Raven

Well that added a lot of objectivity to our debate

I can?t say I?m very fond of it either, which is why it helps to be quick.

Oh, reformatting that kind of stuff isn?t that hard, or even that time consuming, it just requires some manual dexterity and a few spare minutes.

Actually, the reformatting didn?t take much time as I happen to be good at that type of thing (a skill you pick up if you?re picky about formatting).

As a matter of fact I do have the trade list, I just haven?t made much use of it.

I don't know what would be better, but I gave the campaign one try and decided that I simply wasn't going to try escorting around ships that were faster then me, and have been playing roam ever since. Besides, in roam mode you can play as a Gammulan [ 10-24-2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

I have some parts of the appendix in a printer ready format, the really important stuff like artifacts and missiles and such not.

At least his handle isn?t an erratic combination of lowercase and capital letter (a personal gripe of mine).

Yes, actually, it was supposed to be (and is now) soldiering, my bad. I'm not saying that women are incapable of being soldiers, that's not the case, but I it does seem that most women are poorly adapted both physically and psychologically to the rigors involved in such a career. I may be biased though, in fact I probably am. [ 10-24-2002, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

If you will read the manual you will note that some flux fields end in black holes. I donÔÇÖt want to suggest that this board is a bad place to ask for help, because thatÔÇÖs not the case, but asking questions that are answered in the manual or appendix really irritates some people (like SC) so itÔÇÖs a good idea to check there first.

Ok, here we go again? quote: So give me an example of something that disproves that everything needs some sort of cause. Sorry darling, but your theory needs to be proven before I need worry about disproving it. Sure, logic leads us to believe that everything has a cause, but then your own logic shows that there wasn?t an original cause for the universe, and thus some effects don?t need causes. quote: What is it? Having a group manipulate people into not murdering, stealing, etc is a BAD thing? Other than being a minority opinion, i'm asking you to explain how causing people to follow Christian morality is BAD for society. Yes, I know you never said "Christian morality is bad for society", but you've implied it time and time again by your position that the Church controlling people is "bad". Defend it. Easy now darling, I haven?t clamed that Christian morality is bad for society because, in the strictest sense, it isn?t. It?s bad for a lot of people, homosexuals being a prime example, and inconveniencing for most, but not bad per say. The church, however, is another story. It has been burning witches, murdering heretics, spieling all sorts of nonsense, and disrupting science for hundreds of years. It?s teeth are pretty much pulled in the modern age, so it doesn?t do much harm, but in the past the church has been a viable option for those who want to control others. quote: Please, reread my argument Ok, reread it again. Got it this time? Good, then I needn't mention that I was telling you that all probibilities can be false, but it'd be illogical to assume the most likely one is wrong just because you aren't sure. I?m not assuming it?s wrong though, all I?m saying as that from inside the building there is no way to determine that it?s wrong, and furthermore there is no evidence inside the building that suggests the ground even exists, and so no reason for that to be the most likely conclusion. If anything, it would be logical to assume it was inside an even larger building. quote: Then biologically women should not be able to do jobs that are not suited to their biology. Maybe they should just stay at home and make babies. Darling, I can?t believe were having this discussion. Soldiering happens to require certain physiological characteristics (size and strength) that men have in greater abundance then women. The same cannot be said for most modern jobs. Besides, there is absolutely no ground to argue that men are being treated unfairly when women still make considerably less on average. quote: In terms of biological reasons why men are more expendable than women, please tell me what they are. I'd guess it's because men can have sex with multiple women for reproduction, but in that case you'd be implying that women's rights movement was wrong, and that reproduction is good for some reason. Yes darling, I was referring to reproduction, but unless you?re noticing a substantial drop in the population women seem to be managing having a job and reproducing just fine. No conflict of interests here. quote: Locke, common belief, and biological comfort about it. Common belief doesn?t hold much value, and neither does Locke?s philosophy. Biological comfort is a lot more malleable though. After all, soldiers are regularly trained to kill the enemy without feeling bad about depriving him of his natural rights. quote: Doesn't conflict when I have a structure supporting me. Consider it natural law or utilitarianism. I reserve the right to argue only natural law, but since you aren't a socialist, I think i'm safe arguing utilitarianism. Well then utilitarianism can determine what is advantageous for society as well, so your point is still invalid. quote: Why not the other way around? Well, because it doesn?t work and because it doesn?t make sense. If you were to consider everything true until proven false you would be extremely vulnerable to any misinformation that happens to be running around (you might even actually believe urban legends and such). Furthermore, you would have to be juggling a number of ?truths? that were mutually contradictory (or else be constantly revising your opinion of what?s true). While believing something false until adequately demonstrated (not, you?ll notice, scientifically proven) to be true may leave you saying I don?t know a lot, but that?s better then believing just any old thing. quote: Cause and effect proves it. Nonsense. quote: Ok, read this point a few times. The reason why I repeatedly say that you claim the CP is within the scope of science is because you have *NO ADVOCACY AT ALL*. Not true, I?m advocating the belief in nothing without sufficient evidence (and what constitutes sufficient evidences varies with the importance of what is being considered), and thus advocating the position of not knowing. This is different from not advocacy at all. quote: Other than being mentally biased toward Christian teachings, I also am operating under the restraint of defending there is a God/higher being. You, on the other hand, are expecting me to somehow conclusively prove that the CP is outside of science. Well you are advocating it?s outside of science, so prove it. quote: Seeing I am part of the material world, I can't, and the only way your going to be able to disprove or cast doubt on my last 4 pages is to provide a counter-explanation of ALL the issues i've raised, and then point out some sort of scientific basis for it. Actually, I have replied to most if not all of your arguments over the last four pages, as well as providing possible counter explanations. Furthermore, I need only prove your points wrong if you have first proven them to be right (which you haven?t, not once). quote: Regardless of how much you say "i never said that", your argument is based around the following: 1. I don't know if God exists. 2. If I don't know something, I need sceintifc proof that it's true. 3. If it's impossible to get scientific proof, what I don't know should never be believed as true or untrue. 4. Probability of something being true and logic is never enough to make me believe that something I don't know about AND that I don't agree with is true, since, after all, I don't know. 1 True. 2 Actualy, I use the terms sufficient evidence and adequate demonstration rather then scientific proof. There is a reason for this, I know full well that I can?t expect to have scientific proof for everything, or even most things, so I ask only for sufficient evidence, with what is sufficient being determined by the impact of what is being said, as well as my general understanding of whether such things are true. 3 Gee, you make me out to sound like some kind of scientific zealot. I don?t need scientific evidence for everything (indeed, I have never said that scientific evidence was required for me to believe most things). I may form an opinion about something without sufficient evidence, but I accept that opinion as a possibility and nothing more. 4 Nonsense, I haven?t even said anything to SUGGEST this, not once. I get really tired of having you shove words in my mouth. quote: 1. Science doesn't apply to God's existance, thus isn't relevent to cookie. 2. It'd be logical to assume the cookie still exists, even if it has changed. 3. There is other SENSORY/SCIENTIFIC information that would contradict the cookie being there and in the same shape. Without knowing anything about science or the situation, it WOULD be logical to assume the cookie is still there in the same shape. Without knowing anything else about God except that He created the universe, it's logical to assume He still exists. 1 You have yet to demonstrate that science doesn?t apply to the CP. 2 Sure it is, but I wouldn?t call it a cookie if it?s resting inside a raccoon?s belly. For the CP however, which may be outside of science, we don?t even know if that which composites its existence (I?m avoiding scientific words like energy) is still around, because it may be able to break laws such as conservation of energy and matter. The matter that formed the cookie still has to be around, the stuff that formed the CP doesn?t. 3 Well then that demonstrates your logic is flawed. quote: You should be concerned with both, and you present no reason why history should be discounted when you don't know. Following previous experiences IS logical. Yes, but common knowledge provides only the most insubstantial of evidence, and historical common knowledge is even worse. Sure, for some things common knowledge is sufficient, but not for anything as important as whether or not there is a god. quote: Your claiming in your argument that since people have believed in false things before that aren't scientifically proven (Earth flat, etc), that it somehow proves that we should NEVER believe in things that aren't scientifically proven. No, I say only that common knowledge is a very weak support for anything. quote: Then take an advocacy. What, are you saying that if I don?t your going to keep picking one for me? Well I already have an advocacy, and a rather nice one at that. quote: Either you believe a CP exists (which we've already established would have to be outside of science. I?m SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING SAID THINGS I NEVER ONCE SAID. WE never established that the CP was outside of science, YOU clamed it was while I argued that it may or may not be. quote: *IF YOU CONTENT THAT HE/SHE/IT IS WITHIN SCIENCE, THEN PROVE IT OR CONCLUSIVELY ANSWER THAT EFFECTS NEED CAUSES* But I don?t darling, that?s my point. I say only that there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. Not simply that I don?t know, but that by claiming that god exists you are making an insufficiently supported assumption. I?m dreadfully sorry if I won?t be nice and argue the point you want me to, I tried that for about three pages and it didn?t work, so I changed (not threw out, changed) my advocacy. quote: Everyone has faith (elevators work, etc), it just depends on what kind. I guess it's inside of you. Well, I have seen innumerable elevators (at least from the inside) and have a general idea of how they work, so it?s no surprise that I have faith that they work. This is called accumulated experience, which is sufficient to believe that an elevator works (especially considering I have never herd any better evidence suggesting they don?t work). Do you have a collection of empirical evidence that necessitates the existence of god? quote: Something being unknown doesn't prove or disprove it. Nope, but it is considered false until adequately proven true. If you think otherwise, I have bridge I would like to sell you? quote: That's where it comes down to personal belief. What DO you believe, and then defend it. Well, I happen to require more then a funny feeling in my gut to believe something (unless that something happens to be that I?m ill). I defend what I know to be true, not what I happen to feel would be nice. quote: You shouldn't assume that since it's unknown it doesn't exist, and you shouldn't set up "sufficient proof" to be so high just so that you'll always be right. For most things sufficient proof isn?t very high, but most things don?t matter much. For something as fundamentally against my understanding of the universe as god (and yes, the existence of god in the manner you claim him happens to disagree violently with my understanding of how things work) I need a considerable amount of proof. [ 10-24-2002, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: You're lucky. If I sleep about 3 hours one night, the day after I'm feeling sick. not dizzy, very tired, and sick. Really? I can do just fine on the occasional one hour of sleep (not every night, or even most, but on occasions) and never have the least bit of nausea. Of course, the dizziness has more to do with my eating habits then my sleeping ones. With insufficient sleep itÔÇÖs usually a vague fuzziness rather then dizziness, but the two go very well together.

Well, to your first point, no, only your CC can be upgraded. I donÔÇÖt know much about commanding marines, I never go planetside except to strafe starbases and land mining drones, but you canÔÇÖt really form wings will your fighters (and I donÔÇÖt know if there would be a reason to, after all clumping together is a disadvantage).

IÔÇÖm not sure I agree with you on that one, I remember playing Unreal back in the day and one of the coolest features was that the more intelligent enemies will dive behind cover and such not. Maybe aliens have to be smarter then daemons, I donÔÇÖt know, but it seams to me that quality AI is important in any game.

Is there an acronym for rolling on the floor laughing my guts out? Well there is now. ROTFLMGO!!!!

Zombies, sure, that makes sense, but tell me thatÔÇÖs not all you fight in doom 3. Or is it simply that you face off against endless hordes of successively more powerful foes, each one dumber then the last?

Monsters donÔÇÖt need AI? Someone has been doing just a bit too much crack!

quote: I'm skipping to points that seem to be on topic. I am extremely guilty of taking this thread off topic into extraneous debates which serve no real purpose (except to waste time writing responses)... I thought that was the whole point of this debate. quote: Again, I simply ask what benefits the Church and even the government gain by establishing laws based around not stealing, not lying, not murdering people, etc. I fail to see how the laws themselves benefit any specific group of people or organization. They seem to support society as a whole, and every member of that society. Well darling, if it benefits every member of society then it must benefit the church as well. quote: Yes, the Church has been powerful in the past, but i'm not saying that the INSTITUTION of the Church is good. I think I may have even posted earlier that i'm against the institution itself (maybe it was on another topic), but I again fail to see how the actually MORALITY that is dictated uniquely HELPS the CHURCH. Perhaps you donÔÇÖt see the problem in attempting to control a group of people who have no real reason to listen to you and does whatever they bloody well please, but trust me, there is one. quote: Yeah, but you'd be pretty stupid to automatically assume that your in space or an alien laboratory since you have no logic supporting it while your there. Please reread my argument. Ok, reread it again. Got it this time? Good, then I neednÔÇÖt mention they I never made that assumption, rather I simply listed other possibilities, all of which would be impossible to prove while inside the building. quote: If women can have the same sports men do, have equal sports teams in public schools, are recognized with the same legal rights, and have two arms and are able to aim and fire a gun, they should have to register for the draft and be registered for the draft as any man. Just because "average" women can't be great soldiers, doesn't mean the "young" ones graduating high school right now can't. Darling, most young women are not suited to be soldiers, both because we tend to be physically weaker then men and because of general psychological differences between men and women in our culture. Besides, there is a perfectly good biological reason why men are more expendable then women, think on it for a bit. quote: I think that what is natural are rights to life, liberty, and property. And how do you determine that these rights are natural? quote: Ok, my mistake, I assumed that you thought actions that benefit society as a whole (including yourself) are good. I generally have no problems with actions that benefit society as a whole, but I reserve judgment for each individual action. quote: What exactly, as a basic foundation, do you find to be "morally right"? If you don't have anything, it's impossible to continue this conversation since there is nothing in common to work from. Well darling, I donÔÇÖt really think of things in terms of morality. In a sense I consider nothing morally right or wrong. quote: That would lead to stealing and murder in order to continue to live. Everyone COULDNT be a bum, otherwise there wouldn't be food or medicine and we'd probably all die out. So does that make being a bum immoral? quote: Hmm, I guess I better clarify/shift advocacy (which I thought I already did). My comments about applying it to all of soceity only really apply to *moral frameworks*, not specific actions. For example, having an moral/religious framework that the entire material world is evil and thus you don't reproduce would be immoral. Some people choosing not to have kids wouldn't. So, if I were to decide that the world was going to hell in a hand basket and that having kids would be cruel (a decision based on morality) then it would be immoral, but if I were to simply decide never to have kids because there nasty icky little parasites then thatÔÇÖs ok? quote: Too bad an "advantage" is arbitrary and that advantage could always cost peoples' lives and happinesss. Arbitrary language makes it impossible to determine right and wrong. And so saying something is disadvantageous to society is arbitrary too right? That kind of conflicts with your previous argument. quote: If you'd try to answer in context, you'd see that my comment was to point out that you have no PROOF that religion is "mass lies" and thus should not be portrayed tht way. Of course not darling, it isnÔÇÖt a mass lie, after all the people who advocate it believe there telling the truth, rather it is a mass logical fallacy. And how do a reason this? Because itÔÇÖs all baseless assumptions. quote: Your existance as an all powerful immortal would create a framework in which it would be obvious whether or not you were immortal, however. So you mean if I was an all powerful immortal I would be unable to disguise it? quote: Sure darling, everything is false until proven true, I believe you, honest. I said nothing of the sort. Rather, everything is CONSIDERED false until adequately demonstrated to be true. (especially when your expecting affirmation from science when it's already been established that God would be outside of science to begin with) Oh, could you prove that the CP is outside the scope of science, both present and future? You have yet to provide one scrap of evidence for this; rather you repeatedly claim that IÔÇÖm saying the CP definitely is within the scope of science. This is a lie, I have repeated said that there is currently no way to determine if the CP is within science or not, and thus no reason to believe either way. quote: As was your comment about making a fool of yourself. Really? You judge the quality of someoneÔÇÖs writing by how many typos and misspellings they make? I guess this just goes to prove that my writing is better then yours. quote: As do Ad Homs. Uh yea, I noticed. quote: Yes, but also remember that the LAST fact/assumption is that God/a higher power EXISTS and that assumption should exist until disproven through senses. If I were to leave a cookie out in the middle of the woods for a week would it be logical to assume that the cookie was still there and in the same shape as I left it? quote: At the point we both admit we don't KNOW, then the assumption of totally rejecting history is counter-intuitive. IÔÇÖm not concerned with whatÔÇÖs intuitive; IÔÇÖm concerned with whatÔÇÖs logical. quote: It'd seem that in order to keep the argument logical, flaws in existant arguments/posititons would not automatically prove the opposite. Of course not, and I never claimed anything so preposterous, so I donÔÇÖt know why you put it in here. quote: We have no real clue what "creation being" it is, but there's no less liklihood of it being Christian. First of all, I never called it the creation being, that implies itÔÇÖs alive and perhaps sentient, I called it the creation phenomenon. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe it fits in with the Christian mythos, and thus I wonÔÇÖt. quote: It's also illogical to assume that he/she/it doesn't exist. And itÔÇÖs also illogical to REPEATIDLY PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have NEVER clamed the CP doesnÔÇÖt still exist. NOT ONCE. IÔÇÖm growing tired of having ÔÇ£saidÔÇØ all sorts of preposterous things. quote: Well, if you research some religions and feel the calling to that one, go right ahead. The calling? quote: The specifics are mostly by faith. And where do you get faith from? quote: No, but it seems as if the prevailing logic is that all things are false until proven true. False, whether or not something is true or false is indeterminable until it is proven to be true or false (and even this isnÔÇÖt always 100% accurate due to the inherent flaws of inductive reasoning), and therefore we simply consider things as of yet unproven to be unknown. What constitutes sufficient proof is based on how significant it subject is. Oh, and darling, you botched youÔÇÖre quotes in the end; you might want to fix that.

quote: Said just that way I can agree with that statement. In the capitalism thread(s) you always seemed to say "off the backs" of others which to me implies cheating, stealing, and exploitation. The way you just said it is a truism I beleive. Well darling, IÔÇÖm not entirely sure how much is exploitation and such not and how much is leadership and intelligence, but there is generally a mix of both involved. quote: I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you Dragon Lady but you often have the most quotable quotes. DoesnÔÇÖt bother me at all, I actually like arguing. quote: That comment about in order for some to get richer, others have to get poorer is the biggest load of crap that I have ever heard. What? you think that the economy is stagnant? that there is this amount of money and no more? The economy is a pie and some have a bigger slice then others? Go back to school folks, because you AIN'T got a clue!! I think Litvyak summed up my point nicely, wealth and poverty are relative and one is necessary to define the other.

Its horrible were doomed

Commander and crew of the GMV DragonÔÇÖs Daughter reporting in.

Why should it matter? If they decided, based off of there religion, to give up the land that would be one thing, but they arenÔÇÖt giving it up, and if they can hold it they deserve it. Period. Besides, donÔÇÖt the Palestinians have a crazed religion that requires veiling of women and all sorts of similar nonsense? That alone is enough to condemn them to most any fate as far as IÔÇÖm concerned.

quote: That sounds kind of kinky, actually... how come all the fun ones live 3000 miles away? Tell me about it darling. quote: And the Isrealis controlling Palestine isn't the same as the US controling... well... anywhere in the US, since we took it all fair and square over the dead bodies of the Native Americans? Dead bodies? Well yea, germ warfare and slavery does tend to leave a lot of dead bodies.

I have to go with Litvyak on this one; it doesnÔÇÖt look all that appealing.

Well darling, I wouldnÔÇÖt get AOL myself, but perhaps IÔÇÖm terminally prejudiced.