mreiland
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mreiland
-
-
I think we should also ban all benefits to hetero couples as well.
Why is it that people think they have the right to enforce their lifestyle on everyone else?
-
They have every right to find another company.
I don't necessarily agree with their sentiment, but that is their right.
-
I could, except that you're being facetious, so my advice to you is to reread my post, and do the research yourself.
You can also use this as an excuse not to(me not giving you information). Just remember, in the end, you're the one losing out
-
It suddenly becomes obvious to me that the time to extricate myself from this thread has arrived.
-
That is SO untrue whereas creationsists are using true science whereas the others are using a bogus theory NOT fact.....
As opposed to fake science?
I know of a creation scientists who uses science to disprove evolutionists.....in fact he has had reward money (currently 100 grand) for anyone who could disprove creation or prove evolution.....guess what? despite many "top scientists" trying no one has succeededI know of a group that get's together to see what parts of the bible are historically true, and, thus far, only about 20% of the bible is historical fact.
I have 2 things.
1) Evolutionists are currently disproving evolution(or should I say, refining it?). Noone in his right mind is going to tell you that Evolutionary theory is 100% correct.
2) What exactly is a creationist scientist? Perhaps I should introduce myself as an agnostic Programmer from now on? As if being Agnostic should have *anything* to do with my programming.
If someone calls themselves a christian scientist, it means they're not objective.
-
I would never homeschool my child.
Not because I think that a public school could teach my child better than I could(quite the contrary, in fact), but because learning social skills is more important than learning anything else in your life, and you can't do that while you're cooped up at home being taught by your parents.
In my experience, home schooled people are always just a bit off...
-
Women were more educated than men at every level in 2000 and at the college level were 20% more enrolled! Not only were the actual percentages of women higher, the rate of enrollment was also higher for women.
Exactly. One of the big reasons for this is because the "feminazi's"(as Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to them), have been pushing woman to educate themselves, which is a good thing.
This is also a big reason why a lot of educated woman are choosing not to get married. They'd rather stay single than marry an undecated person(among other things, of course, chasing careers, etc.).
But to say that Woman belong in the home is ignorant IMO, especially in light of the current trend. If anything, the men need to start staying at home, LMAO.
-
*gives up and walks away*
A moment is actually defined as the moment of time it takes me to finish what I'm doing
-
Are you sure Eken? Because there's a good possibility that I was referring to a base 4 system, in which case, the answer is actually 10.(2 + 2 = 10).
hummmmm
It seems to me that context is very relevant. What do you think Eken?
PS
Now all you need to do is define right and wrong.
-
I had to reread the above two posts TWICE just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding something...
Hey guys, *I'm* the one that's supposed to be catching all the flak saying stupid, chauvanistic things. Remember, I'm the one that mentioned that woman want to be dominated in the end.
I suggest you two go and check out the ratio of educated men to woman, and rethink.
Akya, if I were you, I'd just pretend those two posts didn't happen. That's my advice.
-
Thug, I'd like to see your proof based on evidence that a fetus is not a baby, not little examples based on un-occuring situations.
The burden of proof is on *you* to prove that it *is* a baby.
-
I don't think I was using a strawman, thats "attacking a position that is not one of your arch-rivals" . I was just joking that your social study was not very scientific.
My bad, I guess I didn't catch the humor. It just seemed that way because you chose 1 comment thrown in at the end, as if that were the only 'evidence' that I had presented to backup my case, when in fact, it wasn't. Attacking something other than what was actually being stated, I guess
-
Heh, if this is a constant problem for you, I suggest you back off a bit...
And if you think you have to do something significant to get accused of rape, you're living in a fantasy world.
Woman aren't stupid, and they know that, in the end, they *do* have the advantage. If a woman hit me, I'd never hit her back. Not because of some ignorant chivalrous notion that I shouldn't hit woman, but because I know my @#$% will end up in jail, and no amount of explaining will help me(with another man, if he hit me first, I'd have the legal right to hit him back). I'd have to get darned lucky to get a judge who was bipartisan enough to see it objectively.
And woman know this.
ThugAmish.
Woman do have it hard, I'm not denying that, but you know, men have it just as bad. How many men do you know what go and work out regularly just to look good, not for health reasons specifically? Perhaps it's safe to say that the woman have the *apparent* social pressures when they're younger, but the men get it when they get older(supporting woman, children, among other things). I know that I, for one, sometimes find myself getting attacked simply because I'm male, and I'm supposed to sleep around, and not care about woman's feelings(which, as you know, is an ignorant view of men).
I don't care what anyone says, when a man falls in love, he does it just as hard as any woman, but the stereotypes would lead you to believe otherwise.
-
Math is very axiomatic.
Exactly. It's known as the Axiomatic view of Mathematics. You start out with undefine-able's at the bottom, and build off of them(Axioms, theorems, postulates, etc).
However, in the end, it's based off of things that have no definate definition Something that a *lot* of people seem to overlook. What this means is that the conclusions that math have are only valid in that system
You can't apply a theorem in Euclidean Geometry to 3-point Geometry, or Spherical Geometry(as ThugaMish pointed out). The reason is that they're different systems based off of different axioms.
So the next time you have someone tell you that Creationism isn't based on fact, but Evolution is, mention that. The methods they use to find dates, etc., *are* based upon faith, but most of them are too ignorant to realize it.
What I meant about my 2 + 2 = 4 comment. 2 doesn't exist in the "real" world. It's nothing more than a symbol meant to symbolize a concept. You can pick up "2" pencils, but do you really have 2 pencils? Or do you just have a quantity that's represented by 2? That quantity could change.
The above argument is, of course, much too philosophical to be used in a debate validly(IMO), but I thought I'd mention it since Math *is* a philosophy.
The other reason is because the operation + is just that, an operation. We can define operations where X * Y = 2X + Y(defined in our normal operations), in which case 2 * 2 = 6, where * is meant to represent any operation(a placeholder).
You might think this is stupid, trivial, and without value, but it's not. You can then go on to define groups, Integral Domains fields, etc., and the *really* neat thing about that is that you can prove that the set of Rational Numbers is a field(which means they have defineable properties), and Integers are integral domains. You also find out that a lot of sets that are defined by the modulus operator also have these same characteristics(which means that mappings, ie. functions, can be created which have special properties).
Probably the coolest thing I've ever seen is when my professor proved that the set of negative integers actually exist(mathematically). Think about it, natural numbers occur in nature(1, 2, 3, etc), but not negative numbers, so how can we use them? Of course they're nothing more than a reference to a central point, but still, I found it to be very interesting.
Anyway, I'm rambling now, sorry about that
Sometimes my love of math shows through, especially this branch(Abstract Algebra, aka Modern Algebra). It's a *relatively* new branch of math that I think is cool as hell(may favorite 2 classes in college I think).Thugamish:
You must have a pretty good curriculum at your HS, I never really touched Spherical Geometry that much until College, and even then we only touched upon it.
PS
Just to clarify, when I say that the math used to obtain dates, etc(carbon dating), are based on faith, that doesn't mean they're not valid, as observation tells us that the system that we've defined for ourselves matches the "real world" pretty closely(The conclusions, not the tools it uses). I just find it ironic that they accuse Creationists of doing exactly what they're, unknowingly, doing.
-
Being male is easy? That's news to me.
I'm constantly wary that some chick is going to scream rape because she has a problem with me(had it happen once when I was younger, and seen it happen to other guys).
Or that some woman is going to claim her baby as mine(had that happen also, but we never had sex, go figure... ).
Then there's the pressure on men to perform in bed, or being hung like a donkey.
oh no, Men have it *just* as bad as woman, just from different prespectives.
-
to adam, atheism does not really take much faith. Does it take faith for you to reject Santa Claus? If it does, than perhaps you are becoming too sceptical, going into solipism, and if that happens, this whole discussion breaks down.
Not a valid form of argument. I could just as easily say 'Does it take faith for you to reject Christianity'? The answer would then be, 'yes'. The fact is that it takes faith in your own observations, and your 'logic'. Atheism does, indeed, take faith. Much the same way that you have faith that 2+2 is going to equal 4 tomorrow(when it doesn't always).
-
By that same token, you wouldn't tear it down for two reasons
1) The effort put into it(time, parts for the robot, energy, etc.
2) The potential of the house to *be* a home
-
*goes off to read 'The Clash of Genders' thread*
-
I agree that language is as powerful as that(a point that I was trying to get across in another thread), but I hate it when people come up with these conspiracy theories.
If I got all worked up everytime I heard one of them, I'd be dead from the stress by now.
-
Melody
From the Anime Noir(one of my favorite anime's of all time).
-
hmm, I guess I'll sign up as well
C++ all da way babee
-
so what you basically mean is that...whatever we do, we always...at some point...allow the man to have the upper hand/control on us ?
No way, remember, I stated previously that if a man allows a woman to be dominant, he'll eventually find himself single.
You have to 'conquer' a woman(not literally, of course). In other words, you have to prove yourself to her. Why do you think theirs a stereotype about woman looking for rich men? Most rich men are dominant, and powerful, and that's what woman want in a man(and also being able to take care of her children).
Obviously there are more dynamics to the relationship than can be easily discussed here.
What do you think about women who play hockey or football ?and about those who are president of their company & have a lot of men under their order ?
I would never marry one. Just kidding. I knew a woman who played American Football, and I thought it was a turn on. Unfortunately she was lesbian, but still...
Personally, I'm looking for a woman who could do those things. I don't want a woman who will be dependant on me. I want a woman who holds down a job, and has her own life. My reasoning is that if she doesn't need me, she must want me
Plus, I plan on doing the same.If I ever get married(and that's a big if), I plan on it being an equal marriage. Of course I'll put my foot down where I think it counts, and she'll put her's down where she thinks it counts. We'll go head to head a lot, but always, in the bedroom, *I'll* be the one giving the spankings
-
see, when I say dominance I don't necessarily mean gender roles, although I believe that they're the way they are as a result of the normal male dominance.
Nowadays, a lot of woman won't allow themselves to be dominated in any way, or fashion, until they're:
A) comfortable with the person,
Trust the Person, andC) are in the privacy of their own home(for the most part).
It's a compromise between urges, and social survivability(nowadays, a woman can't depend on a man to help her 'survive', ie., pay the bills, among other things).
-
hummmmm........ How about "Michael Reilands Dominance: The tale of the man who rules all"
no?
hmmm, well, I guess clash of genders will work then
Superbowl Halftime
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
Here's a good question.
If it were announced that they would televise a live orgy during the next superbowl half-tiime, would you watch it? Or allow your kids to watch it?