Upload
Login or register

cleverguy

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/02/2011
Last Login:5/26/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#21737
Highest Content Rank:#1565
Highest Comment Rank:#1060
Content Thumbs: 6334 total,  7426 ,  1092
Comment Thumbs: 5582 total,  7760 ,  2178
Content Level Progress: 22% (22/100)
Level 163 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 164 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:6
Content Views:197320
Times Content Favorited:476 times
Total Comments Made:7377
FJ Points:3124
Favorite Tags: for (12) | Reading (12) | the (12) | tags (11) | thank (11) | You (11) | a (6) | i (4) | dont (3) | im (3) | this (3) | his (2) | is (2) | its (2) | joke (2) | me (2)

Text Posts

  • Views: 67067
    Thumbs Up 3520 Thumbs Down 293 Total: +3227
    Comments: 594
    Favorites: 381
    Uploaded: 08/07/12
    Feminists Again Feminists Again
  • Views: 26697
    Thumbs Up 803 Thumbs Down 65 Total: +738
    Comments: 50
    Favorites: 16
    Uploaded: 11/19/12
    Bassists Bassists
  • Views: 14975
    Thumbs Up 379 Thumbs Down 63 Total: +316
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 21
    Uploaded: 09/23/12
    Anticscomic Anticscomic
  • Views: 2099
    Thumbs Up 65 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +60
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 07/20/11
    The Cleveland Show The Cleveland Show
  • Views: 2007
    Thumbs Up 44 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +39
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/30/11
    Stepladder Stepladder
  • Views: 3478
    Thumbs Up 31 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +25
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 08/05/11
    Nigel Thornberry Comp Nigel Thornberry Comp
First2[ 12 ]
  • Views: 1763
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +16
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 03/29/14
    Oh So Close Oh So Close

latest user's comments

#139706 - nah i dont think that you have the capacity to troll,… 19 hours ago on Religion Board +1
#139286 - i dont really remember, but reading over it, i got condescende… 05/16/2016 on Religion Board 0
#137786 - you make me cringe  [+] (1 new reply) 04/18/2016 on Religion Board +1
User avatar
#137787 - peacegirl (04/18/2016) [-]
Hell yeah
#137534 - oh ****, i'm just making mistakes all over the place today 04/15/2016 on Religion Board 0
#137533 - in the vast majority of individuals, these mutations do absolu… 04/15/2016 on Religion Board 0
#137504 - oh **** you're right whoops anyway 6 mutati…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/15/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#137518 - zlane (04/15/2016) [-]
>6 mutations out of 6 hundred million nucleotides is nothing

right, but what i'm arguing is that these functional nucleotides are being replaced by useless ones faster than they're being created.
User avatar
#137533 - cleverguy (04/15/2016) [-]
in the vast majority of individuals, these mutations do absolutely nothing, that's what I'm trying to tell you. a lot of the time you can change a base and it still codes for the same amino acid so nothing changes
#137500 - im just happy to be included 04/15/2016 on Religion Board 0
#137498 - Comment deleted 04/15/2016 on Religion Board 0
#137497 - that hurts  [+] (2 new replies) 04/15/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#137522 - zlane (04/15/2016) [-]
no no, i wasn't saying those are users who should included and that you should be exluded, i was suggesting these people as additions
User avatar
#137534 - cleverguy (04/15/2016) [-]
oh shit, i'm just making mistakes all over the place today
#137486 - each of the mutations has a 20% shot at landing in the functio…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/15/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#137502 - theism (04/15/2016) [-]
Yeah, there's a 97% chance of there being 6 in the used portion.
User avatar
#137487 - zlane (04/15/2016) [-]
the chances of rolling a 5 sided dice 6 times and landing on a 5 each time is 10^-6

but if you roll the dice 64 times, the chances that you roll a 5 six times, is not 10^-6
User avatar
#137489 - zlane (04/15/2016) [-]
2*10^-6
User avatar
#137504 - cleverguy (04/15/2016) [-]
oh shit you're right

whoops

anyway 6 mutations out of 6 hundred million nucleotides is nothing
User avatar
#137518 - zlane (04/15/2016) [-]
>6 mutations out of 6 hundred million nucleotides is nothing

right, but what i'm arguing is that these functional nucleotides are being replaced by useless ones faster than they're being created.
User avatar
#137533 - cleverguy (04/15/2016) [-]
in the vast majority of individuals, these mutations do absolutely nothing, that's what I'm trying to tell you. a lot of the time you can change a base and it still codes for the same amino acid so nothing changes
#137498 - cleverguy has deleted their comment.
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (341)
[ 341 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
137 comments displayed.
#359 - anon (02/29/2016) [-]
If I pull that brain out, will you be so clever?
#340 - zlane (02/11/2016) [-]
my *****.

i did some really assholish things back in the golden days. i hope you'll forgive me. i liked the conversations we had. i hope you come back.
#341 to #340 - cleverguy (02/11/2016) [-]
is this real?
#342 to #341 - galation (02/11/2016) [-]
yes
#343 to #342 - cleverguy (02/11/2016) [-]
what took you so long haha, maybe i will start lurking that board again
#344 to #343 - galation (02/11/2016) [-]
i became disillusioned i guess. but now it feels fun to have these discussions again.
#345 to #344 - cleverguy (02/11/2016) [-]
I hate to say it and sound like a whiner, but i really got tired of the legitimate anti semitism, i couldnt have discussions because my posts just got drowned with anti-jewish political cartoons,hopefully that has changed i guess cuz i like discussing this stuff
#346 to #345 - galation (02/11/2016) [-]
those cartoons have their charm, and i view them as a legitimate form of satire and comedy, but if they're posted incessantly then yeah obviously they become disruptive to the flow of conversation. those type of posts are still present, but not to same degree.... i think. it's hard for me to tell since i've been gone for so long.
#347 to #346 - cleverguy (02/11/2016) [-]
i cant argue with that, ill be more open to lurking now that youre back
#348 to #347 - galation (02/11/2016) [-]
thats great news and very flattering
#349 to #348 - cleverguy (02/11/2016) [-]
oh and please forgive me for stuff i've said in the past, i like to think im more mature now. i was in high school back in our glory days, now im nearly done with college
#350 to #349 - galation (02/11/2016) [-]
congrats on being almost finished. i think you were always respectful, so no problem there. i was in high school too. i could be pretty vicious to certain people and i would go pretty far for a laugh. i think i'm slightly more contained now
#351 to #350 - cleverguy (02/11/2016) [-]
/religion/130318#130318

see what i mean ;)
#352 to #351 - galation (02/11/2016) [-]
he has some beef with you? hopefully it can be resolved, i mean it seems pretty superficial. i like both of you and your contributions to the board.
#353 to #352 - cleverguy (02/11/2016) [-]
i've expressed support for israel, so he thinks it gives him a free pass to be anti semitic and say "im just anti zionist"

He's muslim and lives in syria, he straight up hates everything about me and my beliefs
#356 to #353 - zlane (02/11/2016) [-]
he said he'll give you one more chance. thats all the most i could bargain for
#357 to #356 - cleverguy (02/12/2016) [-]
lol condescending bastard
#358 to #357 - zlane (02/12/2016) [-]
i'm so sorry lol
#354 to #353 - zlane (02/11/2016) [-]
i talked to him about it. lol
#317 - cognosceteipsum (08/08/2014) [-]
FJ gave me a malware warning. I think that's the que for us to leave. This antisemitic, racist, victimizing, malware-ridden, atheistkulting, generally rude site is not much to have. But I have an offer for you. Leave me your skype and I will try to convince you to join me
#338 to #317 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
that definition is alright, but it doesn't seem like you do that because everything you say is subjective
#318 to #317 - cleverguy (08/08/2014) [-]
join you doing what? what are you even talking about?
#319 to #318 - cognosceteipsum (08/08/2014) [-]
I'm going to start up a project. I'll tell you more about it if you want.
#339 to #319 - zlane (02/11/2016) [-]
well, did it ever come to fruition? tell me more about it please. my curiosity is piqued and i need to know more. i know i'm being nosy.....but come on i need to know
#355 to #339 - cognosceteipsum (02/11/2016) [-]
Nope. I don't even remember what it was.
#320 to #319 - cleverguy (08/09/2014) [-]
just tell me now. why would i want to agree to something i know nothing about, especially when you just talked **** about me
#321 to #320 - cognosceteipsum (08/10/2014) [-]
"I'll tell you more if you want to know more" not "I'll tell you more if you want to join me", my bad. Oh also, I actually changed my mind, I don't want to start that yet. The project

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVG4-ykP4c
here's some interesting psychology about religion
#322 to #321 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
you really need to think before you speak
#323 to #322 - cognosceteipsum (08/11/2014) [-]
But I did. I just changed my mind.
#324 to #323 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
you do that way too often for me to believe you
#325 to #324 - cognosceteipsum (08/11/2014) [-]
Do as you please. Heck, Christ was nailed to a cross just to show people he was the one true son of God or whatever. You know why I change my thoughts so often? Because I learn a lot and I think a lot. Almost constantly actually. I'm sorry if you're suspicious of me, but in the end, it can be traced down to my heckling of you being Jewish. Glad I'm notlike that aanymore for myself, but hey, you can be as you want and do as you want.
#326 to #325 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
because you take in information and believe it without analysis. regurgitating every new thought that pops into your head is not "learning". just because you think a lot doesn't mean your thoughts are profound or correct.

that's not why im suspicious of you, you just say weird **** all the time. and its tough to say whether you're not like that anymore or not because you may change your mind again.
#327 to #326 - cognosceteipsum (08/11/2014) [-]
Well you know. I do analyze what I've said. I just say what I believe for the moment in order to do peer review.

Ah. Well. Just take me as I am and leave behind labels and other stuff?
#328 to #327 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
you should do self review before asking for "peer review"

why do you want my acceptance so badly?
#329 to #328 - cognosceteipsum (08/11/2014) [-]
Well... I do. I come to my own conclusions. Likr that games may increase spacial intelligence.

I don't really... I just try to be friends with as many people as possible.
#330 to #329 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
you're really not making sense here
#331 to #330 - cognosceteipsum (08/11/2014) [-]
In what way_
#332 to #331 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
you keep saying contradicting things
#333 to #332 - cognosceteipsum (08/11/2014) [-]
Well, I am not a God, I will say some condtradictory things and well sometimes I just don't notice it. I guess all the time I don't notice. Name some contradicting things and I will try to respond to it
#334 to #333 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
>I do analyze what I've said.
>I just say what I believe for the moment

these are directly contradictory
#335 to #334 - cognosceteipsum (08/11/2014) [-]
I don't see how. I analyze it, then come to another conclusion, leave that, analyze, repeat.
#336 to #335 - cleverguy (08/11/2014) [-]
do you know what analyze means?
#337 to #336 - cognosceteipsum
(08/11/2014) [-]
I know what I think it is. To look at in objective light?
#276 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
So, are you a believer of any sort in any deity or creed? I'd say I'm an existentialist and an omnitheist. I believe there's an objective purpose to our existence.
#297 to #276 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
i don't want you to act differently, i want you to think differently
#299 to #297 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Hm. Alright. But those two are intertwined.. although yes, I will try to think of it differently.. to just.. be appreciative.. for.. the things... i have... and to thank... myself? Or just thank nature for creating me with natural selection?
#300 to #299 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
you don't have to thank anyone for things that happened on their own. you can thank your parents and stuff for raising you and you can thank farmers and stuff for your food and other things like that, but other things you don't really have to thank anyone for. you can enjoy how pretty trees are, but you don't have to thank anyone for it, just enjoy it
#301 to #300 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Alriiight I guess... but saying thanks has been showed to raise your happiness levels by escaping the hedonic treadmill... www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5lZBjWDR_c
#302 to #301 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
well that's fine and good, but that still doesn't mean that there's anyone to thank
#303 to #302 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Sure, fiiiiine alrigth nobody to thank xd fine, let us keep it at that
#304 to #303 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
okie dokie
#277 to #276 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
my culture is jewish, but i don't believe in the religion. i don't believe any sort of deity exists because i've decided that a maximally great being can't exist because a maximally great being is not necessary.

i guess I'm an existential nihilist
#278 to #277 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
so.. necessity is the defining factor for you? I don't know how to argue at this point I think.. not sure if I'm intelligent enough.

hm. yeah, probably, then you believe in the subjective meaning of exist and enjoy, which everyone does, like... what else is there to do? I myself believe there's something more to do (go into trance, talk with God, explore, just a step higher well being I guess) but I respect your belief as I believed that for a very long time
#279 to #278 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
well yeah necessity is a defining factor because a maximally great being would be a necessary being, as in no possible universe could exist without this being's influence, but since i don't think our universe needed this being's influence, this being must not be necessary and thus the being doesn't exist.
i know you said you didn't want to argue that point, i just thought i should explain further

not subjective meaning, just that there is no "meaning"
i don't think there's any reason to think that humans have a special purpose in the universe, we are biological machines just like every other living thing. the only thing we've evolved to do efficiently is reproduce. so we might as well just deal with that and just live our lives the best we can, but wondering about meaning and purpose is a waste of time with this in mind.
#280 to #279 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Hm. I guess I'm more of a deist then as i believe he set it in motion and he made hardships for us with hidden nuggets of psychological strength. Like, your mother got cancer so that you could learn to cope with loss. YOU got cancer so that you got used to how medicine worked and to cooperate, to learn to appreciate life for real and so on, that's how I believe. I believe in God, for in each moment, I find a blessing. No kidding. Every ******* moment I find something new and good and if you look too in each moment, you will find that your life is already abundant

Well yeah, but the living lives best is a subjective meaning isn't it? A meaning you applied
oh and.. not supposed to talk behind peoples backs but.. thanks for not spazzing out like willow.. I used to like him... until he turned this way.. all corrupted by meaninglessness
#281 to #280 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
well the thing about that belief is that it's more based in wishful thinking than actual truth
like it would be cool if it were true, but there's no real reason to think that it is true

it's not meaning, it's advice
#282 to #281 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Just take the chance in believing in it and see what happens? For me, what has happened throughout my life is proof, but I don't know.

Alright.
#283 to #282 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
is something supposed to happen? can't i enjoy life my own way?
#284 to #283 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
That's how it is from my point of view lol, that everything is predetermined by God..

but you have free will and you get to choose.. see, here is where it gets REALLY murky and you might just be smarter and know more than I do in this area. But I believe you have the freedom to choose what kind of good thing you want to experience. You can fap or sex. You can live concert, livestreamed concert, or live recorded video on youtube concert. You can neuroscience or cosmology. You can both. You can all. See?
#285 to #284 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
but what does that have to do with God?
#286 to #285 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Those are the choices He gave you, that's what I believe.
#287 to #286 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
but why do you believe god gave you those choices?
#288 to #287 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Because they are so great. They may be random; I Don't really care either way, I will live my life the same way with and without God.
#289 to #288 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
that's what i'm saying, you would live the same either way, the only difference is that you're inserting an unnecessary God being into your life and giving it credit for things that happened on their own.

it's occ.'s razor basically, you have no reason to accredit God to these things
#290 to #289 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Well then. I guess I'll just acredit God to it and you don't, that's fine, we can still be friends.
#291 to #290 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
I'm just wondering why you do that? why do you think it has to be God?
#292 to #291 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
Gut feeling. Also friends who believe in God and so I do too. Not peer pressure. Please don't treat my belief any less than I treat your disbelief. I can't really explain it. But it's not less valid than your disbelief imo; I can see if you disagree, but please.
#293 to #292 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
well that's the thing, by definition your belief is not valid
#294 to #293 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
How about we do a little thing called have faith? Is that wrong? It's not like it's going to subtract anything from my life; but it IS going to add some things. I have someone to thank for all the great things, which make me even more happy for it
#295 to #294 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
yeah i know, faith is ok, but you have to understand that it is just that: faith-something not based in logic or reason, but believed for completely arbitrary reason, aka not valid

it's ok to have it, and it's ok to believe things, but don't pretend like you have a good reason to believe it
#298 to #295 - cognosceteipsum
(07/25/2014) [-]
Also, keep in mind, I MAY find reasons to believe along the way.
#296 to #295 - cognosceteipsum
(07/25/2014) [-]
Fine, how do you want me to act then? Give a scenario please
#275 - cognosceteipsum (07/25/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lp-NMaU0r8
Be proud, Son of Zion!
#269 - teoberry (07/25/2014) [-]
Do you mind if I continue our PM convo on here or my profile or somewhere? I forget about PMs and it's annoying to respond.
#273 to #269 - teoberry (07/25/2014) [-]
The third source isn't too reliable. It says there "may be some" in hospitals, which the Director himself says is false. There may have been missiles near it, but that's no excuse for missiles hitting it. The IDF should be better than that. I get it's tech and all, but if you're gonna use missiles in a city, you have no room to miss.
#274 to #273 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
honestly it's hard for me to keep track of the links you're referring to, but i dont really want to try to prove to you any further that hamas operates in ways that put it's own civilians in danger.

so, for the sake of argument, lets concede that bombing was a mistake and that israel stops bombing.
ok, now what happens? what should israel's next course of action be?
#305 to #274 - teoberry (07/27/2014) [-]
They're the ones you pmed me

To be honest, I'm not too sure anymore. nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html This ***** with the situation a bit because the kidnapping was part of the reason Israel went in. To me, it seems that boots on the ground is the best option. No way Hamas can fight the IDF, and with people on the ground we can tell if a civilian death is accidental, and I think there'll be less of them
#306 to #305 - cleverguy (07/27/2014) [-]
yea i know, but i dont remember the order and stuff

the kidnapping was part of it, but it's also the fact that hamas is firing hundreds of rockets at israel.

guerilla warfare never turns out good and civilian deaths, i feel, will be much more frequent for the same reasons that civilian deaths happen in gaza now: people martyring themselves as well as crowded cities
#307 to #306 - teoberry (07/30/2014) [-]
**** me it never gives notifications

I know the rockets are the main reason, but this is just shameful

Either way, sadly, civilians are gonna die, but with a ground invasion I feel that since rifles are more accurate than rockets with a much lower potential for collateral, it's better. So we avoid things like this www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28558433
#308 to #307 - cleverguy (07/30/2014) [-]
i think you greatly overestimate how effective a ground invasion could be.
#309 to #308 - teoberry (07/30/2014) [-]
I'd prefer anything to missiles since Israel is showing no restraint with them.
#310 to #309 - cleverguy (07/30/2014) [-]
how is israel showing no restraint? israel could make gaza a parking lot if it wanted to, but it doesn't. israel could opt not to warn civilians of missile strikes, but it does. israel could break ceasefires after hamas kills soldiers during ceasefires, but it doesn't.

israel has shown nothing but restraint
#311 to #310 - teoberry (07/31/2014) [-]
Really? They're bombing UN shelters for God's sake. They're shelling markets and coming up with those ****** edited images as proof. (Note: I'm not saying the image itself is edited, but it has those added on labels and markers which obscure whatever's going on, not to mention the fact that they're potato-quality). Good, they're not totally eliminating everyone in Gaza. ***************. They're such role models. The UN shelter told Israel not one, not ten, but 17 times that there were full of displaced victims, yet they still got directly hit. economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/unrwa-commissioner-general-pierre-krahenbuhl-denounces-israel-for-strike-on-gaza-school/articleshow/39302081.cms How can you even try to justify Israel's actions anymore? I get that they're being attacked, but let's face it, when one out of every 284 civilian deaths is an Israeli, you can't use that excuse anymore. Israel has Iron Dome. Palestine has nothing. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/gaza-counter/
#312 to #311 - cleverguy (08/01/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JpkdF0qCU&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

you should watch this. you really underestimate how hard israel tries to avoid civilian casualties and how much hamas tries to create them

the thing is, you can't just say "look they bombed UN shelters!" because it was confirmed that hamas was hiding bombs in, not one, but two UN schools in gaza. the fact that they were shelters does not mean that they were not being used by hamas and that the civilians were not warned to evacuate.

Also, this is not a game and civilian deaths is not a scoreboard. the thing is, no civilian deaths are ok, but you're blaming the wrong people for civilian deaths. israel gives so many warnings, but do you know what hamas does? they say on TV: do not listen to israeli warnings to evacuate, it is psychological warfare, defend your homes with your bodies.
palestinians are told to martyr themselves by hamas.

the fact that you'd use an argument based around "not enough israelis are dying to justify their force" is sickening
#313 to #312 - teoberry (08/01/2014) [-]
Can you find a transcript? Watching videos isn't exactly a strong suit since I'm more likely to just **** around on my phone

But what about that shelter? AFAIK there's no proof there were any rockets there. You can't just bomb it because other schools had it. That's not right. The UN told Israel not to bomb it. Where would they evacuate to since most of the Gaza Strip is being bombed and there's currently a blockade.

I know that. I'm just saying they can't use Hamas's rockets as an excuse. Also, did you know about the Dahiya Doctrine? That's likely what Israel is using right now, as they did in 2009. Here's a UN report on Israel's military tactics (granted they stopped using white phosphorus) www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

The fact that Israel has something like Dahiya in place and the fact that they trap people in a small tract of land, and blame them when they get hit by shells, is sickening. Also, four seperate news agencies found no proof of Hamas human shields, with Israel actually doing it confirmed by the UN. www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-palestinian-israel-children-idUSBRE95J0FR20130620 www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-the-myth-of-hamass-human-shield-9619810.html www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/07/jeremy-bowens-gaza-notebook-i-saw-no-evidence-hamas-using-palestinians-human www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/gaza-displaced-palestinians-not-safe
#314 to #313 - cleverguy (08/01/2014) [-]
you should just watch the video

that article you linked was regarding a school that had bombs in it, not a shelter

i don't understand why you think gazans have nowhere to evacuate to? its not like israel is firing nukes at them, they can go a little ways in any direction away from the target and they should be fine. the problem is that, like i said and you seem to have ignored repeatedly, that hamas tells their people to sacrifice their bodies for their cause and to defend their homes with their bodies. they tell them to ignore israeli warnings and to do the opposite of what they say when they tell them to evacuate. all this while hamas leaders hide in underground bunkers. this is what is meant by human shields.
#315 to #314 - teoberry (08/01/2014) [-]
Alright, I'll get around to it

The one in #311 from the WP? I called it a shelter because at the time, before it was destroyed, that was it's purpose. Do you have any proof that school had bombs in it?

Not when most of Gaza is being bombed at once, not to mention the warnings aren't always enough time Israel Mortar Hitting Roof of Gaza Building To Warn of imminent Israeli Strike , as seen in this where the residents have about a minute from warning to destruction, not to mention the blockade means that they're all but stuck in Gaza, so they go from one place to another hoping that the other place isn't being bombed. And sometimes, Israel just plain doesn't warn them, like when they bombed that police chief's house and the mosque nearby, killing 18 civilians rt.com/news/172380-israel-air-strikes-gaza/
#316 to #315 - cleverguy (08/01/2014) [-]
www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school

www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/hamas-may-have-fired-rockets-that-hit-unrwa-school-killing-17/2014/07/24/

you do realize that roof knocking is the very last warning and that the people in that building, if there were any, which it looks like there weren't any, were probably given multiple other warnings long before the video was taken.
also, the person filming does not seem to be very far from the building getting bombed, and yet is perfectly safe, as are many others that can be heard in the video who must be close by. so saying they have nowhere to go is a poor argument, because this video is proof that they don't have to go very far.

also that article just says they didn't get a roof knocking warning, and even if you believe that that is true, that is not the only warning that they are given. so saying they were not warned at all is disingenuous
#271 to #269 - teoberry (07/25/2014) [-]
**** it, gonna post it here and delete later if you want. Plus we have more characters. I'm gonna look at your first link. The very first video shows two guys getting into an ambulance. That's it. There's no other sort of proof that the ambulance was used in an attack or even connected to Hamas or a terror group. The picture after literally just shows a diagram of a neighbourhood, no type of evidence whatsoever. Yes, the third one show Hamas was hiding rockets. In a vacant school. It was next to two other full schools but if they wanted to put their people in the line of fire they would've hid it in there. I don't think it's a "lets put it with civilians so Israel is condemned" type thing, I think it's a "we don't think that Israel will bomb UN targets so it's convenient for us". Not trying to justify it, just saying there's more than one explanation. Don't see anything wrong with dressing up as a soldier, that's tactically smart, actually. Also, see this (electronicintifada.net/blogs/maureen-clare-murphy/photo-gun-toting-israeli-soldier-disguised-palestinian-woman). Re: the women, I don't think a tweet is to be trusted, especially because it could've been a girl with a gun, and people there are less than friendly to reporters (rt.com/usa/173888-cnn-reporter-scum-israel/) Same goes for the next one, it's one report with the no proof. Weren't you the one who was talking about witnesses not being reliable? For the donkeys, the Russians used dogs to do it with tanks. Don't really see the problem. For the house, I see a hole. No other photos. The home owner could've offered up his place. Also, source two is included in this since it talks about the school. Gonna go on your third link real quick.
#270 to #269 - cleverguy (07/25/2014) [-]
yeah it's no problem, the character limits are bringing me down too. im not sure how much more there is to say though
#272 to #270 - teoberry (07/25/2014) [-]
Agreed, I'm just doing it because I'm bored.
#268 - cognosceteipsum (07/23/2014) [-]
Hey... say that you and I.... (pm)
#267 - evilhomer (06/21/2014) [-]
#246 to #245 - cleverguy (12/12/2013) [-]
......ok....
#249 to #246 - revengeforfreeze (12/12/2013) [-]
like*
#250 to #249 - cleverguy (12/12/2013) [-]
what are you trying to prove here?
#251 to #250 - revengeforfreeze (12/13/2013) [-]
?
#252 to #251 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
my question was pretty clear. why did you post this?
#253 to #252 - revengeforfreeze (12/13/2013) [-]
Its not, "what are you trying to prove" nothing just found it funny.
#254 to #253 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
why?
#255 to #254 - revengeforfreeze (12/13/2013) [-]
>funny
#256 to #255 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
you're full of ****
#257 to #256 - revengeforfreeze (12/13/2013) [-]
I am full of ****? For posting a funny Link? Sensitive much?
#258 to #257 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
what do you have against jews?
#259 to #258 - revengeforfreeze (12/13/2013) [-]
That you are in denial. Not nexessarily all of them but you at least.

Also that They are so rcial supremacist that it hurts
#260 to #259 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
denial of what?

and pride is very differen from supremacy
#261 to #260 - revengeforfreeze (12/13/2013) [-]
Hypocrites gonna hypo. First off, its ironic that you call me an idiot while you dont understand that he is being a coward.

Then, the torah is chock full of racial supremacy. Just because you dont understand the differencw between supremacy and Pride doesnt make me an idiot
#262 to #261 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
that's your incorrect opinion

and you dont have to believe the torah to be jewish
#263 to #262 - revengeforfreeze (12/13/2013) [-]
Hahaha no. Its your incorrect opinion that hes just doing it for Visual rhetoric or whatever.

Yet so many are racial supremacists. Hmm.
#264 to #263 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
again, just because you dont understand it...

and it seems like youre the racist one hear.

this will be my last response
#265 to #264 - cleverguy (12/13/2013) [-]
here*
#248 to #246 - revengeforfreeze (12/12/2013) [-]
u kike?
#247 to #246 - revengeforfreeze (12/12/2013) [-]
xd
#228 - thebritishguy (10/15/2013) [-]
Hey man, what do you think about the first cause argument? I'm talking to this physicist about it
#360 to #228 - zlane (05/11/2016) [-]
how did it go? link to the discussion?
#361 to #360 - thebritishguy (05/11/2016) [-]
It was an email conversation it's been ongoing for like 2 years, not too disimilar to the conversation I'm having with you except for he uses Bayes Theorum as that's what he specialises in and obviously a lot more examples from physics experiments.
#362 to #361 - zlane (05/11/2016) [-]
hm. which physics experiments? and i'm not sure how bayes theorem would play into the argument.
#363 to #362 - thebritishguy (05/11/2016) [-]
No ones sure about what Bayes theorum has to do with this because it's appropriate use is by using a large sample of data to make predictions. He's trying to say that by Bayes theorum if something is more than 50% likely you should believe it and so by the fine tuning argument he thinks God is 99% likely. Once I made the mistake between saying that matter can not be created when I meant energy being created, so he showed I was wrong and he used science to disprove many string and big bounce theories, although I don't believe in any of these theories.
#364 to #363 - zlane (05/11/2016) [-]
if you feel comfortable posting a transcript of the discussion, that would be great.
#365 to #364 - thebritishguy (05/11/2016) [-]
I can't post a transcript because there's just long emails and word limis.
This is mainly what we are talking about now.
"The idea that it is rational to reject any hypothesis for which one has no evidence is common in atheist circles (and among the militant agnostics). It is also demonstrably irrational. The rational course is to admit that one doesn't know.

There is some problem in the line often taken by Atheists/Militant Agnostics; this is to do with the meaning of the statement: "I do not believe that God exists". This initially appears to mean "I do not have overwhelming evidence that God exists", but the Atheist/Agnostic changes it mid-argument to mean "I believe that God does not exist". This is intellectually dishonest; it depends on concealing what one means when gaining assent to the early propositions of the argument.

Consider your problem of the six-sided die.

You propose a situation where a fair six-sided die is to be thrown. The question you ask is effectively "Is it rational to say that you do not believe that the die will land on a six".

This is a good example of the problem of imprecision in the definition of the statement. The statement is:

"I do not believe that the die will land on a six".

This could be interpreted in two ways. It could be interpreted to mean: "The die could land several ways but I don't know for certain that the die will land on a six" or it could be interpreted to mean: "I believe that the die will definitely not land on a six".

The second of these is irrational. Given a standard die, the probability that the die will land on the six is one in six. Thus the statement "The die will not land on a six" will be wrong one throw in six on average.

One could think of the same question involving another number - say five. The situation concerning the number five is exactly the same as it is for the number six. There is no information to suppose that the die will definitely land on a five. If it is rational to say "I do not believe that the die will land on a six" it is equally rational to say "I do not believe that the die will land on a five".

The same is true for all the numbers on which the die could land. If it is rational to say "I do not believe that the die will land on a six" it is equally rational to say "I do not believe that the die will land on a five" or "I do not believe that the die will land on a four" or "I do not beleive that the die will land on a three" or "I do not believe that the die will land on a two" or "I do not believe that he die will land on a one".

Thus if it is rational to say "I do not believe that the die will land on a six" it is rational to say "I do not believe that the die will land on a one, two, three, four, five or six".

Again, this is a matter of meaning. It could be that the person who issues the statement simply means that they do not know whether the die will land on any of these numbers (although this would be an unusual usage in the English language). However, if the meaning is that the die will not land on number X, then one has stated that one does not believe that the die will land on any number at all - which is patently false.

Thus one can state that it is not rational to say "I do not believe that the die will land on a six" if by this one means that one has a definite belief that the die will not land on the six. To say this would be to express a belief that the die will not land on any number, unless one has evidence to suggest that the die will definitely land on some other number than a six.

This is where the intellectual dishonesty of Atheism / Militant Agnosticism becomes apparent. The Atheist/Agnostic starts with the statement "I have no evidence to suggest that God exists, so therefore I don't believe in God."
#229 to #228 - cleverguy (10/15/2013) [-]
you mean the kalam argument?

i dont think it holds because time didn't exist "before" the universe, so principles of causality dont apply to the origin of the universe because nothing could possibly have come "before" it
#230 to #229 - thebritishguy (10/15/2013) [-]
yeah I mentioned that. But also because when we see cause and effect we are just seeing things going according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter just changes shape, we don't actually see things coming into existence as such, just changing shape.
Also I don't think it's right to apply laws of our Universe onto the Universe itself.
#231 to #230 - cleverguy (10/15/2013) [-]
exactly, so are you just looking for confirmation? because thats enough in my mind to show that a "first cause" argument doesn't work
#233 to #231 - thebritishguy (10/15/2013) [-]
I'm just looking for as much material to use because he's a physicist and I'm just a teenager. I've already been wrong about some stuff like I kept going on about how matter can't be created or destroyed when it totally can.
What's weird to me is that Carl Sagan used the argument "what was the cause of God?" but Gods infinite, so then he says "well then the Universe is infinite" but the Universe isn't infinite because of the big bang so it's not a good refutation, is it? Then where did God come from?  (Carl Sagan)
#244 to #233 - revengeforfreeze (11/09/2013) [-]
I scrolled by quickly and I thought the branch to his left looking behind him and to his right looking at him up front was the neck of a guitar.. lol
#235 to #233 - cleverguy (10/15/2013) [-]
look below. i wrote that before watching the video so i might have repeated some stuff he said unintentionally
#232 to #231 - thebritishguy
has deleted their comment [-]
#234 to #232 - cleverguy (10/15/2013) [-]
Theres something in science that separates it from the "God is infinite" argument, it's called refutability. being irrefutable, like most definitions of God, doesn't make it true, in fact it makes it less believable. its how fortune tellers work: they say something like "you will meet someone interesting soon" and that can be twisted and turned to come true no matter what because it is so ambiguous. that's why most people dont believe in fortune tellers, because they know their irrefutable claims are just bunk that's made to seem true.

What was the cause of God is a perfectly valid question, but "God is just infinite" is not a valid answer for a couple reasons. first, it's irrefutable, so it's not an actual explanation, it's an arbitrary definition that just makes things more complicated, but cannot be argued with. it also opens the question of why can't the universe just be infinite, but that's another can of worms of philosophy and stuff.

The reasons that we think the universe did not have a "first cause" are logical and valid, the reasons for thinking it did are arbitrary and fallacious. It's as simple as that. the universe could not have been "caused" because principles of causality do not apply when time doesn't exist. as far as our universe is concerned, it coming into existence was the first event ever in time. in other words, the universe did not need to be "caused" because without laws of physics or time in existence, there is nothing stopping an entire universe from basically just "popping into existence" so to speak.
#236 to #234 - thebritishguy (10/15/2013) [-]
Ah yes that makes sense, it seems unreasonable but we usually only apply reasons to things which are within time and our Universe.
But the Universe can't be infinite because of the big bang, that makes it finite. Unless we propose the "big bounce theory" but he refuted that.

Like every argument for God though it's just opening a gap and filling it with God, even if the first cause argument is valid the cause could just be an infinite bubble bath where every bubble is a Universe.
#237 to #236 - cleverguy (10/16/2013) [-]
exactly, arbitrary explanations are lazy and solve no actual problems
#238 to #237 - thebritishguy (10/16/2013) [-]
indeed, but I don't want intellectual masturbation
You say that
//it also opens the question of why can't the universe just be infinite, but that's another can of worms of philosophy and stuff.//
But how can the Universe be infinite? the big bang makes it finite
#239 to #238 - cleverguy (10/16/2013) [-]
because time has only existed along with our universe, so nothing came "before" it and nothing will come "after" it. who's to say what conditions exist when time doesn't. you can't even describe the scenario without using time related words. the way i see it, literally anything could happen without laws of physics and time, but regarding an infinite universe, as far as time is concerned, the universe has "always" existed.
#240 to #239 - thebritishguy (10/16/2013) [-]
Yeah the Universe has always existed, but it is still not eternal because it did...start. It's hard to talk about it without giving false implications. We have other evidence as well, we know that the Universe is going to keep expanding and supposedly end, if it was eternal it could not end either.
I'm a bit confused about this, it seems you are talking about a state with no laws of physics or time but when is this supposed to be? are you referring to the singularity or some kind of string theory?
#241 to #240 - cleverguy (10/17/2013) [-]
that also depends what you mean by end too. will the universe cease to exist? or will everything in the universe eventual just become pure heat energy forever and ever?

also that state is the state of nothingness. it is impossible to fathom because even empty space is something. it has nothing to do with anything in the universe. my view is that a state of nothingness has infinite potential, and the universe started out of that nothingness on its own
#242 to #241 - thebritishguy (10/17/2013) [-]
There's no point talking about absolutely nothing, it didn't exist. Absolutely nothing is just non existence.

There are different theories about the Universes funeral:
big crunch: the Universe will collapse into a little ball and maybe bang again
big freeze: it will keep expanding and we will freeze until it expands into almost absolute zero
big rip: the Universe goes into an exponential expansion and expands so rapidly that the distant galaxies will never be seen, the night sky will be black except for a few nearby stars.

We have to look at dark matter to find out what the rate of expansion is.
#243 to #242 - cleverguy (10/17/2013) [-]
none of those mean it will stop existing, so in that sense, the universe is functionally eternal.