I'm also from upstate NY and I thought I should point out that you forgot the most important winter driving trick: Learn to drive in the snow.

My father taught me to pretend there's an egg on the pedals when driving in the snow. Applying gas or break needs to be gradual and smooth. Any sudden change means loss of traction. The ditches are filled with people who thought AWD made them invincible.

Adding weight hurts as much as it helps. It may make it easier to get out of your driveway but it's not your friend in a skid.

My final tip is that snow is manageable if you are patient and drive smart but ice is always a gamble. In either case, no matter how safe you drive, you're at the mercy of the idiots you share the road with.

>> ^SpaceOddity:

>> ^Yogi:
You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.

Yogi, I am a Marine Corps Iraq veteran who happened to instruct other Marines in marksmanship.
I am also a native of Kansas who thinks the WBC (along with our education board, but that's another matter...) is an embarrassment to all Kansans.
My girlfriend is from Topeka and lived not far from their compound.
I won't deny the temptation to use my skills and the intelligence she could provide to conduct a midnight raid and rid the world of these hatemongers.
But when I think through the moral implications of this, taking another's life for their extreme utilization of the freedom of speech which I hold dear just doesn't sit right.
It's easy to be cynical and support the murder of strangers from your armchair.
It's not so simple when you are in the position to do it.


As the son and grandson of Marines I understand where you are coming from. Here's what I'm suggesting though, we are American citizens responsible for a lot of blood on our hands. Right now Israel is bombing the living shit out of Gaza killing civilians as well as children. They are only able to do this with our funding and selling them arms. I'm just saying if we're responsible for all these horrific deaths around the world, why not just a few more here at home? What I'm saying is we don't have the morality to say that it's not right because we do it so often, lets use it as a strength. We know where they are, lets get rid of them...it's only fair.

>> ^Yogi:

You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.


Yogi, I am a Marine Corps Iraq veteran who happened to instruct other Marines in marksmanship.
I am also a native of Kansas who thinks the WBC (along with our education board, but that's another matter...) is an embarrassment to all Kansans.
My girlfriend is from Topeka and lived not far from their compound.
I won't deny the temptation to use my skills and the intelligence she could provide to conduct a midnight raid and rid the world of these hatemongers.

But when I think through the moral implications of this, taking another's life for their extreme utilization of the freedom of speech which I hold dear just doesn't sit right.

It's easy to be cynical and support the murder of strangers from your armchair.
It's not so simple when you are in the position to do it.

>> ^Yogi:

You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.


I guess it wouldn't really matter, metaphysically-speaking, as most of us (according to Westboro Douche Nozzles) are going to hell anyway.

Still, my morals don't originate from religion or the Bible, so I can't condone murder. I could get behind an overwhelming paintball blitzkrieg at one of their protests, however.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I get the impression that these true believers would love nothing better than to be killed, martyred and sent off to their father in heaven. I think the only chance you might have at discouraging them for being douchenozzles would be complete indifference. Throwing a tantrum is no fun if no one cares. >> ^Yogi:
You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.



Then lets be very kind and give them what they want. This isn't a movement with thousands of people behind them, they aren't fighting an injustice or standing for something people can get behind. They're annoying, they're just stupid and annoying and they can be shut up easily and no one will care.

Just kill them. Do what we do around the world. Kill them in a horrific way. This reminds me of the Jokers speech in the Dark Knight about everything going according to plan. If some Palestinians and Israelis get blown up or a Drone takes out a few children, it's not a problem because it's all according to plan. Let's bring that terror home.

I get the impression that these true believers would love nothing better than to be killed, martyred and sent off to their father in heaven. I think the only chance you might have at discouraging them for being douchenozzles would be complete indifference. Throwing a tantrum is no fun if no one cares. >> ^Yogi:

You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.

You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.

Nice choreography. Why don't UFC fighters do all these things? Because they don't work. A kick with the instep is not going to do much damage, especially when someone is hopped up on drugs or adrenaline. The best self-defense moves are very simple, a strike to the eyes, a chop to the throat, a kick to the groin. A headbutt done before the first move works well. Jumping spinning kicks won't land 99% of the time.

On the other hand, this girl is far better equipped to defend herself than someone who has no training of this sort. Martial arts training will only help you be a better fighter, it will not necessarily make you invincible.

She's positively invincible! Didn't even faze her =oI

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Porksandwich:
No one matches Varys. Beware the castrated.

Yeah I think that's actually poorly written...if he and Littlefinger run things and win all the time, it's just annoying and it's lazy.

Have you read very far into the books? They hardly win all the time. I mean hell in the TV show alone Littlefinger spends most of his time being threatened.


No I'm not talking about the books I'm talking about the TV show. I'm really tired of the idea of invincible people who are good at talking in a medieval world. That may be true what you're saying about the books, but I'm not reading the books I'm watching a TV show.

>> ^Quboid:

I'm Irish and I approve this message.


Of course you fucking do it proves your near invincibility!

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I too am but a man, limited and small, but hopefully I can bring some godly wisdom into this. Between the two of us, maybe we can reduce this down to size.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

Yes, I believe it is commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. That the conclusion is inferred based on a defect of origins rather than the current meaning. I would not condemn rationality on that basis alone, but I use it to show that necessarily in the secular worldview, rationality is not the invincible and eternal God it is made out to be; that it had very humble origins inside a petri dish. This is just to crack open the door of introspection.

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

You're right, not much is to be gained by this particular argument about rationality. We must go deeper and suss out what it actually is.

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

Thanks. I am happy that you understand that this is about worldviews and their foundations, because that is really the heart of the matter. Many people don't seem to realize that their belief system is a lens through which they perceive reality. Jesus said this is the pivotal issue:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved.

I agree that we can reduce rationality into those two sub-terms, Logic and Reason. So let's examine..

For logic, we have the laws of logic, which are absolute, immaterial and unchanging. Yet the Universe is material and always changing. There is nowhere in nature to point to the laws of logic, yet they clearly exist. I account for these because God is a logical being who is absolute, immaterial and unchanging. So where does logic come from and how is it absolute? I don't see how they can be accounted for in a secular view.

To analyse reason, I'll just ask a simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

Now here is the elusive question, and the one that plagued me as an agnostic. As pontius pilate asked Jesus, what is truth? Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and He meant this in a literal sense. The way, is in, the only true path for all human beings. The truth, because He is the Creator and Logos. The life, because He is the source of life. Bold claims, to be sure. He claimed to be the foundation of all foundations.

Is there is a truth? Well, it is true that I typed those words "is there a truth?". It is absolutely true even though only you and I know about it (and anyone else reading this). If the record were destroyed and the witnesses were gone it would still be true. If the Universe were destroyed it would still be true. Nothing can ever change that I wrote those words; the truth is the truth. Even if someone went back in time and stopped me from doing it, it still definitely happened. So, absolute truth exists.

The question is, how can you know what it is? You can know the things you have done, and seen, to a limited extent, but beyond that it gets progressively vague. Senses deceive, and so do people. How do you know anything for sure? Well there are really only two alternatives.

To know the absolute truth beyond a doubt you would either need to be omnipotent, or, you would need to receive revelation from an omnipotent being. So you would either need to be God, or God would need to tell you directly what is going on. Everything else is just speculation. It is like a person living in a pitch black room, who goes round and round inside of it, and thinks it is the whole Universe, until God opens the door from the outside.

Side question..what do you think of this statement?: God is perfect.

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either.

I agree that this is outside our control, of course. My assertion is that it is impossible unless it is something that is given to us. There is no meaningful free will in a determinalistic Universe, which I think is the inevitable conclusion of materialism. Personally, I believe that God controls everything, but in regards to love, we have the choice to love Him or not.

Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices.

It is pretty simple theologically. Only God is good. Therefore, everything God tells us to do is good. Everything God tells us not to do is evil. The only way to know goodness is to obey God, because we canot obtain to it on our own.

I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!?

You may not define it but I submit that in your conscience you know what good and evil is, and that you live as if they do in fact absolutely exist. It is an intellectual quagmire if there is no moral lawgiver; it is all relative and meaningless. Yet, the whole world acts as if there is an absolute moral standard, and our conscience tells us that, before our intellect kicks in, that some things are right and others wrong. That isn't just wrong to murder someone, it is absolutely wrong. The guilt we have from past misdeeds tells us that we have trangsressed a moral law. So if there is no good and evil, how strange is it that we live as though there is? It makes no sense unless there is an absolute moral law, and in turn, a moral lawgiver.

We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

It isn't as black and white as all of that. Remember in the bible that God did non-stop miracles in front of the Israelites and they rebelled against Him anyway. Remember that Jesus did even more miracles and they ended up crucifying Him. So, the problem isn't with God, or His Word, it is with human beings. If you put God on the right and Satan on the left, and you lined up all of the Christians in the world between them, their placement in the line would be determined by what percentage of their heart they had given to God. Whatever percentage they haven't given to God is run by the world and their desires, and the more true this is, the less able they are to interpret the holy scriptures. It is the reality of sin that has created all of these different interpretations and denominations. There is one truth, and billions of Christians imperfectly interpreting it. The fact is, only Jesus was able to lead the perfect life of obedience to the Father. We all have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into all truth, but only if we listen to Him.

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

It is much bigger than our limited awareness, that is for sure. What I have learned is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Try eliminating that word from your vocabulary for a few days. You might notice some very interesting things.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

I think you kind of missed the point here. It is just an analogy to show that if our thoughts are just the product of some brew of chemicals and electricity, and you and I just happened to get different chemicals, then your doubt and my faith have nothing to do with what we believe. They are just the natural result of how we are assembled and nothing else.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically.

Sure, there are many ways to imagine this, and I've heard quite a few. I think the only two meaningful questions concerning this is..is there a God, and if so, has He introduced Himself?

One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted.

The FSM has no explanatory power. You don't get a Universe from flying pasta. The only workable theory is one that could explain all the meaningful questions that we have. I find all of those answers in Jesus Christ.

My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had.

What problems do you feel He fell short on?

So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic.

Ahh, but if you're agnostic you cannot be an atheist. If you don't know if the evidence could exist, then necessarily you don't know that it couldn't exist either. To be a true agnostic is to have no bias in either direction.

I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned.

It would be very valuable if God could help you avoid the tiger.

As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

As I was saying above, without being God, or having direct revelation from God, we are only chasing our own tails. If there is no God we will never know how it all began or what is really going on. What I believe is that there is a God who has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. That we can know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.

I have enjoyed and appreciated your conversation. It certainly is a lot to chew on. I enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions; they have always been my bread and butter. I also appreciate that you are strictly concerned with knowledge, and how committed you are to it. I wholeheartedly approve of your endevour. Truth is what matters to me, second to love. When I was agnostic, I tied my brain into a million knots searching for it, and when I became aware there is a spirit, the mystery deepened 1000 fold. I feel I have found what truth is, which is the love of God, and I hope to share as much of that with you as I can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

>> ^Vimeo:

The story is in itself a mechanized apparition, the characters and scenery exisiting inside of an early 20th century nickel arcade and being driven forward by the gears of this machine.

The main character, the innocently created, human like mechanism whose power knows no bounds, thinks of himself as invincible, that no man or spirit could ever overpower him. Yet, the irony is that he himself is only a small part of a greater device, and in this case, a mechanized stage for passers by to waste a nickel in.

You know, the more i see this type of video, the more i miss being young. I miss that "devil may care" attitude when you thought you were invincible, thought you could achieve anything and live to fight another day. Sadly, with age, comes the reality that the risks far out way the glory and you become, like me, a sensible, practical member of society. Try not to be too harsh on the young; after all we were all superman once.

So what your saying is no matter how much scientific evidence is given to you, you won't change your mind. Why?

Bring forth some genuine scientific evidence to match the claims.

Tweaked data, theories and worst-case scenario computer models that suggest a direct correlation between man-made warming activity and a rise in global temperature are not scientific evidence.

A consensus is also not scientific evidence. A consensus is a bunch of people sharing a certain idea. At one time the consensus was the earth is flat.

I've never disputed global warming (which was the original alarmist battle cry, now downgraded to "climate change") OR global cooling, as both occur in cycles over millions of years.

Because it doesn't fit your ideology. I don't automatically distrust science because some science is corporate sponsored, and some is gov't sponsored.

The burden of proof is always on the instigator of tyranny. You do have the wherewithal to see where the man-made global warming "religion" is going, don't you? Finally the global tyrants have a way to unite the world. Now they can regulate and micromanage all industry the world over, from which crops will be planted to how many houses may be built to what vehicles will be allowed on the roads. If they had an actual thermostat to regulate earth's temperature precisely I'd hardly trust them with that either.

A good experiment is a good experiment regardless of who sponsored it. What are you gonna do? Trust no science at all because every experiment has designers and participants with potential secondary motives?!

I keep waiting for an 'experiment' from the alarmists that doesn't have its conclusions already in place and loud voices declaring all debate over before the opposing side is even allowed to speak.

Science rarely proves something 100% of the time because it's so hard to account for every variable. If you did an experiment about gravity, you may inadvertently introduce other variables that alter the results, such as wind, or magnetism. So some conflicting evidence is expected. But the majority of the evidence suggests a human element to global warming, and global warming is real.

One-World socialist government based on a "suggested" link between a human element which cannot be quantified (how much human activity changes the earth's temperature and by how many degrees?) does not appeal to me.

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week? Furthermore, how does the left know that global warming--man-made or otherwise--is not beneficial?

Per netrunner's hokum, if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.


http://videosift.com/video/Saddam-s-WMD-were-moved-to-Syria

There is no way any good liberal would entertain the notion that Saddam moved WMDs into Syria under the cover of a humanitarian mission. Yet the possibility exists and might undermine the narrative of the 'anti-war' left. Invincible ignorance in your court.