The13thMan

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I've basically had 4 different hair styles my entire life. The first one is called the "mom cut." My mom used to cut my hair. She did an alright job, but i'd never let her touch my hair again. It was pretty nerdy. Short and typical. The 2nd one is when i had longer hair. It got long enough so that my bangs could basically touch the bottom of my nose when i pulled it straight down. It wasn't shoulder length or anything like that. I had this style through the majority of highschool. the 3rd one was the faux-hawk. I did this one for my freshman year in college. I still kind of like this one, but i've grown out of it. At this point a barber is cutting my hair. And the 4th and current one is just a normal cut. It's a pretty standard cut, but i put a little bit of product in my hair so it looks decent. I play it off to one side. It's short. The look is basically a sort of wind-swept look. I have dark hair, btw. The hairstyle i like on women is short. I like a short sort of punk inspired look. How short? Depends on the body style of the person. I personally think Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier is absolutely gorgeous. Which is great because you get to see her naked in the short film. But that's as short as i like it. Typically i'd say i prefer it a bit longer than that. If a girl can pull it off (like natalie does) then it's fantastic. I actually really don't like it when girls pull back their hair into a ponytail with no bangs. Ponytail + bangs is alright. No bangs and you just look like a freaky freak person. I've very rarely seen a girl able to pull off that look. For the majority of girls out there, just don't do it. That's my opinion,anyways. =D[/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I don't know a lot about economics or politics. My general impression from other people is that the 700 billion plan was a bad idea - a bandaid for a bullet wound. I'm not too worried, either. Hopefully people are smart enough to not repeat history's mistakes. Of course, i could be wrong and we could be on our way to another great depression. If that's the case then i guess i'll finally have a reason to go on a diet. Aha! Nah, i don't think there's much of a chance of anything like that. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Uh... i guess i'll rate Gavin's. I'll give it a 7.5/10. 7.5 because i wanted to give it between a 7 and a 8 and realized that there actually is a number between those two. I don't know what it's from but i do like the quote. And the way it plays off your avatar is pretty nice. Plus the chick has blood in her hands... i can only speculate why. Maybe somebody stabbed her palm? EDIT: Upon closer inspection it looks more like she's holding somebody else's bloodied hand. What's up with that?[/FONT]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']This is probably why you and I end up arguing, you jump to conclusions. =P For clarification's sake, not responding to people's points/posts doesn't automatically equal, "I didn't read them." I read every single post that goes up in this section of OtakuBoards. In this case, I saw no reason and had no desire to go into depth on the subject other than to state what I think of the initial question presented. So please don't go stating I don't read or listen to what people have to say when I actually do.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]You know what? You're absolutely right... this time. ;) My apologies for making assumptions. Gavin implied it more heavily than you did. But if you both did actually read those posts then my apology extends to both of you. [/FONT] [quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"][T]he problem is why are pork eating and tattoos/piercings more accepted than homosexuality if each sin is like the other? [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It's because people are hypocritical and instead of using sound logic to back up their wild discrimination they use things that can't possibly be disproven, like religion. Being gay is wrong, why? Because the bible says so. It's like the ultimate trump card. You can't say the bible's wrong! Not without pissing off the majority of people in our fine fine nation filled with open-minded and loving citizens. Of course, if the bible (or any other religious text) wasn't around people would still find something to justify their crazy (i can't think of the word). [/FONT]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I'm not just saying it should only be up to the members though. Ideally, they should be allowed to govern their own practices as much as possible, however there are times when I think outside intervention or pressure to change is good. An example of that is back when the federal government made abolishing polygamy a requirement for Utah to become a state. Sometimes, even outsiders have a right to put their foot down on what practices a church engages in. I'm not sure it would apply in this case, but I'm not going to declare that it should never happen.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Mmmmm.... i don't know about that. Where do you draw that line of what's ok for an outsider to step in on and what's not? Certainly i can understand outsider interference when something dangerous is involved or anything that directly breaks any pre-established law, but when it comes to perfectly safe though perhaps frowned upon things, i think it should be strictly up to those within the circle. Also let it be known that when i say "do something" i mean actively going forth to try and change whatever it is. Simply expressing your opinion here or anywhere else doesn't fall under that category. I have no problem with polygamy. Just throwing that out there. Ladies. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Damn... this thread started up yesterday and it's already got a page and a good portion of the second going. And some of the posts are looooong! My! Since the two previous posters so lazily decided to not read anybody's posts and just post their own opinions, i will too. But let me just say that i tried. I got near the end of the first page. I think the question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong is a false dichotomy. Firstly because there are many ways of judging whether it's right or wrong. Secondly, why can't it just be "ok"? Legally speaking i don't think homosexuality should be illegal. Well... not homosexuality, same sex marriage. I don't think same sex marriage should be illegal. I like the whole "live and let live" motto. Homosexuals getting married doesn't hurt me in any way so why outlaw it? Actually, i think that's a damn good question. And if anybody is so bold to answer that question please don't say anything about the sanctity of marriage. Cuz we all know what i or any other gay-lover will say. Morally speaking i think it's fine. I just don't see any reason at all that anyone could consider being gay immoral... unless of course you base your morals on a book written a long time ago. From an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality seems very strange to me. You can't pass on your genes with gay sex. Certainly homosexuality is less popular than heterosexuality... which means you're less likely to fit into a group and therefore survive. Eh... it's just weird. Personally i'm very glad i'm not gay. I'm sure it would be very difficult for me. And i think from an objective standpoint a female's body is just so much more beautiful than a man's. [/FONT]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Though it would be good if they saw it for themselves, sitting back and doing nothing... changes nothing. To some degree, members of any religion have a right to question how authority is distributed among the members. Good example would be the Mormon religion I grew up with. Until the 70's black men were denied the right to hold any form of authority. [/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]That's actually something i thought of after i had started the thread and was laying in my bed going through the day. When i said that i don't think we should do anything "we" was anybody not actually a follower of one of those faiths. I'm agnostic and i know i have no right to tell them what they should and should not do.... or at least not until i'm supreme dictator of the world. Then yeah, 'dem peoples is going down. And it's not actually whether any religion changes or not that bothers me, it's the rate at which it does. [/FONT]

[quote name='Lacey Milam']Lifeway Christian Stores pulled a magazine featuring women pastors from their shelves earlier this week, igniting a storm of religious controversy. The Christian store removed the magazine due to its belief that women should not be heads of the church.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I was unaware of this until I read an article from my school newspaper under the opinions section. Lifeway Christian Resources is an entity of the Southern Babtist Convention. According to the woman who wrote the article I read, Catholics also hold the same belief that women cannot be pastors. To anybody that knows me I'm sure my opinion will come with little shock. I think it's pretty absurd that in this day and age such blatant sexism still exists in some churches. To my understanding this belief stems from a bible passage from Paul. What do I think should be done about this? It would be fantastic if they realized internally that this isn't right and changed it of their own accord, but I don't think that will happen. So, what should we do? Absolutely nothing... I understand and respect the rights that these people have to hold their beliefs and practice/enforce them. I just think it's a damn shame is all. What do you guys think?[/FONT]

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"]It can happen to anyone, technically, everyone experiences a form of it every single time they sleep. Instead of going full out here, take a moment to read this since it does cover the basics, even if it's wiki entry: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis"][U]Sleep paralysis[/U][/URL] [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I was actually asking this question because of what Raiha had said about the type of people that this happens to. [/FONT] [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Well those people tend to be schizophrenic or manic depressive or some other kind of insanity. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Thanks for clearing it up. I would actually like to experience this. Hopefully it would be less frightening for a person who is fully aware of it, but i don't know if that's true or not. I once experienced something similar. I woke up or thought i did and thought i saw one of my roommates just standing there. It was eerie but very interesting. Of course... there is the possibility that it actually happened and he was just watching me. 0_o[/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Sleep Paralysis. The state where you can't move is called sleep paralysis. The theory is that your body shuts down before your brain fully shuts down, causing you to enter into a numb like state where you are aware of your surroundings, but you cannot do a thing about it. You also get the feeling that there is someone or something near you, or that you are not alone. I've actually experienced this, and it was at a time when I had a bad case of head lice. Oh, the itching was so bad, and I could not move to scratch it. It was like torture. Anyway, Sleep Paralysis has been probably the cause for a number of "supernatural" phenomena in the past. A particular one to note are the Incubus and the Succubus, a pair of demons that would attack you in the middle of the night. The explanations for this unusual state are tied to the culture of the area.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]And would you say sleep paralysis can happen to any group of people or does it specifically happen more to a certain type of person, say, a mentally unstable one? When i first heard about this i instantly thought of a number of stories where people claim they were abducted. I doubt they knew about sleep paralysis. I don't think it's a very well known phenomenon. [/FONT]

[quote name='James']I guess the main point though is that I don't automatically attribute those phenomenon to alien life/spacecraft. To me that's a major jump in logic, ignoring many more plausible possibilities along the way.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]That's a good example of Occam's Razor. Funny thing is i saw it misused on tv last night. It was on a show called Fringe. This guy was drawing scenes of accidents, murders, attacks, or whatever before they happened. Then some old half looney scientist guy comes up and recites occam's razor. At this point he concludes that the man is psychic. Assuming a supernatural phenomenon before eliminating any natural cause is a violation of Occam's Razor. I winced when i heard the guy say that... The lucid dreaming thing is pretty interesting. Isn't there a special name for the state when you can't move your body? I also didn't realize most people that that happened to were mentally unstable. Of all the times i heard about it i never got the impression that it only happened to wackos. Quite the contrary, actually, my impressions was that it happened to normal people maybe under stress. Eh, but i've only ever heard other people talk about it.[/FONT]

[quote name='James']Well, all you really have to do is run a search on ID. There are a number of scientists - including those who study evolution - who suggest that intelligent design is certainly worthy of research and exploration.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I've actually heard a good deal about ID and what scientists generally think of it. I get the impression that any scientists that support research of ID on a scientific platform are trying to either be politically accurate or are quacks. [/FONT] [quote name='James']So I'm not coming at this from a religious point of view, I am just saying that the "random evolution" versus "designed evolution" is really an open debate that people are having. Creationism in the strictest sense is no longer a real debate globally.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I see ID as just a disguise for creationists to teach creation using faulty science. Certainly not all proponents of ID try to force it as a science and take it purely as a religion. I have no beef with them. It's only the ones that try to force ID as science that i disagree with. [/FONT] [quote name='James']What I am referring to, though, is the idea that the evolutionary process is the result of design. I personally don't really feel that this is necessarily true (I tend to think evolution relates far more to external environmental factors than deliberate design), but I do think that deliberate design is worth pursuing for science.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I think a lot of people have the opinion that ID should be looked into further by mainstream science. If ID were a legitimate scientific theory i would support this notion, but it is not. I have a question that will hopefully shed a bit of light on it either for me or you depending on whether you can give a good answer or not. How do you scientifically test ID? [/FONT] [quote name='James']But I still think that a true alien discovery would cause a lot of people to reassess things and to take a fresh view of their philosophies on life.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I agree. Now i'll try to take James's lead and get back on topic.[/FONT] [quote name='James']If you think about aliens in popular culture, there seems to be a lot of stuff related to them being aggressive or war-like. Is that just a reflection on us?[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It's an interesting question. I actually would have to say that it's a reflection on us. Since we don't know any aliens personally i don't see any way for those visions of hostile aliens to not be a reflection back on us. [/FONT] [quote name='Crimson Spider']But, we could also encounter something similar to the Ender series, or something like Independence Day; a creature that has driven itself to great lengths by motivations we consider less than acceptable.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]The motivation of the alien race in the Ender series wasn't anything we considered unacceptable. The hive queen did not know she was killing sentient life and also didn't realize the individuality of human beings. She was just trying to clear some land so she could populate a new planet. While the motivation was acceptable the actual action of killing as many as she did was not acceptable. Thats why the humans went to war with the buggers in the book. Later on in the series the motivation of the hive queen was made clear to everybody. At that point people started to hate Ender for his xenocide. As for Independence Day i think you were dead on. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! ::claps hands enthusiastically:: This is going to be fun![/FONT] [quote=Allamorph]What is she wrong about, if she never mentioned Creationism and you admit that she did not? The statement was simple: Evolution is a Theory, and unprovable. She did not say that Creationism was therefore right; obviously both are Theories, and both are unprovable. Your eagerness to launch a debate about anything has undone you there; you have pulled in an issue that was not brought up. [/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Ok... let me do this again, only slightly differently. Evolution > Any opposing theory. Surely "any opposing theory" is a category large enough so that whatever it was (s)he was thinking of (if anything) would be included. Bottom line, undebatable, is that evolution has by far the most scientific based evidence backing it. This, to me, means evolution is right and anyone saying it's wrong is wrong. Of course this completely ignores any sort of sensitivity towards religion which i would typically show, but when it comes down to it i think its wrong. I realize i went off on a tangent there a bit, oh well. Also, evolution may be unprovable in some sort of absolute sense, but it certainly is provable if you're willing to let go of that tiny amount of skepticism that you'd have to hold on to when presented with all of the overwhelming evidence supporting it. ----- Ok, you all have forced me to abandon my speculation (at least on Otaku Boards) that life is likely in the universe because of the shear size of it. I, once again, admit to not knowing a lot about probability and statistics. This is why i do not want to debate it. I would not be able to without extensively researching it. But... before i completely give it up i want to restate a previous point i made. There is a difference between a claim that is supposed to stand as factual and a speculation. Either one may be broken down with whatever evidence or logic you wish, but only the claim meant to stand as fact must be completely abandoned if logic and evidence dictates. The speculation may remain because its based upon subjective evidence and is subject to opinion. Of course a speculation can indeed be shot down if some new evidence is presented. In the case of aliens, if someone speculated that there were none and suddenly some appeared, obviously the speculation would be abandoned. But we're assuming constant logic and evidence in both situations here. I speculated that the universe is too vast for life not to exist other than our own. I will probably always hold on to this speculation. Actually, i want to go in this just a bit further in an attempt to keep people from arguing this point. A claim that is meant to stand as fact would be something like: Aliens [B]do [/B]exist because the universe [B]is [/B]too vast. This can be taken down with logic quite easily. I'm not sure of the name of the logical fallacy, but the main idea is that just because the universe is big doesn't mean there has to be life. Now let's look at the speculation i have made and see how it's different. I said, "I [B]think [/B]aliens exist because of how large the universe is." There is no logical fallacy in this statement because i am not saying that aliens absolutely do exist because of the vastness of the universe, i am simply saying that i personally believe that it does. If you understand this then it's only a short hop to understanding why i didn't care for the "probability is so and so therefore you can't think so and so" argument. And only a short skip away from understanding why i thought being agnostic on the matter was silly, i was only asking for a speculation, no one was being tested on validity here. [/FONT] [quote name='Allamorph']There is no colloquial definition of probability.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I didn't think someone would argue this of all points. I think i'm going to use dictionary.com to help me out on this one. [/FONT] [quote=Allamorph]A reaction between two chemicals in a balanced solution will always use all chemicals. This statement's negative is very easy to prove; all you need is one trial where you have perfectly equitable amounts of both reactants and the actual yield does not match the theoretical yield. However, your line of thinking is almost correct: it is very easy to prove or disprove any hypothesis when either it or its opposing hypothesis are all-encompassing. E.g.: "there is no life on another planet" is, as you said, very easy to disprove once, because the hypothesis is that there is no life at all, and one instance of life will instantly prove the statement wrong.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Your example with the chemicals or whatever is way too vague. What sort of reaction are you talking about? I don't suppose it really matters. You're just nitpicking right here. ...I really don't feel the need to further explain myself here. We both get what i meant when i said it's hard to prove a negative. I just wanted to let you know that i didn't need your clarification. Though, as before, i appreciate the attempt. [/FONT] [quote name='Allamorph']And yet you continually dismiss the opinions of those who do not wish to speculate? Nicely done. You wanted people's opinions, and when they expressed the opinion that they'd like some more information (ostensibly so that they would not waste their time forming a completely erroneous, premature, and biased opinion), you called it a non-opinion.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Did i call it a non-opinion? I don't think i did. But if you see somewhere where i did do this, please do quote it for me. I love it when i'm quoted. I think what i did was state that their opinion was very agnostic and not one that i was looking for. I went on to say that even people with agnostic opinions typically have some sort of feeling one way or the other, which is what i was looking for. Of course, i could be wrong with some people, which is why i dropped it, until now... when you brought it back up. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Basically its when a person notices only the positives (or negatives) of a certain event. This leads the person to think that the positives (or negatives) happen much more often relative to the other than they actually did. Why did i bring this up? Eh... i dunno... i'm sure whoever reads this can apply the concept to something somewhere. [/FONT] [quote name='Allamorph']The polite version of this statement: "No, Rach, that's not quite what I meant." Such wording does not directly imply that Rach is stupid, but makes the situation ambiguous; either he didn't read it right, or you didn't say it right; both of which are equally possible. So while a disclaimer in your sig is all well and good, I'd suggest you work on your word choice, so people don't get the erroneous impression that you're being condescending—if you truly are not.[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Aaaaactually, i was trying to be a little bit of a jerk in that quote to Rach. I don't get along with the guy quite as well as i'd like to. I honestly think he's a fine human being... we just don't see eye to eye on many subjects. We've both exhibited some level of animosity towards one another, hopefully neither of us are too bothered by it anymore. Let me go on to say that there are a number of times where i am indeed intentionally rude. This happens when a person calls me out and directly says that i'm wrong in what seems to be a disrespectful manner. I believe your post to me was a little bit...pissy. I have tried to respond accordingly. When a person calls me wrong or disagrees with me but is completely respectful about it then i try my best to respond in the same way. In those cases i really don't intend to come off sounding rude. I'd say that's about 80% of the time. Congrats to those that made it to the top 20. =D By the way, i thought it was cute the way you said, "Fail. Breakdown:" over and over again. ;) [quote name='James']In fact I think there are many organizations - including scientific bodies - that see Intelligent Design as something with potential. It is certainly not mutually exclusive to Evolution, that much is certain (in fact, the two go hand-in-hand quite well).[/quote] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Ooo boy, i'm a little afraid to debate with you. I will try my best to be respectful... i prefer not to be banned. =D I think you're a bit unclear here. What sort of potential does ID have with these organizations? Not mutually exclusive how so? ID may very well have some potential in any form other than science. I personally am agnostic and don't believe in ID. Although, there was a time when i was christian and i did believe in creation in one form or another. Recalling back to my old frame of mind i think i would readily accept ID as some framing to my understanding of the origins of the universe. But even then i would not say ID is science. I can see how they wouldn't be mutually exclusive, once again if ID is not considered as science. I can accpet ID as a way to explain the origin of the universe through religion. Then once the universe is created i would adopt evolution as a theory to explain the way things evolved. To wrap it back into the original debate, i do think the discovery of aliens would have interesting implications on religion. But i don't think it will change many peoples' faith. I doubt it would change mine if i were christian. Holy crap i wrote a lot! I need to get a life! Haha.[/FONT] [/FONT]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]Very well I shall be blunt too... you should get your reading comprehension checked because not once did I actually say or refer to creationism. You put meaning into my post that didn't exist. So how can I be wrong over something I did not mention? [/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Actually, my dear friend, you are the one extracting meaning from another's post that was not explicitly stated. I did not say you mentioned creationism. I am the one that mentioned creationism. So perhaps it is you that should get your "reading comprehension checked." =D Besides, i was trying to be dismissive. [/FONT] [quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Famous last words, I'm afraid. In fact, you're more likely to trip than we are to see Aliens. If you're saying you've never tripped before in your life, you're either A) Lying or B) Lying. That's just arrogant. [/FONT] [FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]You're being awfully condescending here. There is no plausible way we can prove things just by pure image alone.Even with our sophisticated techonological advances in aeronautics, we have yet to prove any signs of sentient life or life at all in our immediate solar system. I find it highly doubtful we will find life on these planets if we haven't found anything within the 40+ years we've been at it.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]To the first part, Holy Camole! I was trying so hard to be sarcastic and silly here... didn't you pick up on it? Or maybe you did pick up on it and are now replying in your own silly and sarcastic way, in which case i am the blind one. But, in my defense, if that were to be true i would have to say you're very bad at it. ...Anyways, yes, obviously i have tripped before. The point i was (kind of) alluding to was that it's fruitless to say any one thing is more or less probable because we simply do not know in this case. You don't know when i'll trip again (if ever), and you also don't know how probable it is for life to exist other than here on Earth. So.... yeah. To the second part. I'm afraid that you have once again missed my point. I'm saying that we are capable of proving the existence of life if we observe it. If we do not observe it then we prove nothing. But! Buuuut! If we DO observe it, then obviously we have proved the existence of life on the other planet. Of course, this is assuming that our observations are accurate, but that's irrelevant to this argument, or at least to the point i was trying to make. On the other hand, if we do not observe any life we are not proving that there is no life. If we notice there's no life on one side of Jupiter, who's to say there's not life on the other side of Jupiter? All i'm getting at here is it's easy to prove a postive but very difficult (if not impossible) to prove a negative. Gooooooosh. :animeswea EDIT: Actually, after rereading your post, you're almost agreeing with me that it's difficult to prove a negative. After 40+ years we still have not been able to prove or disprove life on the planets that we have been observing for all those years, yet we still search, unable to prove that there is no life. But if we find that there is life, then our search will immediately end. Understand what i'm getting at?[/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The entire post wasn't aimed directly at you, though. I have head the probability argument thrown around more often than it should be. My discussion was for the entire board to see. It is a very common misunderstanding that people have. Not too dissimilar from the before the fact, after the fact fallacy, where only vague behaviors of any incident are taken then applied to other areas where they shouldn't be. It is best that I cast aside this notion as early as possible.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Yes yes, i realize your probability post wasn't aimed only at myself. I apologize if by saying it was unnecessary i was patronizing. That was not my intent. Neither did i mean to say that it wasn't unnecessary for anybody to hear. I was speaking only for myself. So let me reiterate: I did not find any useful information when i read your post on probability. I did, however, enjoy and appreciate it. I mean that sincerely. [quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Aliens existing? I have my doubts. In this isolated niche of the universe that we live in, we simply do not have the resources at the time to either prove or disprove creatures live on other planets. ... ...Is there a probability of aliens existing? Yeah, same as there is a probability of you walking down the street and you trip and fall. Anything's possible, but it's all up in uncertainty land at the moment.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]To the first part of this: We actually do have the resources to prove whether creatures live on any given planet or not. We can look at them. If we see some little space-kittens running around then we can conclude that life does exist on said planet. But you are right in saying we cannot disprove (with 100% certainty) whether any life is on any given planet. This is purely because it's difficult to disprove a negative... or prove a negative? Yes... prove a negative. Because you can say, well life isn't on the surface of this planet, but you don't know whether there's any life underneath or anywhere else. So yeah... you got it half right. To the second part: I'm going to have to disagree with your comparisson. I would say it's more likely that aliens exist than it is i'll trip on the sidewalk. This is because i do not ever trip. I have perfect balance. BEAT THAT LOGIC! :smirk:[/FONT] [/FONT] [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]If you didn't want serious, you probably should have kept the tone light and friendly instead of accusatory and insulting. I.E. "Your feeble ideas on Creationism are nothing compared to my Science." If you wanted to express the enjoyment you receive from our indignant irritation at your absurdly pathetic logical hoop-jumping you could've just added a disclaimer to your signature. Something to the effect of: "Don't take me seriously, I love skeptics, Christians, animals, and logic. But only in the skeptical capacity."[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Hm... perhaps you are right. Let me reflect back on the thread and see what happened. ::reflection:: Ah... i know what happened. In my head i come off as sounding nice and logical and expect the same back from whoever i'm addressing. But, seeing as this is a message board and not some sort of thought transfer device, people didn't quite get that. And this is of no fault of their own. I rarely intend to come off as a jerk. Whether i do or not is (apparantly) a completely different matter. I've realized i'm much more apologetic and light-hearted in face to face conversations with people than i am with written conversations. So!... i am going to take your advice and include a disclaimer in my signature. And, with your permission, i will accredit the disclaimer to you. Oh... and this is another of those cases where i'm not trying to be a jerk. So don't take it that way! :animesmil:animesmil[/FONT]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]You're forgetting a key element here when it comes to thinking Aliens 'might' exist. You're failing to realize that the "probability of extraterrestrial life" is actually based on the theory that life evolved in the first place, and is thus [I]extraordinary[/I] because it is based on speculation. So if anyone missed the point here, it is you.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Wow... this sucks. You've just opened up a whole can of worms. And here i am, without my fishing pole! Instead, let me be blunt. Evolution > creationism. There's a lot of evidence for evolution, therefore, you are wrong. ;D[/FONT] [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Careful now, being patronizing is a job best left to professionals and people that are generally more eloquent than you. Also helpful are people with working shift buttons on their keyboards, the ability to express opinions without being utterly convinced that differing ones are moronic, and possibly a full compliment of wits. But since you're lacking in all of the above I'll trot out the tired old one liner I had to use in Justin's thread last month or so. The most convincing proof to me thus far on the existence of aliens is that they've not tried to talk to us yet. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Ad hominem logical fallacy. Besides, i wasn't trying to be patronizing. i don't get the deal with the shift key, though... unless of course you're refering to the times i don't capitalize i. to which i respond... i don't care. =D get it? i'm still not using my shift key! sorry, sorry, i'm being a jerk now. feel free to call me on it.[/FONT] [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]You're also forgetting the part where we're also surrounded just outside our immediate solar system with enormous whizzing chunks of ices and toxic gases. Ten points if you can name for me this region that would probably prove a bit of an annoyance for any inter-galactic traveller. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm not sure what you're talking about here, unless you are talking about the asteroid belt between the inner and outer planets. Thanks to wikipedia i found out about some other stuff outside the solar system. Beyond that, i don't know. Crimson Spider Your discussion on probability really wasn't necessary. When i used the word i was using its colloquial definition. I wasn't going for anything as formal as probability based on mathematics... which i admittedly know little about. The argument, "I think there must be life other than our own somewhere in the universe because it's so vast," is valid as long as its not meant to be a logical argument to prove the existence of aliens. It's only a speculation giving a speculative conjecture to back up and justify an opinion. I never meant for this discussion to be so serious. I was only looking for other people's speculations and opinions. Of course speculation and opinion isn't worth much and isn't conclusive in any way. I think that's perfectly fine, given the subject. Even so, i do enjoy and appreciate all the opinions, even the skeptical ones. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'll be dressing up as a mad scientist. This is mostly because i've already got everything i would need. I've got a lab coat, lab goggles, and hair gel. Obviously the hair gel is so i can have some crazy mad scientist hair. My favorite holiday, hands down, is christmas. I just have so many good memories from my youth associated with christmas that everytime i hear a christmas song or see a christmas tree i start feeling good inside. I celebrate with my family. I get whatever present i get, we eat, it's all good. Last year, though, we barely celebrated... we didn't even have a christmas tree. I've already decided that this year will be different. I will be forcing my family to be christmas-y. [/FONT]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']No that just shows you still have to argue and do this:And yes I know you argue endlessly, even if there's nothing to argue over. As for the last part, no, I prefer being an adult. And finally:Sounds like you need to do some backing up on the whole idea of Aliens even existing because in reality, it's an [I]extraordinary claim[/I] that has no [I]extraordinary proof[/I] whatsoever. Sounds pretty similar to other opinions that you were not interested in because they refused to come up with possible ideas about aliens. If your so willing to have an opinion on Aliens possibly existing, why toss out other nonsensical theories as well? Sounds like you're refusing to be imaginative. =P[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Once again, Rach, you have failed to fully understand everything i've said. The existence of aliens isn't nearly as an extraordinary claim (if it actually is a claim) as you think that it is. If you consider the size of the universe and simple probability then it's pretty easy to see that the simple existence of aliens is very likely. Another point you failed to see is that i'm not actually claiming that they exist. I'm not saying, hey they definitely do exist, which would have to be supported by evidence! I'm saying that i think they do exist, which can be supported by speculation. Obviously i have no evidence, which is why i'm not actually making any claims here, only speculation. There is a subtle difference. On the other hand, the claim that a person has been visited by aliens or has seen them does require extraordinary proof, because it's a claim. They're not saying, "based on so and so speculation i have come to the probable conclusion that i was probably abducted or visited by aliens." Instead they are saying, "i was abducted by aliens!" Hopefully you see that difference. As for whatever other claims you might have been alluding to, i won't address those here. [/FONT]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I think it's a shame people aren't more enthusiastic about GM crops. There's just this fear in the masses that somehow the food becomes dangerous when genetically altered. I have faith in the people that are much smarter than me. If they say it's safe then i think it probably is. I like the idea of being able to clone crops or even animals. If you get the perfect corn or cow or what have you then you can clone it and get an exact copy. It seems much more effective than selective breeding. Although, i do think there are limitations to the amount of times a certain animal can be cloned before the DNA starts deteriorating ... isn't there? I don't care about the well-being of mice, Adahn, but if you've got something to say i'd be interested in hearing it. As for organic crops... i dunno. People make the naturalistic fallacy all the time. A certain chemical found naturally in the environment is no better or worse than one synthesized and purified in a factory. The only difference as far as i can tell is that it is pure and controlled, whereas in nature it's got impurities and who knows how much of chemical x you're getting in plant/whatever x? [/FONT]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']hmm...sorta got off subject here huh? I'd just like to add a bit of, fuel to the original Alien debate. What do you think about the possibility that supernatural events have been caused by Alien influences? Have you ever noticed that you can count the number of socks you have, write that number down, and after a month. Even if you take your socks off and put them straight into the laundary hamper every time. You STILL manage to lose socks? (Instead of probing could they be taking our socks?) On a more serious note, I did mean what I said about supernatural events. Things like, now I can't remember but I think it's called St. Elmo's fire that used to visit sailors? Or the Aura Bori-Alus (No idea if I came close in the spelling of that, but unlike SOME people, I don't feel I need to check everything I write with online dictionaries/encyclopedia's to find the biggest synonym for whatever word I'm using to sound more intelligent (you know who you are) ). Now I know we know "why" the aba exists. But what about the possibility that the egyptians were visited, why else would the gods/goddesses looks so strange?[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I don't believe in any of that sort of stuff. Have you ever heard the quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."? I think for anybody to take such claims seriously would require substantial evidence to back it up beyond anecdotal evidence. Even so, it's interesting to think about. But when it comes down to it i think the more likely explanation is that people are just imaginative. [/FONT]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Too bad, people certainly don't need to change their opinion to suit or fit what you find interesting. (And no I'm not saying you said that but you did ask what people thought and they told you, whether you like it or not is irrelevant). Just as thinking it is lousy is only your opinion and nothing else. Your inability to accept others thoughts without telling them they are wrong somehow is what I find lousy. Also known as "getting the last word in". Anyway, ironically this bit here:Is exactly what I think of the whole Aliens spiel. Though some stubbornly insist that they have to do more than that. But I gave up on turning flights of fancy into a legitimate opinion long ago. I'm not a child anymore after all.[/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Whether i like it or not is very relevant. The relevancy of it is proven by the amount of time i've had to spend trying to get the opinion out of stubborn people. But in no way is that an insult. I'm probably the most stubborn of them all. =D You know that, Rach. I assure you, my motivation isn't anything as juvenile as "getting the last word in." I simply wish to debate whatever the subject may be until i either bore of it or i feel that it has been settled. The only problem is how rarely that happens with me. ;D But... don't you wish you still were a child? Overlooking sounding corny, there really is beauty in the innocence and pure joy of a child. [/FONT]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]The statement "based on the lack of information, I feel that the forming of an opinion which is highly likely to be biased, fantastical, and false is a waste of time" is a legitimate opinion. In this case, it's also known as "we'll find out when they get here". Do not presume to speak of logic when there is none involved in your own reasoning, by your own admission.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]The same goes to you. The statement that "based on the lack of information, I feel that the forming of an opinion which is highly likely to be biased, fantastical, and false is a waste of time" is also an opinion is nothing i ever refuted. Obviously, i recognize this as an opinion. It's basically the same as what an agnostic believes, as i've explained before on this very thread. And if the message isn't clear, i'm agnostic. So for me to not recognize that as an opinion would be very hypocritical of me. I did, on the other hand, say that that opinion is a lousy one and not one that i'm interested in on this subject. Damn...[/FONT]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]Or because they feel that the information out there is what's irrelevant. They've looked at it, for example in the case of aliens, and come to the conclusion that there isn't enough reliable information. It's too easy for your statements regarding aliens to be full of misconceptions. So, naturally many of us are going to be vague on it because we prefer to not stick our foot in our mouths with statements of, it will be like this or I think it will be like that. In the end it's silly fun and nothing more, in my opinion. Trying to force an opinion on someone, doesn't really work you know, since you're making the faulty assumption that they've not given it any thought. [/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]You can very easily come to the conclusion that any given subject doesn't have substantial evidence supporting it one way or another and still have an opinion. You're confusing the two. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can't stick your foot in your mouth on a subject like this until there is any proof one way or another - alien contact. Of course, you can have a flaw in your logic somewhere, but that's not because of what you know and don't know about aliens. That's simply based on your logical reasoning skills. I don't think i'm trying to force opinions on people the way you're thinking. I think what you mean here is that i'm trying to force a person to have an opinion, any at all, not a certain one. Of course, that's based on the assumption that a person does not have an opinion to begin with, which as i've already said is usually only the case if the person hasn't given it sufficient thought. Your logic is flawed. [/FONT]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]Moving swiftly onwards. :animesmil[/SIZE][/quote] Not too swiftly, i hope. [quote=gavin] [SIZE="1"]It's not that I haven't thought about it enough 13th, it's simply I don't feel that I could make any kind of reasonable guess at what extra-terrestrial intentions towards Earth would be. The fact is there's just too many factors to take into account. I mean one could take the line, if they're advanced enough to have interplanetary travel capabilities, then they must be peaceful. But that's countered completely by the fact that the vast majority of human technological progress has been made in times of war, so that could equally imply that they might be a conquering power. You also have the level of individuality in their society to take into account. For example if they are insect, or similarly derived, you're talking about a tiny minority of the population controlling the species to action, who would not have any consideration of humanity's individual rights before the welfare of the whole. Of course they could also be the complete opposite whereby you reach catastrophic levels of bureaucracy in trying to accomodate everyone's civil opinion on an issue, i.e. extreme democracy where literally everyone has a valid opinion. Aging, religious, economic, gender, biological, technological factors could all equally play a valid role if we are to assume alien species have the same levels of individuality that humans demonstrate (as opposed to an insect hive). As I said, I'm not dancing around the question, it's simply a case they could be anything at all. I would hope, and I'm afraid this is as close to an answer you're going to get from me, that any extra-terrestrials who visit Earth would be peaceful and interested in trade and cultural exchanges. My biggest fear would be in that situation that humanity in it's infinite wisdom would react with the same kind of fear of the unknown that it usually does and take hostile action because of xenophobia. Oh, and could you explain what you meant by "agnostic" ? I believe they exist, I just don't know where or what they are.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]You must have read the Ender series. =D Or some similar sci-fi. By agnostic i meant that you are saying that one cannot know what intention these aliens might have. Some agnostics believe that one cannot know whether god exists or not. That is what i meant by you are being rather agnostic on the matter. But even agnostics have some guess as to the existence of god, at least on a subconscious level. To not have any opinion at all seems inhuman. I actually don't think people would be so frightened of aliens. Let me clarify. I think people on the whole will be afraid. I think the typical person will have some level of fear. But i also think that there are people out there that will consider alien contact to be incredibly exciting and will go forth with extreme curiosity and caution. I also think that those will be the people that will have any contact with aliens - the scientists. As for your war = technology deal. I will say that you might be confusing correlation for causation. I don't think technology increased in times of war because people wanted to invent weapons to kill each other with. I think people wanted to create weapons to kill people with but could not on their own, so they let those that could create them create them. Once again, these were the scientists and engineers of the world. I don't think they created the technology they did for the sole purpose of killing men. [/FONT]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]13th, no offense but asking me what I think the intentions of the extra-terrestrials that might visit this planet is obviously impossible to answer. Anything I say is based on pure [b]human[/b] speculation which of course runs completely counter to the term [B]alien[/B]. It could be anything realistically, and would again depend entirely on how they view us and our planet, i.e. allies/resources/trash/whatever. It's not a cop-out, it's simply a question I cannot answer, unless of course you're implying I'm actually an alien sent here to observe mankind, in which case you are going to be probed for my amusement at some point in the future. :p[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'll let you probe me if you let me probe you. ;D The keyword in my question to you was "think." What do you [B]think [/B]their intentions would be? Whenever a person doesn't have an opinion on something it's usually simply because they haven't thought about it enough. The amount of information you have on the subject is (to a point) irrelevant. But no, if you haven't got any opinion at all on it i don't want you to force one. I was just curious what you thought. By the way, you're taking a very agnostic approach to this alien stuff. [/FONT]