Talk intelligently.

Question for clarification:

Do you want the old thread restored here, or should I make an extra one that can take the old posts and then be locked afterwards?

I can start reposting in the evening (my time) only. :)

You have that one too? *kiss* LOL

You have that one too? *kiss* LOL

I have. Here goes:

Poster:

Omniscient Lust

Topic: Intelligent Coversation For The Sake of Intelligence

I wanted to post a topic that encourages intelligent coversation ONLY. Anyone spams this thread with stupidity, I'll mod your ass. I'm serious, too. Post nonsense in the other threads. I'd like to keep this one sane.

To start off, I wanted to talk about life after high school. It sounds boring, I know, but there's some value to talk about it.

So what happens after high school?

Well, if you aren't a total procrastinator, you would have filled out college applications and got accepted to a snooty University that costs more than Madonna's nightgowns. If you have been procrastinating, then you're probably going to settle on junior college, or hit up minimum wage jobs before pursuing University. Either way, you're probably going to college.

...But does it solve anything? Are we burying ourselves deeper in the hole by going to college? Are we emptying our pockets faster than we can refill them?

On the average, about 45 % of kids going to college will be thousands of dollars in debt. Hell, the percentage is probably more than that.

Are we doing this all... for nothing? Will it amount to a fufilling life? Or are we just fooling ourselves, trying to hide behind the security of "higher learning" so that we look as though we're doing something productive in society?

... Let's talk about it, shall we?

#1 Nov 19th 2007, 12:00pm . Edited by The Illusionary Beast, Nov 27th 2007, 10:13pm

Poster:

Jinxed-To-The-Core

I think that the way society is built, we're forced to grow up on our own and move on on our own. Not everyone has the chance to know what's going on, what to do, and how to do it [going to college]. But I've been to several people that can help, but one problem. Money. We had to pay the counselors like... two thousand dollars for what? So they can tell us what to do for college? Yeah sure, they might help us in, but then again, what's the point to pay someone to go into a college to pay for? Scholarships, grants, loans are there, but are no guarantees.

And as a junior in high school [a hispanic one at that], it's hard to choose between what we want to do for ourselves or what our parents want us to do. Because I am under a lot of stress from my parents, them thinking that I'm going to stay at home, take care of them, give them my money when they need it. I wanna go out and live on my own, but with them sheltering me and keeping me from the proper experience, I say that this situation is one way why some people are so in debt, why they procrastinate or don't do at all.

And as for going to college and it being some sort of use, I don't think there's any purpose unless you're actually going for a degree to be a psychologist or what not. Otherwise, it's a waste to go to college if you're not going to intertwine that knowlege gained into daily life. It's really pointless if you don't have anything set out or have a general idea. [But it doesn't mean that you can't find that idea and go to college, it means you should have that idea before pursuing something needlessly.]

#2 Nov 19th 2007, 3:26pm

Poster: The Illusionary Beast

The following is a rant on the Intelligent Design "theory. It's pretty damn good. I urge you all to read it. It's by Two, the Ranting Gryphon.

MORE INTELLIGENT DESIGN

October 6, 2007

Folks, we really need to make a concerted effort to extract our heads from our asses on this particular issue. If you support the idea of Intelligent Design being a part of high school science curriculum, then that strange smell you keep wondering about is your colon. Check your fiber intake while you're down there.

The Intelligent Design "Theory" is based on a philosophical premise called the "Telelogical Argument". Basically, this argument states that complexity implies a designer, the universe is complex, therefore the universe has a designer. As a philosophy major in college, this argument was a "point and laugh" issue even to most first year philosophy students. We wondered how it was ever considered valid enough to be written down at all, much less travel through the anals of history to be discussed to this very day. We theorized that perhaps it was chiseled on the same slab of stone with "Mary Had A Little Lamb", and we simply couldn't bring ourselves to throw away such a delightful little tune, regardless of the psudo-philosophical vomit that might have been written next to it.

The argument is terribly easy to destroy. In the first place, the idea that something complex requires a designer is nothing more than speculation. There's simply no evidence to support it. It's just an idea someone's brain puked up because it helped them convince people there is a God. Second, the concept of "complexity" resides entirely within human opinion. "The universe is complex! It must have a designer!" Because it's complex for you doesn't mean it's complex to everyone. In fact, if you believe everything around you is complicated, then it probably just means you're a moron.

Now, I personally don't care what cock-eyed, half baked horse shit people dream up to fool themselves into believing what they want about the universe. And proving that Intelligent Design is not science is child's play. But what I find distressing is the prevailing attitude in the US that the practice of "science" is whatever any turd-beaten yahoo believes it should be.

A great many level-headed people have said, "Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class because it isn't science." What could be more simple? What we forget is that the people who believe in Intelligent Design must, by default, believe that the universe caters to the ideas of man. This includes science. And the response comes back, "Well, I believe it is science!" After which the argument is tossed into the realm of personal opinion in which there is no possibility of right or wrong and we must then weigh what must be done based on the touchy-feely, neurotic sensabilities of the flag-waving, church-going majority.

The fist waving march of this self-serving bullshit must end. Period. "Science" has a definition. And that definition is not shaped by the fickle whimsey of whatever you and your inbred cousin believes it is. There is no "science" tailor made just for you. There is only science. You cannot produce a calculator and begin to add figures incorrectly, claim that "I believe this is math!" and have the PR coach of the day pat you on the back and re-assure you that everyone's ideas are equally as valid. Science is what it is, and if you believe it's something different, then the definition isn't changing for you. You're just wrong.

A "theory" is not a idea you had while scarfing down your chicken tikka marsala for lunch. We hear this on a daily basis. "I have this theory..." No, you don't. A theory is a scientific model that can be backed with evidence and be able to be falsified. The "Intelligent Design Theory" is not a theory, as there is never the possibility that it can be falsified. It doesn't matter what you believe a theory should be. It's not even the "Intelligent Design Hypothesis". An hypothesis must be able to be tested! It's the "Intelligent Design Shit-That-Someone-Dreamed-Up" and nothing more!

Putting aside how valid Intelligent Design may or may not be, it can be shown, without a doubt, that it is not science. In science class, we don't put down our science books periodically to sing a number from "My Fair Lady". We don't suddenly have our papers graded on the basis of how well we design our sentense structure and spelling. Science is taught in science class. And the very notion that "junk philosophy" can and should be nudged into the science curriculum is suggestve that science is simply another unfalsifiable practice, the borders of which blur at the whim of whatever unsubstanciated explanations of the universe that care to rub shoulders with it. It is an outright insult to everything that science stands for.

Folks, Intelligent Design is simply a spiritual penis measuring contest. It's not enough that religious ideas are taught in their own classes. Imaginary bullshit must be tossed in with empirical scientific methods to suggest that "our religious ideas are just as valid as your science". If all the faith-based groups wanted was to have children given "alternative ideas" about where the universe might have come from, they could have it inserted into a number of courses under which it would be valid material. The insistence that Intelligent Design be taught in science class, even though it is not science is simply an attempt to slap science in the face and secure the fears that our children won't grow up to possibly reject the frightened-cave-man explanations of the universe that have made us feel comfortable all our lives.

If it were any other ideas than Christian ones, no one would even think about introducing them into a science class. And personally, I'm completely appauled and somewhat terrified that the very definition of "science" has become a dictate of the moral majority.

- 2 Gryphon

#3 Nov 19th 2007, 5:20pm

Poster: Omniscient Lust

I agree somewhat, but his idea of what a theory is is a little jaded...

The definition of a theory reads as followed:

a tentative theory about the world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

We have loads of theories that severely lacks in scientific evidence, but we model off of them and take bits and pieces of it and move them elsewhere so that it sounds more accurate.

Now I'm not saying that if a person titles whatever they say as a theory that it's technically one, but who's to say anymore what's politically correct? True, not everyone can be a scientist, but does that mean that a non-scientist cannot deduce and spot holes in the scientific field?

#4 Nov 20th 2007, 11:51am . Edited Nov 20th 2007, 11:52am

Poster:

Omniscient Sloth

Sometimes scientists make up a theory, even though it's not accurate. Like radioactive dating, for example. It's NOT accurate at all, but since scientists say it's correct, automatically, people think it is.

Radioactive dating is telling how old a rock is from carbon testing or something. So, when Mount Saint Helen's erupted, the testing showed that the lava was like millions of years old, when it was actually only about a few weeks old.

See? I CAN be intelligent if I set my mind to it. :)

#5 Nov 21st 2007, 1:09pm

Poster:

Omniscient Greed

Well, the lava could have easily been thousands of years old, since it has been under the Earth's crust for quite some time.

Theories are taken out of context a lot, however. For example, global warming is only a theory and there is proof that it exists, but it is not as dangerous as a lot of politicias say it is. The only thing it will really effect is farming, no dangerous flooding will occur.

#6 Nov 21st 2007, 3:08pm . Edited Nov 21st 2007, 3:08pm

Poster: Irindiglo-Fairy

In time though the sea levels will rise when the glaciers melt and when the ocean current is changed, the weather patterns will too. Scientists make theories, which people believe to be solid, but scientists know can change all the time. The politicians might be referring to the long term predictions the scientists made, which is a theory in one way.

I still would take precaution, for our activities(esp. mass development) has to be taxing the environment which is natural.

#7 Nov 21st 2007, 8:10pm . Edited Nov 21st 2007, 9:02pm

Poster:

The Illusionary Beast

We in America seem to have a fetish for fear. The media and the government want us to be in a constant state of fear under the threat of anything from traffic cones, fountain pens, toy airplanes and brown people to a nuclear raid from North Korea or any other acts of "terrorism." Has anybody else noticed that the term "terrorist" is becoming what the word "communist" used to be?

It absolutely sickens me how desperately the people in charge want to control us. They're fucking up the educational system and making it far too hard for the average kid, hoping they'll drop out and join the army to become a bullet-stopper or something along those lines. Thus, the next generation will be less educated than previous ones and thus easier to control. They also seem to have a thing for pumping up everyone with all sorts of emotions. Anything from fear of "terrorism" to depression out of seeing our beloved WTC burn and collapse again and again or anger at the evil atheist black people down the fucking street. What the fuck!

If it were in my power, I'd take control of every television channel, even just for five minutes, to tell people the truth. To control the emotions of the very masses who are ruled by them is a classic form of brainwashing. If it weren't for this fear, the masses might question the legitimacy of the current regime and revolt.

Those with power are always afraid to lose it. Even if they have no other weakness but their own power, that very power will be their eventual downfall. The wicked always fall upon the very sword they once used to inflict harm upon others. It is a pathetically vicious cycle and it will never end so long as time and space exist. Life and the Universe is like a wheel; it is constantly spinning and changing. Whatever is on top must eventually come down, making way for those below to reach the top next as the cycle continues. The Wheel of Fortune: Rota. This concept has existed since time immemorial. As above, so below. Essentially, while we may all be angry under the present circumstances, it will probably always be the same. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Anyway, enough of my pontifications. I'm signing off for the night. See ya'll!

~Envy

#8 Nov 23rd 2007, 12:35am

Poster:

Omniscient Pride

But our gov't does not have absolute power. But I jsut wish the Rebublican poarty would just die as well as ALL corrupt Congress members. They have no use anyway.

#9 Nov 23rd 2007, 9:13am

Poster:

The Illusionary Beast

Seriously, is "pro" and "con" are opposites, then what's the opposite of progress people?

#10 Nov 23rd 2007, 9:37am

Poster:

Omniscient Greed

The government lies to us so stupid people will still trust every word they say, truth or not.

I, personally, have nothing against the American government and I feel like I live in the best place in the world, but sometimes everyone goes too far with politics.

George Washington warned us about this stuff, and it makes me feel sad that people will continually make politics more meaningful than it should be. There are problems on both the Democratic and Republican sides of things and neither party is willing to except responsibility for their actions.

Meh, I don't know what else to say.

#11 Nov 23rd 2007, 4:47pm . Edited Nov 23rd 2007, 4:47pm

Poster:

Omnipresent SF

Not to spam but, my young brain can't handle this highly intriguing conversation.

#12 Nov 25th 2007, 5:31pm

Poster:

Gaia Ishtara

That post will be deleted, as will this one. STOP FUCKING SPAMMING OR I WILL BAN YOU FOR A WEEK!!!!

#13 Nov 25th 2007, 7:07pm

Poster:

Omniscient Lust

George Washington warned us about this stuff, and it makes me feel sad that people will continually make politics more meaningful than it should be. There are problems on both the Democratic and Republican sides of things and neither party is willing to except responsibility for their actions.

I honestly don't believe the hype that one party is better or more efficient than the other. Both have their flaws. And point have pretty okay points. I'm a democrat all the way, though. I was born into it. But I don't think that the Democratic party is best hands down. They've got kinks to work out.

#14 Nov 26th 2007, 10:52am

Poster:

Omnipresent SF

Damn! Someone's on their got-danged period! Sorry! Anyway He sure as hell did!

#15 Nov 26th 2007, 3:16pm

Poster:

Grey-wolf David

I just got done watching a city council meeting and I just found a dislike for our legal system. apparently this woman was held in solitary confinement for a small crime, refused medical attention, refused the whole one phone call thing, and the inmates called her sister just to spite her, damned prisons

#16 Nov 26th 2007, 4:51pm

Poster: Omnipresent SF

Meh i never liked debates unless it's something i truly care about such as the ESRB rating system. I believe that you should be able to buy any game you want(within reason) when you turn 13.

#17 Nov 26th 2007, 5:00pm

Poster: Jinxed-To-The-Core

Government hasn't been fair all the time nor can it be completely fair most of the time. So let it be and know that it sucks.

#18 Nov 26th 2007, 6:32pm

Poster:

Omniscient Sloth

I wanted to be a politician, but then I found out that I have to be (at times), cutthroat and sometimes have to lie. I can lie...but I can't be cutthroat. So, oh well, you guys missed out on a fantastic president!!

#19 Nov 28th 2007, 8:10am

Poster: The Illusionary Beast

I'd become the president if I didn't know what a stupid job it truly is.

#20 Nov 28th 2007, 4:28pm

From now Poster = OP (Original Poster)

OP: The Illusionary Beast

-Bumping-

#21 Feb 26th, 8:37pm

OP:

Soviet Anti Troll General

For what? Most of the debates and such moved to the Chosen Ones forum.

On another note, I would become a president if I didn't know that I cannot change the people.

#22 Feb 27th, 5:24am

OP:

Syrus Magistus

For what? Most of the debates and such moved to the Chosen Ones forum.

That's not my forum, now is it? Demere requested this.

#23 Feb 27th, 6:24am

OP:

Thranduil Oropherion Redux

For what? Most of the debates and such moved to the Chosen Ones forum.

Beast and Demere were having a rather interesting discussion about the nature of illness, reality, etc. which I was hoping to join, especially since I have recently purchased and begun to read the Nag Hammadi Scriptures.

Can there ever be too much intelligent debate?

#24 Feb 27th, 10:28am

You must be in the US if they are teaching Intelligent Design, in the UK there would be hell to pay if that was mooted as being introduced, it would be considered a little * flaky * to say the least. Here people are bring sent home from school if they wear crucifixes and people are arguing about whether or not Muslim females should be able to wear their veils at work/school/college. I have my own beliefs which I would have regardless of what I had been taught at school, which was Hinduism, Judaism, Islam as well as Christianity, but I opted for RE, it was not compulsory.

Actually it's got a little ridiculous now, in my view if people wish to wear crucifixes, the Star of David, pentagrams, pentacles, burkhas or anything at all they should be able to without the PC brigade flying into a panic. Some woman appealed because she was told she could not wear her Muslim headgear at work or she would be fired and others are told not to wear their crosses as it might upset other faiths. I respect any-one's right to believe in what they want as long as it is not militant. Now they don't put Christian symbols in shops with Christmas decorations or have Nativity plays, probably Christmas Caroles will be out too. Of course a Winter Solistice celebration is ancient but it makes you wonder if they'll end up calling it Winterfest or something, by next year. People are so concerned with not upsetting any-one now it's rather extreme. Just peace out.

I think I should be a hippy.

Poster:

Syrus Magistus

Can there ever be too much intelligent debate?

A definite "NO" to that, Sir. XD

#25 Feb 27th, 4:16pm

OP:

Archetypal Instinct

Well, if someone is interested:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Democratic_Party

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Democrat_Party

I know that wiki isn't the best wiki alive, but it does have a point. The democrapic party is shitty, but it's not a communist, socialist, or even leftist party. Does someone has a word in this?

#26 Mar 09th, 1:07pm

OP: Archetypal Creation

The democrapic party is shitty, but it's not a communist, socialist, or even leftist party.

I think the main reason my parents don't like the Democratic party is because the politicians usually want to a) raise taxes and b) make abortion legal.

Although, the Republicans can get a little...er....kooky...

#27 Mar 14th, 10:01am

OP:

Thranduil Oropherion Redux

I think the main reason my parents don't like the Democratic party is because the politicians usually want to a) raise taxes

For whom? Taxes are problematic. Spend more than you take in, run a deficit, and you get inflation. Some of the so-called Republican tax cuts (Ronald Reagan's) have actually been a huge tax increase for the people making the least money. Reagan doubled the Social Security payroll deduction to make up for the reduction in income tax.

make abortion legal.

I think you mean keep it legal. But yeah. LOL

#28 Mar 14th, 8:40pm

OP: Syrus Magistus

It's not like abortions are ever mandatory. Some people really aren't cut out to be parents and they know it. I don't think abortion is particularly cool. It's a miserable, painful procedure but as long as it makes people happy, I say give them the choice. Free will isn't just an American marketing scheme. It's a universal law, like the Scientific ones.

#29 Mar 15th, 10:05am

OP:

Thranduil Oropherion Redux

It's not like abortions are ever mandatory. Some people really aren't cut out to be parents and they know it.

I've heard some women report that they felt it was almost mandatory, since they were getting absolutely no support for continuing the pregnancy and felt coerced by lack of reasonable alternatives. They went further to argue that abortion should be outlawed to save reluctant women from the pressure. I don't think I'd go that far, but I can understand the feeling.

This is the Constitutional principle that our government should treat us like free adults capable of making our our medical and moral decisions.

#30 Mar 15th, 10:52am

OP:

Demere Joanna

A miserable procedure yes but not painful. There are two ways if you are under ten weeks you can take a tablet, if you are over 10 weeks you have to have surgery. But it only lasts 10-15 mins and you are asleep when they do it.

#31 Mar 15th, 1:16pm

OP: Syrus Magistus

I stand corrected, lol.

#32 Mar 15th, 3:22pm

OP:

Thranduil Oropherion Redux

A miserable procedure yes but not painful. There are two ways if you are under ten weeks you can take a tablet, if you are over 10 weeks you have to have surgery. But it only lasts 10-15 mins and you are asleep when they do it.

I have no direct experience, obviously, but I'm told there is painful cramping either way. And post-surgical discomfort for the dilation and curettage procedure. The worst, though is the emotional trauma. It's very real.

#33 Mar 15th, 5:42pm

OP:

Demere Joanna

My ex next door neighbour had an abortion with the tablet, then I had a friend who I went to the hospital with when she had her abortion. They took her down to surgery 2:00 pm they put her to sleep. She was out by 2:15 pm. No after pain, just a bit groggy which is normal after waking up from an anastethic. Once she ate something she was good to go.

Sure the emotional pain is real, you can erase that but it is a very simple surgical process.

#34 Mar 15th, 6:18pm . Edited Mar 15th, 6:18pm

OP:

Archetypal Instinct

There is much more pain to have a baby put in adoption, though. You don't know what is happening right now to the poor creature or how she/he feels. It's just as horrible.

#35 Mar 16th, 3:46am

OP:

The Illusionary Beast

A lifetime of torture is a fate worse than an unknowing death.

#36 2 days ago, 5:36pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP:

Demere Joanna

Indefinitely

#37 Yesterday, 1:12am GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP: The Illusionary Beast

If there's no pain and no conscience, then I don't see what the big deal is about.

#38 Yesterday, 6:48am GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP:

SMARTALIENQT

If there's no pain and no conscience, then I don't see what the big deal is about.

Because in the Bible it says not to kill. Of course, some of the people who are "pro-life" are into the war and capital punishment. And the Bible is outdated, and people have used it out of context for years, so I don't know why people keep running to their Bibles when someone brings up abortion.

#39 Yesterday, 2:47pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP:

Thranduil Oropherion Redux

Because in the Bible it says not to kill.

Technically, the Bible says not to 'commit murder.' The Bible is full of killing other human beings -- the slaughter of the Canaanites seems not to fit the definition of wrongful death.

The rules for when 'human' life begin have always been up for debate too. In the Torah (I forget which book) the punishment for injuring a pregnant woman and causing her to lose her fetus was a fine, depending on whether the fetus was male or female. It was not considered to be murder.

#40 Yesterday, 3:07pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP:

The Illusionary Beast

Because in the Bible it says not to kill.

And yet in a glorious explosion of hypocrisy, these same people are killing the abortion doctors, who are highly educated professionals. If a fetus more important than a doctor? And what about the shitty education system? I took the California High School Exit Exam and I can say, a retard could pass it. The classes are shit and the system is dysfunctional. There's also a ton of other ways children are getting fucked over. It seems that the only time these retarded pro-lifers give a shit about kids is before they're born. If your pre-born you're cool; if you're pre-school, you're fucked.

#41 Yesterday, 4:07pm . Edited Yesterday, 5:20pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP:

Thranduil Oropherion Redux

And yet in a glorious explosion of hypocrisy, these same people are killing the abortion doctors,

Or supporting the death penalty. Some wag once called that way of thinking: "Let's throw 'em back and get them once they're bigger."

It seems that the only time these retarded pro-lifers give a shit about kids is before they're born.

They might put their efforts into improving the social support system for children in unfortunate circumstances -- health care, child protective services, etc. But really -- they're more about punishing women for daring to have sex in the first place.

#42 Yesterday, 5:16pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP:

The Illusionary Beast

They need to move on and stop worshipping an ethical code that is neither from nor intended for their time. Focus on the present, not the past or even the future. That's how I live; for today.

#43 Yesterday, 5:22pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

OP:

Thranduil Oropherion Redux

They need to move on and stop worshipping an ethical code that is neither from nor intended for their time.

People don't like to think for themselves. They just want to be spoon fed the rules.

The real sin is unwanted babies who grow up hungry and unloved. In the old days, that meant no non-marital sex to prevent it. Now, it means use of contraception, but we haven't quite gotten that through our heads yet. Still focusing on the sex.

For the record, abortion is wrong. It's a sad thing. But it may be the lesser of two evils.

#44 Yesterday, 5:41pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

_____________________

Note of the Archivar: complete agreement on all points to that post, here! - AR, 08/05/04

OP:

The Illusionary Beast

People are like their pets. Left untrained, it's just a stupid animal. It had to be cultured and taught to think for itself or it must somehow have the drive. Otherwise, it's all pointless chaos and destruction.

#45 Yesterday, 6:03pm GTM-8 = 08/04/03 GTM+1

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)