Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620142 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the opinion of one attorney, not the law.
I'm no criminal.
Here's CA law:
Law not intended to prohibit the use of reasonable methods of parental discipline, or to prescribe a particular method of parenting. Serious physical harm does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury. Welf. and Inst. Code Sec. 300.[Ci.] Abuse includes unlawful corporal punishment or injury. Penal Code Sec. 11165.6.[Cr.] "Unlawful corporal punishment or injury" is any person willfully inflicting upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or injury resulting in a traumatic condition. Penal Code Sec. 11165.4.[Cr.]
Why on earth would a 6 month old need to be smacked? They can't walk or talk. There is nothing any 6 month old baby would need to be smacked for. Did it pick it's food up by it's left hand instead of the right hand?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620143 Apr 27, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> You forgot something. "There is a neural net".....AND a quantum reality.
<quoted text> Ok, I'll repeat myself, what observations do you have that molecules could ever become aware of themselves?<quoted text>Alright I'll explain but you have to attempt to understand; it's not that hard, even though I have been explaining and explaining over and over. First, "my point" is that the quantum state is the father of all things; it makes up atoms and molecules and everything else. You can't just have molecules without a more fundamental reality behind it. So my point is you are talking about 'association', and the quantum state accompanies everything, and it can also stand alone, unlike any molecules. So you can't rule it out until you can come up with a way that molecules can become aware of themselves. And you can't. That's my point. Notice how I address your comments? Time you try that.
What do I mean by quantum consciousness? Same as you mean by molecular consciousness just that it originates in the quantum state not the molecular state. You really still don't know that? It's not any more magic than saying moleculesdidit.
The last question is easy, and I explained it already, but for the slow ones I'll do it again. The quantum state is eternal as far as we know. Remember, matter cannot be created or destroyed?(Oh and "virtual particles" are not known to be an example of matter being created, they simply become detectable and vice versa), and neither can motion be destroyed (there is always a ground state energy), so it seems. So do I have to fill in the obvious blank? I better. Energy is eternal, therefore if consciousness is quantum then it is eternal also because of it's quantum nature, and it may even be one and the same as energy, we do not know.
WTFFFF... I just tryped out a long ass response to this and then I hit post.. and it redirected me back to the home page and when I tried to go back to salvage it the webpage had expired.. Fuck.. I'm not doing that again right now.. I'll re type it in a little while.

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620144 Apr 27, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people would know beating a dog makes them violent. You are lying that you have dogs.
Beating a dog makes them frightened. Makes them not trusting of humans including there owner. A frightened dog is more likely to bite.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#620145 Apr 27, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
Why on earth would a 6 month old need to be smacked? They can't walk or talk. There is nothing any 6 month old baby would need to be smacked for. Did it pick it's food up by it's left hand instead of the right hand?
RR was most likely teaching the young'en not to touch the Remington 1100 that he left on the floor.

That's called Redneck Gun Control.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620146 Apr 27, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>
Even in the quantum world, nothing is known to pop in and out of existence. That is how it is occasionally referred to, but what they mean is that these virtual particles become detectable and vice versa. Because by definition, something cannot come from nothing, meaning that something cannot pop into existence from a state of non-existence (nothingness), it must just be changing forms into something detectable. Get it? Or are you gonna tell me that 'something from nothing' makes sense or is a plausible speculation without any evidence to support that speculation?
Your couch may not be a wave function as a whole but it is made up of wave functions.
Yes, I know that virtual particles do not come from nothing. I did not say that. I said "pop into existence," which is a common way to refer to it. They are borrowed energy.

I do like how you assumed all that from a one off comment I made just so that you could preemptively argue with a position that I never took. That was fun.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620147 Apr 27, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
well thanks! unless of course you're being sarcastic; then i'd prefer that you point out what you disagree with and why so we could have a constructive debate. that's why i'm here, anyways. how about you?:)
No! Sarcasm?!?! My word, sarcasm is the work of the antichrist homosexuals! I would never debase myself with such a low, cheap form of human as sarcasm! I might as well take it up the butt from an antichrist homo! You know?!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620148 Apr 27, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
nano's the whole package; smart, holy and HOT - the frig'n girl's got it all!
Holiness, truly the sexiest trait any woman can aspire to.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620149 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
RR disagrees with you.
So does Yale.
Yale University's Infant Cognition Center which indicate that infants already can sense good behavior from bad.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and...
Did you even read that link? It said that they "focused" on the helpful character in an animated film, which is interesting, and may suggest that we have an inborn sense of helpfullness, but that is far from suggesting that babies understand the nature of right and wrong. And even if they popped out with a fully developed sense of morality, which is absurd, you are still ignoring the fact that babies don't learn in the same way that you and I learn, that they most certainly don't manipulate, and that there is nothing wrong with a baby wanting attention in the first place.

It's a baby. It doesn't know how else to communicate it's needs, and when you hit it for crying, it doesn't realize that it should only cry "for the right reasons," it just associates crying with being hit and becomes scared to cry.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620150 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Babies aren't as stupid as you make them out to be, OCB. Knock it off.
Here, please take a minute to read this, you should learn something about babies.
"Your newborn can't yet speak your language or fully understand what you're saying to him, but he's a fast learner. Research shows that babies start listening to their parents' voices while still in the womb."
http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-mil...
....or you can just keep up your ignorant argument.
No one is saying they are "stupid," or that they don't learn fast, just that they don't think at a mature level yet. The fact that they learn fast is in fact the problem here. Hitting them to get them to stop doing a certain behavior is called negative reinforcement, and the baby will quickly learn that crying might get it hit. He will not understand that he should only cry for the "right reason," he will only learn that crying might bring pain.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620151 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I can't meet your expectation.
It's not about "beating something into submission".
A dog can't understand what you're saying no more than a baby can. You're not supposed to "beat" them for ANY reason.
But a little back-handed discipline works wonders.
Ugh.

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620152 Apr 27, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
you wrote;
it is the way scientific disciplines work.
LOL,, the correct way is this..
""it is the way scientific deciet works"".
It is man coming up with every thing it possibly can think of,,lies and fraud and decietful bogus fondations, etc etc.. to try and disprove God..but hey you keep believing those lies and made up words of whacko's who mislead people for their bennifit...
Why, when religion is a fantastic way to control people would they want to disprove God?
If I want to control people I'd leave them to believe, and just change the bible here and there to suit, have the religious leaders feed the people what I want.
If deceitful people and governments want to control people they do not want us to be roaming around, with the freedom to think for ourselves.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620153 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
'Right to privacy'?
Even when terrorism threatens us all?
Damn liberals...
As an American, I was glad to have the Patriot Act to protect us when we needed it. Unlike what our current president has done to keep the country safe...
Terrorism threatens us all in the same way that a lot of things threaten us all. The world is a dangerous place. We can't declare war on everything that threatens us.

"Damn liberals?" That's funny. The "damn liberals" have to defend our basic rights from the right, the party that is supposed to be about defending the constitution and advocating for small government. Yet here you are, proudly defending some of the most dangerous legislation in recent memory, as well as parroting the same old fear mongering nonsense about terrorism.

We have two issues here. The threat of terrorism/the war on terror, and the patriot act. The war on terror is in and of itself an absurdity - the war on terror is a war on a tactic, an idea, a method. It makes no sense. How do you defeat an "ism?" Perhaps that's the point - an excuse for a never ending war, an endless stream of enemies selected under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." It's nothing more than a scary word that can be applied to scary people, and it has been used to justify two wars -both military engagements and a war on our freedoms. There are no possible victory conditions in this war, no way to tell if we've "won," but that won't stop us from putting new terrorists in our proverbial scope every so often, traveling the world, and devestating entire countries and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilains in an effort to "defeat" an idea and "spread freedom." It would actually be kind of funny if it wasn't so horrible.

Whether you agree with the patriot act really depends on one thing - whether you think our right to privacy, our right against unlawful search and seizure, our right against unlawful arrest, and our right to habeus corpus (among many others) are immutable or if you think they are subject to the whims of the government. Because when it comes down to it, there's not much that can be done to prevent a few crazies from carrying out a plan - the only real effect this legislation has is to foster an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in the general populace. Do you think that it's ok that the government took advantage of our collective despair after 9/11 in order to rush a piece of police state legislation through the senate? Do you think it's ok that the national fear of terrorism has been used to support war?

Additionally, the patriot act can, will, and has been used against american citizens. Do you think that's ok? I mean, if the government really wants to wire tap someone, or arrest them, they should be able to get a warrant, right? Why give them easy to abuse shortcuts? The patriot act is ostensibly meant to fight terrorism, so why should we allow it to be used on american citizens, and moreover, if it really was about fighting terrorism, why was the government so quick to use it for domestic purposes?

Let's not even get in to the ridiculous new "enemy combatant" language, which makes it even easier for anyone to fall under the very wide net already afforded by the patriot act. What I just wrote could hypothetically be used to label me an enemy combatant, even though I would never consider any type of violence.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620154 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I'm familiar with pseudo physiology.
They'd tell you that leaving for work early to avoid traffic is a negative reinforcement... I don't get that. Leaving early and avoiding traffic are both positive things with positive outcomes.
I don't use negative reinforcement.
You clearly aren't familiar with psychology, psuedo or otherwise. That is not what is meant by negative reinforcement.

Also, are you a scientologist or something? Do you think of the entire field of psychology as a giant sham?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#620155 Apr 27, 2013
TrumpetCallofGodOnline wrote:
Proove that there isnt a God
#goodluck
consider the quality of his believers;

and

you shall have your proof

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#620156 Apr 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no, incorrect on your use of the word "fallacy." An absence of evidence fallacy would be to state, as you said in the pie example. A rational thought would be "there may not be a finished pie, without evidence I cannot assume there is a finished pie." Are you seriously this naive on matters of logic? You are failing very important nuances to how logic works, it's not binary, and, like all things in existence, it's not dichotomous.
he is a binary thinker, he thinks in black and white, and he concludes what ever is best for "hisself", this lying POS has to be the most self-centered person I have ever "met".

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620157 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> Terrorism threatens us all in the same way that a lot of things threaten us all. The world is a dangerous place. We can't declare war on everything that threatens us.
"Damn liberals?" That's funny. The "damn liberals" have to defend our basic rights from the right, the party that is supposed to be about defending the constitution and advocating for small government. Yet here you are, proudly defending some of the most dangerous legislation in recent memory, as well as parroting the same old fear mongering nonsense about terrorism.
We have two issues here. The threat of terrorism/the war on terror, and the patriot act. The war on terror is in and of itself an absurdity - the war on terror is a war on a tactic, an idea, a method. It makes no sense. How do you defeat an "ism?" Perhaps that's the point - an excuse for a never ending war, an endless stream of enemies selected under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." It's nothing more than a scary word that can be applied to scary people, and it has been used to justify two wars -both military engagements and a war on our freedoms. There are no possible victory conditions in this war, no way to tell if we've "won," but that won't stop us from putting new terrorists in our proverbial scope every so often, traveling the world, and devestating entire countries and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilains in an effort to "defeat" an idea and "spread freedom." It would actually be kind of funny if it wasn't so horrible.
Whether you agree with the patriot act really depends on one thing - whether you think our right to privacy, our right against unlawful search and seizure, our right against unlawful arrest, and our right to habeus corpus (among many others) are immutable or if you think they are subject to the whims of the government. Because when it comes down to it, there's not much that can be done to prevent a few crazies from carrying out a plan - the only real effect this legislation has is to foster an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in the general populace. Do you think that it's ok that the government took advantage of our collective despair after 9/11 in order to rush a piece of police state legislation through the senate? Do you think it's ok that the national fear of terrorism has been used to support war?
Additionally, the patriot act can, will, and has been used against american citizens. Do you think that's ok? I mean, if the government really wants to wire tap someone, or arrest them, they should be able to get a warrant, right? Why give them easy to abuse shortcuts? The patriot act is ostensibly meant to fight terrorism, so why should we allow it to be used on american citizens, and moreover, if it really was about fighting terrorism, why was the government so quick to use it for domestic purposes?
Let's not even get in to the ridiculous new "enemy combatant" language, which makes it even easier for anyone to fall under the very wide net already afforded by the patriot act. What I just wrote could hypothetically be used to label me an enemy combatant, even though I would never consider any type of violence.
Thank you. Though I'm not an American I understand what that act can mean for American's, and their freedom.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#620158 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Being a rude, sarcastic bitch is not witty or funny except to another rude, sarcastic bitch.
you can quit laughing

anytime

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620159 Apr 27, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:

I can have have a pretty good idea of how hard I'm hitting someone.
I can only guess as to how much it hurts them.
If the spanking doesn't cause pain, I don't consider it abuse.
I wouldn't even call what you are describing "spanking".
That's the only sane and safe way to spank a 6 month old. If ya gotta, ya gotta.
I'm also skeptical about the claims you make regarding the learning abilities of 6 month old babies.
Claim confirmed:

http://www.livescience.com/18469-infants-unde...

There are many, many studies that show the same. There's also billions of parents that would agree.
Babies do learn a lot, but they aren't going to learn the purpose of this action or how they should respond to it. At most, it's a distraction. It might make some babies quit crying sometimes, as well as countless other distractions would.
You don't have kids, do ya?

Spanking them isn't about stopping them from crying, it's about teaching them discipline and boundaries.
Huh?
Negative reinforcement is punitive. You do something bad, an authority does something bad to you.
That's a vague definition. I gave you a few examples of other types of negative reinforcement.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620161 Apr 27, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you don't understand logic in the first place.
A god that tortures people forever for not believing in it is not merciful, loving, or just. The Bible describes a god that tortures unbelievers eternally after they die, but also describes this god as merciful, loving, and just. Either someone doesn't know what mercy, love, and justice are, or this is an impossible combination.
That's one example out of hundreds. These contradictions invalidate the claims of the Bible. If there is a god, the Bible doesn't describe it. The Bible represents a clusterfuck of superstitious mythology written by ignorant men.
Yes, the ole atheist comeback "You don't understand".... Ugh

God has forgiven everyone. He resolved the issue of death through Jesus Christ. If God has given you forgiveness and you refuse to receive it, how can you say God is unmerciful or unjust?

I would highly doubt the existence of God if there were just people who believe without a question.

I believe the existence of atheists is one of the reason why God certainly does exist.

The bible wasn't written by ignorant men. Maybe by today's standards they're ignorant, but for their time, they were brilliant men.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620162 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly you don't know what negative reinforcement is. Spanking a child for doing something "wrong" is a textbook example of negative reinforcement.
See? "You just don't understand"

*sigh*

Why is it when someone disagrees with an atheist, that's the textbook comeback?

Here's three textbook examples of negative reinforcement:

Before heading out for a day at the beach, you slather on sunscreen in order to avoid getting sunburned.

You decide to clean up your mess in the kitchen in order to avoid getting in a fight with your roommate.

On Monday morning, you leave the house early in order to avoid getting stuck in traffic and being late for class.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Your Body Deserves More - Dubai Massage Service 15 min AsianStarMassage 1
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 23 min Insults Are Easier 229,855
Biggest Fraud Ever Perpetrated On American PPL 39 min Publc Enemy Num 1 1
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Feb '14) 40 min ffort 116
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 42 min ChromiuMan 5,412
how to make cool cash online from www.spaceload... 44 min spaceloaded 1
Obama’s Party Benches Him 51 min Publc Enemy Num 1 3
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr who 261,600
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr June VanDerMark 548,232
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr mike 602,101
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 10 hr nikki 124

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE