PDA

View Full Version : This land belongs to me: Kerry Vs. Bush



Antec
13th July 04, 05:31 PM
http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

Takes a long time to download =/

PiraFlambe
13th July 04, 05:40 PM
wow and only a day ago it loaded fairly fast

This Land (http://cazic-thule.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5608)

Jimatra
13th July 04, 10:10 PM
Pwn

Cybsled
14th July 04, 06:47 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/13/forest.rules.change.ap.ap/index.html

Bush thinks our land should all be fair game to the timber industry ;(

L-A-M-E

Bush: "Omfg...look at that untouched forest with those 800 year old trees and no roads! What a fucking waste...lets cut them down and turn them into cereal boxes and lumber for my porch!"

Nuku_Unu
14th July 04, 08:29 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/13/forest.rules.change.ap.ap/index.html

Bush thinks our land should all be fair game to the timber industry ;(

L-A-M-E

Bush: "Omfg...look at that untouched forest with those 800 year old trees and no roads! What a fucking waste...lets cut them down and turn them into cereal boxes and lumber for my porch!"
For decades we have been "fighting fires" much like the war on drugs we are not going to win. The national forests are loaded with ground fuel because we try and fight and contain fires instead of letting them naturally burn. Every year it gets worse more fuel falls to the forest floor because we do not allow nature to clean the forest floors. So now many national forests are tender boxes. With selective cutting which can be done now with more refined timber cutting, needs to be done to thin out and cleaning of the forest floor will actually help the national forests. It may take two decades to see results but we have been fighting forest fires sense 1910 so we have many decades of damage done by fire fighting to rectify if we hope to save the nations forest in the long run. BTW I just watched a documentary on this last night so its all fresh in my mind. You want example look at MT Saint Hellen after all the distruction over a decade later and things are comeing back wonderfully.

Cybsled
14th July 04, 09:49 AM
Alot of the off-limits forests this would affect are ones that usually have no issues of fires, since they are in areas with alot of rainfall.

Nuku_Unu
14th July 04, 10:00 AM
Alot of the off-limits forests this would affect are ones that usually have no issues of fires, since they are in areas with alot of rainfall.
Cybe your on crack I know Idaho is one of the targeted area's and that had a terrible forest fire in 1990.

Doesn't matter what your political alliance is, this needs to be done as preventive maintenance to the nations forests

Sithray
14th July 04, 11:35 AM
Doesn't matter what your political alliance is, this needs to be done as preventive maintenance to the nations forests

...I hope you aren't serious.

Nuku_Unu
14th July 04, 12:11 PM
...I hope you aren't serious.
Another that joins the ranks that knows nothing about forestry. If you bothered to read my original post maybe that would've given you a clue. "Alax I will take clueless for 300"

Like I said my opinion on this is separate from my politics.

Sithray
14th July 04, 02:14 PM
Another that joins the ranks that knows nothing about forestry. If you bothered to read my original post maybe that would've given you a clue. "Alax I will take clueless for 300"

Like I said my opinion on this is separate from my politics.

No, I read your first post, and hence my statement: I hope you aren't serious.

And spell Alex right you fucking gimp!

Nuku_Unu
14th July 04, 03:19 PM
No, I read your first post, and hence my statement: I hope you aren't serious.

And spell Alex right you fucking gimp!
I just love when someone has no argument they play the bad spelling card it really makes you look clueless, and you call me a fucking gimp? HAHAHA, come back when you have something intelligent to say about forestry and maintaining this country's national forests.

Diggler McFeely
14th July 04, 06:14 PM
I just watched a documentary the other day about people becoming experts after watching a documentary, so it's still fresh in my mind.

Anyway, it said that it doesn't make you, it influences you, and possibly (with those that possess an open mind,) enlightens you. There is no way it should automatically transform or recreate you into an omnipotent presence about the documentary's subject matter.

With that in mind, TV can be both constructive and destructive.

Anybody that disagrees with me should go get a clue, because I know what I'm talking about. After all, I watched a documentary on it.

Cybsled
14th July 04, 09:26 PM
It might help Nuku if they cut down dying trees, but they tend to favor the old ones with lots of high quality wood.

Plus deforesting old growth forests allows low to the ground plants that require alot of sun to take sprout, which causes far more underbrush and whatnot which ends up being a serious issue.

Nuku_Unu
15th July 04, 08:04 AM
I just watched a documentary the other day about people becoming experts after watching a documentary, so it's still fresh in my mind.

Anyway, it said that it doesn't make you, it influences you, and possibly (with those that possess an open mind,) enlightens you. There is no way it should automatically transform or recreate you into an omnipotent presence about the documentary's subject matter.

With that in mind, TV can be both constructive and destructive.

Anybody that disagrees with me should go get a clue, because I know what I'm talking about. After all, I watched a documentary on it.Just because I said I had watched a documentary recently does not mean thats where my knowledge of the subject ends infact I have watched MANY doc's and also doesn't say that I have actually studied this topic because I was considering being a smoke jumper when I was 18 so the subject means a great deal to me. So you get to choose clueless for 500 fucktard. Funny about this media its two dimensional you have no clue of my knowledge of forestry and its obvious you have none so you the ignorant do what they do best try to deflect eyes away from themselves so nobody sees how fucking stupid they are. WTG

Nuku_Unu
15th July 04, 09:12 AM
It might help Nuku if they cut down dying trees, but they tend to favor the old ones with lots of high quality wood.

Plus deforesting old growth forests allows low to the ground plants that require alot of sun to take sprout, which causes far more underbrush and whatnot which ends up being a serious issue.
Thats old school thought on logging cybe, things have changed now there are two major techniques used selective cutting and selective clear cutting. Both processes clear the fuel on the ground and that is the whole point of this conversation sure logging isn't a pleasent topic but Americans use wood for everything. My point being is the 3 inches of pine needles and all the fallen dead branches are piled inches deep and this is the fuel that cause the very destructive forest fires. See if the forest floor is relatively clean the fires are fast burning and stay low to the ground trees survive these fires with no problems it will slow their growth for one season. Its when the forest floor is covered with inches and inches of fuel and it does not burn fast and move through the area's quickly that is what causes intense heat and catches the tree's canopy's to catch fire thats when things get so out of control. So back to my original point because we decided to fight fires in 1910 instead of letting natural burns the fuel just piles up on the forest floor.Which is why we have such terrible forest fires now.

Chantress
15th July 04, 11:48 AM
Having lived in Cleveland, TX (Logging is one of the principle industries in that city) I find it funny that anyone would think that logging is a bad thing. No one cares about the forest and its preservation more than a logger. If he cuts down all the trees, he has no further opportunity for income. His life comes from the trees. People who think this is a bad idea are most likely uneducated on the matter.

Phrost
15th July 04, 12:38 PM
Chantress, the quote in your signature has at least one logical fallacy, slippery slope.

Accident is not the correct term used by scientists, as it lends itself to subjective interpretation (which science seeks to avoid at all costs). Random chance is a much better word choice, but I'd imagine C.S. Lewis knew full well what he was trying to communicate by using 'accident'.

However, our thoughts are not 'accidental', but byproducts of the random chance that resulted in life coming from the primordial soup.

His argument is very weak.

Chantress
15th July 04, 02:08 PM
Hey i figured as long as you were going to take something out of context for your signature, I could also use one logical fallacy in mine. :) The sig communicates an idea, and it does it very well.

Angrie the Strategist
15th July 04, 02:10 PM
Also by C.S. Lewis' logic the human invention of god, the Bible, etc is also an accident.

But you wouldn't dare to think of it that way, would you?

Chantress
15th July 04, 02:21 PM
If he were following your principles, yes it would be. But you wouldnt think of satire would you.

Diggler McFeely
15th July 04, 06:06 PM
Just because I said I had watched a documentary recently does not mean thats where my knowledge of the subject ends infact I have watched MANY doc's and also doesn't say that I have actually studied this topic because I was considering being a smoke jumper when I was 18 so the subject means a great deal to me. So you get to choose clueless for 500 fucktard. Funny about this media its two dimensional you have no clue of my knowledge of forestry and its obvious you have none so you the ignorant do what they do best try to deflect eyes away from themselves so nobody sees how fucking stupid they are. WTG


Heh. Just look at yourself.

By that, I mean really, really look.

Angrie the Strategist
15th July 04, 09:16 PM
If he were following your principles, yes it would be. But you wouldnt think of satire would you.

Yeah, those preposterous "principles" like logic and reason. How foolish of me!

Chantress
16th July 04, 08:42 AM
Yeah, those preposterous "principles" like logic and reason. How foolish of me!

Logic and Reason is how he was able to make the statement that I quoted. Your "reasoning" says that all that has happenened, has happenened as a result of an accident. Whether it be evolution or the big bang theory, or any of the other theories of origins. He illustrates the fallacy of that thinking.

Nuku_Unu
16th July 04, 08:50 AM
Heh. Just look at yourself.

By that, I mean really, really look.HAHAHA,,, sucks when you are beaten isn't it, why would you even bother posting such a lame come back to make yourself look even worse? You should have just slid back under the rock you came from seeing that you had nothing intelligent to add to the discussion. Face it you tried to be witty and a smartass and you had your ass handed to you. Give it up lamer you got pwned!

Phrost
16th July 04, 08:59 AM
Logic and Reason is how he was able to make the statement that I quoted. Your "reasoning" says that all that has happenened, has happenened as a result of an accident. Whether it be evolution or the big bang theory, or any of the other theories of origins. He illustrates the fallacy of that thinking.


No he doesn't, he just pulls a craptastic, half-reasoned argument out of his cornhole. There is no logical correlation between the causes of life being a result of random chance in the primordial soup, and our thoughts being 'accidents'.

If random chance (or the loaded 'accident') causes a tree branch to fall on my car, it is not random chance (an accident) that the car is damaged, nor is it random chance (accidental) when I file an insurance claim.

Hell, I'd expect a witless argument to be put forward by the toothless rednecks who believe in Jesus, but this guy is supposed to represent the intellectual elite of Christican thinking.

It's sad, really, the mental acrobatics believers subject themselves to in order to validate their beliefs in the face of reason and critical thinking. Critical thinking says: belief is the last tool one should use in order to understand the world because it resists change in the face of new and more accurate empirical evidence.

Energiser
16th July 04, 09:18 AM
No he doesn't, he just pulls a craptastic, half-reasoned argument out of his cornhole.


I think the day you come up with as well reasoned an arguement as C.S Lewis you might be qualified to make that statement.



There is no logical correlation between the causes of life being a result of random chance in the primordial soup, and our thoughts being 'accidents'.

If random chance (or the loaded 'accident') causes a tree branch to fall on my car, it is not random chance (an accident) that the car is damaged, nor is it random chance (accidental) when I file an insurance claim.


wtf. if there was a big bang, and human life resulted because of it (surely there was no intent there eh? the matter didn't DECIDE to not exist and then spontaniously explode?), and if human intelligence can (eventually) be explained mathematically ( a view point i'm sure you would hold ) then it logically follows that every human thought is nothing more than a very complex accident.

Phrost
16th July 04, 09:30 AM
Are you smoking crack?

Did you even read what I wrote?

How does it 'logically follow' that if random chance results in a creature with enough intelligence to build the pyramids, that the pyramids are an accident?

And furthermore, according to Mr. Lewis, because the beings who created the pyramids were originally the products of an 'accident', we should not believe they exist.

His entire argument is based on the fallacy of a false dilema; either everything in the universe is a product of God, or it is the product of an accident. And that is pure bullshit, and undermines the validity of the accomplishments of man in a desperate attempt to glorify some supernatural being he believed in.

It does not follow. If life was created by random chemicals coming together by chance in the primordial soup, that does not mean that this post I am typing is being created by the same random chance.

In fact, to even suggest this is fucking idiotic, but that's par for the course with a group which sees the world through filters created by people who sacrificed animals and talked to bushes.

Angrie the Strategist
16th July 04, 10:28 AM
Logic and Reason is how he was able to make the statement that I quoted. Your "reasoning" says that all that has happenened, has happenened as a result of an accident. Whether it be evolution or the big bang theory, or any of the other theories of origins. He illustrates the fallacy of that thinking.

You clearly are too stupid to understand what I was saying, as such I will lay it out for you.

a) I'm willing to accept your hero's logic: everything is an accident.
b) As such human thought is an accident, too.
c) You shouldn't trust those evil scientists because they know nothing, and all their thought is accidental.
d) However, you shouldn't trust those righteous, god-fearing, church going Jesus lovers either. Why? Because by above logic they're accidents too and so are their thoughts -- their thoughts including their invented aforementioned god, church, and Jesus.

Why should I trust one accident over the other?

Chantress
16th July 04, 02:12 PM
You clearly are too stupid to understand what I was saying, as such I will lay it out for you.

a) I'm willing to accept your hero's logic: everything is an accident.
b) As such human thought is an accident, too.
c) You shouldn't trust those evil scientists because they know nothing, and all their thought is accidental.
d) However, you shouldn't trust those righteous, god-fearing, church going Jesus lovers either. Why? Because by above logic they're accidents too and so are their thoughts -- their thoughts including their invented aforementioned god, church, and Jesus.

Why should I trust one accident over the other?

Typical, cant defeat the argument so attack the person. According to your logic you shouldn't since its all one big accident anyway. His statement illustrates how ridiculous theories like the big bang really are.

On another note, he is not my hero, although I do respect him and his writings. Joseph (aka Barnabas) would be the one person that I would call my hero, if you even know who that is.

Chantress
16th July 04, 02:22 PM
Phrack, so it all started as an accident, and then somehow got organized and stayed that way? Is that what you are proposing and honestly believe?

Phrost
16th July 04, 03:07 PM
I don't believe anything. Until solid evidence is provided for the universe being created by a supernatural being, I'm going to stick with the generally accepted, scientific understanding of how things came to be.

And what is so hard about understanding that it's possible for the simple to become complex, given the myriad of influential factors that affect everything in nature? Your brain is constipated. As far as you're concerned, everything was created by your god, or nothing could exist.

How is that even remotely rational?

Angrie the Strategist
16th July 04, 03:18 PM
Typical, cant defeat the argument so attack the person.

Huh?


According to your logic you shouldn't since its all one big accident anyway. His statement illustrates how ridiculous theories like the big bang really are.

Yes, that's fine and well. The big bang is completely ridiculous. But if he used that logic to demonstrate one particular human thought is fallacious (the big bang), I can too can wield it to demonstrate another particular human thought is ridiculous -- god, Jesus, your church etc. These are also fictions of the human find.


On another note, he is not my hero, although I do respect him and his writings. Joseph (aka Barnabas) would be the one person that I would call my hero, if you even know who that is.

I went to a grade school called St. Paul the Apostle, I'm fairly sure I know who Barnabas is.

Then again it could just be another completely random and accidental thought, so why believe me? Better go pray to Jesus for the answers.

Chantress
16th July 04, 03:56 PM
Huh?



Yes, that's fine and well. The big bang is completely ridiculous. But if he used that logic to demonstrate one particular human thought is fallacious (the big bang), I can too can wield it to demonstrate another particular human thought is ridiculous -- god, Jesus, your church etc. These are also fictions of the human find.



I went to a grade school called St. Paul the Apostle, I'm fairly sure I know who Barnabas is.

Then again it could just be another completely random and accidental thought, so why believe me? Better go pray to Jesus for the answers.

Since you cant remember what you wrote.


You clearly are too stupid to understand what I was saying


The whole line of reasoning is absurd, that is the point. Congratulations, you can use the reasoning that he is showing is absurd to prove that given in other applications, it is still absurd. U r teh win!

Angrie the Strategist
16th July 04, 05:18 PM
The whole line of reasoning is absurd, that is the point. Congratulations, you can use the reasoning that he is showing is absurd to prove that given in other applications, it is still absurd. U r teh win!

That is his line of reasoning, most modern science does not suscribe to such a philosophy. My point is that his line of reasoning is absurd.

If you had read anything on causality, knew anything about modern physics (or biology or any science for that matter), or actually opened any book other than Jesus Explains Creation, then maybe you would know this.

Chantress
16th July 04, 05:36 PM
That is his line of reasoning, most modern science does not suscribe to such a philosophy. My point is that his line of reasoning is absurd.

If you had read anything on causality, knew anything about modern physics (or biology or any science for that matter), or actually opened any book other than Jesus Explains Creation, then maybe you would know this.

The quote is from a time when "science" thought the big bang theory was the latest and greatest. Science cant seem to make up its collective mind about origins. There are several theories, all of which at best are shaky. I would bet money that the current ones are just a preposterous as the Big Bang theory, even though im certain im not familiar with all of them.

On another note, last time I checked the basic tenants of Physics haven't changed, although I do keep very casually abreast of advances in the field. Perhaps instead of falaciously attacking my intelligence you should more directly address my points. It would certainly further your cause more than trying to make me look bad. Your caustic words really mean nothing to me.

Diggler McFeely
16th July 04, 05:43 PM
HAHAHA,,, sucks when you are beaten isn't it, why would you even bother posting such a lame come back to make yourself look even worse? You should have just slid back under the rock you came from seeing that you had nothing intelligent to add to the discussion. Face it you tried to be witty and a smartass and you had your ass handed to you. Give it up lamer you got pwned!


Colder...

Keep looking.

Angrie the Strategist
16th July 04, 06:14 PM
The quote is from a time when "science" thought the big bang theory was the latest and greatest. Science cant seem to make up its collective mind about origins. There are several theories, all of which at best are shaky. I would bet money that the current ones are just a preposterous as the Big Bang theory, even though im certain im not familiar with all of them.

As I've said countless times on this message board, science is a revisionary process. The core of the scientific method is to try to falsify your own hypothesis. Saying "haha! them evil scientists was wrong!" isn't a valid argument.

Scientists "can't seem to make up their minds" because that's exactly what they're supposed to do. If all scientists made up their minds on what was true and what wasn't, we'd have ourselves a religion.


On another note, last time I checked the basic tenants of Physics haven't changed[/QUOTE]

The tenants of physics change quite often. Rent is very high.

On a serious note, yes, physics has changed tremendously (eg Newtonian mechanics to modern day string theory).

Energiser
16th July 04, 09:36 PM
Are you smoking crack?

Did you even read what I wrote?

How does it 'logically follow' that if random chance results in a creature with enough intelligence to build the pyramids, that the pyramids are an accident?


You're just demonstrating what a complete fucking waste of time argueing this subject with you is. Anyway, i'll try and explain.

1) Assuming the big bang or some similair occurance, and thus the evolution of humans afterward, actually occured.

2) Then one must assume that this "intelligence" is nothing more than a very complex mathematical equation with repeatable results and essentially random input. If you don't accept this general idea, then what the fuck is human thought and intelligence then eh? is it spiritual? is it from the omfg it can't possibly exist WTF AOL "spiritual dimension" ?
There is no other explanation for it currently within the realms of generally accepted scientific thought.

That's such a simple idea, yet it doesn't even seem to occur to you, given that you use that rediculous example above.



And furthermore, according to Mr. Lewis, because the beings who created the pyramids were originally the products of an 'accident', we should not believe they exist.

His entire argument is based on the fallacy of a false dilema; either everything in the universe is a product of God, or it is the product of an accident. And that is pure bullshit, and undermines the validity of the accomplishments of man in a desperate attempt to glorify some supernatural being he believed in.


the accomplisments of man? haha. HAHA.

I don't think that first bit actually says what you thought it meant.



It does not follow. If life was created by random chemicals coming together by chance in the primordial soup, that does not mean that this post I am typing is being created by the same random chance.


You see, IT DOES.
Otherwise i expect to see you give an explanation for human intelligence that doesn't include vagueries and abstract and unexplained concepts that are just as at home in religious texts.

you are just a collection of atomic and sub atomic particles behaving in a manner governed buy a set of rules.

Essentially, a bit complex mathematical equation. your random input is the big bang and everything since resulting from it. Your output just so happens to appear to be extreme narrow mindedness and the crystalisation of some of that in this post here.



In fact, to even suggest this is fucking idiotic, but that's par for the course with a group which sees the world through filters created by people who sacrificed animals and talked to bushes.

You preach more than chantress these days. You're certainly equally if not more obtuse. Wether or not that is intentional i don't know, nor do i particularly care.

EARTH TO PHRACKYPOO : THE ONLY TRULY "INTELLIGENT" STANCE ON THE SUBJECT IS AGNOSTICISM.

deadcat
16th July 04, 10:53 PM
In other news, I watched this special on the Book of Mary and Jesus' representation in the Koran. As such, I've decided to seek out the Book of Mary and some of the other books that weren't included in the New Testament and read the Koran.

Anyone know where I can find the Book of Mary and other such 'lost' Books?

Chantress
16th July 04, 11:28 PM
In other news, I watched this special on the Book of Mary and Jesus' representation in the Koran. As such, I've decided to seek out the Book of Mary and some of the other books that weren't included in the New Testament and read the Koran.

Anyone know where I can find the Book of Mary and other such 'lost' Books?

What you are seeking, although if it is anything like the "Lost Gospel Q", I wouldnt give it much credit.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892819111/qid=1090038317/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-1460168-5532068?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

You can get a Koran at any major book store, or one for free some different Islamic institutions. Read it backwards when you get it, and I'm not even kidding.

Traetick
16th July 04, 11:53 PM
Ive always found it funny how one can argue on something they have no clue about themselves. Ive said it once and now ill say it again.... For every year in college, for every page you read, for all the books that have been made, for all the debates in the world, for every science experiment done....you are no closer to any kind of answer than the next person. In the words of Socrates " I am the man who knows nothing" and sometimes that little bit of mystery is greater than all the collective knowlege in the universe. Im not some hippy tree huger, Im not some right wing christian nut job, and im not even for science, but despite all of this i am not atheist either. Being pro negative is the EXACT same as positive since both parties fully commit to a way of life that they cant even begin to understand. If there is a heaven or hell, so be it. If sience prooves religion wrong, so be it. Ill still be on this message board tomorrow with no better answer than the rest of you.

Energiser
17th July 04, 03:35 AM
Ive always found it funny how one can argue on something they have no clue about themselves. Ive said it once and now ill say it again.... For every year in college, for every page you read, for all the books that have been made, for all the debates in the world, for every science experiment done....you are no closer to any kind of answer than the next person. In the words of Socrates " I am the man who knows nothing" and sometimes that little bit of mystery is greater than all the collective knowlege in the universe. Im not some hippy tree huger, Im not some right wing christian nut job, and im not even for science, but despite all of this i am not atheist either. Being pro negative is the EXACT same as positive since both parties fully commit to a way of life that they cant even begin to understand. If there is a heaven or hell, so be it. If sience prooves religion wrong, so be it. Ill still be on this message board tomorrow with no better answer than the rest of you.

I thought that was what i just said.

Traetick
17th July 04, 05:40 AM
bleh wasnt really reading every post. just wanted to throw a comment out. chalk it up to great minds think alike? :goofy: