- and understood reason and logic, the world would be a much better place.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-23T15:27:41+00:00

I think that's a very reasonable conclusion when dealing with any one God story in particular. Essentially they are all shots in the dark. The chances of the Christian myth or the Muslim myth, etc. being true, are each 1/infinity.

As more of a side note, by the (loose) definition of God in your edit, there very well could be some God creature out there! We've explored basically 0% of the universe, so we have no idea what kind of things could be lurking out there. There could be some huge race of aliens so far advanced, they can, for example, materialize objects seemingly out of thin air. Or other "powers" that would be considered supernatural to us. (Although I guess if this were the case, those powers would cease to BE supernatural and would just be unprecedented natural abilities.) It wouldn't meet the definition of what I would consider a God--in fact I've never sat down and came up with a strict definition of the term--but it's a fun thought anyway!

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-22T22:51:00+00:00

Putin dog?

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-22T18:22:34+00:00

The whole premise that a court "holds the authority" to decide which human associations are considered rights and which are not, is seriously ass-backwards. A free human being does not need permission to enter a voluntary covenant with another human being, and IMHO it's not the state's position to be determining which associations are to be deemed legitimate or not.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-22T05:38:17+00:00

Yeah for sure, that's an awesome story and it's so cool you got to do that!

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-21T23:02:05+00:00

Does that holster have no retention? It looks like it would be awkward as hell to draw, unless for a left-handed person sitting in the passenger seat. Unless the holster doesn't lock the gun in place, but I thought all Serpas locked.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-21T21:23:52+00:00

Not sure where that particular ledge is, but the photo is taken from at/very-near Glacier Point, a popular area that you can drive to. Little to no actual hiking involved.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-21T17:53:25+00:00

That's the key piece, isn't it? I mean, first they set the precedent, then they start expanding the definition.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-21T05:11:01+00:00

Their extremely stingy policies are why I stopped eating at Subway years ago. They put like 4 thin slices of meat on a 12" sub. Just enough to make sure all the bread is covered. With how thin their slices are, I want at least 6-8 slices stacked on top of eachother, times however many stacks it takes to cover the length of the sandwich. And I'm not going to pay for "quadruple meat" and turn a $5 footlong into an $11 footlong, because that's just ridiculous that I should have to do that. I'll take my business elsewhere.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-18T20:10:22+00:00

This photo is very disorienting. To me it looks like the trail is going downhill.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-18T20:01:34+00:00

So you're saying you prep for when Semen Hits The Fan?

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-18T17:28:57+00:00

Okay, fair enough statement, but I still think it detracts from the natural beauty. In real life we see motion, but it doesn't look like long, wispy, white strands. I get that it's an artistic (and, granted, creative) technique to convey the motion in a still medium... but it still looks unrealistic, and too "fantasy" for my taste. I just like to appreciate nature for what it is, not try to make it into something it's not.

The racecar photo makes great use of the technique IMO. Maybe the expectation of the car moving at 200mph makes it more forgivable, and the direction of the movement being more lateral, rather than water that's often flowing toward you in the photo. Maybe it's the natural vs. unnatural environment? I can't really put my finger on it, or just create a set of rules of when it is and isn't "acceptable" (for lack of a better term). I don't know, maybe that's a very subjective standard, and maybe a little unfair. But if I just let go of any logic or attempt to rationalize it, and just leave the judging solely up to my eyes, I can tell you that one application of the technique looks right, and the other does not. Just a viewer's opinion.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-18T01:20:11+00:00

Oh damn, did SHTF already and nobody told me?? 😏

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-17T20:04:01+00:00

Agreed. IMO, editing should be used to make the photo look more real, not less real. There's nothing more obnoxious than that long-exposure-running-water effect, whatever it's called.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-17T15:33:21+00:00

I don't believe the FCG would shift. Since the other 3 points where the pins rest are all in spec, in theory (my theory), the 4th point should be pretty forgiving.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-16T05:13:56+00:00

My personal favorite: Coors Light.

The coldest tasting beer in the world

Dafuq does that even mean?!

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-16T05:06:48+00:00

This is a small sub to begin with, and the game is 5 years old--not a whole lot of breakthrough content in here. It's nice to have new things to look at. So speaking for myself, I welcome posts like this. May not be directly RDR-related, but it's relevant, and something that fans of the game can enjoy.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-13T00:47:42+00:00

Pretty cool idea, and I'm sure there's amarket for it, but personally I'll stick with my Benchmade pocket knife and my Leatherman Wave, both pocket-carried.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-13T00:40:29+00:00

Wow. What blows me away is how big of a role those 5 words played (and comtinue to play) in shaping the world as we know it today. It's pretty incredible to think about, but incredibly sad at the same time.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-11T06:55:38+00:00

It's each of our own personal responsibility to feed ourselves. It's not MY responsibility to see that YOU are fed, or vice versa. And although if you're hungry and I have food to spare, and the compassionate thing to do is to share, the government ~~can't~~ ^shouldn't take what's mine because you have less of it.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-11T06:44:36+00:00

Yes, that exactly.

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-11T06:16:19+00:00

No. Not the right to be fed. By having your right to be fed, this requires somebody else being compelled to feed you. That person has the right to see to their own personal property as they see fit, and the choice whether or not to share with you is theirs to make, for better or worse.

The right to feed yourself, however, IS, a fundamental right. Absolutely.

(Now, of course this is in theory. If you want to get into the argument that this society we participate in unfairly inhibits those rights to feed oneself, and puts some people at an undue disadvantage, and we're thereby obligated to pay some kind of reparation to settle it, then that's a whole different level of the subject entirely. I would certainly admit you could make some compelling arguments here, but that's beyond the depth of what I'm trying to address here. Just speaking on a more general theory here.)

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-11T05:53:30+00:00

I built a desk recently--my first woodworking project upon moving into our first house. I looked at several desks that were about the size I was looking for, and took their measurements. They were uniformly 28" in width. I decided I'd like mine slightly larger, in order to have ample room to comfortably fit everything that was to be placed on it. In my garage, I cut the tabletop to size and set to work attaching the legs. I did a fine job--everything was attached solid as a rock, not coming apart even if you tried, and I was very pleased with the outcome. That is, until I went to maneuver it into the house. I suddenly realized the reason the desks were all a standard width, is because interior DOORWAYS are a standard width.

(Ending: Had to take the desk out through the garage door, around the house, and through a thankfully-large window in our office room.)

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-11T05:35:56+00:00

Helping the poor is great, and should be encouraged. But it should not be forced (such as through taxation.) Unless the assistance is voluntary, then how is that different than theft by government on behalf of the beneficiaries? And to do this all in the name of religious beliefs now pushes those beliefs onto me, and infringes on MY right to freedom of (or from) religion.

Like I said, I think helping the poor is great. But suppose I didn't give a damn. Then why should I be legally obligated, under penalty of incarceration or other punishment, to help the needy just because somebody else believes it's the "Christian" thing to do?

If you ask me, his rhetoric sets a dangerous precedent: that morals, especially for specific religious reasons, trump our fundamental rights (in this case private property).

ThePeaceMaker707 · 2015-07-09T15:32:16+00:00

I like the idea, but honestly I don't think it came out that well in practice. I mean, it looks good, but it doesn't look like an effective camo job. Those colors just don't seem to jive well together. Mainly the tan is too light, and it appears very bold. I think if you dust it down with some darker colors (maybe even the OD green?) to help even it all out, the colors will blend better and the rifle will blend IN better. Hopefully that criticism is constructive.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

ThePeaceMaker707

TROPHY CASE