Flat earth didn't have a global empire to protect from the idea of a spherical earth, though.

All we really want from people is efficiency, conservation, and a move away from fossil fuels. Global warming is our motivation, but it's a good idea for everyone, regardless.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Flat Earth WAS mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Warmist sounds a lot like alarmist, doesn't it? We'll most likely see more of those for the next four years. Quality find, Irishman. We need more opposing viewpoints on this issue, because the Gore-following Warmist Automatons think the debate is over about Global Warming, science be damned.


Yes, all people who follow mainstream scientific belief are automatons.

That's what they tell me in my weekly Flat Earth Society meetings. We've got to stop those deadly Sphere-ists from throwing away billions on "satellites" that just sail over the edge of the earth, never to be seen again!

I mean, they're obviously trying to cow people into giving up good money with fear, the word Sphere-ists has phere fear built right into it!

QED

Flat Earth WAS mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Warmist sounds a lot like alarmist, doesn't it? We'll most likely see more of those for the next four years. Quality find, Irishman. We need more opposing viewpoints on this issue, because the Gore-following Warmist Automatons think the debate is over about Global Warming, science be damned.


Yes, all people who follow mainstream scientific belief are automatons.

That's what they tell me in my weekly Flat Earth Society meetings. We've got to stop those deadly Sphere-ists from throwing away billions on "satellites" that just sail over the edge of the earth, never to be seen again!

I mean, they're obviously trying to cow people into giving up good money with fear, the word Sphere-ists has phere fear built right into it!

QED

>> ^blankfist:
Warmist sounds a lot like alarmist, doesn't it? We'll most likely see more of those for the next four years. Quality find, Irishman. We need more opposing viewpoints on this issue, because the Gore-following Warmist Automatons think the debate is over about Global Warming, science be damned.


Yes, all people who follow mainstream scientific belief are automatons.

That's what they tell me in my weekly Flat Earth Society meetings. We've got to stop those deadly Sphere-ists from throwing away billions on "satellites" that just sail over the edge of the earth, never to be seen again!

I mean, they're obviously trying to cow people into giving up good money with fear, the word Sphere-ists has phere fear built right into it!

QED

>> ^Fjnbk:
An Exhaustively Researched Theory:
whynow11 will soon be revealed to be the reincarnation of choggie, but will be mild-mannered, kind, and comprehensible. He will not leave rambling, nonsensical rants everywhere and will be infinitely likable.
Of course, just like what happened to New Coke, this new choggie will be universally hated. Sifters will lobby to have the original choggie unbanned and he will return to wreak more havoc on the Sift. This whole incident will simply be remembered as a fiasco and choggie will experience a surge in popularity that will send him back into the top 15.
QED


Will he change his name to Choggie Classic?

An Exhaustively Researched Theory:

whynow11 will soon be revealed to be the reincarnation of choggie, but will be mild-mannered, kind, and comprehensible. He will not leave rambling, nonsensical rants everywhere and will be infinitely likable.

Of course, just like what happened to New Coke, this new choggie will be universally hated. Sifters will lobby to have the original choggie unbanned and he will return to wreak more havoc on the Sift. This whole incident will simply be remembered as a fiasco and choggie will experience a surge in popularity that will send him back into the top 15.

QED

QED.

Suck it, atheists!

>> ^NetRunner:
What makes it right for you to take a life, when the reason you're taking a life was that someone else took a life first? Doesn't that seem paradoxical?
It ain't QED, but it's persuasive.


I suppose that's where you get to the philosophical side. The Dr. Heller quote just strikes me as too simple and very general. There are persuasive arguements on both sides. Innocent people can actually be put to death. No system is perfect. We can continue to improve methods for preventing the conviction of innocent people, but it will most likely never be 100% accurate. There are long time periods and lengthy appeal processes between the sentencing and actual carrying out of an execution to allow for new evidence to be revealed, but sometimes that fails as well.

I personally see the death penalty as something that should be maintained, but in a different way. Not for cost saving reasons, but for some of the reasons Rottenseed listed. I think some people are so far beyond the capability to live in a civil society that the only answer is to lock them away permanently or destroy them. Is it any better to have people locked away with life sentences without hope of parole? Rehabilitation would be nice, but I believe it's just as naive to think every prisoner can be changed as it is to believe everyone that will be sentenced to death is guilty.

Look at prison gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood. I can't see any reason why they shouldn't all just be put to death. This is a prison gang responsible for over 1/4 of all murders in the federal prison system. These are people, some with life sentences, that operate like an organized crime family. That is the ideal scenario for the death penalty. The guilty and already convicted that prove their complete inability to reform. To answer your original question, to put those men to death is not paradoxical to me at all. They are killers that do so by choice. An execution is carried out to stop them from killing again. That's a 25% reduction in prison murders right there.

>> ^Lurch:
>> ^Aniatario:
"If you support the death penalty and only one single innocent person is killed, and killing an innocent person is murder, then you become murderers. So, you also deserve to be killed. This is the paradox of the death penalty, and you cannot avoid this paradox." -Dr. Heller

Putting the whole argument of the death penalty aside, this doesn't strike anyone else as a major logical fallacy? While you may like it because it supports your particular views, it's terrible logic and looks like perfect fit for a syllogistic fallacy.


I suppose that's true, but what's the assumption that includes the premise?

The assumption that killing someone with the consent of government is still murder?

It's definitely more a case for philosophy, to see if there's logic to the concepts of murder, government, justice, and possibly even death.

That little syllogism does present a strong argument though. What makes it right for you to take a life, when the reason you're taking a life was that someone else took a life first? Doesn't that seem paradoxical?

It ain't QED, but it's persuasive.

^ it's not his vocabulary, that anyone has taken issue with.
just the part where his opening assertion is that Obama is "promoting anti-free market class and race warfare", and treats his say-so like it's QED.

how about quoting us a line from this, shroom, that is 'anti-free market'?
or promoting 'class and race warfare'? promoting it? this speech promotes race warfare?

> "Let this handsome chimera take the place of Christ"??
we're not electing christ.
Obama has a much easier task - he's only taking the place of Bush.

btw, i have yet to see Obama kissing any toes.
i do see some others, however, holding hands with tyrants overseas, and dancing.

in other words, shroomie, a decent vocabulary is all you've got here, once again.
you can't back up any of your poorly-thought-out accusations.
when you get called on it, you just create more of them.

it's called cognitive dissonance, shroom.
new lies, to protect the comforting old ones, that you're already invested in.

unless you can actually back up any of those assertions?
instead of burying them, again, and ignoring everyone's repeated attempts,
to improve your reasoning?

you're just chasing your own tail, dude.

ok, ^J-Rova.

foremost, i just wanna' say that my initial statements, and query, were 100% sincere, so i really don't know why your following post (the one to which i replied, in kind) so reeked of dismissiveness, while simultaneously laying zero logical basis, for your abrupt conclusion.

other than the basis being, you're more accustomed to this kind of discussion on YouTube, etc., which would be understandable.

in other words? to me, your post looked like, "i trust the Fed, so you should, too. QED."

i'm counting on you, knowing more than me (or what i can scrape together from wiki citations),
about economics.
'cuz, watching money move?
bores me, as much as programming might very well bore you. ok?
please count on me, and 98% of anyone you're likely to address here on the sift, for 2 things.
1) i'm here to enjoy, and learn. not fight. and won't say anything in text, that i wouldn't say to your face.
2) whether liberal or conservative, in either the social or fiscal sense? we're going to know the Fed is more than one guy. srsly.

i know, you answered, "No. That was to clarify...", but look what you said next. closely, ok?
"... who may have been under that impression ..."
right. the impression, that we were discussing, was that... 'anyone here thought it was just one guy.'
which actually means, your reply meant...
"Yes. That was to clarify, for anyone who may have been under that impression."

liberal/conservative, social/fiscal, and their curiosity levels, being irrelevant.

so, let's start over.

i'm owen / m15. i'm a libertarian.
socially, very liberal. (pro-choice, -drugs, etc.)
fiscally, quite conservative. (you're paying, for your drugs, abortions, etc.)

which, in my case, equates to: fiscally, a fuckload more conservative than most any Republican currently holding prominent office. seeing as how, with the exception of Paul and a few other gems, of varying caratweight to be certain, most prominent Republicans aren't fiscally conservative.

they merely think we should feed the extra taxes (and/or massive intl loans) into the top of the machine, rather than the bottom. dig?

so. this is where, we came in.

i'd really like to hear from someone, who knows exactly why they think the Federal Reserve is a good idea.

if you think you can? cool!
if not? equally cool!

You sir, just owned my ass. When efficiency is defined as such you are totally correct. But then again we run into a fuel issue. Now as it was pointed out to me, permanent magnets are not permanent. So if we label that device as 100-500% efficient, then yes we are saying it is indeed breaking the laws of physics. But when taking into account that it will eventually stop due to the fact the polarization of the magnets will no longer be sufficient to run it, then it is no longer perpetual, or 100 percent efficient. Keep in mind i never once said that it will run my house as good as they described it to. The rig itself might run for 5 years, but once you add on the resistance of powering an alternator, will it really work? I don't know.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
The first clip I removed from the Science channel because the news story is scientifically inaccurate and flies in the face of basic concepts of physics and engineering, and I downvoted it because it was scientifically inaccurate and also a piss-poor example of journalistic fact-checking. The second I removed because it was not scientifically interesting enough to belong in the Science channel. Magnetic repulsion, as pointed out and briefly explained by Flavio and Fission, is neither new nor renewable. (Check out the renewable energy article on Wikipedia to get a clearer idea of what the term entails.)

Since I don't have time to go point for point, I will instead provide an analysis of two sentences from a comment you made in conjunction with well-accepted concepts from physics and then allow you to view your sift and beliefs through this lens. Please read through it, because I think you might get something from it, as you seem like a reasonable guy. Let's begin:

In physics terms, energy efficiency is defined such that:
Efficiency = Output / Input

Now, let's think about the machine you sifted about. We'll assign the output of this magnet repulsion machine to variable a, and assign the input of the machine to b. From this, we can write:
Efficiency of the machine = Output of the machine / Input of the machine = a / b

You said: "They clearly point out that it [the machine] produces 5 times more energy than it consumes." This means the output of the machine (a) is five times that of the input (b). Using our variables in an equation, this mathematically is:
a = 5b

Thus, we can calculate the efficiency of the machine:
Efficiency of the machine = a / b

and since a = 5b, we can say by substitution:
Efficiency of the machine = a / b = 5b / b = 5

To get this efficiency in percent, we multiply by 100:
Efficiency of the machine = 5 x 100% = 500%

So we have just calculated the efficiency of the machine to be 500%.

Now, remember that you said: "No energy production method is 100 percent efficient." This is correct, and in keeping with the law of conservation of energy. It is impossible for any real-world machine to have an efficiency above 100%.

Thus it follows that the only conclusion we can logically draw is that the machine does not, in fact, create 5 times more energy than it consumes, QED.

You've been taken for a ride, and I sincerely hope the above will help you accept this.

Here's the breakdown for the troglodyte.

I posted the video last night. Along with two other completely unrelated videos. I come on line this morning and check my profile to see how they are doing. Oddly I can only find the other 2 videos. I do a search for the video and it comes up blank, so I figure i must have done something wrong and repost it.
You keeping up there retard?
So then I get an email from videosift saying my video was discarded. I follow the link and whadayaknow people downvoted it off. I read the comments, I reply, you prove to me that you like chocolate fudge. QED Now how about you grow the fuck up.

Easy there, twiddles, I was never yelling. And the whole QED thing was more of a joke anyway. Who ever said I was angry that not everyone agrees with me? Why would I give a shit?
It's all in good humor, little kitty, all in good humor.

HA! I think I still have a video around (VHS unfortch) of the Doom mod that we made back in junior high for our punk band. You've heard of three chord punk? We were QED, the world's only one chord punk band, and our game was QEDoom.

Our symbol was chuck, our smileyface- we put him in the bottom of the screen. But whats better is we turned him blue and made him un-smiley and rendered him in 3D Studio 3 to become the vicious unchuckodemon. I also modelled Clyde, the Pacman ghost to replace the uh.. flying flaming skull dudes....

Man, I wish I had some of this stuff. It was pretty hilarious. I think we even midified one of our songs and replaced the music.

Our unrealised plan was to create an ingame short using our sprites and sounds. The script ran something like this:

ext, Doom Street, Doom; Daytime;
mrio (that's me) arrives at his friend Ron's (Baron of Hell) place.

mrio: Heya Ron, how's it going?
ron: I just baked muffins, HAVE SOME!
ron: HAVE A MUFFIN!

at which point ron starts to throw muffins at mysterio. Each time, he yells HAVE A MUFFIN! The muffins make a metallic clang sound when they hit the wall

mrio: No thanks, but lets go visit our good friend Un-Chuck!
ron: HAVE A MUFFIN!

they walk down the street to unchuck's place.

mrio: Hey unchuck, how's it going?
unchuck: What the hell is ron doing here?
ron: (throws a muffin at unchuck) HAVE A MUFFIN!
unchuck: (throws muffins at ron) I HATE MUFFINS!

they battle to the death.

mrio: Oh ron, I can't take you anywhere!

:rimshot: fade to black, FIN

Y'know, I have a few regrets in this life, and not completing QEDoom is definitely one of them. I think my friend Jesse might still have the plans... heck, I've got some old hard drives around, I might still have QED.WAD kicking it someplace.

Our main obstacle was level design. How can we constuct a level so that one player can act as a "cameraman" to film the scene as it unfolds? Levels were extremely hard to create for Doom. I made some simple ones, but creating something like that would be quite complicated.

It doesn't help that we were like 14 years old.

Our goal was to have all of the dialog actually in the wad file itself, so each line would be a sound effect triggered by the monsters themselves. Obviously, ron and unchuck's lines would be said over and over again, as they try to kill you/give you a muffin.

Still though, the vid that I had of us running around with graffiti'd walls and our samples and unchucks running around... those were truely priceless. The voice samples of my friend Jesse yelling "I JUST BAKED MUFFINS, HAVE SOME" is hilarious- it makes me laugh just thinking about it, even after all these years. I bet if there were something like youtube back then that we could have shared our QEDoom on, we would have finished it. And I bet it would be top15 VS material.

If only...

written by HaricotVert
"No, you still don't get it. The logic is perfectly acceptable in its correctness. There is nothing wrong with the logic used. Even with unverifiable premises, the logic is being used entirely in the way it was meant to be."

Are you saying it is perfectly okay to use logic based off of unverifiable premises to reach a conclusion to an answer?

"Look, if I change the premises that the video's author uses while using the exact same logical principles, I arrive at a sound argument:

1. If I have an orange, it must have grown from an orange tree.
2. If an orange tree grew the orange, an orange tree must exist.
3. I have an orange.
4. Therefore, an orange tree exists.
QED.

See what I did there? I used the exact same LOGIC to arrive at a SOUND argument (a proof of existence) because I used true premises. It's a simple double application of Modus Ponens. You cannot say that Modus Ponens is "ineffectively used" because it arrives at a faulty conclusion.

Granted, you could disagree with my conclusion, suggesting that the orange was taken from a tree that no longer exists (in which case semantics matter), or that the orange was genetically engineered and created in a lab artificially, or that we all live in a dream state where nothing is real. But that is not the job of logic. That is the job of argumentation."


Hmm. Look in my above comment. I stated when used with unverifiable premises, logic cannot be used effectively. Or that is to say it cannot prove or disprove squat. I don't mind logic. I just don't think logic is the mandatory factor in what is real and what isn't. The point of this video is to show that when it comes to God all known premises are as of yet unveriable, and thus, we cannot use logic to prove or disprove God.

But thanks again for explaining this. Most people would have simply become frustated by now.