Nothing in this life is an absolute truth. Think about it very carefully before you respond.


Now for the rest of this.


Yeh you are! You're going to go on and explain how you know better for your life then the "higher power" you claim you believe in does :P

How do you communicate with said greater power? Or it with you?

Cool, same here. Thats why I went straight to the source. As I read, I learned the truth, and it was nothing like what I had been thought in Sunday school, or heard about from others. I can recommend a lot of good books, but this one changed my life.

Yes you are lead by faith, you are lead by faith in yourself, the paragraph preceding and following that statement says it rather plainly.

See? ;)



I don't claim to know a greater power exists, I only reason that IF the said power does exist, then IT MUST be responsible for those acts, as there is no other deductive and logical means to its existence. And I don't communicate with said power.

I tried reading the bible, and its a book filled with wonderful stories about the coming of age, and learning from ones mistakes. All with great intentions, but its not absolute, nothing is, especially the "book of god" compiled by ordinary men.

Faith in-oneself is a bit different than the type of faith I was refferring too, but you know that already ;) I follow my instincts. I do not deny that I haven't done everything in life on my own; however, nor will I state "that it was God's destiny for me" for thing to happen the way they did.

We all have phantom communities, built upon by our parents, grandparents, mentors, etc. They are the real voices of reason. We think about an action, or a choice and think "what would aunt jenny do?" Or "what would my parents think of me?" Those of you who have decided to read the bible and believe in it, and put YOUR faith in God, are not speaking to you per se, but rather you have incorporated that being into your phantom community.

Ok, lets see where this gets taken.

Nothing in this life is an absolute truth. Think about it very carefully before you respond.


Indeed. Thus I present you with a dilemma of Orwellian type (a la 1984):

I present to you a known absolute truth.


2 + 2 = 4


Does that not disprove that nothing in this life is an absolute truth?

Not quite. Only what you have been told about what "2" symbolizes can only be a representative establishment of itself and that "4" is infact a reproducable element of the inclusion of "2".

All that aside, mathmatics are quite far from the point I'm attempting to make.

I disagree.

It's all the point.

You will pull apart the symbols, but I say to you, I know full well you know what it represents, though your knowledge of representation is irrelevant, I call to attention the simple mathematical fact.

Two plus two will always be four.

This is an absolute truth. This argument must be first established one way or another before the rest of the debate can continue.

Yes, that is an absolute truth...I will never argue mathmatics, trust me, its not my strong suit :P

Although FWIW, 2 plus 2 in certain context could be 22. Just a note ;)

Indeed, but it would not be plus in our 'representation' being English, it would be "two AND two" :P But thats off topic :P

Anyway, I want to finish this, but I'ts 3:22AM here and I gotta be at work at 7AM X_X

You're an intelegent guy, later!

2+2= 10

1 2 3 10 11 12 13 20 21 22 23 30


2+2=1

2 raindrops + 2 raindrops = 1 big raindrop


2+2=0

photons + antiphotons = 0 photons.

Nothing in this life is an absolute truth. Think about it very carefully before you respond.

Hmm. I think I can help you out here, but first, tell me, do you have any children?

You're nitpicking the representation, not the truth of the fact 2+2=4.

I hope your kid doesnt answer questions on his quizzes like that.

(assuming male kid, so I write "he")

"So, mini-honegod, if you take two blocks and add it to your bucket, that already had two blocks in it, how many blocks do you have in the bucket?"

"Twenty-two, one big one, and zero"

Twenty years later, he's at a job writing code, and since he can't understand why it doesn't work at all, he drives home frustrated, hoping to transverse the four mile journey in zero miles, by going two miles then negative two miles to save gas.

This plan fails and he ends up on the other side of the country, and keeps driving till he sees he only has two gallons of gas left. So he goes to the gas station to completely fill up his 22 gallon tank by adding two gallons, then ignoring the low gas light on his way home.

Indeed!

coming from a post modern universalist, why is this statement not surprising?



too bad



the writers of scripture were ordinary men, with extraordinary inspiration, witnessing extraordinary events



there is a way that seems right to a man....but it ends in death



what is your evidence of these "spirits"?



uh....ya

no, I speak to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, who became flesh and died as the atoning work for my sin

without faith in Christ, no one can see God, because no one is righteous (or even close)

these "phantom communities" you speak of may well be demons, who masquerade as "angels of light" and take many forms


Wow, YZF, you are much more close minded than I ever gave you credit for.
Regarding Phantom Communities (in the subjective nature of violentization) Per PhD Tom Mahoney:
"Phantom Communities are a hidden source of emotion in man, when you "talk" to yourself, you consult your phantom community. Violent actors act violently, not because they are mentally ill, or come from violent subcultures or are brain damaged or have low self esteem or are under the control of demons, but because they have different phantom communiities than the rest of us. Phantom Communities provide moral support for self images and allow us to make decisions that would be acceptable in our own community.

So what I'm trying to show you YZF is that these are not REAL communities, they are percieved! They are your conscious and subconscious which help you choose between right or wrong, well not you, you have already given up the ability to think for yourself and decided to take everything you have read in the gospel, well...as gospel. But for the rest of us who still question the world at large and everything around us, in the search of knowledge, rely on what our instincts tell us in order to draw logical conclusions from the facts presented to us.


Oh, and I must ask, when was the last time Jesus Christ came to you and visited over a cup 'o joe to discuss your needs so that he could pass them on to the big man upstairs? Was he there yesterday? Because I'll tell you what, there wasn't a single starbucks open anywhere.

am I supposed to know who Tim Mahoney is? you can get some crackpot with a few letters after their name to say just about anything you want these days

Wow, there you go again, very eloquent response.


common liberal false rebuke/accusation

my decision to follow Christ is the result on many years of careful thought regarding spiritual truth

Don't you say below that the human reason doesn't go there? Way to be a hypocrite!


you CAN'T know anything about the spiritual dimension by "instinct" or human reason....human "reason" doesn't go there!

can you explain how and why the universe exists?

can you explain what happens after death?

no, you can't...you have FAITH...faith in whimsical human reason

and, in the end, you will be proven to be a fool

Wow, no kidding?! You mean I can't understand everything in the world and explain it!? Crap?! Whatever will I do with myself?!

Now, I ask you the same questions...EXPLAIN THOROUGHLY how the universe exists and "because God created it" is not a valid response.

Can you explain vividly what happens after death? No, you can't. You can only reason to the best of your knowledge from what you have read in the bible.

Just as I live a life of uncertainty, so do you. When you think about, and I mean really think about it, you will realize we have much more in common than you see.


oh, would you mind answering this question for me:

Oh, and I must ask, when was the last time Jesus Christ came to you and visited over a cup 'o joe to discuss your needs so that he could pass them on to the big man upstairs? Was he there yesterday? Because I'll tell you what, there wasn't a single starbucks open anywhere.

Nothing in this life is an absolute truth.

Anyone see anything wrong with this statement?

"Phantom Communities are a hidden source of emotion in man, when you "talk" to yourself, you consult your phantom community. Violent actors act violently, not because they are mentally ill, or come from violent subcultures or are brain damaged or have low self esteem or are under the control of demons, but because they have different phantom communiities than the rest of us. Phantom Communities provide moral support for self images and allow us to make decisions that would be acceptable in our own community."

I’m not familiar with this guy’s work but from reading the quote above I can see that he’s pretty short sighted. Claiming that people act differently because of different “phantom communities” and not because of other factors is pretty flimsy. What makes one’s phantom community different from another’s? The very same factors that he claims have no influence.

Anyone see anything wrong with this statement?

On the contrary, I think it's hilarious, tho, on the level that it is believed, sad.

Wrong. People make choices. People weigh their options then make a decision. People do not 'snap'. The significant experiences which make people dangerous, violent crimnals do not occur all at once, but occur gradually over time. Perople are what they are as a result of the social experiences they have undergone in their lives. Dr. Lonnie Athens (look it up) explained quantitative research V. Qualitative research "Violent acts are not explosions...They are decisions"

Even St. Augustine-17 centuries ago wrote about the subject "The Confessions"
Sin/Crime is a 5 step process
1. The mind conceives an action (Fantasy)
2. Which is then referred to the senses
3. Individual then considers the possible consequences
4. Then decides to commit the sin (crime)
5. Rationalizes the sin (crime).

Few things are as they seems, and few things are as simple as you lead yourself to believe.

I was going to say nothing, but we don't want to start the math arguement again.

As for absolute truth goes. What are things that you hold to be absolute truths in your lives?

Hey, you left it open when you said "NOTHING is absolute truth"

Though, math does cover that there was a truth that is true, whether or not you perceive it.

Shared perceptions is another level of understanding. Your average person can look at the problem 2+2=? and answer it correctly. For there to be one "correct" answer, no matter who is answering the question, there must be an absalute, such as the known truth.


So, your prhase (your theory?) must at least be modified and become "Some things are not universal truths"

This phrase has now become wishy-washy and meaningless in that slight change, much like most universalism/unitarianism/etc

Wrong. People make choices. People weigh their options then make a decision. People do not 'snap'. The significant experiences which make people dangerous, violent crimnals do not occur all at once, but occur gradually over time. Perople are what they are as a result of the social experiences they have undergone in their lives. Dr. Lonnie Athens (look it up) explained quantitative research V. Qualitative research "Violent acts are not explosions...They are decisions"

This seems to contradict the quote you posted earlier. Though it is more in-line with how I see things, you've overlooked the role genetics plays.

Just out of curiosity, who is it that you were responding to?

Oh, and saying "nothing in this life is an absolute truth" is an absolute, thus the inherit silliness of your statement.

why not skip all that stuff and go to the Source?

James 1

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

and yet, at the same time, the guy that posted this scripture still thinks that others are "90% at fault" for his own sins.....wow, how strangely...hypocritical....:bigthumb:

I hope your kid doesnt answer questions on his quizzes like that.

(assuming male kid, so I write "he")

"So, mini-honegod, if you take two blocks and add it to your bucket, that already had two blocks in it, how many blocks do you have in the bucket?"



50/50 chance, She is learning to ASK "two of WHAT ?" the answer of which provides Her with the needed CONTEXT to be able to answer the question.

which is obviously NOT an absolute since the correct answer DOES rely on information not included in the question "2+2=?"


so 2 BLOCKS + 2 blocks = 4 BLOCKS in the bucket.

she might point out that since the first two blocks were HER blocks, and the second two are TIMMEYS blocks there are actually 2+2 blocks in the bucket.

which would be another right answer, since 2+2=2+2 .

This seems to contradict the quote you posted earlier. Though it is more in-line with how I see things, you've overlooked the role genetics plays.

Just out of curiosity, who is it that you were responding to?


Genetics plays no role in how a person acts; rather it is based on their morality. There are 3 levels of reasoning with this morality; Preconventional-A desire to avoid punishment and a belief in superior power of authorities.
Conventional-believe in and have adopted the values/rules of society and seek to uphold these rules.
Post Conventional-examines customs/social rules according to their own sense of universal human rights, moral principles, and duties.

Most everyone here reasons at the post conventional level, although most deviant individuals (unable to conform to the rules of society) reason at the pre conventional level.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) argued there could be no real knowledge of social phenomena unles it is based on the scientific method; that human behavior is a function of external forces beyond individual control.

People go through stages in their life in which they are subjugated to different external forces. These external forces shape the persons views and become intrinsic that person.

Perfect example is God, an external force initially to many of you, but as time has gone by, you have adopted the views set forth in the bible and have made them intrisnic motivations for how you live your life.

I agree with this statement; however, there is little question certain races have certain predispositions

I wouldn't say certain races have certain predispositions because it isn't true, but rather certain people within certain races have certain predispositions because of the way they perceive the world around them.

Genetics plays no role in how a person acts

Nonsense. Why are those who have a family history of mental illness statistically more likely to suffer from mental afflictions than those without? Chemical imbalances are not subject to one’s environment.

rather it is based on their morality.

And where does morality come from?

There are 3 levels of reasoning with this morality; Preconventional-A desire to avoid punishment and a belief in superior power of authorities.
Conventional-believe in and have adopted the values/rules of society and seek to uphold these rules.
Post Conventional-examines customs/social rules according to their own sense of universal human rights, moral principles, and duties.

Did you get this from a sociology textbook? Simply because a piece of work has been published does not mean that it's indisputable.

nonsense
look at what is happening in China and India right now: many of those people have never heard the gospel....and yet they are responding to the truth by the millions
I'm sorry, but what "truth" is that you are speaking of, I'm confused.

philosophy boils down to mental gymnastics, which may be satisfyting to the self professing "intellectual" but has has little bearing on anything....while such people pontificate endlessly, God and His Word march on


That doesn't really get us anywhere though now does it? You can say that God and his word march on, but does it fall upon deaf ears?

Nonsense. Why are those who have a family history of mental illness statistically more likely to suffer from mental afflictions than those without? Chemical imbalances are not subject to one’s environment.

If you want to speak about chemical imbalance, you are no longer utilizing an individual capable of making their own decisions and caring for themselves. We are then no longer comparing apples to apples as they are unable to be part of the mainstream community.


And where does morality come from?

I already explained this before, backread.


Did you get this from a sociology textbook? Simply because a piece of work has been published does not mean that it's indisputable.

No it is based off the ideals and principles of Freud, it is interrelated to his works on Id, Ego, and SuperEgo

It is all part of a psychoanalytical theory of socialization.

If you want to speak about chemical imbalance, you are no longer utilizing an individual capable of making their own decisions and caring for themselves. We are then no longer comparing apples to apples as they are unable to be part of the mainstream community.


Huh? Then who is making these decisions for them? Depression is the result of a chemical imbalance. Clearly this influences one's ability to make decisions but the decision is still one's to make. Everything is chemical.

it is true....look at crime stats in the U.S. sometime


the problem with crime stats is that it only takes into account the crimes that are reported. And as I will be the first to admit that black have a higher crime rate than whites, and unproportionally so.

Delinquent subcultures flourish in lower class areas and take the forms they do because just as opportunites are unequally distributed in conventional society, they are unequal in the criminal world. The type of subculture or gang that flourishes depends on the type of neighborhood in which they develop.

Take this scenario. You have young inner city black youth, comes from a poor family, the family is disinfranchised, and communication is near zero.
This individual experience social strain, and when faced with going hungry, or making easy money by resorting to crime and ulitmately violence, he does so because he had to make that choice.

If he grew up in a family that was well off, had a strong family background, when faced with the choice of crime, he would have little no reason to choose that lifestyle.

So rational choice is interrelated with social control (area of ones living).

But biological determinism, as presented by Ark does have something to offer sociologically in terms of someone with low I.Q. or mental disability.

how would you like to grow up with HONEGOD as your dad??


heh, we watched NORAD tracking Santa around the world, and when the kids saw him heading for Indianapolis they both decided it was time to go to bed, RIGHT NOW.

with no urging whatsoever from the grupps.

both kids now know about NORAD and the soviet bomber threat from when I was a kid.

of course we all would MUCH rather have ol marky as a dad....one funny thing about being that much of a hypocrite--it might make for an entertaining stint on an internet forum, but it would suck ass in parenting. The concept of leading by example never meant so much as it does with being a parent. But marky wouldnt know anything about that, thank the good Lord for it, so he just hurls insults without having the slightest clue himself. What a real man....we all wanna be just like you marky.

several good points made here

but the real world evidence indicates blacks tend toward violence more than whites, regardless of their social status, as a general rule

some would say that makes me a "racist", but it doesn't....racism, by my definition, is considering any particular race inferior to your own, which I do not; however, certain races have certain abilities and tendencies

blacks tend to me more athletic; asians tend to be refiners/tinkerers (not inventors); Jews and Germans are great inventors

it all goes right back to Biblical beliefs: traits passed down from the family of Noah later defined people groups...certain people groups after Babel settled in different parts of the world and adapted to that environment, so in that sense (adaptation) "evolution" is a correct and scientific term

but ultimately we're all one blood...we're all the descendents of a middle eastern Family


I will agree with you in the fact that everyone is related...scientific evidence suggests that the worlds populus indeed lived in what is today central asia/the middle east and as the world changed and ice ages came and went, we spread, and adapted...
Thats how the blacks became black, as generations passed the pigments in their skin darkened to protect them from the sun as they lived primarily in the african and australian outbacks, also living in such a harsh environment created the necessity that they be in great physical shape.
I have examples for all the "races" but its 1 am and I need some sleep, lol.

With that said, the bible does have similiraties in where we came from, in which we can draw ties to science. Many say that science and religion are incompatible, I disagree, rather than use each to fight the other, why not use each to support the other?

blacks tend to me more athletic

Check out the blacks in the rest of the world, it's a different story.

Our "American Blacks" that came down a long line of slaves are the product of Eugenics. They were specifically chosen and mated for specific traits (traits that were proffered by the breeders: Strong, wide hips on the woman, etc).

Traits that were not considered, were things such intelligence, witch was actually LOOKED DOWN ON by the slave owners/breeders.

No it is based off the ideals and principles of Freud, it is interrelated to his works on Id, Ego, and SuperEgo

It is all part of a psychoanalytical theory of socialization.

Is this your gospel?

Check out the blacks in the rest of the world, it's a different story.

Our "American Blacks" that came down a long line of slaves are the product of Eugenics. They were specifically chosen and mated for specific traits (traits that were proffered by the breeders: Strong, wide hips on the woman, etc).

Traits that were not considered, were things such intelligence, witch was actually LOOKED DOWN ON by the slave owners/breeders.



Is this your gospel?


No, thats not my gospel at all, just one of my sources of information. My gospel is within me. It is intrinsic to my personality.

Now you are just being a nitwit yzf, :P, you know damn well that wasn't the meaning he was refering to

your philosophy on life: "I'm my own god"

but the true God hates that attitude....as long as you persist in that thinking, God will hide himself from you

making the notion "I'm my own god" TRUE because the real god is HIDING , not doing the god stuff that we are forced to do for ourselves BY DEFAULT.

for those goofy enough to WANT an external god, we are Given, satan.

to lead our trusting, blindfolded, helpless, immortal souls into the pit of eternal fire prepared for us by god himself.

except for the precious chosen few who god DOES choose to show himself to, who are GIVEN the knowlege of good and evil cunningly hidden from the rest of cursed humanity.

cursed for adam finding out that disobedience of the hidden gods secret commands is evil.

He shoulda just fucked Eve and left the damned apple alone.

really?

Matthew 5

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This, coming from the same jackoff that runs around wishing death on people, praying that God will quickly kill them, and using the old testament to try to justify it?? You really are that ignorant, arent ya??:bigthumb:

He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust[/i]

the Chosen know it's god doing it, the cursed know WITH EQUAL OR MORE CERTAINTY that it is anything BUT god doing it because god CREATES THE ILLUSION of his nonexistance to fool the blinded into 'sin'.

so the farther away from the Truth we cursed get, the more Glory god gets for fooling us so well.

Eve was the one who responded to the temptation, not Adam

Satan was wise enough to appraoch the woman first

right, it is the womans function to give the man food, SHE didn't die when eating the poison fruit so it must be ok for him to eat.

adam requested eve as a food taster and server after he got a tummy ache from eating under ripe quince.


{the expected comeback - "it wasn't literally poison, read the book fool." }

the sun shining, the rain falling....the beauty of this world (although marred by human activity) is an illusion?

the illusion is that you think you see god behind it all, sneering at everything we do.

the illusion is that you think you see God behind it all, rejoicing in His wisdom in Creation

you are the one going on all the time about the pathetic works of man.

YZF, some light reading for you
http://www.amazon.com/Lamb-Gospel-According-Christs-Childhood/dp/0380813815/sr=8-1/qid=1167376494/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2419878-8716616?ie=UTF8&s=books

you are the one going on all the time about the pathetic works of man.

Ecclesiastes

Vanity of vanities . . .

see my comment on the other thread...anything that trivializes the gospel is demonic in origin

as is anything that openly goes against the Gospel, Mr. "it's ok that I pray for you to be killed, look at psalms...."

As is anyone that twists the Word to try to use it as justification for their sins.....

How's that plank doing, marky??:blah:

Quote:
Can you explain vividly what happens after death? No, you can't. You can only reason to the best of your knowledge from what you have read in the bible.

correct, unless God reveals it, it cannot be known

Quote:
Just as I live a life of uncertainty, so do you.

not at all, I live with rock solid confience in why we are here, where the world is going, and what awaits every man after death


you do see that you just proved you're an idiot right, you contridict yourself within one post.

Ecclesiastes

Vanity of vanities . . .


what parent wants their children to be ashamed of everything in their life, for their entire life ?

YZF: "I SMITE THEE"

"Its somewhere in psalms...really...i swear....look it up"

lmfao

what parent wants their children to be ashamed of everything in their life, for their entire life ?

Who said be ashamed?

To beat a dying horse:
In large quantities, 2+2 does not always = 4.
Two sets of four eggs plus two sets of four eggs equals eight eggs.

I have another example, but I must talk to my friend about it first, she's much more knowledgeable than me on the subject.

who is this sbrx guy?


someone much much smarter than you:peace:

To beat a dying horse:
In large quantities, 2+2 does not always = 4.
Two sets of four eggs plus two sets of four eggs equals eight eggs.

Err, two sets of four eggs plus two sets of four eggs is still four sets of four eggs.

O_o

After reviewing the topic, she said "He doesn't seem worth it, I ain't explaining it again."
The basic principle is that in large quantities of any said number, added together twice it can equal a different number than you'd logically think.
Her favorite example is 1+1=3, I just can't quite seem to remember the formula she used.

After reviewing the topic, she said "He doesn't seem worth it, I ain't explaining it again."
The basic principle is that in large quantities of any said number, added together twice it can equal a different number than you'd logically think.
Her favorite example is 1+1=3, I just can't quite seem to remember the formula she used.

You might want to just give this one up :)

One apple and another apple will always be two apples.

One set of two apples and another set of two apples will always be four apples, or two sets of two, or four sets of one.

I don't care what formula she uses, she will never be able to have one apple and simply put it next to another (singular) apple and somehow have three apples, no matter what kind of tricks she can do on paper.

This is one of many examples of an absolute truth. I suppose it also goes to show that no matter what you say, someone out there will argue with you.


Teacher: "What do you get when you add 2 and 3?"
Student: "Six, but only for very large values of 2"
Teacher: (Cries)

These Absolute Truth discussions frequently end up with someone making a moronic statement.

I typically apply this absolute truth to a person who denies the existence of absolute truth in morality.

Is it always wrong for a person to rape an infant? Is there a situation in the known universe where this could possibly be acceptable?

The whole world knows this is true. Yet some fool will always want to argue it, with something like, "Well, we don't know yet where it could be acceptable so it must not be absolutely true.". This is moronic. It is my position that any person who after consideration comes to the conclusion that there is no absolute truth is one who is simply wanting attention.

Who's a fool who will argue for the justification of the rape of an infant?

Who's a fool who will argue for the justification of the rape of an infant?

Wow. From math to rape in one post. :P

Wow. From math to rape in one post. :P

How else do you separate the seriously minded from the moronic. The math example should be simple enough. I jump right to rape to quiet everyone but the morons who will attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

did someone mention "moronic"?

I give you Exhibit A

That really was uncalled for.

And change his avatar

lol !

I cringe every time I see your avatar as well, Mark.
Here, you were doing fine with Yamahas and the such, but then you went and sullied the good name of Kawasaki.
Pity, really. They should do a background check before selling bikes to zealots.

Ok, fine, buy me one :)

Like total crap.
I think the valves must be out, and compression low.

I redid all the electronics, rebuilt the carbs, have hours and hours of work into it and it's really not returning the favor :P

Parts to rebuild the engine came in the mail, now all I need is the rings and some cam shims.

However, my stator \ r\r was blown and for some reason it just started working now.

I've NEVER seen that happen before.

I should just get a different bike:
http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/classics/bike.asp?id=3

Yeh , but for $1500 I could just fix this one up real nice. :P

Pshh, 850cc is enough for me :P

Not just a Kawk fan (sorry, an inside joke I relate to my registration. . . . that's how it's abbreviated there), but an owner.
Last year I bought my first bike, a 2006 EX500r. Late December I was cut off in town by a Volkswagen Jetta. Didn't signal, didn't look.
Well, I sued his pants off, bought my bike from auction ($400, only cosmetic damage, which included the entire left fairing and mirror) and could probably LIVE off of the insurance money.
My bike is still waiting for me down in New Mexico with a friend. Couldn't bring it up here with the FB, the wife's FC, and the G. Hell, it was an interesting drive as was (Me, the wife, and my buddy driving the FB, the G, and the Uhaul towing the FC because it was the least reliable of the bunch).
Next month I'm going to go back down and find someway to bring the bike up here. No way in hell can I ride the whole way (I'm in Oregon now). My back's too fucked up.
But, um, yeah. . . . about these new liter bikes. Considerably faster than the last gen? I know they were saying the 600cc got bumped up a hearty notch, but I didn't know they were bumping the liters. Faster than a Busa yet?

I just want a nice cruiser, that handles and accelerates well, cheep and easy to fix, and isnt a peice of trash :P


I got on my bike and just drove

Drove and drove for 140 miles.

It runs SO MUCH BETTER NOW.

It just needed some highway :)

Thread, I call you back to life!!!

(10:50:26 AM) Dubnoxious39: Logic is what you make of it
(10:50:58 AM) Jason Viw: Actually, thats the great thing about logic, for that is not the case.
(10:51:04 AM) Jason Viw: 2 + 2 will always = 4
(10:51:12 AM) Dubnoxious39: not true
(10:51:19 AM) Jason Viw: -_-
(10:51:37 AM) Dubnoxious39: 2 half oranges + 2 half oranges may still equal 4 half oranges
(10:51:45 AM) Dubnoxious39: but it only equals 2 whole oranges
(10:51:51 AM) Jason Viw: That . . .
(10:52:03 AM) Jason Viw: . . . has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while :O
(10:52:03 AM) Dubnoxious39: proves your theory wrong?
(10:52:11 AM) Jason Viw: No, it's still 4 half oranges
(10:52:29 AM) Jason Viw: 2 wholes still = 4 halves
(10:52:29 AM) Dubnoxious39: I implemented a variable in the solution
(10:52:49 AM) Jason Viw: Yeah, and proved me still right :P
(10:52:54 AM) Dubnoxious39: negative
(10:53:06 AM) Jason Viw: 2 (.5) + 2 (.5) = 4(.5)
(10:53:08 AM) Dubnoxious39: you said 2 + 2 always = 4
(10:53:15 AM) Jason Viw: It still = 4 though O_o
(10:53:17 AM) Dubnoxious39: not necessarily true
(10:53:25 AM) Jason Viw: All you did is multiply the whole equation by .5
(10:53:30 AM) Jason Viw: Making it 1 + 1 = 2
(10:53:35 AM) Dubnoxious39: plus looking in a larger scheme of things
(10:53:51 AM) Dubnoxious39: 2 AA batteries + 2 AA batteries = 4 AA batteries
(10:54:19 AM) Jason Viw: How does that prove that 2 + 2 doesn't always = 4?
(10:54:35 AM) Jason Viw: for every value = to 2 plus itself it will become double, thus, 4
(10:54:47 AM) Jason Viw: This happens in all situations, it's known as an absalute
(10:55:28 AM) Jason Viw: 2 = |2| = 1 + 1 = 4 * 0.5
(10:55:57 AM) Jason Viw: Expressing it differently does not change the fact that it's still 2
(10:56:09 AM) Jason Viw: And two twos equals four.
(10:57:04 AM) Dubnoxious39: but what if one of the AA batteries is bad?
(10:57:08 AM) Dubnoxious39: variapwn3d
(10:57:17 AM) Jason Viw: Irrelevant? There is still 4
(10:57:45 AM) Jason Viw: It doesnt stop existing because it ran out of juice.
(10:57:56 AM) Jason Viw: Can I post this convo on TFL? Seriously? :)
(11:12:10 AM) Dubnoxious39: if you want

so...how did you disprove that 2 + 2 != 4 (!= means not equals...who loves java?)? are these true statments:

2 + 2 = 10
2 + 2 = 11

They can be if 2 is a variable representing 2.5 lb weights and 2.75 lb weights or something and the unit for the solution need be in lbs.

2+2= 10

1 2 3 10 11 12 13 20 21 22 23 30


2+2=1

2 raindrops + 2 raindrops = 1 big raindrop


2+2=0

photons + antiphotons = 0 photons.

ok...one of my equations is here...2 + 2 in base 4...

2 + 2 = 10 where 10 is 1*4 + 0. (11 in base 4 = 5 = 1*4 + 1)

but as for the 2 + 2 = 1 and 2 + 2 = 0...those take into account a modifier. typically when written 2 + 2 the 2s represent 2 of the same item. so,
2 rain drops + 2 rain drops = 4 raindrops = 1 big rain drop. (you are introducing conversions)

also, 2 photons + 2 anti-photon = 4 quantum particles...this combination just happens to cancel each other out.

or to make it into algebra:
2 r + 2 r = 4 r and R = 4 r... so 2 r + 2 r = R
2 p + 2 ap = 2 (p + ap) where p + ap = 0 thus 2 p + 2 ap = 0. but before you let the photons and anti-photons combine, you have 4 particles.
p p ap ap = 4 particles.

but actually...the equation is: 2 p + 2 (-1 * p) = 0 since ap = -1 * p. so we reduce it to 2 p - 2 p = 0 and are not working with 2 + 2 here!

Haha, I didn't think of changing the base, clever :P

Ok, so I'll specify, in BASE TEN, 2+2=4 :P

Haha, I didn't think of changing the base, clever :P

Ok, so I'll specify, in BASE TEN, 2+2=4 :P

actually the base doesn't really matter...its all based on the meaning we give symbols.

also, if you say base 10, then i'm assuming we are referring to "numbers only" and not specific items.

This is true, but as addressed in the first post, you already know exactly what I'm talking about :)

Jason Viw = Owned.

This is true, but as addressed in the first post, you already know exactly what I'm talking about :)

ok, first of all...am i suppose to read the first post and every reply? that takes alot of my time! i prefer to just jump in uneducated!

and secondly...after browsing the first post...i've read many various parts of the Bible...and no where in there did i read anything discussing the 2 + 2 = 4 issue we are debating now!!!

so i guess, by the logic of many book followers...2 + 2 = 4 doesn't exist because its not in the book at all! the closest story i found was like 2 animals here, 2 animals there...something about bad weather and a boat...so it was more like 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + ... + 2 for a total of 2*n where n is the number of different animal species.

ok, first of all...am i suppose to read the first post and every reply? that takes alot of my time! i prefer to just jump in uneducated!

Ok, nothing I can do about that . . .

and secondly...after browsing the first post...i've read many various parts of the Bible...and no where in there did i read anything discussing the 2 + 2 = 4 issue we are debating now!!!

Right-o, thats why we read threads . . .


so i guess, by the logic of many book followers...2 + 2 = 4 doesn't exist because its not in the book at all! the closest story i found was like 2 animals here, 2 animals there...something about bad weather and a boat...so it was more like 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + ... + 2 for a total of 2*n where n is the number of different animal species.

Aaand off the deep-end.

We read threads for entertainment during the work day and to make the voices in our head go away.

wait, we are suppose to be on a forum to have meaningful and insightful conversations aside from any that we might be in to discuss a car?!?!? these aren't just here for entertainment purposes? like the psychics that want you to call them in the middle of the night?

Once you add the requirements:

1.) Remain in base ten.
2.) Keep same units of measure.

You can define 2+2=4 as an absolute truth...

You've been given all the information and you can't deviate from the conclusion without throwing out any of the requirements...

You're forced to accept that 2+2=4... What's the arguement?

ok, so i shall remain in base 10...and keep the same unit of measure...

now, i shall take problem to another country...lets say...africa...possibly even middle east? far east? not sure of the results i would get, but also, just for basis, US elementry school.

I find an individual from each of the above named place who is old enough to know math, put out a piece of paper, write on it "2 + 2 = " and then ask them to finish it.

I'm sure that in an african tribe, the person will just look at me and not write anything down...hell, even if i put the "4" on the paper, they won't get it. This could possibly happen in middle east and a few places in the far east. but the US, they know to put "4" (and middle and far east might as well...)

so, what am i getting at here? i'm getting to the meaning behind the written 2 + 2 = 4. That is not a 'absolute truth'. The symbols we use to represent the amount of 2 and 4 differ, so the written statement is not absolute truth. Heck, most likely if we ask any non-english speaking person "what does two plus two equal?" they will not reply with "four". so, then we've lost an absolute truth...

how do we fix this? we now have to look at the idea, the concept, behind the words and symbols...but more on that later

ok, so i shall remain in base 10...and keep the same unit of measure...

now, i shall take problem to another country...lets say...africa...possibly even middle east? far east? not sure of the results i would get, but also, just for basis, US elementry school.

I find an individual from each of the above named place who is old enough to know math, put out a piece of paper, write on it "2 + 2 = " and then ask them to finish it.

I'm sure that in an african tribe, the person will just look at me and not write anything down...hell, even if i put the "4" on the paper, they won't get it. This could possibly happen in middle east and a few places in the far east. but the US, they know to put "4" (and middle and far east might as well...)

so, what am i getting at here? i'm getting to the meaning behind the written 2 + 2 = 4. That is not a 'absolute truth'. The symbols we use to represent the amount of 2 and 4 differ, so the written statement is not absolute truth. Heck, most likely if we ask any non-english speaking person "what does two plus two equal?" they will not reply with "four". so, then we've lost an absolute truth...

how do we fix this? we now have to look at the idea, the concept, behind the words and symbols...but more on that later

German: Zwei und Zwei ist vier...
Spanish: Dos and Dos is Quattro.

It still translates out to 2+2=4

Fine, add a third requirement to use the same language/numeral system...

Fuck this "To Be continued" bullshit... Do you have a point or not?

We only have a "truth" based off of symbols and sounds we have defined...so my first argument is that the written form or spoken isn't an absolute truth. now we have to understand what the symbols and words represent and the idea of combining things.

Take 2 elements, that quantity, regardless of how we define that quantity, and combine with it 2 more elements. The idea is that we now have more elements, and we define that amount as 4. So the idea is that we take things and combine them together to get more things in the group...absolute truth? holds in all cases, regardless of the numbers we use? After all, can we visualize -2 elements?

Of course, I have gone completely off the deep end here, then let me try to get back by asking: What is an "absolute truth"?

2 + 2 = 4

The Count from Sesame street said 2+2=4, but then he killed a bitch, so it was fo no mo.

We only have a "truth" based off of symbols and sounds we have defined...so my first argument is that the written form or spoken isn't an absolute truth. now we have to understand what the symbols and words represent and the idea of combining things.

Take 2 elements, that quantity, regardless of how we define that quantity, and combine with it 2 more elements. The idea is that we now have more elements, and we define that amount as 4. So the idea is that we take things and combine them together to get more things in the group...absolute truth? holds in all cases, regardless of the numbers we use? After all, can we visualize -2 elements?

Of course, I have gone completely off the deep end here, then let me try to get back by asking: What is an "absolute truth"?

I've never seen anyone say "I was wrong" in so many words before.

How about this, 1 rain drop + 1 rain drop = 1 rain drop?

We only have a "truth" based off of symbols and sounds we have defined...so my first argument is that the written form or spoken isn't an absolute truth. now we have to understand what the symbols and words represent and the idea of combining things.

Okay... You can define the symbols or terms for "2", "+", "=", and "4" as something other than commonly accepted.

I'll just go ahead and define you as a moron...

These symbols are commonly accepted as to what they mean. It's a standard. Standards are given...


Take 2 elements, that quantity, regardless of how we define that quantity, and combine with it 2 more elements. The idea is that we now have more elements, and we define that amount as 4. So the idea is that we take things and combine them together to get more things in the group...absolute truth? holds in all cases, regardless of the numbers we use? After all, can we visualize -2 elements?

No... But you can visualize the absence of two elements or the owing of two elements... Say someone owes me money... They have negative money plus whatever money they have.


Of course, I have gone completely off the deep end here, then let me try to get back by asking: What is an "absolute truth"?


Absolute truth is something that can not be argued, save for trivial shit like the definition of symbols... If I say the sky is blue and point up while outside, and the weather is clear, how are you gonna dispute that?

You could argue that somewhere else it's cloudy or orange due to a sunset or Aurora Borealis. It's agreed upon that I can only see here and have pointed up... Counter argument not valid.

You could argue that it's not blue but, in fact pink... Since you are either color blind or have not been taught color names in kindergarten, I can also render your argument invalid. Ditto if you claim that I have pointed to the ground because you think the ground is the sky and the sky is the ground... Your argument is invalid on the grounds that you're a moron...

You could argue that the sky is indeed black and what I'm seeing is the light from the sun refracted, reflected, and diffused through particles in the air and other atmospheric anomalies. In fact if we were to remove the sun, I'd see empty black space...

This'd invalidate my argument and make yours absolute truth.

You could argue that it's not blue but, in fact pink... Since you are either color blind or have not been taught color names in kindergarten, I can also render your argument invalid. Ditto if you claim that I have pointed to the ground because you think the ground is the sky and the sky is the ground... Your argument is invalid on the grounds that you're a moron...


first of all, i actually am color blind...but not bad enough to turn the sky pink on a bright sunny afternoon.

My argument now is that because someone (in the argument you are making..ME) was taught colors (or sky vs ground) differently than yourself, something completely out of my control, I am the moron? Do you not think that I would consider you the on in error because you, based off of what i've known my life, was the one who was taught wrong, so now you are the moron.

The only way for a standard to be a "standard" is if we agree to make it a "standard" - the basis of comparison. If we fail to agree, then we can not have a standard.

as for the concept of negative values, if they are so common and easy to understand, they why is it they are not taught earlier in grade school? I'm not completely sure on this, but you do not get introduced to them until after 5th grade these days in the US...heck, they weren't even a part of "mainstream" math until after 600 A.D. Yes, they are common place for us today, but then again, so are cell phones and computers.
(http://www.pballew.net/arithme1.html at the bottom)

and, depending on the audience, +4 is defined (positive 4) and makes sense, as are += and ++. They are not single symbols, but they are defined for some folks. Hell, i even think that "a+" makes sense in Backus-Naur form for defining a grammar.

so now you are the moron.

Hey, you're the one arguing against 2+2=4 here :P

The only way for a standard to be a "standard" is if we agree to make it a "standard" - the basis of comparison. If we fail to agree, then we can not have a standard.

It takes more than two people to make a standard.

If I can find more people to support your theory that I'm standing on the sky, then so be it, I'm a moron.

It takes more than two people to make a standard.

If I can find more people to support your theory that I'm standing on the sky, then so be it, I'm a moron.

If I was raised to believe we stand on the sky and stare up at the ground, then I would have more people who held this belief, and you would be the moron when you were among them.

I recall a story of when the first settlers came to America. During their initial involvements with Native Americans, one of the new comers told a Chief "give us your sons and we shall make men out of them" Meaning they would be taught by the European educational system. The Chief replied: "When they came back from your schools, they would not be able to hunt, fish, nor farm. They would be of no use to our tribe. Give us your sons and we shall make men out of them and teach them the ways of a warrior."

So, really, its all relative...everything is relative, based off of what you have previously learned.

If I was raised to believe we stand on the sky and stare up at the ground, then I would have more people who held this belief, and you would be the moron when you were among them.

I recall a story of when the first settlers came to America. During their initial involvements with Native Americans, one of the new comers told a Chief "give us your sons and we shall make men out of them" Meaning they would be taught by the European educational system. The Chief replied: "When they came back from your schools, they would not be able to hunt, fish, nor farm. They would be of no use to our tribe. Give us your sons and we shall make men out of them and teach them the ways of a warrior."

So, really, its all relative...everything is relative, based off of what you have previously learned.

Show me some people who've learned that we stand on the sky.
Show my some people that believe the clear sky is pink.
Show me some people that believe 2+2 is anything other than 4, with allowances for language differences...

If you find more than a few, I have a group I'd like to introduce you to. This group is the rest of the civilized world.

Let's go outside and ask the first 50 people we see what 2+2 is... Out of that hundred people, what do you think the majority answer will be?

If I was raised to believe we stand on the sky and stare up at the ground, then I would have more people who held this belief, and you would be the moron when you were among them.

I recall a story of when the first settlers came to America. During their initial involvements with Native Americans, one of the new comers told a Chief "give us your sons and we shall make men out of them" Meaning they would be taught by the European educational system. The Chief replied: "When they came back from your schools, they would not be able to hunt, fish, nor farm. They would be of no use to our tribe. Give us your sons and we shall make men out of them and teach them the ways of a warrior."

So, really, its all relative...everything is relative, based off of what you have previously learned.

It's unfortunate that you are clinging to this sort of reasoning as sufficient grounds to reject absolute truth. Relative prespective has nothing to do with the absolute. You're basing your argument now, after failing to break concrete stipulation mathematically, upon standards. Why? An absolute truth has nothing to do with majority rule. It would be true regardless of how many people believe it. Suppose that the world consisted of people who unanimously held the belief that 2+2 = chair. Surely anyone who believed otherwise would be viewed as an idiot, yet the opinion of such a majority would have zero effect on such a truth, hence it's absolutism.

Attempting to blend in elements that hold no universal standard, such as the definition of the word "man," does not aid your argument. Rather, your deviation from the orginal argument shows that you've missed the boat on this one.

It's unfortunate that you are clinging to this sort of reasoning as sufficient grounds to reject absolute truth. Relative prespective has nothing to do with the absolute. You're basing your argument now, after failing to break concrete stipulation mathematically, upon standards. Why? An absolute truth has nothing to do with majority rule. It would be true regardless of how many people believe it. Suppose that the world consisted of people who unanimously held the belief that 2+2 = chair. Surely anyone who believed otherwise would be viewed as an idiot, yet the opinion of such a majority would have zero effect on such a truth, hence it's absolutism.

Attempting to blend in elements that hold no universal standard, such as the definition of the word "man," does not aid your argument. Rather, your deviation from the orginal argument shows that you've missed the boat on this one.

I have been arguing semantics and definitions of words. The attempt was to break down the claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth in its spoken and written forms. Trying to get to the idea that is represented by the symbols/words "2 + 2 = 4". Also, this is a single item. Only a single addition problem. The comment was made "you add things together, you get more" Now, that would be more of a "truth" I would be less willing to argue about.

I also would be less likely to argue with:
when x > 0 and y > 0 and X + Y = C, then C > X and C > Y. two non-negative integers added together create a sum that is greater than either of the two integers you started with.

or

X < 0, Y < 0, and X + Y = C, then C < X and C < Y.

I have been arguing semantics and definitions of words. The attempt was to break down the claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth in its spoken and written forms. Trying to get to the idea that is represented by the symbols/words "2 + 2 = 4". Also, this is a single item. Only a single addition problem. The comment was made "you add things together, you get more" Now, that would be more of a "truth" I would be less willing to argue about.

I also would be less likely to argue with:
when x > 0 and y > 0 and X + Y = C, then C > X and C > Y. two non-negative integers added together create a sum that is greater than either of the two integers you started with.

or

X < 0, Y < 0, and X + Y = C, then C < X and C < Y.

It's all relative of what you think a non negative integer is...

Perhaps there are people who are taught that pi or e are integers. What of the people who only think in negative numbers?

It's all relative of what you think a non negative integer is...

Perhaps there are people who are taught that pi or e are integers. What of the people who only think in negative numbers?

Show me people who were taught PI is an integer
Show me people who were taught e is an integer
Show me the people who only think in negative numbers

Show me people who were taught PI is an integer
Show me people who were taught e is an integer
Show me the people who only think in negative numbers

Exactly... Nobody does...

You can't argue 2+2=4... It's pure math. Math itself is absolute truth.

There is no arguing that 2 does not mean 2 and 4 does not mean 4... Why are you bringing relativity into Math?