Random Thought of the Day

Quote: Face

Serious question. An answer of "both" is not acceptable.

Both ... legs :)

Quote: petroglyph

It's a lot easier to just give an opinion

There's far too much opinion and too little thought.

When someone wants to deny someone else's rights, they should first ask themselves that question.

Quote: Nareed

There's far too much opinion and too little thought.

When someone wants to deny someone else's rights, they should first ask themselves that question.

I rather like the drifting comment, as it forces you to think. That being said, I hate the drifting comment that is never finished later, because it leaves me wondering ;)

I would go further with your comment, and I almost hate to say something because I had planned on doing an experiment about it here. Oh well, I guess. But I was starting to think / wonder along your lines. Not only asking themselves a question, but proving it to themselves. For all of our opinion threads where we debate ferociously, I'd like to see us counter ourselves. Perhaps terapined can argue to keep weed criminalized, maybe FrG can debate the lack of God, perhaps Face can write an anti-gun piece. I was starting to wonder that if you can't argue against yourself, whether you had enough knowledge on the subject to hold an opinion, period.

Coulda been fun. I suppose no one would bite, though.

Quote: Face

For all of our opinion threads where we debate ferociously, I'd like to see us counter ourselves. Perhaps terapined can argue to keep weed criminalized, maybe FrG can debate the lack of God, perhaps Face can write an anti-gun piece.

I appreciate the omission. But I'll tell you: I cannot argue for the existence of a deity, because all the evidence is against it. I couldn't argue for the validity of astrology, or the effectiveness of homeopathy for the same reason.

Quote:

I was starting to wonder that if you can't argue against yourself, whether you had enough knowledge on the subject to hold an opinion, period.

I'm not sure one is necessary for the other. However, I can argue against and for guns, and for and against abortion. I have thought about both subjects extensively. Another really important topic is "do we need a Bill of Rights or not?", and that deserves its own thread.

Quote: Nareed

I appreciate the omission. But I'll tell you: I cannot argue for the existence of a deity, because all the evidence is against it. I couldn't argue for the validity of astrology, or the effectiveness of homeopathy for the same reason.

Lol I was typing too fast and wasn't thinking. Would it be harder for FrG to debate on the "no" side, or Nareed to debate the "yes" side? I don't know, but I'd pay admission to see either ;)

Quote: Face

Lol I was typing too fast and wasn't thinking. Would it be harder for FrG to debate on the "no" side, or Nareed to debate the "yes" side? I don't know, but I'd pay admission to see either ;)

For me, if I were to argue for the existence of "God" it would be this easy: I concede defeat.

So there :)

My random thoughts are just pictures sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how old, abandoned, obsolete technologies would work if new knowledge, design expertise and materials were applied to them. For example, how efficient, or not, would a steam engine be if it made use of electricity to heat water (for instance), and were built out of light-weight alloys and composites, and it used a turbine rather than pistons. say in order to power a car or a boat.

It bears mentioning nuclear power plants and nuclear vessels all use uranium to heat water to turn steam turbines.