Search Results

So I'll be talking about Makaze, DarkTraitor, Tequila, Marushi and Midnight Star. Okie dokie. I will get to recording as soon as possible.

Oh, this is a tough one. I usually go through with most of my dares. I've even done a handstand xD. The only dare that I remember turning down was the one where I was dared to buy tampons. Damn you, Ienzo. So let's go with that lol.

I dare you to make a recording of yourself giving an honest opinion of the last 5 people who posted in this thread. if you can't make a recording, then you can just write it out. Meh, I'm unoriginal.

Gimme a dare, Makaze. Just not the one that I just mentioned hating. I will never do it! B|

Truth

ToD to whoever posts next.

Innerpartysystem - American Trash

Not an excuse. I say that the spoon isn't even necessary. Just dive right into that jar.

My Chemical Romance...

Must...not...judge...other's...taste...in...music...

You basically stated what I was trying to get across. It's nice to see that we came to the same conclusion. Although I personally think that a woman who was beaten constantly by her husband, only to continue her relationship with him out of "love" isn't mentally competent.

In the post that I had replied to, KS was specifically talking about France's unalienable right to education. So yes, he is talking about an individual country's laws.

Oh sorry. I don't usually reply to parts of a post in order so I can forget about a part without noticing every now and then. I think I probably didn't answer to that part because I agreed with it. I don't see anything wrong with it and it doesn't go against anything that I've said so I see no need to counter it or discuss it.

Does what I say go through one ear and right out the other? While there is some truth in your statement, there is also truth in mine. You may not need to learn how to write out problems to arrive at the answers but it helps, no? I know that I'm capable of solving complex math problems in my head but I write them out anyway because most of the time, I won't make a mistake then. A child who is able to arrive at the correct answers without writing out his work should theortically be able to write his work out because in the end, he knows the methods.

I did not say that at all. I said that my teacher gave me the easy way to solve a problem on state exams because of mostly the time restraints that are given to us. While I have until the next class to finish my homework, I only have until the afternoon to finish an exam.

And anything can be made the center of anything with the right numbers. That doesn't make it right. You're right that we can arrive at the same answer with completely different methods. The reason we usually stick with the 'state-approved' one is because of Occam's razor. It gets you from A to B with only what is needed. The rest is superfluous. Most theories have a foundation of underlying premises, all of which need to be true for the theory itself to be true. Occam's Razor suggests believing the theory with the fewest underlying premises that are still true. That isn't to say that Occam's Razor is always right though. Newtonian physics are simpler then modern theories and were sufficient to take man to the Moon, but Newton simply could not explain all the data eventually collected. This required men like Einstein to formulate more complex theories, particularly the outrageous chaos we call "particle physics" which seem to function according to competely different rules. Many scientists have spent decades trying to come up with some Grand Unified Theory that explains why physics works the way it does because Occam's razor would suggest such and so far...they haven't succeeded. So far, Occam's Razor isn't always right, and the universe simply functions according to completely different sets of physical rules, for no good reason whatsoever.

I don't understand why people use Occam's razor in debates and think that it adds weight to their particular argument. This usage is entirely fallacious as the Razor does nothing more than recommend the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It is not a magical tool that points to the right answer. In a lab it will be used hundreds or thousands of times, with each and every one of the chosen hypothesis being rigorously tested, before a correct answer is found. In a debate the Razor will be used once and will, invariably, choose the user's answer as the 'right' one. Funny that. Remember that Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a rule. In the end, nothing actually dictates that a explanation must be simple at all.

I think you mean "However, they will not be tested on that English, and will likely be rated as lower in intelligence if they don't answer as they were taught."

You realize that the differences between British and American English are restricted largely to minor spelling differences and lexical and grammatical difference. The differences between them are so small that an American could pick up British English easily with their own knowledge of American English and vice versa. Plus the state doesn't control how a language is used and its only responsiblity is teach you the correct way to use the language of your country.

I included sociology in the list of unbiased subject because it is the scientific study of society which uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about human social activity. Although I can see how it could be manipulated by the state.

Did you completely ignore what that part of the post was replying to? It had no relation to law at all so I have no clue why you're bringing it up in the first place. There is no need for me to respond to this post.

Yet there are plenty of pro-Confederate accounts. This of course started with the fact that many Southern generals and politicians were forced into inactivity after losing the war and thus had more time to devote to writing their memoirs. Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote a multi-volume apologia of his government while his victorious opposite number Abraham Lincoln for obvious reasons never got around to writing anything.

Pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything.

I don't know everything about Lincoln but I do know that for today's standards, while it is hard to admit for some, he was basically a racist. He considered blacks to be inferior to whites. He was also willing at least in principle to allow slavery to continue, believing that it would end on its own. Early in his Presidency he even said that he would back any solution to the slavery question that preserved the Union, whether it was freeing all the slaves, freeing none of them, or freeing some and leaving others enslaved. But as the conflict began to rise between the Union and the Confederate, his anti-slavery views became stronger over time. Guess where I learned this? 10th grade history class O:

The average US citizen is still able to find out. The Civil Rights Movement was a big part of American history, no? It's hard to find an American who doesn't know about it. It's in our history textbooks and the amount of accounts on it are huge. To find out what people were fighting for so adamantly and why isn't hard and I'm pretty sure a lot of people are curious as to why.

They're great for exercising the brain.

I know that I didn't reply to everything. If I didn't counter something, then it most likely means that I didn't have a counter for it at the moment but I still wanted to respond to the things that I did have a counter for or wanted to discuss.

Shoes won't leave them like a man.

The Qemists - Stompbox (Spor Remix)

Rogue Refrigerator: Malfunction

I completely forgot that in some parts of this debate, we were talking about France. My bad >_>

That was my mistake. Simple misinterpretation on my part. The right to free speech is a liberty right.

Well you're wrong since a privelege, liberty right, is the inverse of a claim right. You are given the legal liberty right to drive after a certain age because the legal claim right that doesn't allow to drive under a certain age doesn't restrict you anymore. For example, a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which those other people have a claim right. So a person's liberty right of walking extends precisely to the point where another's claim right limits his or her freedom. Capiche?

And children and teenagers tend to be rebellious too, don't you agree? I almost never took things at face value when I was child and almost always asked "Why? Why? Why?" until I either got an answer or until that person got angry and gave up, forcing me to look for the answer myself. Take religion for example. When I was a little kid, I was always sent to Sunday School and told that it was a great place for me to learn yet I was always bored and uninterested in whatever was taught. And as I got older, I even started to outright disagree with the things that were taught to me. So I picked up the Bible and started reading things for myself and started to make my own interpretation of things.

I don't think you understand the meaning the word of unalienable. An unalienable right is a right that can't be taken away from you. It isn't the same as a liberal right. In France, education is an unalienable right so their only option is to give you an education since not giving you one would be taking away your right to education which they can't do since it's unalienable.

I'm sorry for your loss.

But a third party can obviously see that she isn't mentally fit nor competent to make her own decision. Anyone who had full information of the situation and sufficient mental faculties would never choose to continue being beaten. Thus the law would be justified in helping her, no?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggression

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

You say that when most people say "right", they mean a "right to liberty". Wouldn't you be infringing on a person's liberty by manipulating them instead of letting them form their own decision? Aren't you causing both physical and mental harm to a child by restraining food from him for not meeting your standards and thus showing aggression? You advocate the use of ostracism if a child doesn't meet your standards which can cause both mental and emotional harm. How is this peaceful?

I was using the US as an example since the person I was responding to is from the US. I would just cause confusion if I were to just use the laws from my country. I don't know everything about American law but I know enough to get a point across.

Both of the statements are coherent and mean practically the same thing from what I understand of the English language. Although I agree that "forbid them from" rolls off the tongue better but that is beside the point.

The point of writing out your work in math tests is to show that you do know how to get from point A to point B. If how you got from point A to point B makes sense then good for you, you got the question right! Most of the time in unbiased subjects such as math, there is usually only one way to solve a problem and most of the time, most of the ways shown to solve a problem are given to you. Only one time have I not been given all the possible ways to solve a problem. I believe it was either in math or physics. My teacher showed us the 'hard' way to solve an equation and then after testing us, he showed us the "easy" method for us to use on things such as exams given to us by the state. Why didn't he just teach us the "easy" method? Because he wanted us to fully understand how the subject worked. We may not be given liberties as to what methods we learn but most of the time, the methods learned are the only ones.

But this only applies to biased subjects. Let me use Brazil's core curriculum as an example. In Brazil, you are required to learn Portuguese, a foreign language (usually English, also Spanish and very rarely French today), History, Geography, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Philosophy and Sociology. History and Philosophy are the only ones capable of being biased while the rest are unbiased. There's no possible way of teaching math in a biased way, is there? One plus one will always equal two and the same applies to languages such Portuguese and English where I can't change the way the grammar works and so on forth for the Science classes, Geography and Sociology.

The latter actually. People are naturally attracted to freedom, that is, having as many options open to you as possible. When an option is closed off, your instinct is to open it back up. In general, this effect is greatly lessened if a (good, valid and fair) reason is given for not doing something, since then it feels like you have the option but are choosing not to, whereas if you are forbidden without an explanation it feels like you are being restricted.This effect is strongest in teenagers because they are just starting to realize freedoms but don't have any boundaries set yet.

I could put a link here saying "Do not click this link. Do not click. Ever. At all. You won’t like it if you do." And sure enough, people would click it.

Weren't historical accounts of the Civil War made by the losers? I'm just asking to be sure. And what lack of knowledge about the Civil War do you mean? I'm curious.

For the same reason you believe that nobody should infringe on your liberty, no?

Ouch, that stings and it's not even directed at me.

Yet it is another's inaction that is causing harm in cases such as child negligence for example.

It's what makes them so fun to be honest.

What right is mandatory education forcing you to exercise?

Let us use the example that Patman provided earlier about a man hitting his wife. You say that unless one member of the dispute defines it as a dispute then it isn't a dispute. Both the man and woman say that there is no dispute. The man because he doesn't see the error of his ways while the wife doesn't say anything because she's too scared for her life or believe that she herself is at fault for her abuse to admit that something is wrong. Under your definition of law, the police officier shouldn't do anything because it isn't a dispute, correct? But does such a woman have sufficient mental faculties to make a competent decision?

You seem to associate physical coercion with aggression when mental coercion such as manipulating a child to do what you want is also aggression because you are in a sense violating by force his right to liberty by restraining him to your standards, aren't you? This is going against the non-agression principle that you stated. While it is a less violent approach, it isn't any less aggressive in nature.

First things first, making the exercise of anything mandatory makes it a duty. And no, only a liberty right, or privelege, is optional. Certain rights in and of themselves aren't optional such as claim rights. A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder. In contrast, a liberty right is a right which does not entail obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder. Take for example, the right to life, liberty and property. Under the Declaration of Indepedence, these rights are inalienable so they aren't optional and they impose an obligation upon others to abide by a person's rights by not allowing them to assault or restrain a person, or use their property, without the a person's permission. Both of us can agree that living isn't bad or stupid, right? Even the right to free speech is a claim right as it obligates others to not prevent you from saying whatever you want.

The government never did take away this right though. The government has only set you on a path that in the end is helping you figure things out for yourself. What's keeping you from learning multiplication when you're in the first grade? Nothing but yourself and if you figured it out by yourself then good for you, you're ahead of the crowd and now you know something that will help you learn more things.

What's keeping you from learning about it by yourself? Compulsory education doesn't make you not learn things. If you wanted to know those bad and stupid things that your country did, then nothing is keeping you from finding it yourself during your own time, is there? I could easily go to the public library to acquire that knowledge or even go to Google and search "Stupid shit that Brazil has done" and nothing is stopping me from doing so.

It is a privelege given to you by the government. While for example in my country, it is your duty to vote. Your argument is flawed because making the exercise of anything mandatory makes it duty and thus not a right.

Why ?

Everybody in Shonen Jump! EVERYBODY!

...and Death Note.

Most of the time when I worked with fake AVIs in the past, I found that they worked rather slowly in comparison to working with the video file directly and they can also make Avisynth crash if you were to slow down something far too much or apply too many filters. I still work with them every now and then but I usually proceed with caution. But of course, that's only from my experience. I'm sure that somebody with more memory on their computer could frameserve with barely any troubles. I guess I could write up a part about frameserving for the next update of the guide.

Thank you for the confirmation about Linux.

Are you actually doing this? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A FIGHT!?

The only advantage you have over me is that you live in the same country as her but I guess you'll need that handicap.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! BRING IT!

You bitch! B|

You'd have to become some sort of fusion between The Doctor and Michael McIntyre for her to fall in love with you.