Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Ratlord12 on December 26, 2007, 07:36:39 PM
-
I took Spriggan's advice and started this new thread to post my general opinions.
First, let me say that it's never my intention to offend anyone. My views are a bit extreme, so they might come across as biting to some people. I just post what I truly believe. Besides, why get offended at little-old-inconsequential-me anyway? ;D
Here are some topics I concocted whilst in a drunken stupor:
Why does Dr. Pepper claim to made from 23 different flavors? That's stupid. Everything is made from a bunch of different flavors. Chickens are made from eyes and beaks and feathers and skin. Of course the different parts taste different.
If you were a D&D character, what would your ability scores be (honesty plz!)? Here's what I think mine are: Str10, Dex12, Con12, Int11, Wis20, Cha15.
In the Sanderson section of the forum, I posted that most science-based professionals are atheists. Spriggan countered to say that survey stats show 60% of scientists said they were religious or believed in a higher power. But consider the context of the survey. Do you think these scientists were being truthful? I bet many people claim they are religious because of a)peer pressure, b)reputational obligations, and c)conformity.
-
That's some wonderful Bulverism, but really doesn't communicate much. In China, many people who are not Atheist claim to be Atheist for fear of repercussion.
Also, it could be argued that many scientists who believe in a higher power claim to be Atheist or Agnostic simply because they fear being viewed as "unprofessional" (or what have you) by believing in a higher truth than Science itself. Really, the sword cuts both ways.
On the topic of food claims, I find IHOP's claims to have "fresh frozen" strawberries on some of their meal items rediculous. What, exactly, is the difference between "fresh frozen" and "frozen"?
I refuse to give myself D&D stats for a few reasons.
-
Way back in the time of 2nd Edition I had come across a method to determine one's Stats by their ability to perform certain test. Then came 3rd Edition and they had a stat converter, which I used to convert my "character" into 3rd Edition, but alas it has been about 3 years since I have done any D&D and have no idea where that character sheet went so i have no idea what the stats are anymore.
-
I've decided my pot of opinions will cook happy stew only, so henceforth I'll be ignoring statements that accuse me of bulverism, idiocy, etc. ;)
Maybe IHOP wants to distinguish itself from restaurants that use rotten frozen strawberries.
When I worked for Wendy's, that pop stand was ghetto as a mofo. We could've been sued like fifty times. Once, the bun freezer shut off for a week before somebody called a repair guy to fix it, then that took another two days.
I usually skip poetry (except nonsense verse). It's mostly boring. Perhaps someone could point me to some interesting lines and change my mind?
Curses! Coffee doesn't keep me awake anymore >:( Energy drinks don't work either, plus they taste like poo water. Is 5 hour energy effective? I'll try anything short of crack.
Zonkies ARE real. Look it up.
-
Quote:
I usually skip poetry (except nonsense verse). It's mostly boring. Perhaps someone could point me to some interesting lines and change my mind?
Try reading Edgar Allen Poe or Ezra Pound, their poetry (like the individuals themselves) is intense and a bit demented but never boring.
Also don't admit to the fact that you "usually skip poetry.. It's mostly boring (even if you think its true) it leaves you wide open for a charge of being shallow. :o ;D
-
I always skip poetry because I'm not an Emo, and yes I'm shallow but at least I'm not some whiny Emo.
-
what's an Emo (or should I ask?)
I agree that poetry can be extremely boring. But if you find the right stuff it's quite fun... Like the Man from Snowy River by Banjo Paterson,
I'll quote (just a little... so don't lose me here)
But the man from Snowy River let the pony have his head,
And he swung his stockwhip round and gave a cheer,
And he raced him down the mountain like a torrent down its bed,
While the others stood and watched in very fear
or Abdullah Bulbul Amir
which goes
"So take your last look at the sunshine and brook
And send your regrets to the Czar.
By this I imply you are going to die,
Mr. Ivan Skavinsky Skivar."
Said Ivan, "My friend, your remarks in the end
Will avail you but little, I fear.
For you ne'er will survive to repeat them alive,
Mr. Abdullah Bulbul Amir."
I'd have to say, though that I do the poetry thing quite well and like it (usually) alot...
I'd put links to those poems, but I have yet to figure out how to link things here, so you'll have to google them if youre really interested.
Incidentally, those are two of my husbands fav's... 'vey tough poems'
I don't understand why people like D&D... my husband and his brothers love it, I don't get the whole thing myself... does that mean I'm going to be banned from TWG? ??? ;)
-
I had no idea that The Man from Snowy River was based on a poem. o.o
I've never had any good role-playing experiences myself, so you should consider yourself safe.
-
I didn't know it either until we were watching it one day and caught the little "Based on the poem by:" in the title credits. So we looked it up and found that it's a really good poem. Everyone we show it to loves it. In fact my husband memorized it once, of course he was stuck on an airplane for 14 hours and had nothing better to do, but that's irrelevant right? ;)
-
The fun in the D&D game (or role-playing in general) all rests on the shoulders of the DM, game master, whatever.
I DMed my first game while incarcerated, and my players fought each other constantly outside the game table, but when they came together for a few hours of dungeon-trekking it was like they were best friends. Ah, what a glorious testament against those who say role-play establishes negative behaviors and an antisocial attitude...
On the subject of poetry, I say it's boring because most poets seem to be taking their craft too seriously. They write like they are looking through some great scope of emotional wisdom. But maybe I'm just crazy. I don't even read short stories because I like to stick around for the long haul when I meet a character. Well, that's not entirely true, I enjoy some short stories, but forget about it.
I'm shallow? *shrugs*
-
Ratlord, I know what you mean about poets taking themselves to seriously, or thinking they are somehow above normal folk. For this reason I don't read much contemporary poetry. They seem to think they can pass off prose-with-line-breaks as poetry and don't take responsibility for people being able to understand what they are saying. Indeed, the more cryptic a poem is the more acclaim it seems to get (I feel the same about contemporary literary fiction, blech)
I am a poet though and can tell you there is some stuff out there that is actually worthwhile. I would definitely second the Edgar Allan Poe recommendation.
Not liking poetry does not = shallow. Most shallow people don't like poetry, but that is beside the point :D
-
blech! the only poe I like is annabel lee. otherwise he's to dark and depressing.
On the other hand I love The Highwayman. ;)
I completely agree about the making sense thing. We have this thread going in another forum I go to about poetry and this girl posted one of her favorites, I'm still trying to figure out what it said.
I like the poems I read to be written in speakable english.
-
For this reason I don't read much contemporary poetry. They seem to think they can pass off prose-with-line-breaks as poetry
I feel the same way. Whenever I hear a poem on NPR's Writers Almanac by Garrison Keillor, I'm like, "Okay, that was some nice descriptive prose, but..."
-
Wait, Annabel Lee isn't too depressing and dark? Good gracious.
-
I like the poems I read to be written in speakable english.
I take it your not much a fan for the Jabberwocky poem from Alice in Wonderland.
-
Alice in Wonderland is greatly amusing. There can be no disagreement. Especially regarding Jabberwocky.
-
Wait, Annabel Lee isn't too depressing and dark? Good gracious.
It's not as bad as a tell-tale heart or the Cask of Amontillado (neither are poems but <shivers>).
And I have to admit that I have never read Alice in Wonderland. The Disney movie freaked me out as a child and I've never had an interest in reading the book, regardless of how different it is from the movie.
-
Ah, the Jabberwocky, one of the world's few acceptable poems. But I think Lewis was a little too obsessed with Alice. Like in a creepy kind of older-man-molests-the-real-Alice kind of way.
I would say more, but now that I'm in this prisonesque vocational school my computer time is limited and fragile, so I might even have to desert my fellow timewasters altogether *sobs*.
-
Whoever named jack mackerel could've saved time by naming it jackerel. Mmmm. Recipes, anyone?
I disapprove of the assumption that guys who dig transexuals are reclusive, middle-aged white fatties who collect toenails. I'm younger than middle-aged, I enjoy fairly gregarious hobbies such as DRRPGs and home writing groups with 20+ members, I weigh in at a gentleman's 170, and I say chicks with you-know-whats are succulent. Especially blonde bimbo types with... nevermind, that's not allowed on this site.
I just realized my tongue has never itched before.
-
Ah, the fabled triple post.
ON A QUEST FOR SOMETHING MORE:
I've done some research, started exercising, begun to learn the language, and now I'm seriously considering volunteering for the French Foreign Legion. If anyone can tell me why I shouldn't go for it, speak now or forever hold your pee.
Yes, I know I've posted that I'd sooner die than serve any form of government, but if you remember those posts then you would also remember that I am a hypocrite.
[insert clever comment in French here.]
-
In the Sanderson section of the forum, I posted that most science-based professionals are atheists. Spriggan countered to say that survey stats show 60% of scientists said they were religious or believed in a higher power.
Where is that statistic from?
93% of the members of the United States National Academy of Science do not believe in a personal God (20.8% in agnostic state of personal doubt or disbelief)1, and while 85% of US adults are said to believe in a personal God, there is an widely recorded inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity.2
1) http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
2) Mensa Magazine, Feb 2002
-
My stat was from a study done around last fall (August, September I believe) and was all over the news. It broke down religious beliefs based on area of expertise/study (so biology, chemistry, astronomy and so fourth) and had around 2/3rds being spiritual in some way (with the highest percent being Biologists). This doesn't mean belief in God (though those numbers were much higher then people would think) but some sort of spiritual belief/thoughts or whatever.
I'm not going to bother looking it up, because I frankly don't care enough to do so this whole topic is just flamebate (for both sides) and I'm too smart to get sucked into it. I just feel that since I did mention that study in the other thread I should give some background.
Oh, and Gorgon, I wouldn't really believe anything MENSA says (this has nothing to do with what was said, just the source), the only people that join that group are those that think being a member of some organization makes them superior to those that aren't, it's really a suckers game to be honest--you pay them money and they say you're smart which right there shows the person paying isn't. Anyone with half a brain knows that IQ numbers are just some abstract collection of data that in no way reflects how smart someone is, just like school grades.
-
Yeah, I agree about the flamebait, and I'm not going to push it further--I was just curious, I'd like to see the study. I also agree about MENSA not being worth much, but it wasn't a MENSA study, I was just citing the MENSA magazine, which mentioned the studies. Anyway, if at some point you fall across the study, send it my way. I 'd like to see it.
-
I will, I doubt I'll go looking for it but if I see any new ones (no matter the results) I'll post them here.
-
huh. That inverse corellation between intelligence and religiosity is completely opposed to my personal experience (which, as we all know, is hardly an effective piece of evidence). The people I know who are most intelligent are deeply devout. The people who aren't devout, tend to be less productive and less agile thinkers.
There are exceptions of course, I know a few very intelligent atheists, adn a couple faithful people of the less smart persuasion, but still.
-
The people we associate with the most are the people we will find the most intelligent. Because you spend more of your time with religious people, a greater percentage of the people you know are religious, and thus those people seem to make a greater percentage of the most intelligent people you know.
Keep in mind productivity has nothing to do with intelligence. There's only a 50% correlation between intelligence and grades--that means half of the most intelligent people in the nation don't do well in school. And, as we all know, school is more about motivation and "getting things done" than it is about intelligence, so I suggest this ratio provides strong evidence that intelligence doesn't inherently lead to achievement.
Also, intelligence correlates with mental ability, but they don't have a perfect correlation. For example, Savants have hugely low IQ ratings, but they have mental abilities, apparently naturally, that not even the most intelligent people in the world can easily acquire, if they can acquire it at all.
IQ is sort of a difficult concept to talk about because of these oddities inside the field, and because everybody has a slightly different idea of what "smart" is. We all agree that intelligence is based in mental ability, but what about it? Clearly, people with a higher IQ usually have greater mental capacity than people with lower IQ, but that's about all everybody seems to agree with.
-
It sounds like you're saying you have some reason to believe that SE spends more than 50% of his time with religious people.
-
Well, considering a majority of Americans claim to be religious, my understanding is he is religious, and thus attends religious services, in all probability he knows FAR more religious people than he does not religious people. It's an assumption I'm willing to make, at the risk of playing the fool.
-
True, but I also know intelligent people. I'm speaking in terms of portions. I hear very weak "logical" arguments from atheists who believe they make perfect sense, but are really just dogmatic spewings. Knowing more religious people doesn't have a lot of bearing on the discussion, unless I'm saying I know for atheists, and only one of them is smart, and I know 100 religious people, and a full fifteen of them are smart! In that case, the personal experience would actually show a high percentage of intelligent atheists. I'm saying that *most* of the atheists I know personally really aren't very smart, whereas *most* of the religious people are smart. I have noticed the opposite corellation of that study. The dumber a person I know is, the less likely they are to believe in god. That has nothing to do with who I know.
Anyway, I did say that personal experience is not stable evidence. So arguing about it doesn't change anything
But what I'm pulling from the discussion about what intelligence IS, however, is that it's a vague and largely unimportant specification. If intelligence does not equate performance or productivity or capability, why do we care if religious people are smart or not?
-
I think we're all putting words in my mouth here. I'm not making an argument for or against religious people being smart. Nor am I trying to make an argument, um, at all, really. I was just responding to this:
The people I know who are most intelligent are deeply devout.
~SE
That particular statement implies that most intelligent people you know are devout, when compared to all the people you know. And according to THAT statement, what I said made perfect sense, since more of the people who you know are devout, it's more likely that the MOST intelligent people you know are also devout, statistically. I'm not trying to say religious people are dumb, or atheists are smart, or intelligence is an important or unimportant trait. I was just kinda responding to what you said with an explanation--essentially, I was agreeing with everything you said, except the definitions of intelligence, which weren't really that important anyway. So, for the record, I don't want to argue, I'm not trying to start an argument, and if this turns into an argument rather than a discussion at some point, I'm probably just going to stop posting.
As far as weak logical arguments from atheists, a lot of atheists believe they make more sense than those who are religious because they're, essentially, not thinking the argument all the way through. On the same note, a lot of religious people think they make more sense than atheists for the same reasons. Of course we all think what we believe makes perfect sense, and when other people disagree, it usually comes across as stupid.
In the realm of psychology, intelligence is subject of a lot of abuse. Personally, I don't believe IQ tests measure intelligence as well as they should, there's too many other skills being tested at the same time. I fall into the camp that sees intelligence as the ability to problem solve and use new information to do so, rather than all around mental ability. There are some who think there are "multiple" intelligences, which is a nice way of saying there's one intelligence, but for people who don't have it, we'll call other things a type of intelligence, too.
So, IQ does very reliably measure a persons overall ability to solve problems, even if it does it in a dumb way that a number of people disagree with. Intelligence is an important trait because, while a good number of people with it don't achieve anything with it, it provides opportunities for success that don't exist without it. So, even though half of intelligent people don't do well in school, advances in all areas of human existence can be attributed to intelligent people (some of which didn't do well in school!). So, it is an important trait, though for everyday life it is not the most important trait. One could argue that it is the most important trait for human society, but it's doesn't offer the individual with the intelligence nearly as much fortune.
On a final note, we shouldn't care specifically if religious people are smart or not more than we should care if non-religious people are smart or not. It's just a statistic to help us understand the layout of the social map and where people are likely to go and come from. Because the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be atheist doesn't equate to atheism inherently being right. I mean, religious people are statistically more likely to do well in school, get more years of education and do better during that time. That's certainly a more useful "day-to-day" ability than being intelligent is.
Modification: I put the quote box around what SE said, so it doesn't look like something I'm saying
-
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I was simply explaining why i thought your understanding of what I had said was misconstrued
*parses that to make sure it says what I think it says, thinks so, moves on*
for the most part I agree.
I dont' have a problem with the term "types of intelligences." I think that it's just a name to make people feel good, to point out other abilities. Seems harmless to me. But the meaning of what you say is correct. Artistic talent isn't another method of problem solving, it's a separate ability.
-
Ratlord:
1. Nothing wrong with extreme views. Its extreme actions that usually gets one into trouble.
2. Maybe you'll like this one. Its short anyway. :)
Poem
by Leonard Cohen
I heard of a man
who could speak words so beautifully
that if he only speaks their name
women give themselves to him.
If I am numb beside your body
while silence blossoms like tumors on our lips,
it is only because I hear a man climb the stairs
and clear his throat outside our door.
3. I think there is a real - and vast - difference between organized religion and spirituality.
One could argue that religion has always been about control. (To those who would disagree , I would suggest an objective study into a) the historical development of one's religion and b) techniques on brainwashing before arguing against that statement).
One could as just as easily argue that man has always needed to be controlled. There is a real need for us to have safety nets (self imposed or not) in place to shield us from our own idiocy.
At the end of the day, I don't think it matters so much exactly what you choose to believe, but whether or not you are willing to live by your beliefs.
4. Str 15 Int 15 Wis 16 Dex 17 Con 14 Cha 16
What always irked me about D&D is that, aside from magic spells, equipment or the bullsh** "once-every-4-levels-you-get-a-whole-point-to-put-towards-attributes-don't-spend-it-all-in-one-place" rule , there is no real way to consciously improve your stats through effort and hard work, trial and error etc.
Fortunately, this is not the case in real life.