You'd find yourself quite wrong.
A deaf person can feel the music. Turn it up and the vibrations are there, the beat and the tones.

It's just the words that are lost, and this type of interpretation brings it together. Above that, it's also not just the words, but the attitude and facial expressions which convey a strong feeling to the message of the music.

Huh? A bit hyperbolic maybe? It's just a word people commonly use for a certain activity. It's kind of pointless to rail against such a widely-accepted word now.

Please re-read. I made no assumption (best or worst) about the confusing sentence, I simply said I didn't understand what was meant.
When people write in 3/4 thoughts, assuming others will complete the thought, some of us (especially those who don't think "normally") will have to question their meaning to understand. It's not about insisting they write 'tailored for me to understand', it's asking (quite respectfully I thought) to clarify, and expressing my thought on how it might be done.
What he said was "Aren't the police complicit in this scenario?", but in reference to a post that discussed multiple scenarios. I read it multiple times before replying, it didn't make sense to me and wasn't clear...were they complicit in the scenario of subjecting others to disgusting images (the last scenario discussed)? No? Is there actually murder happening that they are complicit in? No? Then clarification was required....and I thanked you for providing some.
I can't fathom why that set you off this morn., but it seems to have done so.
Please try reading it differently. Sometimes you have to take a breath in and out and read what someone else is saying.
Best advice, don't assume the worst. (which it seems you've done here).

EDIT: Some more good advice, if you intend to quote someone's statement, you should get the statement/quote right, otherwise you're paraphrasing and should use ' not ". "I think he should have said" is completely different from 'well they should have wrote it differently'. The former is my opinion, clearly, the latter is not (nor is it something I have said or written that I recall).
If someone is replying to someone else, intending to have a conversation, it's fairly important that their 'script' be tailored to the other person if they wish to actually converse and not just spout words at them.

"Sloppy"? How so? It's just a word. No need for the value judgement.

I don't think it's really that bad to come to the correct answer in 10, even 15 minutes to what is essentially a vague guessing game?

Numbers in ascending order isn't really a Black Swan scenario, this isn't something people couldn't fathom existing, it's just an arbitrary rule he decided on in a system all the people were familiar with, numbers.

All it really showed was people are slow to activate their critical thinking skills when randomly stopped in the street, once they get warmed up with a few throw-away guesses, there reasoning becomes more complex.

I don't see anything unusual about that, especially since half the problem was actually just deceptive word play.

Some people are never satisfied. Personally, I'm so tired of the extremists views on both sides (and believe me, Pat Robertson is often the source of pretty nasty extreme views) that this was actually refreshing. Some people are just so cynical, they can't appreciate anything less than Pat Robertson and Jesus himself coming forward as atheists.

Here's my view on it for those who may care:

Religion is pretty worthless. Sure it's been the cause of lots of horrible (and good) things through history, but it's also an attempt to combine what some deem as fact with something that's so beyond fact that we can't even comprehend it. It's man made. Full of errors and contradictions, blah, blah, blah. We all know that. Basically it all just falls apart whenever you try to throw science in there. It's like judging an apple by the standards of screwdriver.

So let's look at just the spiritual side of things. This is where I hang out. I see it as something beyond science (though uses science as it's tool) and factual understanding. It goes beyond nitpicking this fact and that falsehood. It's just a thing in the air that you can either be in touch with or not. If you are (and I am) then it fills a gap. Gives you hope. Comfort. Peace. Lots of things that are indescribable. But you feel better when you have it and you can't choose to believe in it or not. You just do. If you don't buy into it, then there is no gap to begin with. Doesn't make you smarter or better. You just have different needs.

Now maybe that means that in some dark recess of your psyche that if you're in touch with this spiritual side of things, then you die believing you'll be in an amazing place for eternity. And so you are. Or you don't believe, and so you aren't. Neither is better or worse compared to the other because they have no business being compared to the other. They don't coexist. They just both exist.

I think whatever it is that you believe in sets a standard for your life. Following those things, being true to those things, is what it's all about. This completes you. You can't force them on others or yourself for that matter. You can't punish others for not playing by your rules. You just have to play by your own (as long as you don't harm others).

And I'm tired of spiritualism HAVING to mean pure magic. Science is magic. Science is the most amazing magic. Does things you'd never believe. It's not an insult. It's just makes the whole damn system that much more incredible. If you choose to call that magic, go right ahead. It's just a word. Before long we'll realize that science can do things magic only dreamed of and that's pretty damn magical.

By the way, I'm not typing this trying to change anyone's mind or act like it's some kind of original thought. I'm just typing some thoughts. I like this kind of shit. Debates are great and healthy. I'm just sick of people hating on or insulting folks for believing in their heart something that's different.

Yeah. Do a degree in physics and you'll still not know "how magnets work." You can quantify everything about them, know how magnetic fields behave and affect other things, but not "how" they work. Instead you'll probably realise that we don't know how a lot of things work. We say "electric charge" with confidence and think we understand it, but at the end of the day, we don't know "how" it works. Charge is just a word that refers to something interesting we've seen, as is magnetism.

I have just 1 word for you:

George W Bush.

If it's true that separate people can design things which are similar, then we're done. Your point is invalid. Your analogy about 747s is irrelevant, but even if it wasn't, it still isn't an accurate analogy since two 747s are the exact same design. We're talking about similar designs, and there are many, many airplanes that have a design that's similar to a 747.

Evolution, though, isn't a designer. It's just a word we use to describe a process. That process results in some life looking similar to other life, which isn't surprising considering that many of the environments that have life are similar.

Your assertion about the hummingbird wing being independently developed straining credulity and probability is just a bare assertion. Similar things have happened many times. I don't understand why it's surprising that species in a similar environment would development similar solutions to similar problems. To say that they were designed by a force that you don't understand isn't reasonable. It's not even an explanation.

Oh I see, I didn't understand the argument at first because they kept saying "I don't know." So it was like they didn't know anything, but they were still talking. But then the brown haired one said he thought we didn't need to hear that. I understand, sometimes things are tough to hear, words can be very assaulting to your ears.

They hit you like a shock and penetrate you deep inside your brain, leaving a lasting and permanent chasm that never heals because it's altered the state of things so dramatically, it is as if it has destroyed your ability to go back to your former self forever. All it takes is easy access to your thoughts and a careless slip of the tongue, and nothing is ever right again.

You can lose everything. From just a word. Permanently.

So please everyone, be careful with your words.

I don't agree with Penn's beautifully put sentiment — actually it's not that I disagree, it's that I don't think it matters. Christmas means just as much about Christianity as it does buying the latest PS3 games for your kids, or getting together and having spiked eggnog. I'm not offended by it...it's just a word. I'm not offended by the nativity scene, it's just part of a tradition that's based on a belief.

So I would say is, stop excluding yourself because of the name of the season.

Claiming that revelation is the only way to know anything is an absolute knowledge claim.

Claiming that God revealed to you that revelation is the only way to know anything is a justification by circular argument.

The claim is that without God you can't know anything. The proof that God exists in this argument, because we do know things, is the impossibility of the contrary.

God himself has not been established and so cannot be reliably used as the fulcrum of an argument. Even among those who believe in God, there is little consensus as to his nature and attributes. I realize that you think you have it right while others have been wrong, but billions of other Christians have no doubt thought exactly the same. Until someone has something demonstrable, I do not care. "God" is just a word that people ascribe whatever definition justifies their beliefs to. Trying to build upon "God" is like trying to build a house upon a foundation of Jello.

The argument is intended to establish the existence of God as a necessity for rational discourse. As far as what Christians believe about God, our beliefs about Jesus Christ, who He is, what He came here to do, His attributes and nature, etc, are universally agreed upon by almost everyone. The idea that there is all this infighting amongst Christians about who or what God is is false. The division has to do with various minor doctrines, most of which are not consequential to the core doctrines.

You are correct that the laws of nature could change in 5 seconds, but we have testable, reproducible results by basing our work upon those laws (or our best approximation of them) and that is more useful to me than the formless, shifting apparition which you implore me to love and fear in their place.

It's interesting that you formulate the dichotomy as either God or science, implicating that science is functioning for you as a sort of stand-in for God. After all, isn't it where you find your explanation for reality? Don't you place your faith in its omnipotence to find every answer and solve every problem? So yes, to know God you will have to displace the idol, but not science itself. Sir Issac Newton certainly didn't see it that way. He saw science as something which demonstrated Gods glory and did not conflict with his research. Obviously his view benefited all of mankind many times over.

@shinyblurry

Claiming that revelation is the only way to know anything is an absolute knowledge claim.

Claiming that God revealed to you that revelation is the only way to know anything is a justification by circular argument.

Believing that God cannot tell a lie is accepting a circular argument. We have only God's word that he cannot lie and liars claim to be honest all the time.

God himself has not been established and so cannot be reliably used as the fulcrum of an argument. Even among those who believe in God, there is little consensus as to his nature and attributes. I realize that you think you have it right while others have been wrong, but billions of other Christians have no doubt thought exactly the same. Until someone has something demonstrable, I do not care. "God" is just a word that people ascribe whatever definition justifies their beliefs to. Trying to build upon "God" is like trying to build a house upon a foundation of Jello.

You are correct that the laws of nature could change in 5 seconds, but we have testable, reproducible results by basing our work upon those laws (or our best approximation of them) and that is more useful to me than the formless, shifting apparition which you implore me to love and fear in their place.

fuckballs on the mimosa! that sucks!!
have you tried acacia confusa?

In reply to this comment by shagen454:
You are right. I only know of one person that continues to study DMT and that is Rick Strassman, unfortunately. DMT really needs to be studied, it is like an antenna into other dimensions. I would never be able to describe the 4d, holographic, complex, ornate, alien worlds I have flown through with my eyes closed. Those are just some words that do not come close to a description.

To me what matters is that our society reevaluates its stance on drugs and medicine. So many illegal drugs are harmless and non addictive. They used to say that MDMA would put holes in your brain and that LSD would make one jump out of a window. Its all bullshit. Right now I can no longer get DMT because the DEA decided to bust distribution of mimosa hostilis. What right do they have?

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^shagen454:
Now these assholes just need to study DMT to unlock the mysteries of our minds and the universe

I think academia, which is often ruled by the ego and is based on a competitive system, is ill able to really delve into psychedelics, which pretty much requires at least the start of ego death and the base awareness that the ego is the primary limiting factor in conscious development.

You are right. I only know of one person that continues to study DMT and that is Rick Strassman, unfortunately. DMT really needs to be studied, it is like an antenna into other dimensions. I would never be able to describe the 4d, holographic, complex, ornate, alien worlds I have flown through with my eyes closed. Those are just some words that do not come close to a description.

To me what matters is that our society reevaluates its stance on drugs and medicine. So many illegal drugs are harmless and non addictive. They used to say that MDMA would put holes in your brain and that LSD would make one jump out of a window. Its all bullshit. Right now I can no longer get DMT because the DEA decided to bust distribution of mimosa hostilis. What right do they have?

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^shagen454:
Now these assholes just need to study DMT to unlock the mysteries of our minds and the universe

I think academia, which is often ruled by the ego and is based on a competitive system, is ill able to really delve into psychedelics, which pretty much requires at least the start of ego death and the base awareness that the ego is the primary limiting factor in conscious development.