Upload
Login or register

smudgiemuffins

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/08/2013
Last Login:9/26/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#4846
Highest Comment Rank:#4842
Comment Thumbs: 1063 total,  1334 ,  271
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 190 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 191 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:218
FJ Points:843

latest user's comments

#10 - Two lines are said to be "parallel" precisely when t…  [+] (2 replies) 09/19/2016 on Puns Galore +4
User avatar
#29 - gelind (09/19/2016) [-]
no... pretend you have 2 lines that are perpendicular at point J. Now you have point P (the pivot point) 2ft above point P. If you start to pivot the two lines, then point J will get farther and farther away. It stands to reason that point J will eventually leave the first line, right? Well thats not true because no matter how far you pivot there will always be a part farther away that still touches and forms point J.
#31 - smudgiemuffins (09/19/2016) [-]
I'm not sure how to be any more clear. Lines are parallel only when they:
1. Both lie in a plane.
2. Do not intersect.
If they intersect at J, then they fail condition 2 and are not parallel. I didn't just make this up, this is the accepted definition of parallel lines. If this is not what you mean by parallel, then choose a new term and define it precisely.

Furthermore, you've asserted that no matter how far I pivot one of those lines, they will always meet at a point J. You seem to be working with euclidean geometry, in which case that's blatantly wrong. In fact, if you rotate one of those lines by 90 degrees, they will be precisely parallel. I assume you've taken a high school geometry class. Do you recall writing proofs? In mathematics, you don't get to assert things without a proof.

No matter what you mean by "parallel," you still seem to be asserting that all lines in euclidean space intersect. Correct me if I've misunderstand you. That's completely trivial to disprove. Euclid's 5th postulate guarantees the existence of a line parallel to any other. By the definition of parallel lines, such lines do not intersect. Hence there is at least one pair of non-intersecting lines.
#13 - You're fortunate not to have experienced the great nun bombing…  [+] (1 reply) 09/14/2016 on Religious garb +62
#35 - lostabyss (09/14/2016) [-]
we also used nuns as bombs during wwii. they were americas primary ordnance.
#128 - "I once heard some people who called themselves scientist…  [+] (2 replies) 09/13/2016 on Evolution Of Stupidity +4
User avatar
#159 - woozuh (09/13/2016) [-]
they deleted it because it didnt happen
#170 - smudgiemuffins (09/13/2016) [-]
What do you mean deleted "it"? Every record of them ever having made that ridiculous claim has been deleted and only you remember? The internet existed in 2003.
#31 - I think his point is that the premise of stories of that sort …  [+] (1 reply) 08/29/2016 on a li'l something to think... 0
User avatar
#34 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
You misunderstand, it's not the indulgence that's the problem, it's information overload. Orwell cites censorship and the hiding of information as man's downfall. Huxley instead says that the downfall will come when we have so much information at our fingertips we can't possibly react to it, and thus become complacent and focus on indulgence.

An example of Huxley's proposal: 20 years ago you read a newspaper, you see a couple things you dislike. Great, you bring this up with friends and some of you write letters to your local representative. Now you read an article online, you see several things you dislike, followed by links to immediate look at that amazing slideshow of celeb facts, and over there are adverts for all these cool toys and medicines, the comments are people going off on tangents about other issues, the Reddit post has 8 different conflicting views on the topic at hand. So... wait, who's right? Am I upset? Who cares, look at all other people, they'll handle it. And plus there's so much bad now, I don't care. You hang with friends, but don't really talk about the 50 shitty things you read about because it's too much. No one writes to the local representative.

It's probably a poor analogy, but I hope it gets the basic concept across.
#170 - But if it's not obvious from the definition which is the case,…  [+] (1 reply) 08/17/2016 on Batgod 0
User avatar
#172 - testaburger (08/17/2016) [-]
"Then we suddenly have to have a conversation about what power is. "
We already do.


"if you stray anywhere near omnipotence territory when you don't need to."
Which is why theologians have stopped calling god omnipotent, and instead call him "maximally powerful"
This is the whole point. You resolve a bunch of issues, and lose nothing.
#166 - That still doesn't seem sufficient as a definition. Clearly &q…  [+] (3 replies) 08/17/2016 on Batgod 0
User avatar
#167 - testaburger (08/17/2016) [-]
Dunno, but that's not the point.
The point is, god is no longer all-powerful, he's just most powerful.
It gets rid of the paradox, without costing christians anything.
#170 - smudgiemuffins (08/17/2016) [-]
But if it's not obvious from the definition which is the case, then "maximally powerful" isn't really a good definition. Then we suddenly have to have a conversation about what power is.

I mean, I don't doubt that you could expand upon the definition a bit more to resolve it, but does god being as powerful as logically possible really matter? Why not just say he's more powerful than could ever reasonably matter? From a christian perspective, who cares how powerful he is as long as he's powerful enough to make the universe work and guarantee paradise in heaven?

I guess I feel like you'd just be shooting yourself in the foot if you stray anywhere near omnipotence territory when you don't need to.
User avatar
#172 - testaburger (08/17/2016) [-]
"Then we suddenly have to have a conversation about what power is. "
We already do.


"if you stray anywhere near omnipotence territory when you don't need to."
Which is why theologians have stopped calling god omnipotent, and instead call him "maximally powerful"
This is the whole point. You resolve a bunch of issues, and lose nothing.
[ 218 Total ]