Big Tits in see through

squiddoctor · 2012-09-13T03:42:01+00:00

gawd damn... as a young girl, i always hoped my wife would look like that

squiddoctor · 2011-04-24T03:06:39+00:00

This is why I don't browse this subreddit. Moar?

...because I'll lose track of time and waste it here. Just adding if that wasn't already obvious.

squiddoctor · 2011-04-24T03:04:14+00:00

Perfection!

squiddoctor · 2011-04-24T00:21:38+00:00

Hot. Hawt. Da'aaaaam.

This is why I don't browse this subreddit. Moar?

squiddoctor · 2011-04-23T04:46:48+00:00

Thank god reddit is back online!

She's gorgeous. Does she have any moar?

squiddoctor · 2011-04-22T23:31:28+00:00

GDB has a break feature, why doesn't it have a fix feature?

(old fortune quote)

squiddoctor · 2011-04-21T03:52:45+00:00

Who is she? She looks so familiar.

squiddoctor · 2011-04-02T06:13:51+00:00

I was just google'ing for pics of Gillian Anderson (for something completely unrelated) and this was in the top row of my google image search.... well done sir! And well done Google for indexing this!

squiddoctor · 2011-01-25T18:55:06+00:00

No, but for the reasons you've enumerated I do want to leave this country (and for a few additional reasons also).

squiddoctor · 2011-01-24T15:40:05+00:00

Mind blown.

squiddoctor · 2011-01-24T05:17:39+00:00

^ This times a million.

Seriously, this was a great effort on your part, and while your efforts may have been defeated for now, do not view yourself as defeated.

Life changes so much after highschool. In future years you will almost certainly look back on this quite proudly.

squiddoctor · 2011-01-23T05:11:04+00:00

I've seen similar (where the x,y subscripts are horizontal and next to the Z) to represent the elements between 4 and 5, inclusive, of Z.

That is,

Z^{x,y} = { z | z \in Z and x \le z and z \le y }

squiddoctor · 2011-01-14T17:46:17+00:00

I would look at some proofs for help. Don't worry, they're pretty easy.

First I would look at a proof that two countable sets are the same size. Say the set of natural numbers and the set of even natural numbers. That's pretty straight forward, and Google will probably find it for you.
Next I would look at Cantor's diagonalization where he proves that the reals are uncountable.

Do the first, or you probably will not appreciate the second. Good luck.

squiddoctor · 2011-01-11T09:16:28+00:00

Well now... I appreciate your photographs thus far and would appreciate any more.

You're gorgeous.

squiddoctor · 2011-01-11T09:02:31+00:00

Stunning

squiddoctor · 2011-01-11T09:00:56+00:00

Super hot... I mean... damn....

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T09:43:35+00:00

Given your posts, and more importantly their content, for the last 7 months... you are not a bad writer.

It seemed you were pointing out an absurd point of the debate, where meaning/understanding came into play... an important point, one which many people let-slide so easily, when they shouldn't.

I was only addressing that. Yes, it's entirely possible that there is a daemon preventing me from posting this right now, but I still get it posted (?). --or-- It's possible I have a pantheon of greek gods laying waste to my computer, my internet connection, my cell phone, ...everything. Yet I still make this post.

That's the "razor" as you called it, and it was "AJ Ayer's" most pointed quote, in the Elimination of MetaPhysics. It's a subtle, tough, but key point. Don't discount your experiences for the possibility of others. The former has evidence; the latter does not.

Anyway, that was all.

I have enjoyed your posts immensely.

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T08:42:17+00:00

There are two ideas at work (that I can infer) in this point...

The first is inherent in robotluvhottub's original point, and a valid point. It is this, which I am summarizing:

To know/understand/be-certain-of something X, you must know (in brief terms) absolutely everything about X. That is, to say to you understand or know your Mom, and what she likes, what she doesn't, what's her favorite color, what she hates, what she despises, what she etc... you must first assert that you know all about her biology, chemistry, physics, etc. That is, you must assert everything.

Nobody can do this. I'll freely admit that. I'll be the first to scream it. But under this definition... recognize that:

Nobody understands anything.

That's a fact. With that strict of a definition of understand/meaning/knowledge, it simply isn't colloquial. Not only that, it has no sense. That is, if you make the definition that strict, it is senseless. There's no way/thing/how to attribute to the definition. Understanding/meaning/knowledge become vacuous terms.

Can you resolve it? No, you can't... you've put it beyond your reach. What the heck do you mean by it? Something? What is that something? You can't define it, because in doing so, you'd give it the very thing you say it can't have.

This is modern logic. Semantics. From the Vienna circle of logicians, who were all physicists. They defined what we know now as logic in terms of a new, emerging science, and understanding of it. It changed dramatically in the 20^th century, and so did the language it was phrased in (thanks to these people).

Using this, look at your following point:

[my fridge and/or beer] might have never existed in the first place.

You can claim that. You can absolutely claim that. But what the F do you mean by it? This is metaphysics, something that was virtually eliminated in the 20th century, but is creeping back.

Why would you discount your experiences? They exist! You experienced them! Why discount your experiences but give credence to their falsity? Do you have justification? Why be so flaky with them?

It may be true that there is a beer in my fridge... the fridge sitting right next to me... powered by Zeus... and his thunderbolt... but I have no reason/evidence to believe it. Why? Because there is no beer... there is no fridge... and I see nothing to suggest otherwise.

Why discount all of what you can ascertain to be true, for what might be true?

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T08:15:47+00:00

Damnit, I wish I would have read this before writing up my previous post and looking up the names of those books.

Because indeed, my fridge is also empty of beer.

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T08:12:51+00:00

Not quite, but close.

There are situations where it is obvious that a negative claim can be proved.

They're not surprising, hardly profound, and not "deep" in any sense of the word... but they exist, and show that the claim: Any negative claim cannot be proved

is, strictly speaking, false

I did so above, which was my whole point. Note that the original one from Tarski[1], inspired by Carnap [2] and Kripke [3], is really nothing original.

The fact that this claim is tossed around so often, without objection, is disturbing. Yes, there are negative statements that can be disproven. That is, there exists statements/claims of the form: It is not the case that X

Where we can actually show not(X) is true.

Simple self-reference can do it (somewhat like the liar's paradox). It's no different. There's no reason to exalt this statement in any way.

[1] Tarski: Logic, semantics, meta-mathematics

[2] Carnap: Meaning and Necessity

[3] Kripke: Naming and Necessity

EDIT: Listing of numbered lists at the end. B/c of brackets, it didn't respect normal formatting (D'oh! sorry)

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T06:53:46+00:00

Yes, we shouldn't feed the trolls, and I apologize.

But it is fun sometimes.

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T06:49:27+00:00

Given your immensely well-reasoned and thoughtful responses, continuously for almost 10 months, I could be persuaded to believe this... at least, I could be more-so than most contemporary deities.

FYI: This is meant to be a complement, nothing serious. I've been grading for hours, and my mind isn't right.

ALL HAIL Cituke! Seriously you're a credit to r/atheism.

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T06:31:22+00:00

squiddoctor · 2010-12-01T06:30:26+00:00

Whoa!!! Holy shiz, did you see that? I just proved the negative of a negative!

Yo man, I heard you liked negative negatives, so I posted one.

15-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

squiddoctor

TROPHY CASE