So, I would really like to know what point you're trying to make here, but like curundu, I can't seem to figure out how this relates.....would you mind explaining? Also, I know that in my school they do separate kids with severe mental disabilities into separate classes.
well what I'm saying is pretty obvious, but you can Hire someone to tell you how to feel about this like we do in the news now a days cause apparently we are too Heedless to the point to see what are we being told
Well, we have a "Life Skills" unit at my school that talks about that kind of stuff... and all I hear is how boring it was and how nobody paid attention. I think the best way to solve the problem is for parents to drill this into them. It sounds really strict, but it just has to be "You know you shouldn't use that, right?" every once in a while. Individualized education is better than group education in that sense.
Hey there, I don't really appreciate being treated like I'm stupid, both curundu and I have proven throughout this debate that we are not stupid, so I would appreciate it if you could explain the connection between Jesus's metaphorical explanation of communion and down syndrome kids in school. And no, it's clearly not obvious, because two intelligent people have both now stated they don't understand. If you would not like to explain, than whatever point you're trying to make is not going to have any effect in this debate, and if you're fine with that, then please just politely refrain from answering instead of talking down to us. Thanks
Well, let's move on shall we. How about politics, it's been 20 or so pages since we've been on that. Anyone got any suggestions?
Fun part about all these is that they all think that what I said has to do with Jesus's Metaphorical explenation of communion Which brings my conclusion to a close. So fun taking advantage of these situations, and No curu I don't think you're allowed to use that considering your obtuse interpretation of Jesus's Metaphor which Pab had to explain. P.S. Dang it, I think I just told them what I was talking about, well more Neurons for the ones who wanna use them
I'm beginning to think this is like the Backstroke of the West we're dealing with. Proper, perfectly sensible thoughts, translated into Mandarin Chinese, then translated back from the translation until we get garble like this Listen july, if you're going to quote a post, your response should be at least tangentially related to it. If you're talking about pet rabbits and then suddenly someone jumps into the conversation discussing the benefits of cancer research, your first thought is going to try and connect these topics. Otherwise the conversation just... breaks, while everyone tries to figure out what the heck cancer has to do with baby bunnies. Being smugly cryptic about it is just obnoxious. New debate topic: Is technology advancing faster than mankind?
Excellent topic. It is an interesting question. Can something we create truly advance faster than it's creators? How to we measure the advancement of mankind without measuring us through our technology? Whatever the case, we are advancing at a simply extraordinary pace, and one wonders how long it will be until we create something that will destroy us. Obviously, most people here would be on the same side of the "are video games/screens good for you" debate, but even though I love playing MC and spending hours on these forums, I still often feel at the end of my day that I have not really been productive. Can our society as a whole learn to balance our productivity with our addictive technology use? I doubt that we can.
The thing is that what I meant is Blatant, is like I have to grab a bib and rap it around the child to than begin inserting the food. I cannot believe I have to do this but whatever. You guys are trying to connect Dots when what I said is clearly directed to the benighted explanation of Curundu about Jesus's Metaphorical explenation of Communion. TATARA!
No no, we're done with that. Come back to this debate when you learn how to be coherrent please. Just as food for thought, consider that engineers have already developed software capable of creating new software. Google's prototype AI learned how to recognize the concept of "cat" without ever being taught what a cat was. And their cars can successfully drive themselves, even in heavy traffic. Plus there's this. Naturally, our smartphones and games do enter the picture, but in terms of raw advancement we're putting more and more of our lives into digital hands these days. It does make you wonder a bit - at what point do we go from technology that allows us to do more, to technology that does more for us? Fun side-note: Conversation with friends not too long ago, the concept of a "food printer" came up. Imagine a device capable of combining various proteins, vitamins, and food elements into something properly edible, based on computerized instructions. Something like a 3D printer and resin, but with nutritional value.
Actually we are already and have already entered that long ago, Yes sure you tell your Phone or PC or what ever Device what he should do but he ends up doing it for you without you having to use a single brain cell, Such as Calculators for example they do all your math work. But if you're speaking in terms of having something more absolute than this, like have a car drive himself turn into a mini bot get all your groceries pay for them come back home and pack them in a fridge that is another level of technology which soon we'll reach.
No. Technology is just a manifestation of Man in the physical world. The follow-up question is, is man advancing too fast for mankind? To that I say yes. Our technology is advancing very fast and before a moral framework can be properly developed for the new procedures and technologies. I also say there is next to nothing anyone can do about it, since it is an international phenomenon.
This, so, so much Last quarter I did a research paper about nanotechnology, and one of the things I read about was nanofactories. They are about the size of cardboard boxes, and they assemble from the ground up, molecule by molecule, and object you feed it the base materials and the schematic for. So it seems like printing food would not be that much of a step from this.
Well, the last additions to the book are nearly 2000 years old now. Why would anything in there be relevant anymore? In fact, Jesus can be quoted as saying he would be coming back in his followers' lifetime. So, was he a false prophet, perhaps? After all, that certainly didn't come true... Never mind that there are still "temples" (churches) everywhere. I'm amused that god's word can be taken in so many ways. If being "inspired by god" is what it takes to understand the bible properly, then why are there so many completely different denominations out there? If it were truly the inspired word of god, shouldn't anyone who has accepted the holy spirit into their heart (or whatever it's called) get the same divine message? I find it absurd. Which denomination has it right, eh? And by the way, how does "dying for your sins" make any sense in the first place? As comedian Doug Stanhope said (a little cleaned up): "‘Jesus died for your sins.’ How does one affect the other? I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage? I don’t get it." Finally, a brilliant piece for you all, which I believe highlights the absurdity of the whole idea. It's called "The Plan of Salvation" and was written by poster Mageth of Internet Infidels Discussion Board: God himself created man and woman and placed them in a garden, in “his own image”, but got righteously angry at them when they ate, against his wish, and after being tempted by a talking serpent that god himself had somehow allowed to slither about in the garden, a tasty, beautiful fruit, though he himself had placed it there but neglected to instill in his creations the knowledge of good and evil so that they would know it was wrong to eat it. Being omniscient, of course, he knew all this before he started, but was apparently unable to do anything about it because he had planned it this way from the beginning, and apparently god cannot change anything he already knows, in spite of the fact that he’s omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Later, God himself impregnated a virgin so that he himself could be born a human, a ManGod. This was necessary, apparently, because only his own ManGod blood could appease himself and deliver humans, who he created, and who he knew would muck things up by eating the fruit, from his own righteous anger. Of course, he waited several thousand years to implement this divine plan, in the meantime taking the righteous action of drowning every creature on the planet except a few he could stuff on a boat. Not to mention handing down a Law that served to further condemn every one of us, and in which Law he himself had them frequently sacrifice animals to appease himself, though he knew the blood of animals didn’t really appease himself. Much later, god, in a garden, prayed to himself to “take this cup” away from himself, though he himself knew that he himself had planned the coming events from the beginning and knew that not even he himself could save himself, even though he was god and omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Accepting this, he said, in effect, “Not my will, but my will.” God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. (or had himself sacrificed; not much of a distinction between the two, really) Before dying, he himself asked he himself why he had forsaken himself. He himself, being dead, then raised himself from the dead less than 40 hours later, though he himself had said he’d be dead for three days and three nights, which he could do because he was still alive, and later he himself pulled himself up into heaven where he himself apparently already was, and where he himself is described as now sitting at the right hand of himself. He himself then sent himself (or a ghost of himself, if you please) back to earth to be a comfort to us, though he himself is still sitting at the right hand of himself. And, glory hallelujah, he himself promised that he himself will return someday, though he himself is already here, and will still be there, to snatch up those who believe the god blood sacrifice story he himself told us, and kill the rest of us who don’t believe the god blood sacrifice story, no matter how nice we were otherwise. But, since killing us isn’t enough to appease his righteousness, he himself will then judge us, though according to ManGod he himself will also not judge us, and being a god of love will cast most of us into hell for an eternity of suffering. He has to, of course, because he is a righteous, just god, and can’t figure out a way to save anyone who hasn’t been redeemed by god-blood, even though he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and loves us all.
I remember reading about something like this not too long ago... some scientists were researching a printer that would print beef steaks. Literally make steaks without it having to come from an animal. I'm convinced that this will take decades to perfect and ensure that it's as safe to eat as the real thing, but it's fascinating nonetheless.
