quote:

---

Originally written by Kitchen Toaster:

Actually, at higher levels he can cast two times per round unhasted which is a big advantage and go first.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by ben2:

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:
cheque

---

This just bothered me. It just did. Sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

Isn't Pluto actually in two pieces anyway? I think I heard a report a while back that said that astronomers had taken a closer look and realized that it was two chunks of rock, not just one.

---

quote:

---

AGAIN, you are dodging. I am NOT asking whether something can be SAID by YOU to exist FOR YOU. I am asking whether the tree is there, physically.

---

quote:

---

You seem unaware of what "objective" is. Things which are different for each individual are subjective. If it is your view that ALL things are subjective then fine, we are at an impasse(as I said LONG ago) and while it has(mostly) been fun, we cannot really squeeze much else out of this discussion.

---

quote:

---

I disagree completely but we are spinning our wheels again.I do not need to examine every automobile in existence at once to say that none of them are made entirely of gelatin or molasses. I can say this is objecttively true by virtue of having some knowledge of how things work. it is impossible to build a combustion engine out of molasses.

---

quote:

---

A statement that is not meaningful to YOU cannot be objectively true? That is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

The question is a simple one: Was there something that physically existed which preceeded OUR existence and led TO our developement in a linear chain of causation? Again, I am NOT asking whether youy or I could have found this meaningful sans our own existence.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And I answered by distinguishing two different kinds of past tense; the one obtained by conceptually reversing time for the event alone and the one obtained by conceptually reversing time for both the event and the observer. In the latter case, the observer thinks himself right out of the picture, so in order to make meaningful statements about the past we are dependent on things as they appear to us in the present.

---

Again, who cares? The point is that matter exists adn existed regardless of whether we had ever evolved. If no life had ever devloped on earth, this would not preclude a universe full of planets and stars from itself existing. It would only preclude anyone being able to appreciate, asses or evaluate such things.

---

quote:

---

So you are agreeing that matter itself exists, even prior to our own existence as a species?

---

quote:

---

Again, I understand adn agree with teh point that we cannot assign truth values or appreciate such concepts as existence adn non-existence unless we ourselves exist. THat is another issue and one we DO agree on so let's not dwell on this distraction. THe question I put before you is this:

Say an asteroid was moving through space, one billion years ago, and was due to intersect with the location we currently observe Earth to be. Would this asteroid hit something or not?

---

quote:

---

I repeat: I understand that we could not find any meaning in such an event if we are not aropund to do so. We already agree to that. NOW let's move on to MY question above. Pretend a non-sentient cam-corder was floating through space recording events but no life forms existed ANYWHERE. Would the camera record an asteroid impact with earth or would it record nothingness?

---

quote:

---

Again, I undersstand that, not existing ourselves, we could not SAY that the camera or the asteroid existed. That is not what I am asking.

---

quote:

---

Because you are treating these first principles as if they are arrived at in the same methodological process that we arrive at conclusions which follow from these base assumptions. We have NO CHOICE in whether we will accept such assumptions which are themselves not subject to validation by logic.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I was too subtle in making my point. I was objecting specifically to including observation as an initial, independent item in the scientific method, not to including observation in the scientific method in general.

---

What does THAT mean?!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So let me see if I understand you. The scientific method is intended to be a procedure for obtaining true propositions?

---

It is a process/method for understanding the limitations of our universe. For comprehendsing HOW the universe works/ behaves as we observe it to do so.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A little experiement: Define "bad" for me right here(a much simpler word than "thought" no?). After you do so, I will come by and show you how incomplete your definition is since it will not include all possible definitions applicable to every possible speaker, audience, context and usage.

---

Okay. Now I'm no lexicographer, and ideally I'd like a few weeks to consult with people who are before attempting a definition, but here's my little attempt anyway.

Being "bad" is not a property of an object as such; something is "bad" for or to something. Something which is bad for a conscious being has properties which are, overall, contrary to the fulfilment of that being's desires. An individual property of an object may be bad for a being in isolation even if the object as a whole is not bad for that being (for example, a medicine's taste may be bad for a particular being, in that that beings desires to avoid experiencing such a taste, but the overall effect of exposure to the medicine may not be bad due to its overriding health benefits).

We can also say that something is "bad" for an inanimate object. When something is bad for an object, it is generally bad with respect to a conscious being's attitude toward that object. Something which is bad for an object with respect to a conscious being confers on that object properties which are undesirable to that being, or removes from it properties which are desirable to that being. For example, filling the fuel tank with sugar is bad for my car with respect to me, because it removes from it the property of being usable for transportation, which is a property that I desire of my car.

When we say that something is bad for an object without specifying who it is bad for that object for, we are usually implying that the object has a generally-accepted intended purpose and that the bad thing acts to prevent the fulfilment of that purpose (again, in this sense it can be said that filling the fuel tank with sugar is bad for a car, because it is generally accepted among car users that a car has an intended purpose of being used for transportation).

When we simply say that something is "bad", we usually mean that we are assessing it as being bad for ourselves, or in some cases for the audience we are addressing.

---

Your definition of "bad" is insufficient adn incomplete. It does not tell me anything worth knowing about Shaft's "badness". They say that Shaft is one BAD mother-(Shut yo' mouth!) adn "they" obviously do not mean any of what you said above.
"Bad" in the context of Shaft means "Someone so cool and tough that he is not to be trifled with. Someone so 'smoothe' with the ladies that if you walk into a singles bar, single, and Shaft is there, you will leave said bar... single.

---