Lordship

Kayser trying to rack up some posts lol 

1 hour ago, Floating Hippo said:

English, Spanish and a little Portuguese.

Same for me 

@Micchan option 2 is clearly superior

A very simple choice, very simple indeed.

Just now, Sargun said:

 

if you actually believe this you're dumb

 

Taxation is the ultimate form of theft as it is masked behind the facade of government haHAA

1 minute ago, Ryan Miller said:

 

Using half of our taxes on the military (which is already overpowered) instead of health and education is theft.

 

No, taxation is theft period

taxation is theft

I know @Sargun goes by "Champ" in some circles  

His Majesty among my friends

Closet weeb?

Just now, Dabawss said:

ok I hadnt oincluded a recorder in the mix... so let's remove it and any other kind of "documenting devices" from the mix...that doesnt change that sound waves arenbt sound until the waves are intercepted by something capable of interpretting the waves as actual sount

 

good point about the baby though... lem me have a few to consider how it resembes or doesnt resemble the question

10

Sure, I was simply using it as a means to explain that it exists whether or not it is perceived.

The baby example entirely resembles the question.

5 minutes ago, Dabawss said:

both immovable and unstoppable also "implies" something greater than their ability, as does God's omnipotence.... I conjecture that since the Bible and modern christianity was inspired by the limitations of comprehension of iron age man, that "omnipotence" was just used to describe power beyond their comprehension and understanding, much like space travel, modern modes of transportation....modern medicine would be as miracles... indicating that maybe Omnipotence isnt so potent after all?

 

 

By that logic, the 2nd amendment of the constitution should be changed because the founding fathers limited knowledge on weaponry is totally comparable to today's advanced technology. 

I fail to see how immovable and unstoppable imply something greater than their ability. The two simply cannot exist in the same context because they contradict each other.

You will not find empirical data in support of the existence of God or his omnipotence but neither can you find empirical data on it's nonexistence. Therefore you cannot be proven right nor wrong and will simply have to accept it as faith.

Just now, Dabawss said:

I am not questioning the existence of the tree or its state of falling... I am questioning whether it "makes" a sound, and not just generate sound waves that are never intercepted and interpreted as sound

 

I am referring to the existence of the sound wave. If we set a recorder there-which has no interaction with the tree and does not correlate or assist the tree in making any form of sound-and it records this sound, then the tree did in fact make the sound. If a baby is alone in a room crying and nobody is there to perceive it, did the baby still cry?

8 hours ago, Micchan said:

 

Not signed in

Is that you in the cosplay Micchan? Also, I now see how you rack up so many posts lmao

2 minutes ago, Dabawss said:

See I considered this line of thought as well... and the physical existance of the trees doesnt require other life forms to be aware of it for other life forms to benefit from the trees existence (in this example, the trees help scrub toxins from the air to make it breathable)... you me and all the others benefit from the clean air the trees we cant see give us... the same cant be said about the sound waves...

 

 

 

Just because it lacks practical use or doesn't benefit the world in any specific way mean that it doesn't exist

Again, If we are unaware of someone's suffering, does it still exist? Of course it does.

16 minutes ago, japan77 said:

I personally believe that to allow someone to own a gun, they should have to undergo pretty extreme training. Basically, I am okay with people owning guns, but I sure as hell don't want to end up as collateral damage because some idiot wasn't trained in how to use their weapon. I also would recommend that the gov't impose a tax on guns and bullets to reduce the amount moving around in the economy. I also would recommend that military grade equipment be banned (things like armor piercing bullets).

 

I agree with the training part and on top of that, I believe there should be an extensive background check that can disqualify people from owning guns. If a gun owner also has a person that does not meet the background check requirements in their household then keeping the guns safe and secured must be enforced heavily.

I do not agree with military grade equipment being banned however because the bottom line purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide the citizens of the United States with a means to defend themselves against the possibility of government tyranny.

The left likes to make the argument that automatic rifles should be banned, when in reality handguns kill significantly more people than automatic rifles. So should we ban handguns as well?

Paradox question. That's like saying what if an immovable object met an unstoppable force.

Of course it made a sound. Just because nobody is there to perceive it does not mean that it does not exist. By this logic (pioneered by Descartes iirc) it would be fair to say that the existence of trees in a remote area of a forest cannot be accepted as truth because nothing is around to perceive the trees. If we are unaware of someone's suffering, does it still exist? Of course it does.

Other because No doesn't do it justice

From sea to shining sea

GoT and Dr Who stand above every other choice, but if I had to choose a 3rd I'd say Sherlock lmao

Raiders

Dolphins

Seahawks

Giants

? Star wars obviously

Hit me with a rank @Infinite Citadel