watch the golden compass go to hell

[hippy fascist]

Oblivious: lacking active conscious knowledge or awareness —usually used with of or to

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Chair: a device used for rest typically consisting of a platform roughly 2 feet square at knee level, supported by four vertical legs. It is separated from the stool by the fact that a chair has back support. It may or may not have a place for the occupant to rest their arms. Some are more ornate than others, some have padding, but none of those things is necessary.

But Zoke....that definition has "absolutely no value whatsoever".....so it doesn't really give you any better an idea, "whatsoever" of what people mean when they use the word "chair"...than my definition.



Hahahahahaha

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Chair: a device used for rest typically consisting of a platform roughly 2 feet square at knee level, supported by four vertical legs.

Does it have to have four verticle legs? Do some have two, one, do some even have none (like if we ever made a hover chair)? What if it has wheels? What if the legs are diagonal, is it not a chair? What about chairs with solid bases? What about chairs that are attached to eachother. What about chairs with many legs?

It is separated from the stool by the fact that a chair has back support. It may or may not have a place for the occupant to rest their arms. Some are more ornate than others, some have padding, but none of those things is necessary.

Think about all those "some's" and "maybe's", do you "know" what something is truly if you have to use "some's" and "maybe's". What about stool's that have back support, some do? How ornate does it have to be before it's a throne? What about a bean bag chair, that's considered a chair yet fits none of the criteria. What about chair's with desks attached, are they still chairs?

Do you honestly have a definition of what a chair is that encompases all chairs and has no "maybe's" or "could be's".

 

[Zoken]

Does it have to have four verticle legs? Do some have two, one, do some even have none (like if we ever made a hover chair)? What if it has wheels? What if the legs are diagonal, is it not a chair? What about chairs with solid bases? What about chairs that are attached to eachother. What about chairs with many legs?

Think about all those "some's" and "maybe's", do you "know" what something is truly if you have to use "some's" and "maybe's". What about stool's that have back support, some do? How ornate does it have to be before it's a throne? What about a bean bag chair, that's considered a chair yet fits none of the criteria. What about chair's with desks attached, are they still chairs?

Do you honestly have a definition of what a chair is that encompases all chairs and has no "maybe's" or "could be's".

You are such a prick. Now you're just picking a fight for the sake of not wanting to be wrong.

That top portion was exactly what a chair was. you said "Chair" which means the most basic version. Thus I gave you a Chair. Not a "Rolling Chair" or "throne" or "Bean-Bag Chair" which isn't a chair it's a ****ing cushion. I talked about the more basic modifications in the second part (that was when the "Maybe's" and "Some's" started. Those things don't alter what is or isn't a chair. thusly, it doesn't matter which ones do or don't.

 

[Zoken]

But Zoke....that definition has "absolutely no value whatsoever".....so it doesn't really give you any better an idea, "whatsoever" of what people mean when they use the word "chair"...than my definition.



Hahahahahaha

Does anyone know what the term "**** Kicking" is. I heard it used once my a military drill instructor and I am thinking I want to do it.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You are such a prick. Now you're just picking a fight for the sake of not wanting to be wrong.

Says the man who responded to a post that wasn't addressed to him, and was dropped.

That top portion was exactly what a chair was. you said "Chair" which means the most basic version.

Says who? Not me. I asked the question. I mean ALL chairs. Anything you'd call a chair.

 

[Zoken]

Fine then, define for me the word Love.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Does it have to have four verticle legs? Do some have two, one, do some even have none (like if we ever made a hover chair)? What if it has wheels? What if the legs are diagonal, is it not a chair? What about chairs with solid bases? What about chairs that are attached to eachother. What about chairs with many legs?

Think about all those "some's" and "maybe's", do you "know" what something is truly if you have to use "some's" and "maybe's". What about stool's that have back support, some do? How ornate does it have to be before it's a throne? What about a bean bag chair, that's considered a chair yet fits none of the criteria. What about chair's with desks attached, are they still chairs?

Do you honestly have a definition of what a chair is that encompases all chairs and has no "maybe's" or "could be's".

Irrelevant.
I've already proved that there is SOME value to compiling a societally agreed upon set of definitions, and some meaning to be found there, since we all know damn well that if you gave the alien My definition, and Zoken's, the chance that the alien would understand what was being said when someone says "Pass me that chair, will you? " is 50 thousand quadrillion-billion times higher if he heeds, values and retains Zoken's definition in his memory, instead of mine.

The whole problem is with your bizarre need to completely deny ANY value in the consensus definition. Agreeing upon some standard of meaning, where at least some indication is given of what someone means when they use a word, is totally necessary for verbal communication.

Otherwise, I can say, "Eat the car!!!", and then look at you like YOU'RE an idiot when you don't know that what I really meant was "There's a spider on your shoulder."



This is all really obvious.
You're just mistakenly thinking that because I say there is SOME value there, that I'm saying it is the carved-in-stone, be-all-and-end-all final, infallible word on any possible meaning.....which isn't even remotely what I'm saying.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Fine then, define for me the word Love.

I'm not asking me, I'm asking you.

 

[GoogleMe94]

I'll be seeing this film when it releases. So what if it is indeed "selling atheism to kids"? Do kids really go to movies to look for religious message or to bring them closer to/further from God?

no, but it doesnt hurt, since, uh, its God who created us.

Why do Christians (like the ones in the article) have to feel threatened? I don't get it.

because its an insult to not only Christians, but anyone who believes in some Higher Power. atheism is its own kind of relgion, only while others praise God, this one tries to destroy God (although that is impossible of couse, they will be the ones to pay in the End, not Him). its evil, plain and simple. and if i had kids i wouldnt want them to see this crap, no matter how "fantasy" like it is. the message isnt a good one, unlike lord of the rings, where it was a great moving positive message.

define for me the word Love

i can define Love in one word: God.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Irrelevant.
I've already proved that there is SOME value to compiling a societally agreed upon set of definitions, and some meaning to be found there, since we all know damn well that if you gave the alien My definition, and Zoken's, the chance that the alien would understand what was being said when someone says "Pass me that chair, will you? " is 50 thousand quadrillion-billion times higher if he heeds, values and retains Zoken's definition in his memory, instead of mine.

The whole problem is with your bizarre need to completely deny ANY value in the consensus definition. Agreeing upon some standard of meaning, where at least some indication is given of what someone means when they use a word, is totally necessary for verbal communication.

Otherwise, I can say, "Eat the car!!!", and then look at you like YOU'RE an idiot when you don't know that what I really meant was "There's a spider on your shoulder."



This is all really obvious.
You're just mistakenly thinking that because I say there is SOME value there, that I'm saying it is the carved-in-stone, be-all-and-end-all final, infallible word on any possible meaning.....which isn't even remotely what I'm saying.

I'll get to the problem of language in a minute, you guys are still at the kindergarden stuff right now.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'll get to the problem of language in a minute, you guys are still at the kindergarden stuff right now.

Heh, I know, we struggle to transcend it and you keep grabbing our feet and dragging back down to it.



If you're going to deny this part:

we all know damn well that if you gave the alien My definition, and Zoken's, the chance that the alien would understand what was being said when someone says "Pass me that chair, will you? " is 50 thousand quadrillion-billion times higher if he heeds, values and retains Zoken's definition in his memory, instead of mine.

Then....I'm amazed you can even figure out how to turn a computer on.

 

[hippy fascist]

no, but it doesnt hurt, since, uh, its God who created us.

Please stop stating your OPINIONS as fact

There's a boatload of evidence for the theory of evolution

Not so much on the god front

I can define you in three words: easily led moron

 

[Zoken]

I'm not asking me, I'm asking you.

You mock our attempts to demonstrate definition to you, so you show us how it's done.

no, but it doesnt hurt, since, uh, its God who created us.



because its an insult to not only Christians, but anyone who believes in some Higher Power. atheism is its own kind of relgion, only while others praise God, this one tries to destroy God (although that is impossible of couse, they will be the ones to pay in the End, not Him). its evil, plain and simple. and if i had kids i wouldnt want them to see this crap, no matter how "fantasy" like it is. the message isnt a good one, unlike lord of the rings, where it was a great moving positive message.





i can define Love in one word: God.

It's rather sweet that you are this devout in your religion, but do try to remember, not everyone shares your point of view. Most atheists don't try to "Destroy God" they just choose not to believe in him. The message I took from the book (I read it before I heard about the Author's leanings) was that it is important to keep those you truly care about close, but to always remember to think for yourself and find your own path.

To define faith for yourself is a wonderful message. Question the information you are given, always. God is true (in my opinion). He isn't provable, but those who seek him may find him. If you find another path, follow it and see where it leads you, always asking questions.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You mock our attempts to demonstrate definition to you, so you show us how it's done.

Oh but sirs, I never claimed to know what love was.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

If you're going to deny this part:


Then....I'm amazed you can even figure out how to turn a computer on.

reread this:

Says who? Not me. I asked the question. I mean ALL chairs. Anything you'd call a chair.

 

[Zoken]

You know what, this argument is ludicrously off topic. The Author said one of his goals was to undermine Christianity. That is a fact. Take from it what you will. If you want to interpret it as "Oh, he's just saying that's what C.S. Lewis will think" whatever, I don't care anymore. The fact is he said it.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Oh but sirs, I never claimed to know what love was.

Do you wanna know what Love is?
Do you want me to show you?
It's a feeling deep down inside...it's just something you feel, together...

 

[musclesforsupes]

Wilhelm are you gillian?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Do you wanna know what Love is?
Do you want me to show you?
It's a feeling deep down inside...it's just something you feel, together...

In fact, I was being flippant. Like Socrates I only know that I don't know, but I do claim to know something about love. It was my senior essay, which encompasses most of what you learn over the four years in your concentration. I've never once posted it on here, and I don't think honestly I could give you the gist of it and do it any justice.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

In fact, I was being flippant.

Me too...that's why I quoted Foreigner AND Van Halen.

Like Socrates I only know that I don't know, but I do claim to know something about love. It was my senior essay, which encompasses most of what you learn over the four years in your concentration. I've never once posted it on here, and I don't think honestly I could give you the gist of it and do it any justice.

You should go post it at Lesbian Slumber Party. In the art section there's a thread for posting school papers. I'd be interested to see it.

I can't give you the link because you might run into bushels of child pornography or wander into the Snuff film forums.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You should go post it at Lesbian Slumber Party. In the art section there's a thread for posting school papers. I'd be interested to see it.

I can't give you the link because you might run into bushels of child pornography or wander into the Snuff film forums.

Yes, I could do that. Can't post the presentation that went with it unfortunately.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You didn't video tape it for posterity?!

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You didn't video tape it for posterity?!

Nope. I never video tape anything. It's a shame though. I drew a picture illustrating what love was, it had chariots in it.

 

[sinewave]

I do have a blast doing that. I don't do anything on the Hype unless it's entertaining to me. Once it ceases to be entertaining, I go elsewhere.

sorry, one last thing. do you interact with people face-to-face the same way you interact with people here? just curious.

atheism is its own kind of relgion, only while others praise God, this one tries to destroy God (although that is impossible of couse, they will be the ones to pay in the End, not Him).

why do you feel so threatened by people who don't share your beliefs that you feel the need to make up stuff and generalize them?

Most atheists don't try to "Destroy God" they just choose not to believe in him.