Saru Inc

You shouldn't have told her, you should have worked it out yourself, imo.

STOP POSTING ITS 325AM AND I HAVE MY HISTORY FINAL AT 8AM. BUGGER OFF

u always gotta bring gay into the conversation

This post does not count for doing something awesome. I wrote half a chapter of my book the other day, after procrastinating for like... a fortnight or 20. Edit: For once someone's beaten me in today's top 20 posters, and it is Dupin. He beat me by like 7 posts.

You wouldn't be the first. LOL! Was definitely not implying that.... LOL! No homo. For real. Lmao.

NO ITS A STICK FIGURE But now that you said it, yes it is now the codeword for you. "Psst. Wanna go smoke some >>O?? " "[bleep] yh brohan"

Very very nice, awesome luck bro.

Dear God no. :ohnoes: Yea. So I found this metal artist, they're pretty cool. They invent about 4 genres per verse, so I like em a bit. They use human shoulder blades as guitar pics. So yea, I think they are cool. Their first album was called "Non-Con-Form-Ing" so its really deep, on their last song "To Enter is To Suffer" they compare over 35 different classical literature pieces to Einstein's theory of relatively all in only 18 minutes. And that's only during the solo. They have to get a new guitarist every time they play that song because the solo is so intense that it rubs their fingers down to nubs, thus their nickname is "Nubsters." They sold out though last month, they changed the lyric "and Satan is my valentine" to "I make my evil so sublime" And they sold like... 5 albums. So I'm done with them actually. I might go into Death Rap, a combination of Death Metal, GrindCoreHardPunkMetal and Smooth Jazz and rap. It's pretty cool.

Took my philosophy final today for Philosophy 101 Essay question: What basically was the epistemological position of the early modern period as represented by Descartes and Locke? How was this position critiqued first by Kant and later by post modernist thinkers? [hide=Essay I wrote for Extra Credit (Same Question)]Descartes and Locke were the proponents of the epistemological idea of epistemological objectivism, which stated that stated that there is a world outside of our mind, and we can know reality as it is. Kant argues this in that he states we can never know the world as it is, and he does this by dividing it into the two realities that are, the phenomenal and noumenal. Postmodernists extrapolate this by stating that unlike Descartes and Locke, who said we could know reality as it is, postmodern thinking states we cannot know reality in entirety, because we are part of it, and cannot objectively view it. Descartes and Locke, while they both varied a bit in their ideology both believed that both the world and the world as perceived by the mind were fundamentally real. Descartes stated this, due to his belief that a perfect being created the current reality that is, and since he is not perfect himself, he must trust the senses that this perfect being has given him, to interpret the world that the perfect being created. Locke agreed in the regards that there was a reality outside of his mind, but also duly noted not all objects are the same. He stated that there were primary qualities of this reality that were unwavering identity, such as mass, form, and motion. He also stated that there were secondary qualities, which only exist in mind, as our perceptions of them differ from person to person, such as color, sound, and taste. However, this brings an issue to the table if one tries to say Locke and Descartes believed the same theorem, because Descartes completely trusted his senses, while Locke was open to believe not all senses were the same to everyone sentient being, and thus the reality, while it still existed, was not the same reality to each person. It could be said, that when Locke is compared to Descartes, he would be defined as more radical than his counterpart. On the other hand, he wasn’t as radical as a philosopher who would come along at a later date, named Emmanuel Kant. He declared that while Descartes and Locke were mostly correct in their deductions that there was a reality both inside the mind, and outside of it. Kant stated that the all encompassing, both internal and external reality, was split into the noumenal, and the phenomenal. The noumenal reality is the external world, which we can’t really know, because it is merely a perception of our human mind, but it was still a valid reality at the same time. The phenomenal reality is a part of the external world as well, but it is involved with the internal realm of the mind in that the reason the phenomenal reality is real is because of how it is interpreted by the mind. So things that can be measured, such as space, time, cause and effect, are all part of the phenomenal reality, because while they are still perceived by the brain like anything else, they are much more concrete and unmoving. A bit later on, after the world wars, the world, or let’s say our external reality, was inundated with the idea of postmodernism. While the recent figures in epistemology previously said we could know the reality our brain perceived was real, the post modernists stated we could not know it is real at all. They state this because they say we would have to be outside of our reality, and be able to view it objectively, to be able to conclude that it is in fact real. And since we cannot separate ourselves from this reality, then we are unable to view it objectively and without its effects on us; thus we cannot define it as real. Epistemology has taken quite the progressive turn in the past few centuries, Descartes and Locke both stated that both the external and internal realities were deemed to be real, even if we can’t know the entirety of it. Kant debated those ideas, with the fact that if something is perceived, then we cannot be sure of it in its true form, and thus cannot use it to conclude the validity of reality. However, when you boil it down, he still believed, like Descartes and Locke, that the reality was still fundamentally real. Conversely, lately post modern thinkers have concluded in a much more scientific fashion, that as with science, we must be able to observe it from outside its effects to know of its validity. And since we cannot separate ourselves from this reality, we cannot state it is in fact real.[/hide] Not the best it could be, in fact it was kinda crappy. But the one I wrote was for extra credit, so the one I wrote in class was like 20 times better. He read it when I turned it in and said "spot on" So.... yay. Funny tidbit, first question of the test was: 1) List and understand the three criteria that must be met if you are to say that you know that you know something. I didn't know the answer. SO it could be said, I didn't know what I needed to know in order to know what it means to know something. :XD: We're allowed 3 omits a test, so I used one on that, and then one on some lame ass [cabbage] about the Teleological Argument for God and Panexperitmentalism. Forget that crap.

Or even worse, hipster metalheads. *Shudders*

If it makes you feel better, yours was the first signature I really recognized and liked. Actually, same here. I don't recognize your name or profile, Gabe, but I recognize your signature instantly. Everyone knows me, am I right? I recognize the avatar at least. I'm probably not too well-known around here despite being around for four years. :grin: Never knew my signature was popular :blink: It isn't. We all hate it. J/k <3 lol those are always fun @bonkers >>find place >>move out >>video tape yourself making out with guy >>mail tape to parents in christmas card seriously. what kind of mom says "thank god" after asking a kid about their sexual orientation? Umm. my mom. What happened? :(

That's exactly what happens [/sarcasm] Edit: Clearly you're the expert on religion now, so I'm going to defer all questions to you. No, I am seriously trying to understand. You seemed to say that you literally believe that the cracker and wine are Jesus's flesh and blood, and I was asking for clarification. Were you being sarcastic? E: And I'm not an expert on religion at all, getting that info is the closest I've ever come to reading the Bible. If you're looking for honest input, you need more than one answer. The Eucharist and transubstantiation are very highly debated topics in the church. I believe it's just symbolism, the cracker doesn't actually become flesh, nor does the grape juice actually become blood.

Ummm maybe not in my dreams. I am not interested in gaining sexual experiences with a poorly shaven porous semi sentient being. Who MAY OR MAY NOT BE MY BROTHER. This has west virginia written all over it. To be on topic: So why doesn't op just cut ivy?

Huge congrats, and epic rc!

WHATCHU TALKIN BOUT Y I OTTA

The [cabbage] under your eyes is a dairy allergy, I have the same thing. Well, actually I have Candidasis butstill, that's definitely at least partly from a dairy allergy. Edit: Army, me too. Well, I feel the need to steal, but I do it more as getting back at someone. So I don't see the point at stealing from stores, but I get into peoples [cabbage] that I hate and just stealing [cabbage] to [bleep] with em.

I was listening to it because I hadn't heard it before, when I know most good Smashing Pumpkins songs. I can't say I really liked it. They have a lot of better stuff. OT: Modest Mouse - Little Motel HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!! Also: That's a lame Modest Mouse song... I like world at large a lot. Eminem - Cold Wind Blows - Best song evar.

why must we fight over everything :| people just french kiss and make up pls Btw I'm on Obtaurian's side. Sorry Spongebob :| no can do.

Interpretations. However there is nothing to support such interpretations in the new testament. There is evidence from the old testament that can support these views. Unfortunately you are right we have had this conversation before, and you failed to provide evidence on where the Catholic Church got evidence to support their interpretation of the scripture. Taking it right back to step one which is my point that religion is often used as a tool for someone to enforce their personal view of the world. Well of course religion is used that way. Here's the issue: Is that a fault on religion's behalf, or humanity's?

He really should just learn to whip his hair back and forth. Also this rant has appeared a million times, I'm curious as to the upstart popularity of this thread itself.

Hah. Yikes. I went to a mexican place, forgot what I got, because I got my friend to get up and leave. We didn't eat, we didn't pay. There was a clump of snot on the side of her enchilada, and these weird taco things I got were sitting in a pile of taco grease. And we were nice to them too. :| Also: Is it just my area, or is it national, where Chinese restaurants have really.... unappetizing menu pictures. :XD:

I found this a while ago, read the stories on the side of it, some are hilarious. http://tipthepizzaguy.com/

Someone who's name will not be known, once said that the fact that God said in one chapter "And he was pleased with his works," and then in a different chapter "he was not pleased with his works." as proof that not only is the Bible full of contradictions, but God is a temperamental pouty little girl.

Actually, no. Tips are pretty much standard, maybe 40 years ago tips might have been a maybe. But Ihop people get paid less per hour, and it's legal. They NEED tips. I don't mean to sound so rude and .... well, rude but: don't be such a douche. :\ It's just two dollars more. That's it.

K, is there anything I can wear to keep my feet from fre fre fre fre freeezing? Last night I went out and I couldn't even feel them and I was only a mile out. Although around the 1.5 mile part all my body heat rushes into my body.