venomai

This man is a god. :lol:

You're starting to make me paranoid. :lol: My advice? If you really want to try it, ask around a little. Bring it up with your friends and at parties. Don't seek out a dealer, just be patient and soon you'll get a chance to try it.

Health has come up quite a bit in this thread. I think it's worth noting that some findings show fish-eaters and occasional meat-eaters at lower mortality rates than plant-eaters. For convenience, I'll let Wikipedia summarize: The study: Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians Sources? Current academic consensus seems to be that humans are natural omnivores, not vegetarians. Are Humans Natural Frugivores/Vegetarians, or Omnivores/Faunivores? The above paper concludes that: "Humans can be regarded as natural omnivores ... The data available on humanity's evolutionary diet leads to the conclusion that veg*n diets are not the natural diet of humanity ... The evolutionary or hunter-gatherer diet (discussed in earlier sections) consists of a diet of wild plant foods (fruits, nuts, some leaves/stems, starchy tubers--possibly cooked), insects, and the lean meat and organs of wild animals."

Copyright infringement is widespread in The Gallery. Don't remove your art just because a couple of hypocritical posters told you to. :P

Good work. Let's see the wireframe, though. :P

Not so sure about the framing. It's hard to recognize what's going on. Interesting manip, though. :)

High download rates doesn't necessarily mean child porn. :lol: That's a terrible way to try and track child porn. Where do you get this info? Subversion doesn't support file encryption and the URLs are not particularly long. Also, a subversion repository should be no more difficult to track than anything else.

You're assuming that all those who use these substances must do so out of habit (and thus have a hard time parting with it... just like dropping the habit of biting your nails). This isn't always the case for those who use these drugs in a controlled manner. It's hard to believe, but there are some who have been using heroin "responsibly" for many years without allowing dependence or habit to take control. Occasional and controlled heroin use - Not a problem?

Heroin and cocaine are not instantly-addicting drugs. :lol: DrugScope - Heroin Myths

The LSD will get destroyed by the heat. Most people smoke during the trip. 'Course... LSD isn't for everyone. And as pfilc23 mentioned, the potential for risk tends to be psychological.

Here's my rap/hip-hop suggestions. Be sure to get the full albums. Nas - Illmatic and The Lost Tapes Halftime (from Illmatic) Cyne - Evolution Fight, Collected and Time Being Haze (from Evolution Fight) Blu & Exile - Below the Heavens Dr. Octagon - Dr. Octagonecologyst Pete Rock - NY's Finest Comprehend (feat. Papoose) 914 (feat. Styles P & Sheek Louch) Mr. Lif - Emergency Rations EP Other artists you might be interested in: Devin the Dude J Dilla (aka Jay Dee) MURS Mos Def Dr. Dre Classified Del the Funky Homosapien Deltron 3030 Gang Starr Jedi Mind Tricks

Sometimes the degree of certainty is not high enough to consider an event predictable. In such a situation, it becomes mere guesswork. Uhh... Read your original post again. I'm confused as hell. What is my opinion on macroscopic objects, and where am I saying the particle behaviour is impossible?

You wrote a fair bit about predictions. I'm not sure I see the connection... What? Where am I arguing about subatomic particles? And why should a theory of subatomic particles not be applicable to macroscopic objects?

Life is chaotic and ever-changing. It can't be predicted in the same way that we predict mathematical problems. A car driving at a constant rate for x period of time may have a predictable outcome, but that doesn't mean we can predict the outcome of unfortunate accidents, missed turns, a required detour, picking up a hitchhiker, or anything else of the sort.

Most people on this board are using the term logic to mean informal logic, i.e. "critical thinking."

I guess you aren't familiar with formal logic? :lol: I'm using the term colloquially, though. The belief that Earth "just happens" to be the only planet bearing life goes beyond any sense of reason and logic. For more on estimated probabilities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Some people may follow science religiously, but that does not make all of science a religion! :lol: Please bring this evidence forth. You must show us the proof, rather than simply claim that you have it. ;) Until your claim is effectively proven, the burden of proof remains on your side. This is how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof is a well defined and well accepted logical* fallacy. EDIT: Oops! Typo.. It should also be noted that empirical evidence is not used to prove the non-existence of something. Empirical evidence is based on observation, and thus it would be impossible to observe something which does not exist! Abiogenesis does not mean evolution. Abiogenetic models are well-defined and well-constructed scientific theories, most of which are supported by empirical evidence. The loose collection of beliefs presented by certain Bible-followers, on the other hand, are not scientific theories, nor are they supported by testable and credible scientific evidence.

By "harsher criminalization" I mean something along the lines of "harsher enforcement/crackdown." Apologies for the poor choice of words on my part. True. I'm sure there are a few that will be forced to stop viewing child porn because of this censorship. However, I suspect the majority will continue to seek it out, perhaps even in higher demand than before. Take a look at the rise in demand and consumption during the American Prohibition; could something similar happen here if the censorship is successful? Like you said, though, since it's only Australia, this will probably have little impact on the child porn industry as a whole. What worries me is how broadly this plan defines 'illegal content'. Surely the focus of this plan isn't just to block child porn -- which is already pretty well blocked, or at the very least well-hidden. I'm fairly sure that the $125.8 million was not spent solely with the intention of blocking pornography. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that this plan was formed with corporate interests in mind. Quashing of political descent on a Runescape fan board, though, seems like a bit of a stretch.

The belief in, say, Young Earth Creationism, is also an "opinion." Of course, that does not necessarily mean it has any basis in reality! Likewise, a literal interpretation of the Bible -- in such a manner that Genesis is seen as a credible "source" to explain the true origin of life on Earth -- has no basis in reality. Um... 'Not-A-Religion'? religion - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion 1. (n) a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny 2. (n) an institution to express belief in a divine power The burden of proof tends to rest on the party making the assertion (such as "God exists" or "Bigfoot exists"). It is a logical fallacy to "switch" the burden of proof, as you did above. Mathematics is an abstract system based on fixed rules. As per these rules, 1 + 1 is equal to 2. Thus, if somebody claims that 1 + 1 is equal to 0, not only would they be incorrect, but a rather large burden of proof would rest on their side to prove their claim. The proof supporting 1 + 1 = 2 already exists in the equation (as it follows the rules set by mathematics). The existence of god, unlike math, is not based on a system of fixed rules. It's based on the claim that "something" exists which we have not empirically observed. Are you familiar with the analogy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Now a cliché, I'll admit, but it drives the point home. Basically, the claim is that the Earth was created by a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' with the touch of His Noodly Appendage. Asburd, no? The burden of proof, in this case, rightly lies on the party making such an assertion (those claiming that the FSM exists). Switching the burden of proof with "Show me proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist!" would be a logical fallacy. Simply doubting the FSM's existence does not mean the burden of proof rests on us to disprove the claim! (Of course, it is impossible to use empirical evidence to disprove a non-observed entity.) Here is more info on the Burden of Proof Fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... proof.html

Harsher criminalization of child pornography will not remove the demand for it. Even if, hypothetically, all internet-based child porn is successfully removed, the audience will simply shift to another medium. The same would happen if the government was to block all internet-based "normal" porn. More importantly, such harsh criminalization will simply push the industry further "underground." This is counter-productive if our ultimate goal is to reduce the occurrence of child sexual assault. "See no evil" does not translate to it not happening. Adult-child sex will occur with or without the demand for it to be videotaped, and for the sake of identifying and helping the victims, a distributed recording (photo/video) is far more useful than no recording at all. A related question arises: Is there any benefit in criminalizing illustrations of child porn, such as drawings and 3D renders? Sorry to digress, but treating opiate addicts with the hallucinogenic Ibogaine has shown to be tremendously effective at removing their physical and psychological addiction.

No more than I can prove to you that the Flying Pink Unicorn and Bigfoot doesn't exist. Usually, though, the burden of proof lies on the party making the assertion. Say you're gambling $100, and probability tells you that you have a 1 x 10 ^-100 percent chance of winning the next round. In such a scenario, it would be extremely unreasonable to believe that you WILL win, based on the odds. That amounts to a: 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of winning. There is a chance that you will win, but, given the odds, it certainly isn't a bet worth gambling on. Although losing may not be completely inevitable, betting on such low odds would go against all sense of reason and logic. The Bible is a poor source of information concerning the origin of Earth and its inhabitants. Literal interpretations of the Bible explain the fictional history of Earth just as Lord of the Rings explains the fictional history of Middle Earth. But this isn't a discussion about fantasy... And science is not a religion. No different from the claim that "God does/doesn't exist," or that "The Flying Spaghetti Monster does/doesn't exist." Of course, a mere lack of proof does not mean we should be calling such statements stupid. Is it stupid to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist? :lol:

The probability of Earth being the only life-bearing planet in the universe is so astronomically small that it would indeed be very unreasonable to believe in such a claim. Unless, of course, there is a particular feature of Earth that makes it unique in bearing life. This is the core of the "alien" argument. I am not asking for you to prove the non-existence of aliens, I am asking for you to prove that the Earth is unique in bearing life. The (non-)existence of aliens will logically follow. The notion that Earth and/or its inhabitants originated in a fashion unlike any other planet in the universe -- allowing it and only it to bear life -- is a positive assertion, and it is on this side that the burden of proof rests. Perhaps I am being close minded, though. Perhaps the burden of proof lies on neither side, since it can be interpreted that neither claim (about whether or not the Earth is unique) is any more or less of an assertion than the other. Maybe this is what you are getting at with the whole "two-way lane" thing.

I've studied abroad in Spain -- it was absolutely fantastic. Probably the best month of my life. Where would you stay in Spain? Where in France? Will you be living with other students around your own age? I have never been to France or Greece, but I can say with certainty that you will have a blast in Spain -- especially in Barcelona. Be sure to choose based on where you think you will have the most fun. :D Good luck.

Say that somebody claims Earth is the only planet in the universe that can hold liquid water. In such a situation, the burden of proof rightly lies on the person making the assertion. Attempting to shift the burden of proof would be a logical fallacy. We assume that liquid water exists elsewhere in the universe because we see no reason to suspect that the Earth is unique in bearing water. A similar situation is happening here. Y_Guy and Saruman are claiming that Earth is the only planet in the universe that can bear life. They are making the assertion, and thus the burden of proof lies on them. It must be realized that the existence of aliens is a logical result of accepting that the Earth is not unique in bearing life. Likewise, the existence of liquid water outside of Earth is a logical result of accepting that Earth is not unique in bearing water. This is exactly what you are doing. Although we assume that life, as well as liquid water, is not unique to Earth, we are not making an assertion that cannot be disproved. On the other hand, claiming an unknown and unseen feature of Earth makes it unique in bearing life and/or water is an assertion that cannot be disproved.

It's not my job to prove to you that God doesn't exist, or that Bush isn't actually a reptile, or that there isn't some unseen feature of our Solar System that makes Earth the only planet in the universe that can bear life. The burden of proof lies on those making these assertions. "If I were to suggest that ... there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." - Russell's Teapot

The burden of proof lies on those who claim that a particular feature of our Solar System leads to the Earth being the only planet in the entire universe on which life can form. Unlike Saruman44 and Y_Guy, I am making no positive assertion on the (non-)existence of aliens. I am simply suggesting that, given the current evidence, there is no reason to suspect that life can only originate on this planet, and therefore it is more rational to believe in the existence of alien life. ;)