Rainbow Dash
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Rainbow Dash
-
-
@nazra7:
> If you disagree with premise 3 and 4 of my argument then you need to provide a sound argument supporting that disagreement. Otherwise, there's no good reason to suggest its not the case that energy is not omnipotent and conscious.
Pluto is made of cheese. Therefore, the Roman god Pluto was made of cheese. Since Pluto is a God, we must write his laws in ours.
I've written something that makes just about as much sense and is just about as mind-numbingly idiotic as your idea of energy having a conscience. Now that I've said it, **prove** I'm wrong, because according to your idea of a debate, no matter what lunacy comes up, it must be proved. -
Global chat is already there, just type into the bar and hit enter.
Private chat needs you to put (I think) !Playersname before your message and party chatting is in there but I'm unsure how it's done. -
@nazra7:
> This argument has yet to be rebutted.
You don't have a forking argument. You're saying that God is in energy because energy is omnipotent and concious. It is not.
You don't have a single point. You're simply trying to look impressive by using longer words and trying to be philosophical when you obviously don't have a clue about what we're discussing.
There's no point arguing with you. It's like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how many good moves you make, the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut around like it won the game. -
@nazra7:
> @ Rainbow Dash
>
> My argument assumes energy to be a substance because our bodies and technology uses it. And that substance, additionally, is what my argument says God is composed of since it has those qualities attributes to God.
God is not a type of energy, nor is he made up of it. Energy is not concious or omnipotent. That's why you're wrong.
@nazra7:
> I should add that the phrase "in his image" is paraphrased one comma later: "in our likeness".
_So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them._
@nazra7:
> Funny that you asked me if I attended a physics class while you have forgotten that electricity is just one form of energy.
You said 'the energy we use to think and use to move'
That's electricity. You should attend some biology classes, too. God isn't electricity. Stop pretending you know anything about this subject.
@nazra7:
> Again, in so far you have not provided a sound rebuttal to my argument, thus the notion that God exists based on my argument still stands.
You never had an argument. You said that god is a type of energy. We told you that this is impossible. Capisci? -
It's difficult to understand it if you've never played WoW before, you can't simply assume that people have, and in the likelihood they have, they probably wouldn't know about it anyway.
And VB6 isn't protected viciously by Microsoft, since it's outdated, nigh on ancient. Blizzard are pretty tetchy about copyright for a current game. -
I actually didn't have to explain it to him, which I'm pretty relieved about.
Anyway, I would say that most people that this message will reach probably illegally acquire music, software and games. They're not going to stop that for another of Anon's little outbursts. -
@nazra7:
> my argument for the existence of God still stands.
**You never had one.**
You said that energy is not an unobservable quantity based on the fact that it's used to think or move.
Have you ever attended a physics lesson in your life? That's what energy does. Doesn't stop it from being a substance, does it?
Brains use electrical signals to move about. Does that mean that God is that electricity? No. The Judeo-Christian God is a concious being, who made us in his image - do we look like electricity to you? There's no such thing as God, and if God was just electricity, then he couldn't have done a single thing that was written in the bible. The bible was written in the bronze age, to add to the point, we only understood the basics of energy in 1687\.
This isn't an argument. You just don't have a clue and you're trying to make it look like you do. -
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with stupidity.
You clearly don't understand the concept of rhetorical questions. Nor do you seem to understand basic logic.
I'll break it down for you:
God is not a type of energy, nor is he in energy. Energy is not a conscious being and it isn't capable of doing anything that was written in the bible. Your 'argument' doesn't make any rational sense. Energy is just an indirectly observed quantity used in physics to measure things. It didn't make the world in six days, and nor did it cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden.
Also, using words such as stipulate or to that effect doesn't make you sound intelligent. Perhaps you should look them up before using them incorrectly. -
Nazra, there's no proof that God exists.
@nazra7:
> Conclusion: Therefore, energy is conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, a trinity, and energy is the Judeo Christian God.
What you said is just twaddle. You're saying that God is a type of energy. That's balls, really. How is energy supposed to kill all male babies in Egypt or give Moses cheat codes?
And how did the cattle-sacrificing primitives that wrote the book that you learned about God from know about energy? You're talking crap and trying to pass it off as intelligence.
And energy is not concious, nor is it omnipotent, omniscient or a trinity. Energy is energy, simple as that.
Your 'argument' doesn't make sense. Just because your words sound profound to you doesn't mean they are. -
@Robin:
> Imagine how stupid the average person is. Now realise half the population is even more stupid than that.
>
> Using your immediate family as an example for the entire world's population is very, very silly.
I never said 'ZOMGZ MAH FAMILI IZ JUS LIKE DA REST OV DA WERLD.'
I used my technologically impaired father to prove a point about how simple it is to torrent or pirate media. And when I say technologically impaired, he doesn't even know how to save MS Word documents as .doc or .docx files.
And that's because, as you said, plenty of people are stupid. That's why it's so dumbed down and easy to do pretty much anything on a computer these days, including piracy. -
@Robin:
> Stop confusing the white, middle-class American teenager demographic with the rest of the world. The majority of people buy software, music, films and books. If not there wouldn't be a market.
>
> Technology is still seen as wiccan magjicks to the majority of people, especially the older generations. Most people have no idea how to torrent or usenet.
>
> This silly thing won't work simply because anonymous are so damn tiny.
Nobody I know buys software, music films and the like except mostly for me. My father doesn't buy it either and he's a bit technologically retarded.
And I'm not American, either, so I wouldn't know about them, but I doubt 80% legitimately buy software, especially at the prices you have to pay for most decent stuff. -
@MrMiguu:
> They can run, it's just that nobody will vote for them.
In North Carolina:
_The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God._
In Arkansas:
_No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court._
In Maryland:
_That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution._
In Mississippi:
_No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state._
In Pennsylvania [Damn word filter]:
_No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth._
In South Carolina:
_No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution._
In Tennessee:
_No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state._
In Texas:
_No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being._
So apparently no atheists can hold office there. It's ridiculous. -
I'm trying to add a Knighthood system to EO, where you right click the player's name in the server and go to Knight Player or Remove Knight and if you are a Knight, then it makes your name green.
When you add or remove the Knighthood, it sends messages as it should, but I can't get the names to change colour - here's the code:
```
' Check access level
If GetPlayerPK(Index) = NO Then
Select Case GetPlayerAccess(Index)
Case 0
color = RGB(255, 96, 0)
Case 1
color = QBColor(DarkGrey)
Case 2
color = QBColor(Cyan)
Case 3
color = QBColor(BrightGreen)
Case 4
color = QBColor(Yellow)
End Select
If GetPlayerAccess(Index) = 0 Then
Select Case GetPlayerKnight(Index)
Case 0
color = RGB(255, 96, 0)
Case 1
color = RGB(0, 255, 100)
End Select
Else
color = QBColor(BrightRed)
End If
End If
Name = Trim$(Player(Index).Name)
' calc pos
TextX = ConvertMapX(GetPlayerX(Index) * PIC_X) + Player(Index).XOffset + (PIC_X \ 2) - getWidth(TexthDC, (Trim$(Name)))
```
Anyone know what I've done wrong? Thanks for any help. -
*Sigh*
This isn't going to work, methinks. People won't stop buying newspapers on a morning, and sine most of Anon are just teenagers, I doubt they buy them in the first place. Music isn't downloaded legally 99% of the time, and if it is an illegal download, they're hurting their own side. No-one legally buys software, games or films anymore, and cinemas charge ridiculous amounts so no-one goes to them anyway. Then there's books. No-one buys books.
I can't see this getting off the ground. -
What I'd prefer is:
* Abortion to be legal up to 9 weeks, when the foetus has a degree of conciousness.
* Gay people to have relationships and enter civil marriages.
* Women to have completely equal rights.
* Atheists able to run for office in every state.
In the US, every year, religious groups spend $390,000,000 a year lobbying the government to have their holy book forced into the law. Yet religion doesn't pay taxes.
And if you need an example of faith-driven governments, look at Iran. Stoning to death for adultery, women being a man's property, hanging for homosexuality, being publicly executed for leaving the Muslim faith . It's wrong. There is no way that this could ever be considered correct.
In less extreme cases, here in the UK, the politician, Theresa May has voted against equalising the age of consent for gays, against teaching about homosexuality in schools, against gay couples adopting and against lesbians having IVF treatment. Know who Theresa May is? The minister for fucking equality. It's a joke.
Religion has no base in logic and no base in government. That's a simple, observable fact. -
As long as it had substance to it, a game that's completely random would be fun.
-
You don't NEED sound. It's just nice to have it playing, but most don't bother with it.
-
-
I can't really tell what they are, which is a down-point for players. Plus Blizzard are likely to have copyrighted their graphics - I wouldn't continue if I were you.
-
In your opinion:
Is it right to oppose certain areas of religion? Should governments adopt anti-theist approaches to issues such as homosexuality, marriage, adoption and abortion?
Anti-theism (At least for most anti-theists, and for the context of this thread) refers to people who believe that religion should not be written into laws or affect other peoples lives. It doesn't mean (Most of the time) someone who opposes religion. -
If it's possible, present the steam bar as a pressure gauge.
-
-
@Kusy:
> Ok, my post was a bit harsh and offensive, in a bit too trollish manner. We can do a serious discussion here.
No offence, but I pretty much expected that. But I'm happy to discuss it properly if you want.
@Kusy:
> Families in mind, ok… now, can we stick to arguments even slightly touching reality? I understand that the author say that, he might even mean it. Problem is - it's not reality. How many parents you know that watch cartoons with their kids? And now how many parents you know that use the TV as an electric shepherd?
>
> I know we all would like to live in a world, where every family with children looks like it was taken straight out of a Wii commercial, where parents are sitting with their children on a black, leather couch in a ducking huge and sterile living room in front of a big ass flat-screen. Well, it's not the case, children watch cartoons by themselves.
I'm pretty sure most parents do watch cartoons with their children. I know I wouldn't let them watch things if I hadn't watched it first, and there always will be parents like that, a considerable amount more than you would think. That's who the references are for, and however small you think they are, it doesn't diminish the point.
@Kusy:
> And while you can and do appreciate references to movies, books and other media you grown up with, the target of any given cartoon will not. Because the show that was referenced stopped being aired 10 years before they were born. It's a really common problem right now, let's say Rango.
Hasbro started referencing bygone pop culture when they found out that teenage guys were watching it, it's pretty much for us to fap over. People started saying that it reminded them of older cartoons, so Lauren Faust wrote it in.
@Kusy:
> Adventure Time is my favorite cartoon at the moment, I haven't seen anything that would make me laugh that hard and that often in a long while… but if I had a kid, I'm not sure I'd like it to watch it, with me or without me. Adventure Time is a pretty straightforward, soft-core parody of Conan. And while some cartoons refer to things children don't or can't know, this particular one refers to things they shouldn't know. As much as I enjoy it, I'm pretty surprised someone allowed it to be aired, because it's obviously not for small children that OBVIOUSLY watch it.
Not all cartoons are for kids. Take Family Guy or Happy Tree Friends, definitely not appropriate. MLP is worth watching for both kids and adults and it's the balance that makes it such a good cartoon.
@Kusy:
> Your argument about Friendship is Magic not being silly (as a positive thing) is completely out of place. Cartoons should be silly, they should have silly humor in them, because that is what children like. When you were 5, you didn't watch The Simpsons because of it's political and social commentary - you watched it because it was colorful and silly. If you expect children cartoons to challenge you intellectually and you fail to find that challenge, the problem lays in you looking for entertainment in the wrong place, not in the cartoon being bad - again, it's like saying that rattles are inferior to toy cars. And this is to the defense of the original My Little Pony cartoons - those that I loved to watch when I was 3 years old, along with Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry and Disney Movies.
I didn't mean silly as in funny, I meant silly as in pointless or idiotic. There are hilarious bits in FiM, like when Rainbow Dash is running from Pinkie Pie incredibly quickly, and Pinkie Pie just bounces after her slowly, but when Rainbow lands there, she's sat on Pinkie Pies head, or she's behind her. There's also when Pinkie Pie says to Gilda 'And I've got my eye on you!' and her eyes bounce out on every syllable and hit Gilda in the face.
@Kusy:
> I can find few things that are disturbing for me in Friendship is Magic… and by disturbing I mean it. For example, I don't really understand why all the characters are so feminine, and you can't possibly deny that they are. All those ponies have more in common with fashion models than they have with actual horses, and I find it somewhat wrong. Maybe I'm looking a bit too deep into it, but I think our culture is already revolving around being pretty, I don't think we need to lower the age at witch girls feel bad about themselves anymore.
Most of the ponies aren't as feminine as you think. There are characters like Rarity, who's a fashion designer. Of course she will be, but the others aren't. Rainbow Dash is a tomboy athlete. Applejack works on a farm and is always covered in mud. Twilight would rather study than preen herself and Fluttershy is just an average female. There are background ponies like Lyra, who sit like slobs, or the male ponies like Doctor Whooves, Big Macintosh the farmer, Braeburn the Cowboy and Soarin' the athlete. It's easier to sympathise with a human-like horse than a horse, too. If it were anything like real life the show would be dull.
@Kusy:
> And few words on animation. I have no respect or sympathy towards any cartoon that is obviousl made in flash. Maybe it does look pleasant, but I don't find it any better than stuff found on newgrounds. It's a mass production and it's silly to think otherwise. People do parodies that are impossible to tell apart from the original by just following lines and copy pasting vector graphics. There was more effort put into drawing original Scooby Doo, and that shit was drawn pretty bad.
That's your opinion. It doesn't really bother me. -
ADDING PVP
in Q & A
PVP is already in the engine. Just set the map moral to none.
Name changing colours
in Source
Posted