What about you guys, do you pronounce it Omicron or Omicron?

Your video, How to Pronounce "Omicron" the Star Trek Way, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 288 Badge!

Biden is a Joke.
He is a once was and now a has been.
HE is not presidential,

There is no way he got those votes in a legitimate way. I'm not saying he ran the steal but it was fraudulent .

Funny that when Trump won in 2016 the left were the whiners.

Cheating goes on by both sides, All know this. The question is how to limit / stop it.
'

China gave the world the pandemic. Trump stopped flights and Sleepy joe cried like a bitch. Now as he is Pouts and the latest variant, omicron he was thinking or has shut down flight from 7 African countries. Same situation as Trump but no bitching from the left. Funny how piss ants like you behave.

As long as he wears "our" jersey all is fine.

whining, Joe just blames everything but his administration.
Trump whining - sure to an extent. Fought back Absolutely.

Bottom line Biden administration is a disaster and his pole numbers reflect it.

Trump for all his grandstanding was a success. Not so for Biden.


Yet yo stand up for this failed administration. Guess you part of the fooled 39% who thinks he is going a good job. while 60% think otherwise.

>> ^KnivesOut:

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.


Yes, but unlike you, I am able to use the mysterious key labelled "delete" to actually edit out the extraneous quotes.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.
Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.

Oh FFS. You are either deliberately misrepresenting my view or you're just really bad at comprehension.

I don't have any gender biased ideas about careers. That's my whole fucking point.
In case you missed it:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is.


I don't care if my scientist is female, my nurse is male or my mechanic is a cross-dressing splurg from omicron theta v, as long as they're good at their job. You are the one bringing gender politics into it. I am simply against trying to manipulate young women into a career they may not want. Once again, because I realise you'll misrepresent this: I am not against women scientists. I want women in science because they want to be in science, not because of some retarded ideology that says we must have a proportional representation of the population in every field.

It may be that more men are drawn to science, just as more women are drawn to teaching. No-one has answered my initial question: why is that such a bad thing?

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.

Oi, calling me a dick in the lounge! One of these days, bang, zoom, straight to the third moon of Omicron Persei 8!

You'd think so, with his appetite, but it was Lrr, ruler of the planet Omicron Persi 8, who has been receiving our television signals for years. You might recall he was going to destroy Earth because they cancelled ?Single Female Lawyer? 1000 years ago.

favorite futurama quote...
Lrrr - Ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8:
"Why doesn't Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?"