exactly! so that is my entire point. "Science says" is not a be-all end-all of a discussion. that science can continue to be interpreted and examined and re-interpreted.
Numbers aren't that way. 47+4 will always be 51 and it cannot be re-interpreted, and anytime spent trying to prove it wrong will always be wasted.
Originally posted by truejedi
Numbers aren't that way. 47+4 will always be 51 and it cannot be re-interpreted, and anytime spent trying to prove it wrong will always be wasted.
Math is not a tautology since math analyses truths in a given system. That is to say that math is a construct used to quantify phenomenon.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Let's be honest Nai, the "speculation and opinion" today is nowhere near as dominant as it was on this forum years ago either before I came or right when I first got here, I forget.
Yes. Because most of the people that dared to think for themselves instead of repeating phrases they read (or were fed) did leave the forum. Remember?
The whole Ancient Sith fiasco I read about years ago was embarrassing.
The Ancient Sith fiasco? Interesting interpretation, Beef. As far as I recall, nobody has ever proven anything wrong that was said about the ancient Sith. I know that Gideon and Lightsnake tried their best to do the job, but the problem with fictional realms (and fictional VS matches) is, that it boils down to opinion. So what? The boring compilation of information that Gideon called an "analysis" of Sidious power may prove that Sidious was a competent Sith Lord - it still doesn't contain an ounce of proof that he's more powerful in the Force than Ragnos, Sadow, Kressh or Exar Kun and even less that he would be able to survive combat with them. And that was already the best shot fired in this "war", which was still aimed at a big target called "likeliness".
So what was the "fiasco" exactly? That the Antediluvians did quit out of boredom, because each thread made, regardless of the initial setup, turned into some kind of Sidious debate? That, certainly, didn't do the forum any good, as we can see right now.
I think the answer is pretty simple. We're all growing up and most of us that have been here for a while are too tired, too old, and not bored enough to debate Star Wars.
Well. Instead you debate fundamentally more important things like...same sex marriage or some freaks that find it funny to turn funerals into demonstrations?
@TJ:
I guess I went through some comp classes, and learned that that is called an unsubstantiated claim. If you can't back up what you are saying with evidence from the text, we turn into a group yelling "nuh-uh, uh-huh, shut up troll!" at each other.
I think you didn't learn enough.
There is a difference between not presenting evidence at all ("ubsubstantiated claim"😉 and making an educated guess, based on the information present. The latter has been excluded from the board entirely, by simply stating "there isn't enough information present" with the qualifier "enough" being entirely subjective. Technically, we live our entire lifes from one educated guess to another.
Here, I've seen people complaining about the lack of knowledge when it comes to Revan's lightsaber style - yet we also don't know what style Sidious is using exactly. So should we exclude Sidious from VS fights, because "he's an unknown"? Rather absurd. But that's the kind of "logic" used here - after the logicians leaving.
PS: This isn't meant as some sort of provocation, insult or flame. It's just how I've perceived the "debates" here - at least in the last couple of months - which resulted in one of the last people presenting creative (even thought they were wrong) arguments (Advent) leaving. And once again the forum became a little more boring. Imho.
Originally posted by Borbarad
Yes. Because most of the people that dared to think for themselves instead of repeating phrases they read (or were fed) did leave the forum. Remember?
The Ancient Sith fiasco? Interesting interpretation, Beef. As far as I recall, nobody has ever proven anything wrong that was said about the ancient Sith. I know that Gideon and Lightsnake tried their best to do the job, but the problem with fictional realms (and fictional VS matches) is, that it boils down to opinion. So what? The boring compilation of information that Gideon called an "analysis" of Sidious power may prove that Sidious was a competent Sith Lord - it still doesn't contain an ounce of proof that he's more powerful in the Force than Ragnos, Sadow, Kressh or Exar Kun and even less that he would be able to survive combat with them. And that was already the best shot fired in this "war", which was still aimed at a big target called "likeliness".
So what was the "fiasco" exactly? That the Antediluvians did quit out of boredom, because each thread made, regardless of the initial setup, turned into some kind of Sidious debate? That, certainly, didn't do the forum any good, as we can see right now.
Well. Instead you debate fundamentally more important things like...same sex marriage or some freaks that find it funny to turn funerals into demonstrations?
Debate Star Wars is what he was going for I think.
Furthermore, Enjoy and Discuss.
Originally posted by NephthysNostalgia critic isn't loading.
Debate Star Wars is what he was going for I think.Furthermore, Enjoy and Discuss.
Red Dragon's probably the best one. Theres one particular scene which made me legit pants-on-head freak out and gave me some major nightmares (like 5 years ago). And the ending is ****ing brilliant.
If you accept that Hannibal isn't supposed to be a villain in Hannibal then its actually not so bad. He's actually more of a secondary protagonist. But then I usually root for the villian anyway, so maybe thats just me.
Sounds like a play on the Euthyphro dilemma. If God (or any universal authority) dictates an action to be inherently right even though its viewed as morally repugnant (such as killing babies) then under the Divine Command theory, the very action of killing babies is in and of itself, a right and moral thing to do. The resulting consequences of the action are irrelevant.
I can't think of any other argument for specific actions defined as inherently right unless you make an appeal to some kind of natural law such as saying that the intrinsic state of the universe, independent of any agent, presupposes that killing babies is an inherently right thing to do.
In short, the question is pure philosophical bullshit unless used as some kind of counter to Divine Command theory even though its not a true anaglogue to the Dilemma.