dannym3141
Member Profile
Member Since: 2009-03-12
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Comments
Subscribe
Videos Submitted by dannym3141Navigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (0)
- sifted videos (2)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- poll/siftquisition posts
- discarded posts
- killed videos
- dead/deadpool videos (1)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
- group playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 946
Rating:
15 star points
Votes Received: 61
Average Votes Per Video: 30.50
Votes Cast: 223
Comments Posted: 1134 • browse
Comments Applauded: 17
Sifted Videos: 2
Sift Talk Posts: 2
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 2
Dead Pool Fixes: 11
Profile Views: 2844
Rating:
15 star pointsVotes Received: 61
Average Votes Per Video: 30.50
Votes Cast: 223
Comments Posted: 1134 • browse
Comments Applauded: 17
Sifted Videos: 2
Sift Talk Posts: 2
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 2
Dead Pool Fixes: 11
Profile Views: 2844
Highest Ranked Comments
Member's Highest Rated Videos
and remind me never to engage you in an argument.
till next time..
namaste
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^mentality:
Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.
Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.
Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point
Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.
Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.
No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.
If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.
That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...
Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.
To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.
We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?
It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.
Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.
Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other
But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it
--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---
...
Don't get so worked up Danny- he repeatedly mentioned it is a WORST CASE scenario, i.e. very, very unlikely to happen- I agree he could have mentioned the odds or sth, but the fact that the sun has cycles and that things like this happened before seems rather interesting to me (and not really all that scary).
Grats on missing half of the joke.
Wasn't that Capt. Planet said about the original joke? Though here it may be more accurate as I refuse to read walls of text. I find reading them a poor choice economically (Usually very little information/Take more time to read than most comments/High probability of it just being a troll)
>> ^CaptainPlanet:
nice teeth brit face. i have a question... Go, to a dentist.
Hello there, i wonder if i can help you - i'm british, and it looks like you're having a little trouble with the meanings of words. Don't be embarassed, you're probably in the upper percentile of your nation for knowing that a word with 3 syllables exists....
"I'm angry at your stereotyping my culture! so...
(Stereotypes of your culture)
WALL OF TEXT
(Stereotypes of your culture/unrelated outrage towards the actions of your nation ... just for fun)
By the way I wouldn't piss of Capt. Planet too much, he has an army and acts like a bully apparently.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Too generous
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
http://videogames.videosift.com/talk/I-propose-a-video-hunt-a-k-a-danny-needs-help#comment-750156
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^CaptainPlanet:
nice teeth brit face. i have a question... Go, to a dentist.
Hello there, i wonder if i can help you - i'm british, and it looks like you're having a little trouble with the meanings of words. Don't be embarassed, you're probably in the upper percentile of your nation for knowing that a word with 3 syllables exists. Then attaching some emotional value to the word beyond the literal "it's a little bit like iron" is far beyond even toddler level!
Irony is a way of saying something that is intended to portray the opposite meaning to that which is stated! If we were watching David Mitchell's perfect teeth and everyone was, to a man, thinking "Wow, David Mitchell really doesn't need to go to the dentist!" This might then be an ironic statement.
Possibly the word you were looking for was sardonic. This word would apply to a scornful statement intended to heap derision upon the person it was aimed at.
For example if i were to call you a "burger eating, war mongering, archaic-theocratic bunch of fat inbred hillbillies with an army which has all the gear but no idea, and a penchant for making enemies of countries they're trying to liberate by acting like schoolyard bullies", then we might be referring to a sardonic comment.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^CaptainPlanet:
nice teeth brit face. i have a question... Go, to a dentist.
Hello there, i wonder if i can help you - i'm british, and it looks like you're having a little trouble with the meanings of words. Don't be embarassed, you're probably in the upper percentile of your nation for knowing that a word with 3 syllables exists. Then attaching some emotional value to the word beyond the literal "it's a little bit like iron" is far beyond even toddler level!
Irony is a way of saying something that is intended to portray the opposite meaning to that which is stated! If we were watching David Mitchell's perfect teeth and everyone was, to a man, thinking "Wow, David Mitchell really doesn't need to go to the dentist!" This might then be an ironic statement.
Possibly the word you were looking for was sardonic. This word would apply to a scornful statement intended to heap derision upon the person it was aimed at.
For example if i were to call you a "burger eating, war mongering, archaic-theocratic bunch of fat inbred hillbillies with an army which has all the gear but no idea, and a penchant for making enemies of countries they're trying to liberate by acting like schoolyard bullies", then we might be referring to a sardonic comment.
http://izismile.com/2009/04/17/people_who_look_exactly_the_same_in_all_pictures_5_gifs.html
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I'm really intrigued, but the page shows nothing for me.. taken down, any ideas? i even logged in
In reply to this comment by mauz15:
I can't stand them
http://rah.posterous.com/people-who-look-the-same-in-every-picture
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Totally reasonable question. I hate the aloofness and pomposity of the whole thing. Which regularly turns out to be a pretty flacid attempt at 'slamming' anything. I hate the term "slam poetry" too. There's something about that combination of words and what it refers to that makes me feel violent towards inanimate objects.
There's also something about the type of person that is drawn to write/perform "slam poetry" that turn my stomach. All of them i've seen so far remind me of the little skinny people that study philosophy and cultivate whispy little beards and put rediculous looking berets on their heads, and aim to talk over the heads of anyone that doesn't look, think and dress like they do.
People like darius daneche(sp) from the first series of pop idol (uk).
I'd rate it as one of the lowest forms of wit.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
What is it about slam poetry you dislike so much? I'm just curious.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Fuck slam poetry.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Fuck slam poetry.