Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 24, 2014, 09:45:35 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 41
1  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: wikipedia.org has no page for this site on: October 23, 2014, 08:35:46 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

I posted asking the question as to whether this idea is acceptable.
2  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: wikipedia.org has no page for this site on: October 23, 2014, 07:50:26 pm
Wiki is generally a pain when it comes to establishing notability and there doesn't seem to be any reviews of the site (except some peer reviews) or articles about the site.

I don't know if this has ever been discussed, but I noticed that there is no page on wiki for this site. I don't know if wikipedians would considered such a page justified, but I was curious what regulars on this forum think of the idea of creating a wiki page for this site.

I know of course that this site has it's own wiki pages, but that is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about wikipedia.org

Its a fine idea, but someone will have to do a lot of tedious work and possibly argue a lot with Wiki-Nazis over notoriety. Are you willing to do that?

Well, it would also be very time consuming, so I will have to think about it.
3  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / wikipedia.org has no page for this site on: October 23, 2014, 03:58:17 pm
I don't know if this has ever been discussed, but I noticed that there is no page on wiki for this site. I don't know if wikipedians would considered such a page justified, but I was curious what regulars on this forum think of the idea of creating a wiki page for this site.

I know of course that this site has it's own wiki pages, but that is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about wikipedia.org
4  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Will the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church ever be reunited? on: October 23, 2014, 11:01:08 am
Of course I brought up what I think is a very minor difference in my Easter thread.

Divisions between any two groups remind me of the old Star Trek episode where
the "superior" race was black on one side and white on the other.
The "oppressed" race was the exact opposite and yet basically the same.
White on the opposite side and black on the opposite side -from the other race.

In other words, why do people have to focus so much on their differences rather
than on their common ground?

It may be naive to hope for one united religion or even a reunification of these two religions,
but more unity "in spirit" is not only possible but seems to be happening more and more.

In so far as religions create conflict they are bad, in so far as they work together for the common good they are, obviously good.

Reason should be the ruling principle..
"Come let us reason together".

It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has remained united in the sense of no schisms in its history
(except, in so far as the East/West split and the Catholic/Protestant split are schisms of course) so, in
spite of internal divisions in remains one denomination; it is the Protestants who tend to split over the
tiniest and apparently insignificant nuances of doctrinal differences. The Catholics and Orthodox have so
much in common doctrinally speaking; of course I don't accept a lot of their beliefs (the Trinity and eternal damnation
being the big ones).

The paradox lies in the difference between "unity" and "harmony".
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: A hypothetical map for 11/4/14 on: October 23, 2014, 09:16:30 am
Update: There’s A 47 Percent Chance The 2014 Midterms Will Go To Overtime:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-theres-a-47-percent-chance-the-2014-midterms-will-go-to-overtime/
6  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Arbitrary Easter. on: October 22, 2014, 09:48:03 am
It seems crazy that Christians can't get together on something as simple as a date for Easter.
Why not make it the fourth or maybe that last Sunday in April, where in much of the Northern Hemisphere it is usually fairly nice weather?
Having it in late March is not good, because it is often cold.
Sometimes the dates are the same, why not always?
The Eastern date makes more sense, because it is later, although sometimes it is in May:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_for_Easter
7  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Catholic church opens up - a little bit - to gay couples on: October 22, 2014, 09:42:19 am
How many Catholic priests are homosexuals? What per cent?
By that I don't mean practicing homosexuals, but anyone with
that orientation whether they act on their feelings or not.
It would make sense for a homosexual Catholic to become a
priest if he thinks it is a sin to be homosexual.
My guess that there are at least as many as the general population.

A while ago there was this movie "Priest" (1994) about a priest
struggling with his homosexual feelings while trying to maintain
a conservative "party" line.
8  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Homosexuality a sin? on: October 18, 2014, 11:56:02 am
I voted for 100% not a sin, but I would clarify with three points.

Something is only wrong if you know you are doing something wrong, so if
someone sincerely believes that they are doing nothing wrong then how
can they really be sinning? If you hurt someone, how do you feel if they
did the same to you? (golden rule), so if you know that you wouldn't want
someone to do something to you, you are being a hypocrite (and sinful) if you
do it to someone else.

2nd point, Anal sex and oral sex -if they are wrong in any way- are equally 'wrong'
if done heterosexually. I'm not saying that they are wrong, but only what's the difference
between homo vs hetero?

3rd in a philosophical sense (until we discovered artificial insemination), since up until now
virtual immorality has not been achieved, our survival as a species is dependent on heterosexuality. (however small a percentage, if 10% of us were heterosexual, heterosexuals would have to average 20 kids instead of 2)

Of course all of this is self evident, and, at least for me 'religion' has nothing to do with it.
9  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will lead the Senate and when will we know? on: October 18, 2014, 11:35:41 am
option four is Harry not Harrry ...

Smiley
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Who will lead the Senate and when will we know? on: October 18, 2014, 11:34:32 am
It will probably be Reid or McConnell, I'll vote Option 4....

Kentucky is close, but McConnell has a definite lead.

with runoffs likely in LA and GA the chances of knowing that the Republicans control
the Senate before December are 50% max. Same for the Democrats.
It could be 40%D and 50%R as the election day result with only a 10% tossup.
Tossup meaning a given election that would determine Senate control is too close
to call and/or a runoff or some other scenario.

15 day poll so you must vote before the election
11  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who wins Colorado? on: October 18, 2014, 11:06:00 am
Gardner, unless things change soon (like I said in another thread).
12  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: A hypothetical map for 11/4/14 on: October 18, 2014, 11:04:54 am

This very well could be the results, although  Gardner currently has a clear lead in Co, so things would have to change very soon for Udall to win.
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: A hypothetical map for 11/4/14 on: October 15, 2014, 11:02:36 am
Unless Cassidy is doing extremely well, Louisiana would head to a runoff as well.

Any idea when that would be held?
14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / A hypothetical map for 11/4/14 on: October 15, 2014, 10:09:56 am
This is a Senate map but for fun electoral votes are shown:

possible D states
138 electoral votes

possible R states
141 electoral votes

no Senate race
243 electoral votes

likely run off
16 electoral votes


this map is NOT a prediction
this map is Not likely
but it is one way that the Dems could keep the Senate
Iowa and Kansas are close - this map assumes Orman wins and caucuses Dem


15  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Dallas big bang on: September 17, 2014, 02:20:16 pm
The first day of Autumn; the first big bang and the final dallas.

two new episodes of each back to back.

Big Bang is my favorite show of all shows.
16  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Nate Silver explains FiveThirtyEight's Senate forecasting model on: September 17, 2014, 12:44:30 pm
Nate Silver pointed out a bias in Rasmussen polls:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2014/Info/rasmussen.html

It is interesting, now, that he gives the Republicans a 53% chance of winning the Senate, which is close enough to 50% to call control of the Senate a tossup. It will be interesting to see how close this election is in key swing states like Iowa and North Carolina, which have been close in Presidential elections as well.
17  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Absolute Truth on: August 30, 2014, 02:55:34 pm
Although I'm sure the good Lord is aware of what the absolute truth is, and will reveal it to us when we shuffle of this mortal coil, none of us, being but imperfect humans, can ever hope to define for ourselves any sort of absolute truth. Indeed, to each and every one of us, 'the truth' is different, and this inevitably shapes how we look at the world. To my mind, it seems true that deterrence is more important than rehabilitation when it comes to criminal justice, whereas to another they might see the 'truth' as being exactly the opposite. In the end, what is true or not is, and can only, be decided by those who have the power to enforce 'truth'; the state, the Church (in times past at least), people of importance. What you or I say is true matters little unless we have the power to ensure that other people accept it as so. That might be because we are greatly respected by people generally, but often, its simply a question of whether you have the authority to, I wouldn't say compel, that in some cases is too strong a word, but encourage ordinary people (such as myself at least), to believe in something. Often the key to this authority is money or position (in a government for example).

Truth cannot be defined by individuals, because, as I have said before, individuals always percieve things differently. However, a society where everybody is simply allowed to find their own way does not and will not work, thus some kind of powerful body is required to step in, knock a few heads together, and propose a version of the truth that we can all agree upon, or acquiesce to at the very least. Not that this is a bad thing mind, as human society would be very bizarre and unstable thing were it not so. Note that I do not deny the possibility of an 'absolute truth' that God has, in his infinite wisdom, laid out, just that we cannot discern it. In my view, the Church and Christianity as a whole, offer the nearest substitute for some kind of 'absolute truth'.

I remember posting a thread a few months ago regarding that wonderful conversation in the Hogfather between Death and Susan. Death talks about having to believe in things that aren't true, otherwise they can't become true. To a certain extent, I agree with this, not neccessarily because I don't think that things are true, but because I cannot know them to be true, but, hell, I've got to believe in something, otherwise life wouldn't be worth living. The same goes, of course, for the things we are told by the Church, by people of great importance, for these are the things that give our society form, that keep it ticking over. Were we to declare an equality of all ideas, of all truths, then society would rapidly collapse into an orgy of murder, rape and pillage, as the people who believed these things to be right and proper would quickly cause chaos. Not that such an equality of ideas could ever last, as some people would inevitably band together to bring back some stability and to crush those causing trouble to them. Thus such a scenario is hypothetical, as it could not last for long.

So, to some up, I think there is some sort of 'absolute truth', out there, somewhere, but for now we'll just have to make do with what we have.
Good summary of key ideas in the pursuit of truth. thanks
18  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Absolute Truth on: August 30, 2014, 02:49:56 pm
What is love?
19  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Favorite planet is our solar system? on: August 30, 2014, 12:55:16 pm
Pluto, of course!

edit: I voted for Mars, for right now. That's because I think we should be going there.
I would vote for any planet where any kind of life is found or which has a moon with life.
Since no life has been found I am going for Mars.
20  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Absolute Truth on: August 30, 2014, 12:46:30 pm
I have no idea what the absolute truth is, but to say that there is no absolute truth, seems a little closed minded. In other words I have no idea what that truth is, only that it could exist, and probably does.

I also know that there are things that are true. The most obvious being that there is what we call "life". (why is there something rather than nothing)
21  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Absolute Truth on: August 30, 2014, 12:43:08 pm
We could all agree that there is only one truth, but not on what that truth is.

We could, but that doesn't mean we will.

It could be:
That there is no absolute truth.
That the truth is always changing.
That all you need is love.
That there is more than one truth.
etc etc
You can change your vote and therefore you can try to convince others' to change theirs. For now I am voting absolutely true.
22  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Ask Buddha on: August 30, 2014, 08:30:31 am
Who do you want to run for PA-Sen in 2016? In a Democratic primary, who would you vote for: Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Joe Sestak could probably win. If the race hasn't been decided by the time it gets to PA, I might vote for Sanders, certainly not Clinton.
23  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: A simple true of false question. on: August 29, 2014, 09:45:28 am
Although February(28or29),
March(31) and November (30)
are very similar all
beginning on the same day
in non leap
years they aren't quite
identical because they
each have a different number
of days
same for April and July,
and for September and December

January is always identical
to another month so the
answer is true

however in leaps years it
is identical to July,
while in most years it
is identical to October

for example, 2016 and 2015:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year_starting_on_Friday

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_year_starting_on_Thursday
24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: What are/is your favorite 2014 Senate election(s)? on: August 28, 2014, 02:06:32 pm
You ought to have included WV.

My favorites: AR, GA, HI, KS, KY, LA, MT, NC*, SD, VA*, WV

*) due to Libertarian vote

Well, I mostly wanted to include the close ones. I could have included all of them but there are a lot.
25  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of this statement on: August 28, 2014, 02:04:08 pm
I don't know how I would vote in this poll, but I do support the idea of government support for some television (like PBS) and companies are supporting PBS by paying taxes. Perhaps this post is a little bit off topic however.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 41


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines