-
Posts
3456 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by hpslugga
-
-
Hate to rain on the insane parade of the "numbers are supernatural," but that's complete and utter horseshit that is so horribly ludicrous that it carries with it the stench of Kent Hovind.
Mathematics can exist without numbers, but it cannot be expressed by intelligent creatures without numbers. The actual names of the numbers themselves are merely cultural/linguistic expressions, but they're representative of tangible quantities that exist in the natural realm. Yeah, it's true that when I count "twelve" eggs in a box, a Spanish-speaking person calls that "doce huevos," but it's the same expression nonetheless, and again, it's representative of tangible quantities. Just because there isn't a literal, physical, natural "number 11" that we can see does not mean that it's a supernatural concept. That's a tremendous leap in logic that veers off from sanity entirely. It's the same reason that colors aren't supernatural either.
"Hey, I've got 5 oranges in this bag"
"You can't prove that! 5 is supernatural!"
Seriously? I mean if you can turn numbers supernatural, then there's nothing to stop you from labeling anything as supernatural.
Look at it this way: suppose there are two guys walking around and they see 12 rocks. One of them says "hey, there are 11 rocks." The other one says "no, there are 12 rocks." Guy A is wrong. He's not expressing a deeply held religious conviction, he's not expressing an opinion; he's expressing a misstatement of fact because he didn't count one of the rocks. Well if he's factually wrong about it, then that means there's a factually right answer, and if there's a factually right answer, that means it can be demonstrated. If it can be demonstrated, it by definition cannot be supernatural.
And none of that changes the fact that every intelligent human can identify 5 oranges or 12 eggs, nor does it change the fact that no intelligent human can physically see a magical, anthropomorphic immortal living on a different plane of existence that not only knows everything, but has a personal opinion about everything that occurs on planet Earth, and gets super angry when humankind (aka his so-called greatest "creation") veers from his likes/tends towards his dislikes.
The material difference between they who choose faith (which is the most dishonest root for a position that there is to take) and they who choose reason is that they who choose reason understand that they are not born to believe in a supernatural deity. The default position is known as the null set; not the mega-dishonest logical fallacy commonly referred to as "God of the Gaps." In other words, if you cannot give me a reason to believe you, I have no reason to believe you. Or to phrase it in the terms of Hitchens' Razor:
Positive claims require positive evidence
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:Trump claims to be an isolationist who wants out of NATO. Yet he wholeheartedly supports giving billions to Israel and is moving the embassy to Jerusalem to inflame the Middle East.
Sort of inconsistent there.
Claiming to be an “isolationist” implies the possession of an ideology. Trump has none.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 hour ago, Orca of Peace said:Israel has killed 2 medics, one a girl shot in the back, 2-4 well tagged journalists and lots of innocent unarmed protestors - 2 guys in wheelchairs shot in the head. They have killed about 150 protestors on the Gaza border this year alone. Not to mention the weekly killings of West Bank protestors, home demolitions, settler burning crops, vandalizing cars, smashing home windows etc. etc. For 50 years. It's understandable why the Palestinians are pissed off at the daily dehumanization.
MANY SIDES!!!
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
11 minutes ago, maninblack said:Dead for climbing a fence
The commentary in that pile of horseshit is absolutely horrifying.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, maninblack said:
Need Sessions to die
Among others
-
Wouldn’t you know who won the fucking pony?
-
Should be a wrap. No way Isner breaks him here
-
Just now, AbeFroman said:
What is that 4 straight times on Isner's serve he goes down 0-30 and comes back to win the game.
Yep, and then Anderson comes to serve and dispatches him in less than 2 minutes. It's almost like Isner is just hoping Anderson fucks up on his serve.
-
1 minute ago, HoustonFrog said:
Although it seems like Isner has no shot at the moment. He is on last breaths
At this point, "fumes" would be an improvement. I have no idea how he's keeping his serve.
-
I mean expansion is possible and the way it's laid out just means those are the sites for the semis. Works well for either arrangement.
-
Nope. Just that they're in the rotation.
-
50 minutes ago, Helobious said:
The first guy said he was the worst “by every metric imaginable”, which simply isn’t true if you’re going off who won the most games. The correct thing to say would’ve been “by almost any metric”, or “by every meaningful metric”. Hyperbole has no home on this site.
Again, number of wins isn't really a metric because it has limited historic parallels and it doesn't tell the whole story (percentage is way more important). Fielding Yost, for example, won 198 games, and it was out of 245 which gave him a winning percentage over 80. All of that is impressive, especially considering that it took him 29 seasons to do it, which translates to 7 wins a year. Find a coach that can last a single school for 25 years winning just 7 games per season in the present era.
When you consider that some guys coached as few as 5 games in a season and Charlie was coaching fucking 12, getting 16 wins means precious little when your winning percentage is fucking .433, and it means even less when almost every pre-WW2 UT HC coached only for one year regardless of how good that one year was. What you're suggesting is analogous to "well this guy was the greatest QB in football history because he has the most passing attempts." The fact that he won 16 games elevates him over absolutely no one. You show me a person who thinks that Strong was better than Frank Crawford and I'll show you a professional bullshit artist.
That's not hyperbole at all.
-
11 hours ago, Helobious said:
Factually incorrect. He had more career wins than several previous coaches.
Yeah, 11 of them only coached for one season because that's how shit was done back then. You coached a year, then you left. Hell, Frank Crawford never lost a game at Texas, and he left too. He coached 6 football seasons...at 5 universities. Of the 16 coaches who have fewer wins to their name than one Charles Strong, 9 of them didn't even coach 10 games and none of the 7 who did got to 30 (Strong coached in 37 games). And btw, all 16 of those coaches, including the terrible Jack Chevigny, had better winning percentages than Strong did, as did every other coach beyond what I just went over. Charlie Strong's .433 winning percentage is the worst in Texas history, which renders your charge of "factually incorrect" to be factually incorrect. He most certainly was Texas' worst coach ever. Worst winning percentage, never had a .500+ season, never won a bowl game. Or to put the ball in your court:
if Charlie Strong wasn't the worst HC ever, then who the fuck was?
-
7 hours ago, icecait said:
Pretty sure I win any morality argument by default.
Dunning Kruger
-
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
You ever had one to begin with. The court is going to be conservative leaving for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps you didn’t read correctly the first time:
I rest my case
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
Wasaaaaah waaaaaaah
sucks to be you Sally
I rest my case
-
8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
I'll take a conservative bench over a progressive bench all day.
That's what your troll mentality demands.
-
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
No I got it right, for the nation for sure. For you maybe not so much.
In your own tiny mind
-
12 hours ago, Huckleberry said:
"I have no idea what happened but it was definitely good! And now more good things are bound to happen! You guys don't understand how things work."
Seriously, of all people (or whatever) on this planet to bestow the benefit of the doubt...fucking Trump? Really?!
-
7 hours ago, Buzzrock said:
You believe science is all you’ll ever need and that it’s all going to be good. That’s faith bro. It’s ok.
Pot calling the silverware black.
-
18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
What I really mean is would not engaging in the malfeasances have inhibited establishment of the culture/civilization to the point of failure.
I’m sincerely not trying to be a dick, but perhaps you could list what, in your view, constitutes these “advancements” of cultures and civilizations. And again it’s not to be tedious, but the reality is you’ve presented a vague topic and I cannot answer your question without knowing precisely what you mean in order to analyze the cost/benefit element, which is really what you’re posing here. Once you’ve demonstrated what you mean, it’s easy to identify the “malfeasances” and to estimate their severity in terms of their impact on world culture. Interesting topic.
-
12 hours ago, Anastasis said:
Neggers are the worst. Especially passive neggers.
...the clue was “people who annoy you.”
-
2
-
-
BABA BOOEY
-
Robin Quivers’ green juice
Growing rejection of religious traditions by religious adherents
in Cloak Room
Posted · Edited by hpslugga
That this is so difficult for some to comprehend is...incomprehensible.
Seriously, a car isn’t natural either. That doesn’t make it supernatural.