I like the spooky aspects.

"In Soviet Russia... etc. etc. holy shit."

Spooky is the tamest label I could apply to this.

Your video, Spooky earthflow in Russia, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Since Newt keeps hounding me and you all are too lazy to research yourselves..

Anita Sarkeesian is a puppet

Who is only looking to further her career

Who blatantly steals the work of others

Even other women within the sub-culture she's trying to "expose"

Going so far as to fabricate gameplay footage, just to fit her narrative agenda

Now respectfully view these poor oppressed women who are clearly shunned & barred from the horrendous boys club that is Gamer-dom!! spooky spooky!

I saw the Transasia /Taiwan crash footage. Whoa.
Spooky.

Roger

A great song and video for the time of the year...very spooky *promote

Not entirely true, there is evidence of localised flooding around the arabian peninsula, however it pre-dates the chronology of the 'noah' period by thousands of years.

I cant recall the exact region, but it occured when the ice sheets that used to cover that area receded, it might have something to do with how the dead sea was formed? My memory is shaky on the specifics to be honest, but a giant flood did happen, albeit localised . Nothing to do with spooky sky ghosts or anything like that, just the end of the last ice age around the time that man and mammoth both walked the lands.

Thank Enoch. It's weird. Whenever I'm away from here for a while and I come back someone's just pushed one of my videos. Spooky!

Ut oh, There are so many contradictions in your post. It honestly looks like you're starting to become unhinged. See this is why I quote your posts. I want you to be able to see what you say...makes it easier to spot those contradictions and makes it more certain that I am responding accurately.

It is strange though. It does appear that none of your arguments in your most recent post have anything to do with my recent response. You're making new arguments again without settling our original ones. I can only assume that means you're conceding my points.

You've asked me to prove your emotional manipulation due to your usage of "freedom" and "coercion" Oh...I'm sorry Ren, but you have missed it, but I already responded to that. Here, let me quote it for you:

"Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness."

There, I hope that clears things up amigo.

Ut oh, again, you referred to your original question. But Ren...I've responded to this numerous times? Did you forget? Here, let me quote those too:

"This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?"

and..

"You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you."

and...

"To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering. ""

and finally...

"I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it."

There. I'm really sorry, I thought you read all that already. That should clear it up. I'm sorry you thought I was avoiding it.

Unfortunately, you've contradicted yourself my friend. Earlier in your post, you admit there are no rules for us talking, but at the end of your post you put forth a rule for me...a dare..if you will. I don't think it's very fair that you don't have any rules, but I have to be...coerced into following your rules, do you?

If you do honestly think I'm a troll, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intent, but you know, there is one rule that is known for dealing with trolls. Oh crap, my bad. You don't like rules, you think they take away your freedom, my bad.

I certainly hope that clears everything up buddy. Hopefully this does conclude our discussion. But then again, I thought we were done some time ago, but you kept bringing up different arguments and other distractions so I was compelled to correct your errors. HTH

PS. It is rather contradictory to accuse me of being juvenile, but you end your post with a dare. Oops! That must be so embarrassing for you!

Awww bully? poor @renatojj Unable to make good arguments so in an act of desperation plays the victimhood card. Boo hoo hoo...the gun lobby has a stranglehold on our gov't but we're being victimized and oppressed!! If only there was some way for you to...opt out which would end all of this. Freedom is a bitch isn't it?

Nothing cryptic about the relationship between freedom and responsibility. I'm the one who introduced the concept in this argument after all. That's not my complaint dummy. Responsibility is not the same as freedom. You're claiming (once again without anything to back it up) that freedom and responsibility are the same and that if you lower one, you lower the other. I'd ask you to back it up again, but you won't.

If you steal a gun, sure not having a permit doesn't stop you from using it, but you're in danger of losing those precious freedoms you seem to hold so dear. Again, you're changing the argument.

You like to use these loaded terms like freedom. How are you measuring freedom? Is it an objective measurement? Are there SI units for freedom? does a upstanding citizen have say..23 KWas (kilo-Washingtons) but maybe a convicted meth dealer only has 420 mWas? (milli-Washingtons) You seem to be the arbiter of what is freedom and what isn't so please, share with us your math!

Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness.

To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering.

You're a selfish sociopathic dick if you think otherwise.

It's all fun and games until someone infringes on *your* rights then suddenly, your stance changes. Or are you volunteering yourself to have a criminal come in and kill you and your loved ones. But hey, its ok. Freedom will teach the criminal a lesson...so it's all cool!!

Either you didn't already know this or you're just living up to your avatar pic. I'm starting to think it's the latter.

It has been on the same, sealed, shelf cabinet shelf for 80 years and recently began moving on its own accord? [cue spooky music!]

People who believe in the supernatural seriously underestimate the power of the human mind and of intuition. It might seem spooky how good it is and it might seem close to supernatural, but that's billions of years worth of evolution for you.

Spooky.

This summer I stayed at this motel (hotel?) in Santa Maria, which, legend has it, is haunted. I don't buy into that kind of thing at all, and had a good night's sleep with no disturbances, but I will say it was very spooky from the inside. Long hallways with *something* wrong about them. It took me a while to figure out, but in the end I concluded it was because the structure was a bit skewed here and there. Things you'd expect to be straight - walls, floors etc. were subtly off kilter, probably because it was an old building, and the effect really was quite unsettling, especially as it wasn't immediately obvious.

Evidence for its existence would have to be logically derived, because it is by nature not physically provable. This is similar to how our mathematical models are the new tools of science because we no longer have the proper sense to make since of the world. In that same way, having physical evidence of something non-physical isn't giving dualism its proper shake. At a certain point in epistemology, you run out of ways to "show" things empirically. Investigation can only be in the realm of thought and logical deduction and as a result will provide the range of possibilities instead of the actual details, this is the proper setting for dualism...a logical possibility that would resist any internal investigation.

He swindles us a bit on the thinking computer bit, because it still doesn't address that main problem of thinking not being representing in pure physical interactions. Atoms bouncing around doesn't always cause thinking, so what is thinking if it can't be explained by sets of atoms bouncing around? How do disjointed sets of brain activations result in a single consciousness? This kind of spooky "thinking at a distance" effect is still one of the more baffling parts of the mind and where thinking arises. If this spooky thinking at a distance is happening, why is it limited to just the spooky motion of neurons within your own brain, why not the motion of atoms in the sun? If your brain can be thinking and disjointed, what is thinking...or more importantly...where is thinking happening!?

It also doesn't explain if thinking is a result of brains like we have them. Could a machine ever be made to think? What is thinking? Computers process information in a very similar respect to our own, but they aren't thinking when they are, are they? I don't think so! A study on how humans think isn't a study on thinking itself, just a kind of thinking...if other things than brains can think and there isn't a really good way to probe thinking itself because you are always going to be thinking like a human and not thinking like all the possible types of thinking that could exist. He makes this exact point with robotic technology advancing, we don't understand the limit of physical reality to know the limits of this end. To that end, you can't EVER know ALL the physical properties via empirical investigation so you can never know the ends of robotic technology, and perhaps the same could be said of thinking, you never will know if there isn't another way that thoughts could be formed with a physical understanding any more than you could with a duelist. Logical investigation can give you the range, just not the specificity he demands of dualism, and the same goes for materialism.