Jump to content

Dicecaster

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    108

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dicecaster

    Corrupt a Wish(game)

    in Forum Games

    Posted

    Granted, but it only runs at about 5 mph (but, that's what you get for a car that runs on air).

     

    I wish for a gigantic slice of chocolate pie (small enough, however, that I cannot be crushed by its weight).

    Corrupt a Wish(game)

    in Forum Games

    Posted

    Wish granted- now you can only speak a dead language and everyone around you look at you with confusion, also you forget how to speak english, no matter how hard you try to learn it yourself you can't seem to grasp it.

     

    I wish for a bigger book shelf so i could have more room for my massive games collection.

    Granted.

     

    http://ericlightborn.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/library_of_congress_3-sized1.jpg

     

    However, you find some difficulty fitting it into your house.

     

    I wish I knew what a double post was.

    Corrupt a Wish(game)

    in Forum Games

    Posted

    Granted, but you're the village idiot who ends up poisoning himself with his own arrows (which we knew shouldn't have been given to you in the first place).

     

    I wish I knew what Chuck Norris thought about everyone basically calling him a super-being.

     

    Btw: Nice touch spelling Na'vi correctly.

    Corrupt a Wish(game)

    in Forum Games

    Posted · Edited by Dicecaster

    Granted.

     

    http://images.inquirer.net/media/sports/articles/images/pic-06170334110745.jpg

     

    The aliens (sorry, foreigners) are angry at you for disturbing their poker game.

     

    I wish the world to be flat.

    Networking Error

    in PC Gaming

    Posted

    @Fonger

    I'm sorry for not replying earlier: I tried what you said, and each computer can now access the other's public folders, users, and (supposedly) their printers. However, the rest of the computer's files are still off limits.

     

    @evilneko

    To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. The problem is, when I make a local game on one computer, the other sees it, but can't join to it. I made the assumption that that had something to do with a problem with file sharing. And, if that's not the case, I'd still like to fix the sharing problem anyway.

    Corrupt a Wish(game)

    in Forum Games

    Posted

    Granted. This is your father:

     

    http://www.your-lifestyleonline.com/images/how-to11.jpg

     

    And this is your house:

     

    http://www.pugslope.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/mr-miyagi.jpg

     

    I wish I had a supercomputer with a 500 pedabyte hard drive.

    Corrupt a Wish(game)

    in Forum Games

    Posted · Edited by Dicecaster

    Granted, but you have to eat this to get it:

     

    http://www.instructables.com/image/FG1CCQQFI36FRJM/quot1UP-Mushroomquot-Mushroom-Burger.jpg

     

    I wish I had a prehensile tail.

    What is EVIL?

    in Debates

    Posted

    1. Dude, he's not "condemning" anybody. He gave no indication that he wasn't going to accept anybody else's opinion. If you're going to debate, don't distort what we're saying.

    No? He deems not adhering to a certain ideal "evil". Tell me how that would not condemn those who don't adhere to this ideal.

    Furthermore I am not at all attempting to distort what anyone is saying.

     

    I apologize, what I said was unwarranted. What I mean to say is that if someone posts in a debate thread, they state their current idea/theory/etc., but are open to its discussion, therefore meaning he is not necessarily condemning of everyone else's ideas.

     

    2. Line 6: "Obviously the concept of evil is just a human invention. Ever seen anything in nature that could be defined as 'evil'?" I don't understand your argument. Unless I'm mistaken, you are saying that evil is a human invention because we haven't seen anything in nature that could be classified as evil. This seems to be a very strong case of circular reasoning.

    Is it? Fair enough. Lets say nature is everything around us except for ourselves and whatever we have created.

    If there is no evidence of anything in nature that could be defined as "evil", then where else but humanity could "evil" come from then?

     

    I would agree, but humanity is a part of nature, so you can't really say that.

     

    I believe that there are moral laws of nature in place, just like the laws of physics. Simply put, if these laws are obeyed, life gets better, otherwise, life gets worse. I believe this works on a personal and corporate level. I also believe that any society (past or present) or non-fictional story can easily justify this claim.

    Laws of physics, like all laws of nature, cannot be bended, circumvented, broken or plainly ignored (well except maybe in a singularity). If there would indeed be "moral laws of nature", then those would need to be obeyed at all times as well. If that's true then every single person would have no choice but to obey those "moral laws". Extremely unlikely. Life would only be able to get better. (which is obviously not the case)

     

    Okay, not just like the laws of physics, that was a poor representation. They are natural laws in that they are . . . omni-true (if you understand my meaning).

     

    I'm also rather curious as to what those laws would be then. Could you provide evidence or an example of those laws being in place?

    Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

     

    Being natural laws, they are scientifically discover-able. That's what judges used to do, they were scientists that found and applied these natural laws. Mr. Richard J. Maybury has done research on the subject, and two Fundamental Laws were found before natural law scientists disappeared. Essentially:

     

    1. Do all you have agreed to do, and

    2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

    Aliens

    in Debates

    Posted

    I actually meant to direct the reply to dicecaster. Sorry about that.

    But I totally do agree with your statement that we may become a threat to aliens should we somehow develop a means of interstellar travel.

    I suppose that's true. Fair enough, you win this one.

     

    Another thing: many posters are assuming that a given extraterrestrial people would have most or all of their political problems and such solved, but that's not necessarily the case. We, for example, could develop spaceships and tell all their pilots, "If you meet any space aliens, shoot to kill is always the best policy." What makes alien life different?

    What are the chances of humanity developing inter stellar space travel anytime soon? I find it more likely humanity will blow itself up before that point. If we don't blow ourselves up, then we will probably be quite peaceful by the time we get to that point.

    100 years ago: "If we humans don't kill ourselves by the tie a man walks on the moon, we're bound to be very peaceful at that point." See my point?

    Corrupt a Wish(game)

    in Forum Games

    Posted · Edited by Dicecaster

    Granted, but they're grotesquely fat ever since McDonald's was born.

     

    I wish the Burger King and the McDonald's guy launch mutual assaults on each other.

     

    EDIT

     

    Like this, but with Burger King:

    http://www.failepicfail.com/epic-fail/1106/-epic-fail-1308020135.jpg

    Aliens

    in Debates

    Posted

    I actually meant to direct the reply to dicecaster. Sorry about that.

    But I totally do agree with your statement that we may become a threat to aliens should we somehow develop a means of interstellar travel.

    I suppose that's true. Fair enough, you win this one.

     

    Another thing: many posters are assuming that a given extraterrestrial people would have most or all of their political problems and such solved, but that's not necessarily the case. We, for example, could develop spaceships and tell all their pilots, "If you meet any space aliens, shoot to kill is always the best policy." What makes alien life different?

    Love

    in Debates

    Posted

    Gee, even reading "Theory and Practice in Experimental Bacteriology" was more romantic than this topic.

     

    If I recall, the point was not to make this about science. Were science, logic, and reason the basis of love, love would not have it's unbelievable effects. Mental signals mean nothing, they can be totally ignored. Pain, heat, cold, pressure, drug addiction, emotion... these are all among the most powerful influences there can be on the mind. Yet each and every one can be completely blocked out. I know from experience four of those can.

     

    Love, however, regardless of effort, does not seem resistible. The most powerful chemicals and influence of the brain can be ignored even if they flood you. Yet love is nearly impossible to ignore. Every one of the previous things I've mentioned has been completely overcome with relative easy by many. How, then, could love be almost impossible to ignore?

    I never said that love was impossible to ignore, I don't know where you pulled that from (unless you're talking to one of marharth's posts, which I missed). Now, everything in all existence has a cause. This keyboard doesn't type unless some force acts upon it, my fingers in this case. Love is not exempt from this classification. If something has a cause, it can be explained by science, because that's part of what science is. In fact, short sidetrack: science isn't test tubes and electron microscopes, it's figuring out how the world works by observation. If a kid climbs on top of his house and throws a chair off it, and concludes that chairs fall, that's science (not necessarily GOOD science, but science nonetheless). So, there is some way to explain love by science. I don't have a clue what that might be, but it is or will someday be possible. And, finally, there's no reason why love cannot have its unbelievable effects without science, logic, and reason. That is, put rather bluntly, a senseless idea.

    What is EVIL?

    in Debates

    Posted

    Negative implies that it detracts from natural flow, or in other words, it damages or destroys. A willful act means you KNOW full well what you are doing, and do it anyway. So doing something that destroys or damages in any way, great or small, with the direct intention of malice or hatred, especially with regards to the design, is evil.

     

    The design is basically a setup according to a Lorenz Attractor. A series of cascades of chain reactions that cause individual ripples that magnify in effect due to intricacies of physics along the multi-planear formation of entirety, or as stated, existence. Existence being the summation of this universe and all other possible things. I could explain the phylogeny of this, but that would be of little use, as I'd be blasting you with hours of reading, diagrams, and theorems.

     

    Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

    Alright, so is it okay to destroy, damage, or detract from something if you are not doing it out of malice or hatred? For one example, suppose a lion is charging at you with the full intent to kill you; you would have left it alone, but it's not evil to kill it to save your own skin, no malice intended, correct? However, as another example, suppose you are a hit man, you illegally kill people for money; to you it's just a job, no hatred whatsoever, but you're still killing innocent people.

    What is EVIL?

    in Debates

    Posted

    Negative implies that it detracts from natural flow, or in other words, it damages or destroys. A willful act means you KNOW full well what you are doing, and do it anyway. So doing something that destroys or damages in any way, great or small, with the direct intention of malice or hatred, especially with regards to the design, is evil.

     

    The design is basically a setup according to a Lorenz Attractor. A series of cascades of chain reactions that cause individual ripples that magnify in effect due to intricacies of physics along the multi-planear formation of entirety, or as stated, existence. Existence being the summation of this universe and all other possible things. I could explain the phylogeny of this, but that would be of little use, as I'd be blasting you with hours of reading, diagrams, and theorems.

     

    Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

    Alright, so is it okay to destroy, damage, or detract from something if you are not doing it out of malice or hatred? For one example, suppose a lion is charging at you with the full intent to kill you; you would have left it alone, but it's not evil to kill it to save your own skin, no malice intended, correct? However, as another example, suppose you are a hit man, you illegally kill people for money; to you it's just a job, no hatred whatsoever, but you're still killing innocent people.

    What is EVIL?

    in Debates

    Posted

    @Kuraikiba

    Any negative effect?

     

    1. What design?

    2. If I step on somebody's toe while I'm moving through a subway train, that is negative, but is it evil (even to a small extent)?

     

    @BlackRampage

     

    1. Dude, he's not "condemning" anybody. He gave no indication that he wasn't going to accept anybody else's opinion. If you're going to debate, don't distort what we're saying.

    2. Line 6: "Obviously the concept of evil is just a human invention. Ever seen anything in nature that could be defined as 'evil'?" I don't understand your argument. Unless I'm mistaken, you are saying that evil is a human invention because we haven't seen anything in nature that could be classified as evil. This seems to be a very strong case of circular reasoning.

     

    I believe that there are moral laws of nature in place, just like the laws of physics. Simply put, if these laws are obeyed, life gets better, otherwise, life gets worse. I believe this works on a personal and corporate level. I also believe that any society (past or present) or non-fictional story can easily justify this claim.

×
×
  • Create New...