Minecraft Forums

I think this sums up my feelings about their successful end to the shutdown quite well:

Pretty sure that they didn't actually code MC2.0, so implementing this just as a fun feature a few people would use would be a tremendous amount of work.

So many people have come up with some variant of the argument, "It's his car, he can put whatever he wants in it", or "He didn't know the guy would get hit".

Its essentially ignoring the main point of the case. Yeah, you can put whatever you want in your car, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing the fact that the paintballs were planted with the express intent of harming the person he knew had a decent chance of breaking in. As Aramil has said, if someone is trespassing in your yard and you place a landmine where they walk every single time, you will be charged for murder when they die, because you just murdered someone. The fact that a lot of people perceive it as justified means nothing - you are not a judge. We have these people called "judges" for a reason. Vigilante justice is illegal, as it should be. Random people are not qualified to be judge, jury, and punisher.

Quote from Kaiser Corax

You mean deny nature? hierarchy is natural. Equality is not.

Because denying nature is so bad, and not a logical fallacy at all.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal" - Aristotle

And that quote can be taken so many ways it isn't even funny. It could be taken to mean that whatever is not equal should stay that way. So back to slavery, guys! Oh, and women, get into the kitchen - no voting for you.

Or it could be taken to mean that 3=2 should never be tried to be proven correct, because then you've just gone and made a mistake.

Oh, but after a quick google search, I've found that not only did Aristotle never actually say or write that (though he would have probably agreed with it), he was a strong proponent of inequality in a caste-like system - that is, classes should treated entirely separately, and higher classes should have more rights.

So why are we taking political advice from this guy again? Oh, right, because we're into fallacies these days.

Quote from shplft

Can't defend the state... give up...

This. This is what annoys me about internet arguments. When one person leaves, the other person thinks they have either won, or that the other person has somehow given up.

Debates aren't basketball games. If you don't show up, you don't somehow forfeit, the debate just doesn't happen. If someone walks out midgame, the other person doesn't win by default. Debates could be a lot more constructive if people stopped focusing on some illusory goal of winning and instead focused on having an intellectually stimulating discussion while simultaneously keeping an open mind to your opponent's arguments.

Quote from FireroseNekowolf

Exactly, seven is specific, yet to say it meant billions of years shows no context within the Old Testament, and yes, you have to do it within the same book, at the very least, or more appropriately, the same story of Genesis. There are no hints once-so-ever that it is anything but specifically seven days. The New Testament is basically freaking retcon! You cannot use it, because it's not even a retcon by original authors! A retcon of a religious text, no less! It's completely ridiculous!

But he didn't. It was "clarified" by people many many years later with a different mindset. That's like saying a Zen master "clarifies" one of the The Buddha's famous sutras. At the core, there are fundamental beliefs which are the same, yet their hundreds of years apart and from two very different backgrounds. It doesn't clarify anything.

I was giving reasons why 7 might have been used instead of many years. No, there are no hints there, but again, a lack of hints does not preclude it being a metaphor. It just means we assume it isn't until other evidence comes to light.

But again, there is evidence. If we're working from the Bible, then the reason people listen to it to begin with is that these authors were divinely inspired. In a way, that means it was the original author. But I digress. It isn't a retcon, but I've spoken on that note and haven't gotten through. I'll put it another way though:

Imagine you are stranded in a cave on an island with a small group of people, and someone comes and says that rescuers are outside in a boat, because he heard a boat horn (the voice of god=boat horn and random person=divinely inspired, in this crappy analogy). You assume it's a boat and put on a life jacket you happen to have (acting as though the evidence from the Old Testament is true). Then, someone from the boat (Jesus) comes and says it isn't actually a boat, because the horn you heard was from a plane equipped with seafaring technology. I would probably take off my life jacket at this point (based on the new information, acting a different way). Someone reading a book about you either can yell "RETCON! IT WAS A BOAT!" or accept that the person from the plane knows more about the rescuing device than a random guy listening to what's outside knows.

Tl;dr: Jesus is a better source than divinely inspired mortals.

I'm sorry, I really can't resist:

Quote from Frog81

I do not tolerate intolerance.

Hi! I'm a Christian. I don't think you've met many of us before, based on how you're acting. You see, you're taking everything that people hate about the aspects of the human brain that have beget racism, sexism, stereotypes, and countless other idiocies throughout history.

So let me tell you something: Most of us are very nice people, and a huge proportion of us are fine with gay marriage, and the majority of those that aren't still treat them fine anyway. We don't hate people, and we don't shove our religion down your throat. If you ask about it, we'll certainly tell you though. It's a tragedy that, as in every single group, that loudest of us are normally the ones that people such as yourself think represent the whole. If you got out of your anti-religion armor and did a little research and met some people, I'm sure your opinion would change.

Oh, and about not shoving beliefs down others throats? Take notice, my friend, because that is exactly what you are doing. Just because you aren't addressing it to anyone in particular does not mean you are not shoving. If I started talking in sweeping statements about how Jesus is the only one who can save everyone, and that atheism is stupid and so are all atheists (not something I believe anyway), I would get a lot of grief from people, as I should. No one wants to hear it. And the same applies to you. No one wants to hear your immature, egocentric rambles on the stupidity of a faith you clearly haven't been exposed to much.

Oh. and on the subject of my stupidity? I'll skip the part about all my AP classes, because I'm sure that would skate right through your ears, but how but some cold statistics? In any population except self-referential ones, there will be a range of qualities within that group. So blanket statements about any population of a large size, like, I don't know "Your religion is stupid and so are you" will be false for a significant segment of any population, like, say, all religious people. I'll give you a long list of religious scientists if you wish.

If you take only one thing from this rant, take this: You cannot judge an entire group by the actions of its worst segments. In any group, there will always be those who shame its goals and purpose. Taking their example and broadening it to the entire group is not only incredibly illogical, but the same logic that created racism, stereotypes, and bigotry. Don't stoop to the level of those you are berating.

This sums up my thoughts on gay marriage vs gay civil unions rather nicely, so you'll see me using it every time someone brings an argument like this up:



EDIT: Wow, a lot of people liked this, so I feel bad now posting it without credit. Image is from www.smbc-comics.com, where you should really go if you like nerdy jokes and occasionally a very well-done political satire like the one above.

Quote from WERTYUL

Get ready to have your minds blown:

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Lincoln manipulated the aboltionists to gain support.

We have half the freedom we had before the civil war, due to our huge, easily abusable federal government.

Lincoln wasn't a good guy, contrary to your history lessons. Multiple times he said he was FOR slavery.

What we see here is South Carolina trying to exercise a right that it hasn't had since the Civil War: State's Rights. State's rights was the original design for america. The states had the right to act as separate countries if they felt the need. THAT was democracy, not what we have now. As much as I despise Obamacare, however, nothing's going to come of this attempt. Washington (and Obama) already has all the power. We lost that battle a long time ago.

None of our minds are blown because we've heard it so many times before.

Have you learned this fact as just that, a fact, or did you actually study the causes and buildup to the civil war in depth? I spent a month or so on the topic, and the truth isn't so black and white, just as it always isn't.

The conclusion I've come to about the civil war, based on hours of research, is that calling it not about slavery is accurate in the same way blaming gravity on the vase you just knocked over is accurate - you're technically correct, but nobody cares. What was the right that they wanted the states to have? Oh yeah, slavery. The "state's rights" thing was marked by slave states (and free states) wanting control over whether slavery would be allowed in a given state. In fact, the only instance I've ever seen where state's rights didn't include slavery was the nullification crisis already mentioned in the title of this topic. Why did the South want to secede? So they could keep their slavery. Slavery was the elbow, all else was just gravity taking its course as the vase went kablooie into the civil war.

Examples?
Missouri Compromise
Compromise of 1850 (specifically the Fugitive Slave Act, the provision that forced compliance on northern states)
Lincoln's election
Tariff of Abominations
Bleeding Kansas

Need more? I can come up with some, but those are just off the top of my head.

And again, you are technically correct in saying Lincoln said he was for slavery, but once again, nobody cares. Lincoln's position on slavery was something he made clear time and time again: He thought slavery was morally and politically wrong, but was willing to let it continue in the southern states where it already existed for the sake of keeping the House together.

So he did say he was for slavery - where it already existed. He was wise enough to know that keeping slavery in the South was less important than a civil war that would end up costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Unfortunately, his attempts weren't strong enough, or he wasn't good enough at convincing the South of that, because the civil war happened anyway.

Don't believe me? Let's see what Lincoln has to say on the matter:

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - 1st Inaugural Address

So he is for slavery in the south right? Yes. But his actual opinion is something he brought up many, many times, just not within earshot of Southern voters, because he is a politician, of course.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union."

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow."

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist."

Enough yet?

Here's one quote that sums up his position on all issues related to this very well:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

So yes, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but no, he did not actively try to save it as another might, because his number one priority was keeping the union together, which was also his greatest failure.



But what irks me the most is that you think states rights are gone. Nullification isn't gone, it never existed. No state ever got to use nullification, so mourning its loss and talking about big government is absolutely meaningless. You want to know what a big government would be? It would be a government that, seeing that a state might null an act, passes a bill allowing itself to use force to make the state comply. Oh wait - that happened! In 1832! Back before the civil war, when states' rights abounded... right?

But now, the US would never, ever give any states rights. That would be unthinkable, because the battle is "lost", right? We would never give states more power to do what they want. Oh right, except where we repealed DOMA to give states the power to decide whether gay people should receive federal benefits. Oh yeah, and there was that time we repealed a section of the Voting Rights Act to allow states more power over how their voting booths were run. And those were both just in the past month.

In DOMA and the Voting Rights Act cases, it was about states' rights, not the people in those states. That's why the first words in the Constitution are, 'We the states.'

Oh wait. Dang.

It was really hard to read those gay letters anyway.

"Hey everyone! What group of people do you think you're better than!?"

A great loss. The man was a great leader and visionary, and the world is worse off without his beneficial influence.

Take a deeeep breath there Snyder...

No seriously, the image is a joke. I chuckled at it myself and I'm not a creationist. Take a chill pill.

Quote from KittyPr0n

The car's owner did absolutely nothing to the thief.

Uh, no. The owner set a trap specifically for the thief. He absolutely did do something to him.

Quote from Unyobro

I hate when people automatically leap to the defense of religion without even a hint of consideration for the other side. Amusingly some of you like to think you're so tolerant and compassionate but I see you routinely dismissing other beliefs, like antitheism, without a second thought. Pretty hypocritical but pretty normal and expected.

Gonna call you out on this rather pathetic back-pedaling here, since this is simply unacceptable. You're showing your blatant intolerance to (frankly all) religions here, and your rather willful ignorance to justify your view. You downright claim that a violent minority is a valid reason to shun an entire religion, yet fail to provide much reasoning or evidence to really back it up aside from that the religion fueled that minority. Any idea can fuel radical thinking, so we're a bit confused why you're so gun-ho to ban every religion on the planet here. To top off the cake, when you have trouble justifying your point, you attack us and call us hypocrites and then leap up on a high horse and carry on. I'm honestly disappointed that the post I'm quoting was made by you.

Quote from IHaveAuthoritah

it either happens

or it doesn't

50/50

I suggest you purchase lottery tickets since they are obviously lying about your odds of winning.