Bigfatbillsfan
-
Posts
1,211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bigfatbillsfan
-
-
Really? You translated the Russian-language article all by yourself?
Read my post again. That's not what I said. Do you have another straw man you want to try to assert?
-
There's also the simple fact that the article is scientifically incorrect, having apparently been written by a hydrocepahlic monkey who knows jack **** about nuclear materials. I stopped reading when they said exposing plutonium to air would cause a thermonuclear reaction, and haven't stopped laughing since.
Actually, most of us that can think might make the connection that it's a Russian news site and what was actually said may have been lost in translation.
-
The psych doc is faculty at Buff State, in case you want to call or email her...
http://faculty.buffa...te.edu/schuetp/
The mother is on probation for shoplifting....
http://www.wgrz.com/...dyssey=obinsite
And the neighbor is a commie who works at Applebees according to his Facebook page...
https://www.facebook...rnold.wagner.16
Wow, you really put some work into this case.
-
First let me ask that anyone willing to respond not bring an agenda into the conversation and derail it. I'm really interested in SPECIFIC responses to my question below. I know this topic can trigger a lot of divergent views and long-held passion, but I'm really curious to hear sincere answers to the question I'm posing.
Okay, so here's the thing. I've always found those who consider themselves agnostic or atheists to have arrived at that position very honestly. Let's face it, even for those of us who do believe in God, it's not an easy thing to come by sometimes. I came across a new expression of atheism recently that honestly has me really wanting to bring it up as a discussion and to get the perspectives of those who share in this mindset.
I have always been drawn to intellectuals, mainly for selfish reasons. I feel a day without learning or exploration is a day wasted, and intellectual types offer an endless buffet of opportunities to do exactly that. One of my favorite celebrities has been Penn Jillette. He's clearly functioning on a very high level not just with his humor or magic, but also with his politics and other areas. I found it interesting recently to hear him say that he did not have a position on global warming because "there is not enough evidence". This was interesting to me because I've always known him to be an atheist, and it would seem that it would be far more difficult to gather proper evidence to come to a conclusion on God and the hereafter than it would global warming, yet he's certain on the former while being undecided on the latter. This led me to look a bit further and I found that he, along with other atheists, have started going on youtube and making a public declaration to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. They do this because they are so certain there is no Judeo-Christian God that they are focusing on the one "unforgivable sin", per the Christian Bible, and committing it for all to see.
So here is my question: There are things I do not believe in at all, say for example Voodoo and Mummy curses. But if I found myself among those who practice Voodoo or if I were on some excavation in Egypt attempting to recover mummified remains, there's absolutely no part of me that would purposely do something antagonistic or defiant. Even though I feel quite strongly that these things are not legit, there is still a part of me that respects the fact that I cannot know with certainty that my position is valid, no matter how unlikely or absurd the idea of it being real may be. If I were atheist, I cannot possibly imagine that I would ever be so bold in my assumptions that I would feel the need to commit an act that so many millions of people would view as heresy. It's not like we're talking about the Easter Bunny here...we're talking about GOD...something that people all over the world have dedicated their lives to, whether it be through the practice of faith, erudition, pastoral or clergical duties, whatever.
I can understand a lack of faith and/or belief. But a lack of faith or belief has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is true or not true. What could possibly be to gain from this sort of act? How can there be NO consideration given to, "what if I'm wrong?" It just doesn't strike me as something an intelligent person would do, and that's why I'm interested to hear some feedback from others who may have more insight as to why an atheist would even bother himself with something like this?
PS. If anyone woudl like to respond privately, please feel free to PM me. I will respect your privacy and not disclose your comments to anyone else.
I've seen quite a few of these and know exactly what you're talking about. I could write a dissertation on what this is about. But to sum it up in a quick sentence: It's because being an intellectual doesn't stop someone from being an !@#$. They do it for the same reason that my 5 year old will poke or hit my 3 year old in the back seat of the car while we're driving somewhere. She wants to get a rise out of her sister and see her get mad. My 10 year old has outgrown this particular behavior. However, these people making their "Blasphemy" videos have not.
Personally, the only kind of person I find more annoying than a militant christian is a youtube atheist.
-
THAT'S how science works? I thought there was consensus, hence it was fact.
That's because your an ass
-
Horseshit. I didn't bring up consensus.
I just ran with it. Besides, you're just crying because you know the research science on Global Warming is in deep trouble. Explain why the very same scientists you've been quoting for sooooo long........have just downgraded their predictions by 40%? Yes, that's right, they are now saying the the climate's sensitivity to carbon is only 60% what they thought it was.
A 40% change...based on nothing other than: the passage of time has proven their earlier predictions to be false. There hasn't been any new research science. The only thing that has changed is: it is simply not happening.We've already seen this much backpedal. Nothing says there won't be more. Ask yourself: what is to stop them from downgrading their predictions yet again?
Dude, I'm not even close to being in the "wrong side". There won't be sides in the end. You/they will spin their way out of ever being on a side. You watch.
In fact here's how this is going to go: all the environtologists will do is cling to a tiny bit of man made climate change, and this way, you can never say they were wrong. But, for reasonable peoople? We are at the beginning, just the beginning, of the HUGE backlash. As soon as this really gets going? You watch: these people WILL turn on each other, and thus, there will be no "side".
We'll all be on the same side: you'll be pissed because these peoople took you for a ride, and I'll be
at them and you, which of course will make you even more pissed, which will make me more, but, both of us will want to see these people flayed, alive, publicly.It will be great to agree on something, won't it?
Holy ****! How did you know I was crying when I wrote that? I had giant crocodile tears running down my face realizing that I was so dreadfully wrong!
First off, I was not aware at any point of back peddling on CO2's effect on the environment. Can you provide a link? Second if they have changed their stance on CO2 sensitivity due to observations made over time it's because that's how science works.
-
True, but, if 95% of the Global Warming scientists are using the same research? Can we infer that this means at least 3.5 out of 5 of them aren't doing any research? Have we thus observed the elusve non-research science in the wild? Is that its natural habitat?
Who would have thought an obscure politics board on football website could have spawned a new form of scientific endeavor: the non-research sciences?
Of course, many will argue that "women's studies", or any identity major, has been non-research science from the beginning, thus invalidating our claims as a debasement of science. After all, we don't have any research to back up our finding of non-reserach science.
I am not worried though. They will not have considered that asking for research, that backs up non-research science, creates a paradox that proves our findings as valid. However, there may be some harrumphing that comes from the identity major people, as this discussion would necessarily ridcule their academic pursuits. But, nobody takes them seriously anymore anyway. We should be just fine.
Dude, I love how you can always find a way to turn any thread into a global warming thread. Give it up man. You're on the wrong side of that issue.
-
I am surprised this hasn't come up before now. As you may know, NC elected Pat McCrory-R as Governener, who took office last January.
Lately, I have been seeing tons of posts from my more left leaning friends in near hysterics over the "rolling back of the liberal paradise laws" by the GOP controlled government, most of which are based on opinion pieces in the NYT.
As a long time (and former) resident of NC, I am wondering what the concensus (lol) is on whether the new governer is ruining NC's liberal dreams? These include: voter ID, education reforms, and abortion legislation.
here is a direct quote from one of my old high schooll buddies' sisters, who apparently is unemployed and spends all day protesting with her boyfriend's young son:
"Just got back from protesting at Planned Parenthood with (the boy). on the way he asked why we didn't call 911 and just have McCrory arrested"?
This has to be one of the most disturbing things I have ever read. What the hell?
The people of NC elected their leadership. This is the will of the people. I don't like the direction they're going in but I don't live in NC so I don't have a say in any changes. If you don't like the direction the state is going in you always have the option to move.
-
Go to the link jboyst posted. Learn what the actual testimony says. Read the comments from knowledgeable people in the field. See what actual defense attornys have to say. Forget about what they say on HLN and MSNBC.
I have been. I still don't think GZ's claims of what happened that night add up.
But I also don't think the state has been able to prove it's case. If I were on the jury I would find him not guilty. They might have had a chance to prove man slaughter.
-
Follow the actual case and you will find the truth. jboyst just posted a link to an excellent summary up thread.
I have been following the case. And Z's story just doesn't add up.
However, GZ did not get out of his car intending to kill TM. What he should have been charged with is manslaughter. Not Murder 2.
-
There are a few things about the GZ story that just don't add up for me.
1. He says TM walked out of the darkness and circled his car reaching in his waist band. (Cop lingo for he probably has a gun, excuse me, firearm). And he thinks TM "is on drugs". Then TM goes back up the sidewalk. So GZ can't remember the street name. In the heat of the moment I can see this happening. So, he decides to WALK up the sidewalk to his street right where the guy possibly with a gun and "on drugs" just went to meet the cops. Makes no sense. Why not driver over there to meet the cops? Unless you're in foot pursuit that is.
2. GZ says he forgot he had his firearm on him in the reenactment. Really? He takes it everywhere, even when going to Target.
3. GZ says he hung up with the 911 operator and within seconds TM jumped from the bushes and confronted him. Phone records show TM was still on the phone with whats her name for 2 minutes after GZ hung up.
4. According to GZ, TM had his hands all over him, punching him in the face, holding his nose and mouth, yet TM has ZERO GZ DNA under his finger nails and only one small injury on his left hand.
I believe that GZ has exaggerated his story and made it fit into self defense. I certainly do not believe TM "slammed" his head into the sidewalk 20 to 25 times and hit him a couple of dozen times as GZ contends. His injuries just don't bear that out. Nor do Trayvon's. The "you're going to die tonight" comment supposedly made by TM seals the deal for self defense if you believe GZ.
I think GZ pursued TM even after the 911 operator told him they didn't need him to do that and tried to detain him until police arrived. Trayvon fought back as probably any of us would if some stranger tried to detain us.
Most thinking people capable of reasonable thinking have been asking these questions since the beginning of the case.
Yes for some Z claiming Martin attacked him at told him he was going to die tonight is enough to make the case for self defense.
-
You may be right but hard to take anyone serious who posts this
He has the wear with all......oh my bad, I meant where with all.
For all "intensive purposes..."
-
Yes you dumbass, he was getting his head smashed into the cement and had every right to defend himself. Poor Trayvon got what he took the chance on. As far as my spelling, everyone here does it somewhat and it would be great if we all got back to doing what's right. Check out the non-sensical part of your post that I bolded.
Getting your ass handed to you in a fight isn't an excuse to kill someone.
-
If I killed a man every time I came out of a fight looking worse then Zimmerman, i would have been in jail a long, long time ago.
its the last time I'll even respond to your BS 3rd grader
The only reason he's not on my ignore list is because it's fun to see what retarded statement he's going to make next. He's by far the biggest joke I've ever run into on a message board. And that's saying a lot.
-
Follow the f'n case before shooting your ignorant mouth off. He had lacerations to the back of his head, consistant with his testimony, swelling on the sides of his head consistant with the medical report and a broken nose. I'd have capped TM's ass after the broken nose. Then again, maybe I'd have gotten the first punch off making this a "mute point" and "lamb basting" you.
I would say those are injuries consistent with getting his ass beat.
And you spelled "consistent" wrong you jackass. But don't worry, I'm sure Humpty Dumpty and the rest of your friends at Wordnik with agree with your spelling.
-
Zimmerman would have us believe that he was fishing in his pocket for his cellphone, and this "hoodlum" jumped him...any self-respecting "hoodlum" would think the guy was fishing for a GUN and he'd RUN LIKE HELL.
The prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to convict. But regardless of whether Zimmerman is convicted or not what needed to happen happened. He stood trial. This was a situation that needed more investigation and it happened.
-
None of us are calling him a saint. But let me ask you do you feel that someone who is a piece of **** has the right to defend themselves? This is a yes or no question BTW. GO!
If you follow a "suspicious" looking person down a dark alley and end up getting your ass beat I would say you were just plain stupid. Does he have the right to defend himself? Sure. But if you're the one that escalated the situation as GZ did. You're still culpable for the person's death.
No one is obligated to fight by Ryan L Billz personal code of street justice. No one is obligated to catch an asswhooping because it's someone else's intent to deliver one. In fact, I'm a large, fit man in my middle 30's; and if I'm assaulted, I'm going to shoot the guy.
The best rule to live by is: don't physically attack other people, and you're less likely to end up shot.
Another good rule to live by is don't follow "suspicious" people down dark side yards.
Why do you people keep perpetuating this falsehood? He was already out of his car when the dispatcher asked him if he was following TM. When GZ told him that he was, the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". GZ said, "ok" got the address and headed back towards his truck----in the opposite direction of TM. TM left a spot very close to his fathers girlfriend's townhome (supposedly 400' away from GZ's truck) and proceeded to jump GZ.
You guys just keep repeating untruths. What is your purpose for lying?
According to GZ. Sorry if I don't just take his word for it.
-
So you're saying that it is not, in fact, illegal to assault someone who is following you?
If someone was following me down a dark alley turning around and ambushing them is something I might do. You're walking home from the store and all of a sudden someone starts following you. First in their car and then on foot. That would scare the **** out of anyone. And under "Stand Your Ground" TM had every right to confront him. I think it could be said that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. He was under no obligation to back down.
I also find it hard to believe GZ's story given where the confrontation took place.
-
Funny thing about court proceedings: they are suppose to eport to what we think we know, not that which is unknowable. How the hell do you propose to introduce the unknowable as evidence?
I'm not proposing that we try to introduce the unknowable as evidence. My post had to do with 3rd grade's statement that it was a reenactment video. It's not. It's GZ explaining his side of events.
-
The problem here dog, is that you were coming from nowhere. You must have been spouting out comments that you heard from someone else who was completely uninformed. You didn't educate yourself but you had a strong opinion. You were like a little puppy trying to compete with the big dogs. I gave you a re-enactment video and a source for substantial discussion of the issues. You didn't care to learn anything, all you wanted was to ignorantly express your uninformed opinion. With that said, any insults hurled your way were justly deserved.
By reenactment video you mean GZ explaining his side of what happened that evening. Unfortunately we can never get TM's side of the story now will we?
-
Because "bro" I didn 't back off. After that, I became this lowlife that you wanted to make peace with? Listen, you were disingenuous with your peace offering and it showed up soon. I saw it for what it was.
That wasn't a peace offering you jackass. That's me telling you I don't take my self or you too seriously.
And you didn't read it liar. It's labeled "not yet read" in the PM thread.
And I was totally wrong. You're an ignorant douche. So now why don't you go !@#$ yourself.
-
stay out of it pup. Let the man school the boy, you stay in the yard
Don't worry. I won't be that hard on 3rd grade.
The issue is that you and fatty just don't understand. A civialized debate isn't based on ignorant, non educated opinions. You've already admitted that your prejudice is more important to the conversation than facts. After that, why would I want to discuss anything with you?
Says the person who usually can only debate using his own ignorant, non educated opinions. What a Jackass.
Now please. Go !@#$ yourself.
I'd rather be paranoid than ignorant.
Unfortunately you seem to be both paranoid and ignorant. Not a good combination.
-
Your bs has been ridiculed and laughed at by nearly everyone here. If PPP is so outdated then why don't you leave? Remember, I'm the guy you pm'd asking for a truce. Shall this continue?
Here's a copy of the PM I sent to you. I don't know where you get the idea that it's somehow asking for a truce. Just shows how incredibly stupid you are. And why the hell would I give a **** if idiotic dipshits like you laugh at my posts. It's not like your opinion is worth anything.
Hey Bro,
Don't take the **** I say out in the forums personally. Just busting your chops. I also don't mind you busting mine. Especially over spelling. Funny story: I once handed in a research paper with the word across spell all the way thru it with only one s.
I'm sure you're really a great guy. Se you back out on the battle field bro.
So now why don't you go !@#$ yourself.
-
Yeah, I'm afraid of America "progressing" to the point that the majority of people aren't working, those who work will have more taken away from them, and then a breaking point is reached all hell will break loose. It's the reason I'm getting a gun soon.
You may want to make an appointment with a psychiatrist to see if you can get your paranoia treated.
Dunkin' Donuts Under Fire
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
THAT'S RACIST!!!