Zierro
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Zierro
-
-
-
-
No. It's stupid to imprison people who have done no harm. They didn't know about the repercussions of banning something as much as we do now in the present day. You're right! We actually live in a perfect world where home invasions never happen, innocent people never get threatened or robber or raped or murdered, and in the ridiculously unlikely scenario that they do, the cops will magically appear right away and take care of everything in the span of a millisecond. And then you find one million dollars on the floor! Yay! I get a feeling that those occurrences would become even more prevalent if we lived in a society where only criminals can obtain guns.
-
School is not stupid - it has great potential. It's the current system that everyone seems to be complaining about. And yeah, girl troubles is a very common problem amongst RPG forumers. Go figure.
-
Big Time Rush. Icarly and Justin Biber, I can tolerate. So... kill Big Time Rush?
-
Yeah, I don't get that either. Why can't "human constructs" be applied to animals? Big, small, energetic, interest, and death are all "human constructs" as well. Animals obviously can't use those words, but the concept behind the words which humans have coined still play a large role in animals' lifestyles, no?
-
I do that all the time, especially with my cellphone. Sometimes I will even look a second time and forget again.
-
After numerous desperate attempts at trying to get my 360 to read a disc, I finally got Oblivion to load. Now I'm afraid to turn it off because I might not get it to work again. I'm currently going through the Main Quest (a little over halfway through).
-
Two good friends I can rely on. A pretty large [extended] family that always looks after one another. One female soul mate. I don't have much of a social life, but I consider myself very lucky to have the specific ones I do because I wouldn't settle for average and average wouldn't settle for me.
-
Jealousy tends to make us do the craziest things.
-
I think coherency is essential for communication, so I put a good amount of effort into my articulation. If someone is trying to communicate in a way that's too hard to decipher, I'll probably just ask them what they meant or ignore it. Pointing out the flaws to the people who do care (such as pointing out a spelling mistake I might have made) has a beneficial purpose because I want to learn how to be well-spoken. However, complaining about the way trolls and Facebookers type is fruitless. They obviously have different principals (favoring efficiency and looking hip) when it comes to communication. You can look down at them all you want, but they'll probably look down on you for being a nerd. I've learned to judge people on what they say instead of how they said it. I've seen too many well-spoken idiots.
-
We have no idea. We could be all alone for all we know. There's no evidence for extraterrestrials, only a huge gap of knowledge.
-
I was asking what kind of behavior proves that the animal knows it is its own reflection. Couldn't the behavior that "proves their self-awareness" imply something completely different? Darwin seemed to have the right idea behind the flaws of the experiment: While visiting a zoo, Darwin held a mirror up to an orangutan and recorded the animal's reaction, which included making a series of facial expressions. Darwin noted that the significance of these expressions was ambiguous, and could either signify that the primate was making expressions at what it perceived to be another animal, or it could be playing a sort of game with a new toy. EDIT: I read more of the article and now it does seem like a pretty solid (although not foolproof) method of determining whether animals exhibit self-awareness or not: Gordon Gallup built on these observations by devising a test that attempts to gauge self-awareness by determining whether an animal can recognize its own reflection in a mirror as an image of itself. This is accomplished by surreptitiously marking the animal with two odourless dye spots. The test spot is on a part of the animal that would be visible in front of a mirror, while the control spot is in an accessible but hidden part of the animal's body. Scientists observe that the animal reacts in a manner consistent with it being aware that the test dye is located on its own body while ignoring the control dye. Such behaviour includes turning and adjusting of the body in order to better view the marking in the mirror, or poking at the marking on its own body with a limb while viewing the mirror [instead of poking at the image in the mirror].
-
Mirror test is the best we got. How do they know animals don't react in the way scientists expect them to react (another question I have) because of the fact that they aren't self-aware? Maybe it's just because they don't understand the concept behind a mirror. As for the other question, what kind of reaction to the reflection would suggest that the animal is self-aware? If the mirror test is really the best we got, I guess we're clueless then.
-
Yes, I know. I was talking about the emphasis/insistence of the story - not the quality of the story/plot. I thought KH2 just had an overload of story compared to KH1 (Namely the tedious beginning where you don't even get access to real game play until like 3-4 hours in.) and find it surprising that your opinion is the polar opposite of mine. As for the stories/plots of both games, I didn't find either of them interesting.
-
-
The fact that you admitted to sharing similar (although less extreme) views of what you've been posting should tell you something about yourself. Believe it or not, my aim is to be fair, honest, and even scientific. I do acknowledge the faults and (logical) criticisms against weed. Yet you seem to be telling me that I fit this "POT IS INFALLIBLE" stereotype or something? Well, it depends on what you consider a real benefit. Does chocolate have benefits? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying weed is inherently bad, when really it's the user's responsibility that should be taken into account, just like how we judge everything else (candies, scissors, cars, rocks). My opinion is that they have the high potential of misuse, and unfortunately many do this, but there are some who can use them in a beneficial manner.
-
Very true. I think the funniest are extreme conservatives and liberals.
-
-Extreme extroverts and extreme introverts. -The word "pet-peeve". -When you try to Google the correct spelling of a word, and two different spellings appear about evenly throughout the results. -Having something important to say that was right on the tip of your tongue and then having it get lost into the abyss of your mind forever.
-
-
I tried an Apartment 9 blazer (dark) on for kicks the other day. Well, after all these years of goofy dressing, I finally found my niche.
-
-
-
They can't unless you have a sign I suppose. And in that respect, having a dog would be similar to just having an alarm system. I do think the invader would be much more afraid to see a gun pointing at them than a dog growling at them though. Like I said, even after proper breeding and raising, dogs have still been known to snap on innocent people - even their owners. They are dogs. It doesn't take brain damage for a dog to do something irrational or violent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/rottweiler-news-forum/61566-dog-attacks-owner-nj.html Notice how many people were killed by their own dogs or family's dogs? PS: I got nothing against owning dogs. I just find it funny that someone militantly against firearms recommends having a dog as a means of protection. You complain that people will just jump at every little shadow and noise and shoot at it, but you're extremely skeptical about dogs attacking the undeserving. This reveals your bias.