It's finally appropiate to piss on a grave.

[Anonymous]

posted on May 6th, 2011, 9:03 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 6th, 2011, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Here be dragons.

"Bad example..." - Col. Jack O'neill(with two 'l's) 

I think thats a bad example because the myth of Dragons is supposed to have come from Dinosaurs.  Sure, over time humans have distorted that intopink and flying, err, firebreathing and flying, but i think the original idea was certainly based out of fact.... Or was that your point?  

Anyway, I find sometimes having an open mind means believing things other don't.  Sometimes Scientists like that are viewed as crazy, and rightfully so, but other times they are the ones that make the great new discoveries that nobody would have believed in.  Sometimes, what  some see as a loophole to get past a contradiction is simply another way of looking at it.  If you believe I am inventing evidence, I would remind you I never presented any.   Just because the evidence you have currently points in one direction doesn't mean that those 'crazy' scientists won't make a new discovery that changes all that.  This is all I mean by having an open mind.  Just as you said, the species are linked, but you and I both know that nature sometimes makes goofs and things like a gorse with an abnormally shaped head survive longer than they should.  Even then, that horse would be genetically linked to its species.  Folk lore can easily be based in fact if you keep your mind open new possibilities and it doesn't require creating evidence.  Only looking for it.  Here be Unicorns.


oh, and now we are off topic.   SO... Unicorns are as evil as Osama bin Ladin?

posted on May 6th, 2011, 11:09 pm

SO... Unicorns are as evil as Osama bin Ladin?

Yes!  >:(

posted on May 7th, 2011, 1:03 am

YAY he dead  :guns:

posted on May 7th, 2011, 1:11 am

Emmm allow me to comment on one thing. I just read through this topic and eventhough I dont have any comment on the Osama death, I would like to jump in to the little discussion between Dom and Zaxxon about keeping an open mind. :-)

Now, if I misunderstood anything I apologize, as its 3 am here at the moment and for some reason, I cant sleep :-S

So, as I read through it, it seemed to me that this whole argument started because Dom claimed that there was no evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion, which was the main reason for the attack. Zaxxon replied that there was a chance for Iraq actually having those weapons, even if more evidence pointed against it.
Now think about that for a minute...
What that actually implies is, when you want to attack a country because you suspect them to have some fearsome weapon (which btw is in itself an idiotic reason, considering the US actually has more of those weapons than anyone else - thats for another debate though :-)), even if the evidence shows otherwise, you must keep an open mind to the possibilty that the evidence is wrong, and still invade :-S

Now I dont know if its just me, but that argument seems really flimsy. It basically gives you the permission to attack anyone at will, for any make-up reason you want...

Another thing to point out is there is really no link between scientists keeping an open mind during reasearch and a president of a superpower keeping an open mind, when deciding to attack. The reprecussions are very very different, most often affecting innocent people the most - the saddest part of it all :-(

So anyway, I just wanted to point that out, since no one else did it. :-)
If I misunderstood anything, then just ignore this post :-D

[Anonymous]

posted on May 7th, 2011, 1:40 am

Last edited by Anonymous on May 7th, 2011, 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree, when you put it that way, however I was not trying to justify Bushes invasion of Iraq.   I definitely didn't intend to do so.   I was simply saying that it is still possible there were weapons there even if the evidence sofar says otherwise.  I certainly don't think that if there is plenty of evidence against there being weapons, that we should invade a country on a highly improbable thought that they had them, I was simply making the point that it could eventually come out that he was right, weather the invasion was justified at the time or not.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I still don't think that if he wrongly chose to invade iraq(even though it wasn't entirely his decision) it makes him evil.  I do not use that term lightly, and Osama bin Ladin is was an evil man.

posted on May 7th, 2011, 3:11 am

(which btw is in itself an idiotic reason, considering the US actually has more of those weapons than anyone else - thats for another debate though :-)),

Actually I believe Russia still has more nuclear warheads then the US does.

posted on May 7th, 2011, 6:52 am

Yeah but ours were always bigger and badder.

I think that bush made a decision based on the info he had. At this point in time its easy to look back and pick apart everything he said or did, hindsight is always 20 20. And while i may disagree with the decision to go over there i still respect the man.

@Baron
I cant go to bed either heres hoping that we both get some sleep

posted on May 7th, 2011, 8:37 am

Yeah but ours were always bigger and badder.

Also not true. Two words: Tsar Bomba. Even AFTER they halved its yield, it was still "bigger and badder" than anything the US ever made.

They have also developed non-nuclear bombs "bigger and badder" than anything the US has too... (Father Of All Bombs)

posted on May 7th, 2011, 1:42 pm

yup Atlantis is very correct i think the Tsar Bomb has a yeild of 50 mega tonnes  the most powerfull bomb ever made

posted on May 7th, 2011, 6:17 pm

The US tends to make smaller yield high precison bombs, Russia on the other hand goes for the big bang. I recall in one of my classes back in the day Stalin even proposing turning an old oil tanker into the largest nuclear bomb ever created, one that would basically be world wide armageddon if the Soviet Union ever fell.

posted on May 8th, 2011, 1:51 pm

That type of argument will not go far, There may have bean fairies and leprechauns in Iraq too even though we did not find evidence.

But we are not talking about fairies and leprechauns are we? Nope its all WMD this and WMD that. fairies and leprechauns are allot more fun.

With out confirmed miserable events your living in fairy-tails.

Now this topic has gon off topic can we start a outer and let this one die?

I agree, when you put it that way, however I was not trying to justify Bushes invasion of Iraq.   I definitely didn't intend to do so.   I was simply saying that it is still possible there were weapons there even if the evidence sofar says otherwise.  I certainly don't think that if there is plenty of evidence against there being weapons, that we should invade a country on a highly improbable thought that they had them, I was simply making the point that it could eventually come out that he was right, weather the invasion was justified at the time or not.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I still don't think that if he wrongly chose to invade iraq(even though it wasn't entirely his decision) it makes him evil.  I do not use that term lightly, and Osama bin Ladin is was an evil man.

posted on May 8th, 2011, 1:52 pm

Now this topic has gon off topic can we start a outer and let this one die?

lol you mean start a third (and thats just of this iteration )

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:00 pm

Actually I believe Russia still has more nuclear warheads then the US does.

But america's nukes are a LOT more likely to hit the target....

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:05 pm

Yeah, Russia's target...

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:14 pm

But america's nukes are a LOT more likely to hit the target....

And what factual information are you basing that on? Or is it just patriotism talking?

America has a terrible reputation when it comes to bombing the right target. The statistics for them hitting friendlies, civilians, hospitals, etc, aren't very favourible. That's with conventional bombs, but it'll be the same story for nukes.