inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 28, 2010 5:52:32 GMT -8
Yeah I've been a fair number of times over the years. Mainly to the Rock/Padstow/Polzeath area.
Had some great times there.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 27, 2010 14:57:56 GMT -8
The Usual Suspects.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 25, 2010 4:08:50 GMT -8
"Creating situations in your head that will NEVER happen in real life." and day dreaming are different things...
But yes, people do engage in excessive liking.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 24, 2010 9:39:32 GMT -8
A and B.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 14:17:59 GMT -8
I thought it was the British Bureau of Coffee, they're infamous. That does sound far more British...
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 13:50:10 GMT -8
One is inconsequential hyperbole the other is a derogatory comment on a group many members belong to. And it's been shown many times before it's mostly youth that does these crimes, so kindly get off my back side please. The youth are raised by adults. It's probably also mainly males as well. Referring to the people who do these things as the youth is much more than a statement of fact. I don't really think I was getting on your back side.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 13:44:00 GMT -8
The British Coffee Corporation won a legal battle in 1964 claiming ownership over the name Coffee, so everyone was forced to call it tea.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 13:41:59 GMT -8
More and more youth may be doing it but it pisses me off to be grouped with the gecko nukers and dog painters. That is a disgusting thing for those kids to do but I find myself angrier at the "youth" comment. It kind of takes away from the article response. And yet not one person mentions this comment: His hands should be removed. We are all entitled to our opinions, thank you. One is inconsequential hyperbole the other is a derogatory comment on a group many members belong to.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 13:29:34 GMT -8
The President isn't popular during times of economic uncertainty? I am shocked to my core.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 13:08:19 GMT -8
῟Tḯl The Ƹnd started about half of the threads on the front page of GT. The take over has initiated! It's a Conservative Media conspiracy.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 12:35:58 GMT -8
It's those darn video games.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 12:30:02 GMT -8
its more that its pretty funny to see such a biased news source complaining about anyone else's bias. I don't watch Fox enough, but what makes them any more bias than all the other liberal news? Well, I'm sure a person of your political leanings wont consider the way they report the news to be bias but and indisputable fact is that an overwhelming majority of their 'commentators' are of an obvious conservative bias. Bill O'Reilly, for instance. Also, their chairman is a raging Republican. Roger Ailes is his name. Not that that necessarily means the channel will be bias... The overall quality of Fox News is just appalling to be honest, even if you don't see the conservative leanings, it's just a joke.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 21, 2010 10:55:04 GMT -8
I don't understand why the Conservative Media doesn't realise it looks ridiculous when it uses a term like the 'Liberal Media'.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 20, 2010 8:02:13 GMT -8
Lately, I have been mainly listening to Blues.
Robert Johnson, Son House, Howlin' Wolf. All the big guys... just can't beat that old coarse, dirty blues sound.
I've also been listening to Nina Simone and Ray Charles a lot.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 19, 2010 6:14:49 GMT -8
So yes, my point would be that not making it clear that Atheism is a belief is too important a point to ignore. Fair enough. That is precisely what the core of this discussion is about. It's quite interesting that you have distilled the idea of Atheism in this manner. First of all, not all Atheists have the same degree of confidence in their opinion of the nonexistence of deities. There are Atheists that lean closer to Agnosticism and there are Atheists that are of the opinion that the evidence for the nonexistence of deities is incontrovertible. The latter variety is referred to as 'Strong Atheism', the former is referred to as 'Weak Atheism'. The majority of Atheists fall into the 'Weak' category. In fact, Weak Atheism is almost exactly the same as Agnosticism except that they are of the opinion that the odds of the existence of a Deity is microscopically low, and therefore live their life as if no deities exist. It seems that what you characterize as an Atheist, which generalizes Atheism, should be defined as 'Strong Atheism' to avoid confusion. The argument that you propose, that asserts (Strong) Atheism requires faith, is quite powerful enough to equally apply to Agnosticism. In fact, this argument is so powerful and watertight that it can apply to any belief. All truth-false value judgments can be subjected to this reasoning. Therefore, all require a degree of faith. This is quite a clever paradox, when using this sort of reasoning you can contradict other forms of reasoning. (Including the form of reasoning used to contradict the others.) This leads to an infinite regress. Apparently you didn't intend to construct your argument with that quality, so there must be some definition that hasn't been well-defined that is causing the infinite regress. I said we're not involved in an argument over semantics but perhaps we are. This brings me to my next point. There may be a fundamental semantic flaw in language that has led to these sort of fallacies. Weak Atheism can be characterised in exactly the same manner. To say the odds of a deity existing are microscopically small is to make an assertion about something beyond our physical world. This is the problem I had with the God Delusion. Dawkins goes beyond what he is justified in saying, which is that the chances of a god existing in the universe are microscopically low, to the chances of a god existing are microscopically low. Weak Atheists are still making that assertion, if they weren't they would be Agnostics. I would say that Atheism is an assumption in itself and Agnosticism is based on assumptions.
|
|