Page 2 of 4

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:28 am UTC
by yy2bggggs
Zach wrote:I'm not opening this can of worms, but I believe that you may find the quantum paradoxes interesting if you truly believe that.

qx-p=0. Take that!

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:34 am UTC
by Zach
yy2bggggs wrote:
Zach wrote:I'm not opening this can of worms, but I believe that you may find the quantum paradoxes interesting if you truly believe that.

qx-p=0. Take that!


.9999... != 1.

:lol:

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:36 am UTC
by yy2bggggs
Zach wrote:.9999... != 1.

Well, obviously, it depends on the value of "...".

Oh, might I add--if I had $999,999.99 in the bank, I'd be a millionaire.

Re: The Truth

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:47 am UTC
by Rat
SpitValve wrote:Pi is irrational.

Point nine recurring is equal to one.

And a plane on a treadmill of infinite length matching the speed of the wheels will take off.

Do not dispute.


1) sure whatever

2) yeah i guess

3) no, youre wrong.

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:03 am UTC
by Hawknc
Yes, yes and yes. (To help get this back on topic)

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:08 am UTC
by mriswith
.99999... < 1

by an amount mathematically equal to zero.

Re: The Truth

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:45 pm UTC
by fjafjan
Rat wrote:
SpitValve wrote:Pi is irrational.

Point nine recurring is equal to one.

And a plane on a treadmill of infinite length matching the speed of the wheels will take off.

Do not dispute.


1) sure whatever

2) yeah i guess

3) no, youre wrong.


No for gods sake, once again, have an airplane moving at any speed on a treadmill, have that treadmil move at the same speed backwards, THE PLANE WILL NOT BE STANDING STILL!
The wheels will be rotating at double the speed and the airplane will keep moving forward for there IS NOTHING PUSHING IT BACKWARD!

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:42 pm UTC
by Hawknc
The airplane thing is crazy, it's like some sort of internet phenomenon. Politics? Pfft. Religion? Hah! There's only one thing that truly divides the world along crystal clear lines:

PLANES ON A TREADMILL!

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:47 pm UTC
by fjafjan
The next hit Samuel L Jackson movie?

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:57 pm UTC
by thefiddler
fjafjan wrote:The next hit Samuel L Jackson movie?

No. That would be "SNAKES ON EVERY PLANE!"

EDITED because I was tired and forgot to pluralize "snake." :oops:

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:50 pm UTC
by Narsil
Hey, wouldn't it suck if you had $999,999.99 in the bank? You would be all "I JUST NEED ONE MORE PENNY!" And everyone around you would be all "lol no wai h4z stfu n00b". Good times.

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:00 pm UTC
by yy2bggggs
Narsil wrote:Hey, wouldn't it suck if you had $999,999.99 in the bank? You would be all "I JUST NEED ONE MORE PENNY!" And everyone around you would be all "lol no wai h4z stfu n00b". Good times.

1. Take a penny tray
2. Your pocket

In other words, "money in the bank" isn't equivalent to money you have; and even if you didn't have that penny, you could get it pretty easily.

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:46 pm UTC
by Andrew
yy2bggggs wrote:In other words, "money in the bank" isn't equivalent to money you have; and even if you didn't have that penny, you could get it pretty easily.

It'd appear as interest in a month or so unless you have a really shitty bank.

Edit: But you still wouldn't be a millionaire in any proper currency :P

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:48 pm UTC
by Traisenau
No no no, he said it would be "More Motherfucking Snakes on More Motherfucking Planes"

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:35 pm UTC
by Owijad
yy2bggggs wrote:
Owijad wrote:Is there still a problem?

Yes.

It's quite simply the wrong name. As Mark Twain wrote: "Use the right word, not its second cousin." Does it matter? Yes, because people in general are emo crybabies when you mention the big R word, and they go off and explode and become irrational, because they're strongly for it, or strongly against it. The less you can contribute to this shared insanity of the human condition, the better. I'm not quite sure which is the appropriate word for you to use, since I'm not you, but I would offer up a consideration: possibly, it's secular humanism?

As for what the theists believe about morality, so what? They're all irrational, because they believe in God, who is transcendental. Obviously, everything that is transcendental is irrational.



I am not going to go branding myself as anything.

I believe you are going by the wikipedia definition af atheism, whereas I am simply going by the merriam-webster.

Now that you understand that, you should see that I have declared that:

I believe there is no diety, and for simplicities sake have lumped my personal morals which are not grounded in atheism in with that lack of belief.

Is there still a problem?

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
by Pathway
Zach wrote:
yy2bggggs wrote:Obviously, everything that is transcendental is irrational.


I'm not opening this can of worms, but I believe that you may find the quantum paradoxes interesting if you truly believe that.


Maybe it was a pun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_numbers

Re: The Truth

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
by Rat
fjafjan wrote:
Rat wrote:
SpitValve wrote:Pi is irrational.

Point nine recurring is equal to one.

And a plane on a treadmill of infinite length matching the speed of the wheels will take off.

Do not dispute.


1) sure whatever

2) yeah i guess

3) no, youre wrong.


No for gods sake, once again, have an airplane moving at any speed on a treadmill, have that treadmil move at the same speed backwards, THE PLANE WILL NOT BE STANDING STILL!
The wheels will be rotating at double the speed and the airplane will keep moving forward for there IS NOTHING PUSHING IT BACKWARD!


i am so glad he worded the question wrong in this thread too..

matching the speed of the wheels will take off.

The wheels will be rotating at double the speed


do you see what the problem is here? double =/= matching

Re: The Truth

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:47 pm UTC
by aldimond
Rat wrote:do you see what the problem is here? double =/= matching


QFT, bitches.

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
by yy2bggggs
Owijad wrote:I believe you are going by the wikipedia definition af atheism, whereas I am simply going by the merriam-webster.

Why do you think I'm using "the wikipedia definition of atheism"? As for Merriam-Webster:
http://www.m-w.com/definition/atheism wrote:[url=http://www.m-w.com/definition/atheism"]
atheism
One entry found for atheism.
...
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity[/url]


I believe there is no diety, and for simplicities sake have lumped my personal morals which are not grounded in atheism in with that lack of belief.

Is there still a problem?

Yes, I guess. I don't understand anything in your last reply--or how it's supposed to change or address what I said.

I'm confused.

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:19 pm UTC
by Birdman
Woo. More truths:


1) A plane defined as motionless on a conveyor belt/treadmill will never take off.

2) A plane on a conveyor belt that moves at the same speed as the plane but in the opposite direction can take off.

3) Asking the plane/conveyor question but using "speed of the wheels" as the reference is a retarded and ambiguous way of posing an already divisive problem.

4) I'm an atheist.

4a) ...and I'm right :P

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:13 am UTC
by Owijad
yy2bggggs wrote:Yes, I guess. I don't understand anything in your last reply--or how it's supposed to change or address what I said.

I'm confused.


The wikipedia v. webster was a (apparantly failed) metaphor, in an attempt to explain that by "atheism" I meant nothing more than "lack of belief in a diety".


With that cleared up. religious people's morals are, ostensibly, embedded in their faith.

Since I have no faith, I, feeling that it would make communication simpler (hah!), decided to associate my morals with my lack of faith.


This was all that was meant by the term "brand of atheism". How do you feel I should express that?

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:16 am UTC
by yy2bggggs
Owijad wrote:Since I have no faith, I, feeling that it would make communication simpler (hah!), decided to associate my morals with my lack of faith.

This was all that was meant by the term "brand of atheism". How do you feel I should express that?

Not quite sure--I offered up the term secular humanism. Research that. Would it apply to you?

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:32 am UTC
by Owijad
I'm not trying to find a label for my worldview.

Too many miscommunications here to be worth digging through, so I'm just gonna drop it :P

Re: The Truth

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:53 am UTC
by Tractor
SpitValve wrote:Pi is irrational.

As am I.
SpitValve wrote:Point nine recurring is equal to one.

Aye.
SpitValve wrote:And a plane on a treadmill of infinite length matching the speed of the wheels will take off.

Well, I won't dispute this here, as I already did in the other thread :)

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:58 am UTC
by Likpok
Truths:
The US should bag milk. (for the novelty, if nothing else)

This statement is false. (it had to be done)

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:06 am UTC
by hyperion
Likpok wrote:Truths:
The US should bag milk. (for the novelty, if nothing else)
oh god no. there's one brand here that sells milk in bags. it tastes like dirty plastic.

as for atheism, i'm an agnostic atheist in that there probably isn't a god, but i don't care.
i think it's wrong for people to be mistaking religion for morals. being christian doesn't make you a good person just like being muslim doesn't make you a terrorist.

Re: The Truth

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:22 am UTC
by Sufimoru
SpitValve wrote:And a plane on a treadmill of infinite length matching the speed of the wheels will take off.

Wrong in at least one case.

The treadmill is not running, but it is matching the speed of the plane.

Also, the Truth...

Is a wonderful book. It's about newspapers! And it's by Terry Pratchett and anything written by him is <3.

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:49 pm UTC
by Owijad
HYPERiON wrote:
Likpok wrote:Truths:
The US should bag milk. (for the novelty, if nothing else)
oh god no. there's one brand here that sells milk in bags. it tastes like dirty plastic.

as for atheism, i'm an agnostic atheist in that there probably isn't a god, but i don't care.
i think it's wrong for people to be mistaking religion for morals. being christian doesn't make you a good person just like being muslim doesn't make you a terrorist.


Of course. It's just they're so often lumped together.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:33 am UTC
by aisling
HYPERiON wrote:being christian doesn't make you a good person


Ick, there's this girl I've known since elementary school whose parents are hardcore catholics. They wouldn't let her read Harry Potter because it's supposedly bad and evil, but they'll let her run around in whore clothes nowadays making out with other chicks to turn guys on and having many many sexual relations with other people. That's what happens when kids don't read Harry Potter. They turn into WHORES.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:36 am UTC
by Owijad
I don't think your cause and effect is entirely accurate, but sure.


Bad parenting makes people whores.

Hardcore Catholic = bad parenting.



oh, I lol'd at your use of "sexual relations" rather than "sex".

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:36 am UTC
by Owijad
double post

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:36 am UTC
by Toeofdoom
^ Conversation reminds me of "Not the same" by ben folds. Awesome song about some guy on acid climbing a tree at a party and becoming a born again christian.

Truth: I cant think of anything super awesomeful for post 666

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:57 am UTC
by The Sleeping Tyrant
aisling wrote:That's what happens when kids don't read Harry Potter. They turn into WHORES.


So basically what you're saying is right now, if I had never read Harry Potter, I could be having sex instead of sitting here on my fat arse listening to that damn pi mnemonic song?!?!?!?!?


Well, don't I feel robbed. :(

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:59 am UTC
by aisling
Hahaha. I just remember her being all self-righteous about it. "I don't read Harry Potter because my family is CATHOLIC and we think it's WRONG." Then 5 years later she's screwing people every weekend while drunk/high/both.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:00 am UTC
by Owijad
The Sleeping Tyrant wrote:
aisling wrote:That's what happens when kids don't read Harry Potter. They turn into WHORES.


So basically what you're saying is right now, if I had never read Harry Potter, I could be having sex instead of sitting here on my fat arse listening to that damn pi mnemonic song?!?!?!?!?


Well, don't I feel robbed. :(


Various other issues aside, that only applies to girls. An attractive guy cannot be -nearly- as promiscuous as an attractive girl.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:01 am UTC
by The Sleeping Tyrant
aisling wrote:I just remember her being all self-righteous about it. "I don't read Harry Potter because my family is CATHOLIC and we think it's WRONG." Then 5 years later she's screwing people every weekend while drunk/high/both.


There used to be one girl in my school who was like that. She was really churchy, really involved with our campus ministry and such...

Then one day she decided that screwing her bio teacher was a good idea. She actually ended up getting him fired too, which is hilarious. No one who knew who it was that got him fired told, but in the end the entire school figured it out anyway.


Edit: @ owijad: I realized that after I had already posted. Too late now I suppose?

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:04 am UTC
by Owijad
Yeah, 's what I'm saying. Another type of girl will do that is someone with an extraordinarily messed up family, by standard norms.

Religious extremism = bad parenting, maybe not as much as, but in the same way as severe alcoholism could be.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:16 pm UTC
by Verysillyman
Owijad wrote:Various other issues aside, that only applies to girls. An attractive guy cannot be -nearly- as promiscuous as an attractive girl.


I want to disprove that.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:19 pm UTC
by Andrew
Verysillyman wrote:
Owijad wrote:Various other issues aside, that only applies to girls. An attractive guy cannot be -nearly- as promiscuous as an attractive girl.


I want to disprove that.


Unless the girls in question are lesbians I think it's by definition untrue. (If you ignore the slight imbalance in gender across the population.)

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:25 pm UTC
by Belial
I believe Owijad's point is that girls have a lot easier time finding willing partners (because guys are socially conditioned to almost always say yes, whereas girls are conditioned in the other direction [and by the way, does that seem right to you?]) than a guy of similar attractiveness would, and therefore have more opportunities to be promiscuous