warri0r45

That might just be inventive enough to work. People generally don't like confrontation with criminals when they're doing stuff like this, hence why you see diffusion of responsibility. I'm not saying I'm any better - I'd probably be scared if I saw someone get stabbed/attacked. The most I'd do is call the cops and report what I had seen.

*sigh* Having fun ruining everyone else's game with your selfishness? I'm supposed to care about other people? If you rely on a glitch rather than skill to get good scores, you don't deserve to play the game. If I had my way I'd burn it and your console in front of you. Nice talking, Keyboard Warrior. What? So? It doesn't make it ok just because it's not your fault. You're exploiting an obvious flaw in the game and not relying on skill to get more unlockables. On an unrelated note, I got a game winning kill with a stuck semtex grenade today. It was awesome. :) Plus it's the most satisfying gun to get a kill with, in my opinion.

*sigh* Having fun ruining everyone else's game with your selfishness? I'm supposed to care about other people? If you rely on a glitch rather than skill to get good scores, you don't deserve to play the game. If I had my way I'd burn it and your console in front of you.

I know that people can laugh at funerals, but this is usually because of how the person lived, not because they're dead. I think death can be joked about, but there is a tasteful and a not-so-tasteful way of doing it. I'm quite fond of black humour, actually. I like the mix of cringing and laughter.

Is there a way of playing spec ops with some randomly matched person? Or do you have to add someone and contact them or something?

You have a real problem with evolution, don't you? Adaptation to the environment and "survival of the fittest" (although it's a misleading term) are perfectly reasonable and logical. How on earth you get "infantile" and "clinging to religion" out of this is beyond me. Just current beliefs on evolution - because so many people stick with pure darwinism as though it's the end-all of evolution. It isn't. Sociobiology is a good popular idea for me, although how I see it myself is (of course) different. I also don't care if they're reasonable and logical. I've never been one for Enlightenment-era rationalism. To explain infantile, well, our beliefs in evolution are quite young and ever-changing. Darwin would not recognize a group that studies evolution these days. Religious? So many act as though there's some goal in evolution, some sort of end to it. This to me sounds like the religious hope for an afterlife. I'm just ready for a tail. Who exactly are you talking about? Because scientists certainly don't have the beliefs on evolution that you portray here. If I can't appeal to you with reason or logic then debate is pointless.

You have a real problem with evolution, don't you? Adaptation to the environment and "survival of the fittest" (although it's a misleading term) are perfectly reasonable and logical. How on earth you get "infantile" and "clinging to religion" out of this is beyond me.

I got a similar score in my last game on wasteland. 23-7. Got an AC130 in a care package but didn't get many kills with it since it was my first time using it and most of the other team was in the bunker in the middle. What are everyone's favourite/least favourite maps? I like wasteland, the airport one (terminal?) and scrapyard. I don't really like estate that much.

Although I've given my response to some of them, I'll repeat them here. 1) I'll pass on this one seeing as I don't know much about psychology. I suspect there's more to it than mere fight or flight. 2) I remember writing a paper on this back in highschool. My basic argument was that evolution would virtually stop in the western world, but it would continue to some extent in the third world, unless there was a major influx of medicine and food. Basically, there is no selective pressure to change the population of the west. We all get the medicine we need and are cared for if we're disabled in any way, so there's still an opportunity to pass on negative traits to future generations. In third world countries, there is a selective advantage to being immune to various diseases and a disadvantage to having a genetic disease, so there is still an opportunity for further evolution in those populations. In the other thread I used the example of sickle cell anemia. In places where malaria is common, the sickle cell trait is as well, because the sickle-shaped red blood cells stop the life cycle of the malaria parasite. Because malaria is worse than sickle cell anemia, the sickle cell trait was selected for. This wouldn't be the case in countries with widely avaliable medicine. 3) Monogamy in humans is a social institution, not a biological one. It's in our best interests to spread our genes to as many mates as possible, hence why monogamy is rare in mammals. That's not to say that monogamy is a bad thing, though. 4) I don't think there's a need for it, I just think it's a natural outworking of tribalism. Historically, humans were organised into tribes which organised their resources within their in-group. Whenever one tribe met another and there were resources at stake, there was the potential for violence. I think racism, nationalism and other such -isms might be the remnants of this kind of tribalism. 5) I think your analysis is largely right. Huge populations of people aren't really natural. It's only through established agriculture and transportation that millions of us can all come together in the same place.

What's the functional difference between the holographic sight and red dot? It's been bugging me for ages.

If you need to, sure. But the reality is that we have people who are payed to do that for us. Are you willing to make your own refrigerator? Your own car? Your own TV? Your own house? I'm certainly not, because I can pay someone with the adequate skills to do it for me and doing it myself would be impossible. Am I not deserving of these things? Of course I am, because I give people money for these things. This is how the economy works, and there's nothing wrong with that, whether it's to do with where we get our food or where we get anything else.

How does not wanting to kill what you eat make you a hypocrite? It's like saying you're a hypocrite if you get surgery but aren't willing to perform it yourself. On the topic of where food comes from, I'll eat anything if it tastes good (and wont kill me), regardless of where it comes from.

is the goal of evolution not to make the species in question best suited to it's environment? Not at all. Evolution's goal is to evolve. Change without reason. Completely illogical and unreasonable - almost religious. Which is why I totally understand some people's clutching to evolution as a sort of dogma. Although when they don't realize this, I am curious. You're not making any sense. The change isn't without reason - it's for the very reason that 321Ownage described. Natural selection favours traits that suit an organism to its environment. It's perfectly logical that this would be the case, and I don't see how dogma or religion comes into it. On the whole, though, there is no real direction to evolution. Bacteria are just as successful at surviving in their niche as we are in ours. On the issue of ape rights, I'm in favour of it. A lot of research shows that they're like us in a lot of ways, so being cruel to them is like being cruel to another person.

And this isn't from the video series but it's the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I3f4OpT3_w The video is extremely cheesy but it proves the point still. Evolution has been proven wrong, by this flagellum motor, because if you remove one part of this motor, it would cease to work, and all these parts have no other function without the other pieces. This couldn't have happened without someone kind of forethought. It doesn't prove Christianity, but it does prove intelligent design, so don't try and tell me I'm unintelligent for believing what I do. If you remove part of the flagellum, it doesn't work as a flagellum, but it's parts work as other things. For example, the membrane-spanning section of the bacterial flagellum is homologous to the type-III secratory system, which is basically a molecular syringe for injecting toxins into a host cell. The major failure of irreducible complexity is that it assumes that every biochemical system was designed to have one function and it's parts can't have other functions. We already know that this isn't the case for the flagellum, the blood clotting cascade and other systems. Essentially, any argument of irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance and all research has confirmed what we'd expect if evolution by natural selection is true. The complexity we see in living systems is, it would seem, reducible. I recommend watching this video (it's a bit long, but it's well worth it): There's no such thing as "de-evolution". As long as there's genetic change in a population, it's evolution. I suspect there won't be much if we continue caring for people with all kinds of genetic diseases, but there may be some in third world countries where you either adapt to diseases or die. A well documented example is the increased rate of the sickle-cell allele in populations where malaria is common. The allele prevents the malaria parasite from invading the red blood cells, stopping its life cycle. Sickle-cell anemia is milder than malaria, hence why it's favoured by natural selection. It just goes to show that even negative traits can be beneficial in the right context.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx It's not that surprising that a significant number of people don't know where bacon comes from. A lot of people don't know that the earth revolves around the sun, either.

I'm guessing IW is Infinity Ward? My best time is only about 33 seconds. Meh, enough for 3 stars I guess. On an unrelated note, does anyone want to do some 2-player spec ops? My PSN is undertow099 if anyone is interested.

And you're surprised by this? Bipartisanship is dead here too. I don't even know if it was alive in the first place. The party in opposition will alway oppose the ruling party's actions and make them seem unreasonable, no matter how stupid it is to do so. It's just the nature of politics.

Started playing multiplayer yesterday. I sucked really badly at first, but in recent games I've had a K/D of about 1. Still getting used to it, but it's really fun.

He really seems to be a serial pest on issues like this. The law is rediculous. What's it going to do? Kids can't legally hire R18+ vids without ID anyway. All it will do is piss off responsible adults that want to watch films intended for them.

So true. If all people had was that video to go on, you could still argue (albeit without any evidence) that 99.99% of americans are geniuses.

I got a PS3 and Modern Warfare 2 the other day. I haven't set up my internet connection on the PS3 yet, so I haven't played multiplayer, but the campaign and spec ops are awesome. I've beaten campaign on recruit and I'm half way through on hardened and have about 30 stars in spec ops.

Strangely, that makes me think of Winston Churchill lol. To all the people saying American is not a race, a race is nothing more then a social construct in modern understanding, it does not require common genetics or ethnicity, and as there IS a certain type of culture [although I'm not too sure what it is] about Americans it supports them being a race. Race is based on genetic characteristics like skin colour, and has always been defined in that way. There is no such thing as this "modern understanding" you're talking about.

No, it's not racism. American isn't a race. Having said that, generalising Americans for being fat/stupid/whatever isn't that smart, especially when it's based on anecdotal evidence.

You think people will stop discriminating against gays once gay marriage is legal? If anything, it will just piss off conservatives more and lead to more discrimination.

Gay marriage? Fine by me.