| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> You can't just define escapism as whatever it is you don't do.
<0> That's not agnosticism, it's narcissism.
<1> If I get together a social consensus for the Church of The Smurf, does that make it as valid as a more established religion?
<0> I have no idea what you mean by valid.
<2> jbatista: clearly it is, scientology is more mainstream then i ever thought possible for fans of a sci fi author
<2> and a really bad one at that
<0> I'm an agnostic, I don't see how that term could possibly be related to religion.
<0> What's a valid or invalid religion?
<2> once again: people
<0> I choose to judge religions on the basis of their value to the living.
<0> Their value to me is absolutely irrelevant.
<0> A lot of very nice things have no value to me, but they're still very nice things.
<1> So, what makes them valuable?
<0> I don't understand
<0> Are you asking me what you meant by valid?
<0> Seems you should know that by now, if you're really an agnostic
<0> But who can afford to think things through these days
<0> Whatever, I'm going to eat now.
<2> i declare JBlitzen the loser
<2> plus, he smells
<0> I wouldn't expect anything else from you
<3> heh
<0> Heh
<1> Agnostic means I lack an opinion, so, no, I guess I wouldn't know.
<0> Agnostic doesn't mean you lack an opinion
<3> that's unopinionated
<0> Agnostic literally means you lack knowledge.
<2> i certainly do
<1> What I'm saying is that if you're going to defend religion, it might help to define it.
<2> all humans do
<0> As khan demonstrates, it's perfectly easy to form an opinion without knowledge.
<2> but that doesn't stop who i consider a moron to claim they have that knowledge
<0> Although in this case, the knowledge in question is of spiritual topics.
<0> I'm not going to defend religion
<2> wise choice
<0> It would offend khan's secular brainwashing
<1> What were talking about again?
<1> And why do I always ask that at the end of every argument in here?
<2> see, you attack me with the term "secular" which makes me believe you're not agnostic
<2> as i have never presented anything but an agnostic position
<0> You should take notes during these, jb2
<0> I can still believe you're secular, khan.
<2> except, you don't have any proof
<2> hence, you're religious
<0> Just because you want "agnostic" to be defined as "rational" and vice versa doesn't make it so.
<0> What do you mean, proof
<0> You need proof to make judgments?
<2> you said you believe i'm secular
<0> Prove that you won't die tonight
<2> which means if you don't have proof, you're not agnostic
<0> If you think you might die tonight, shouldn't you be doing something more enjoyable?
<2> except you have my statements as proof
<0> Value judgments aren't claims of certainty
<2> yet you can't offer any in defense of your position
<0> Are you talking about evidence or proof?
<0> And furthermore, why do I need a reason to say anything?
<0> asdf
<2> there's little distinction
<0> Little distinction between evidence and proof?
<2> yes
<0> Proof dictates certainty
<0> Evidence dictates reason
<0> support, maybe
<0> Do I have reasons for believing that you're secular?
<0> Of course I do.
<1> Why does it matter, though?
<0> But I could say it even if I didn't.
<1> That is, why did you bring it up?
<0> It's not like my worldview is wrapped around it.
<0> I never said it mattered a bit to me.
<1> But you mentioned it.
<0> In fact, my entire point all along was that I didn't care to change your minds about something.
<0> I can mention whatever I like.
<1> Do you always discuss things that are irrelevant?
<0> Relevant to what?
<1> You?
<0> What is it with you two and relevance and rationality?
<0> Everything I do or say is relevant to me
<0> What other relevance matters?
<2> oh boy, here comes the relativistic argument
<2> weee
<1> So, does it matter to you?
<0> Does what matter to me?
<1> That peterhu is agnostic?
<3> mooo
<0> At the moment I'm not sure I'd care if he got run over by a truck
<2> a fair statement
<2> you shouldn't care for people you don't know
<0> Why not?
<0> I care about a lot of people I've never heard of.
<3> like who?
<2> because it can't possible affect your life?
<0> I don't know where Estonia is, but I hope the people there aren't living in terrible conditions.
<0> I think someone who wishes ill will on unknown people is just a monster.
<2> people *here* are living in horrible conditions, you don't need to look to other nations to find destitude people
<1> JBlitzen: I believe in the power of Toast. There are many shades of toast, and you can't convince me otherwise.
<2> i don't wish anyone ill
<3> there's a difference between not caring and wishing ill
<2> i just don't care if they exist or not
<0> Did I say I had to look to other nations?
<2> because i don't know if they do
<0> For someone who's supposedly rational, you certainly ***ume a lot.
<0> jb2, why would I want to convince you that there aren't many shades of toast?
<1> Somebody argue with me about toast so that we can pretend later that it's what we were talking about all along.
<0> I've seen and eaten many shades of toast.
<2> JBlitzen only likes white bread
<1> See, so we agree after all, and all this player hating was all for nothing.
<0> That's not true, khan.
<0> I'm not player hating, jb2.
<0> Whatever that means
<1> I disagree. The absence of toast breeds hate.
<0> Now that doesn't even make sense
<1> And that's really the matter at hand.
<2> welcome to your arguments!
<2> OH SNAP
<0> Nice try, daily show boy.
<2> heh
<2> i don't even watch that show
<2> haven't in years
<2> last time i saw it was on a re-run while working out on a saturday morning
<2> though i enjoyed colbert's show more
<2> as colbert owns, especially on harvey birdman
<2> which i've only seen twice
<2> (colbert's show)
<2> i do watch CBS nonstop though
<2> can't get enough of that liberal media goodness
<2> plus, CSI portrays realistic crime fighting
<2> like infinite resolution on security camera feeds
<2> that's a neat trick
<2> we need to get a hold of that at work
<4> I have a construct in PiADL that creates concurrent threads out of sub sections of a method. I wonder how should I accomplish that..
<1> Just takes a touch of digital enhancement.... and there. You can see the perpetrator's distinctive nucleotides.
<2> you'd go download concur
<2> concur = the ****, perhaps
<2> heh jb2
<3> /agree
<4> Maybe mark the areas for later parsing, ***ign them respective method names, start threads by those names and after method end create new methods.
<3> is some form of it available for download ??
<2> don't think so
<3> ok ;)
<3> damn how I wish it were available today
<3> looks like a really nice way for managing offloading tasks to our other cores
<4> peterhu, rdragon what do you advise?
<3> shrug
<3> i'm no concurrency expret
<3> expret
<3> ...
<2> etprex
<2> idiot
<3> yeah, that
<3> (not idiot)
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#skype
#AllNiteCafe
deviantnet
#MissKitten
#linux
#chatzone
#linux
#AllNiteCafe
#chatzone
taryble
|
|