If there is one thing that a person should restrict to make the biggest difference in her diet, what do you think it is? Please don’t say booze, as I will not accept this answer.
DUDE WE STOPPED DRINKING BOOZE IN THE HOUSE (UNLESS THERE ARE GUESTS OVER) AND I KNOW IT SOUNDS PUSSY BUT I FEEL AWESOME.
At least you didn’t leave her at a hockey game.
I did push pretty hard for Scrantonicity to play our reception, though. AND I STAND BY THAT.
(Although I hear about all the time.)Hahah, Moff is a bad date.
But a great mate, in that we will have a surfeit of stories for our kids to make fun of us about.
I am seeing Crank 2 tonight in a somewhat altered state. Crank 2: a movie so good, Roger Ebert couldn’t even review it.
One time I took this girl to see the first Crank on her birthday, as a surprise, and she still married me.
(Although I hear about it all the time.)
Among the techniques they wanted to know if it was OK to use:
“(9) insects placed in a confinement box”
I’m caught between terrible sadness for America and tremendous joy that we’re taking the first formal steps toward reestablishing some moral clarity.
The larger point is that we have different standards of proof for things that we can’t really verify. Mine’s just higher, particularly on the god thing. Moff is a just a common fact slut.
I did suck off two facts just this afternoon, behind the convenience store. But someday I’m going to clean up my act and settle down with a nice opinion, I swear.
Now I have to go do laundry at the Stephen King Laundromat. Don’t ask, you guys.
No offence, Dis — at least you have an argument for your opinions.
Agreed. (And it was meant as a good-natured burn, for the record.)
I should point out that the medium we’re using rewards brevity above all else, but comparing the current status of metaphysics to the state of ACTUAL PHYSICS is missing the point. The “research” to be completed, the unknown which must become known, to settle a metaphysics debate is merely to acknowledge the existence of research. Admitting that empiricism is even relevant is a conclusive way of tossing you in the agnostic camp. Unless you’re aware of some God-on-film tapes that I have not seen.
Belief in god is necessarily a declaration that the observable doesn’t matter, that what we study with our faculties has no bearing on the ineffable mystery of faith. I can tell you, given the length and breadth of human knowledge, that the faithful have no empirical evidence of his existence. Future discoveries and comic book movies notwithstanding, the ground floor of faith is acceptance of a precept that you cannot validate. ”I am the lord thy God, maker of heaven and Earth” is something the faithful must accept as an axiom underpinning the whole of existence. There is no rock to turn over that conceals evidence to assist you - all required elements in the faith debate are already known. It is merely a question of whether or not you can accept, as truth, something you can never know for certain.
It can’t be empirically verified that I like pizza, either. Nor is there any measurable way to demonstrate, for example, that I have written a beautiful poem, or raised a good child, or lived a good life. And yet others who have studied poetry, or raised children, or lived well can still, somehow, seem to find some manner of accord, despite the fact that we’ll never know for certain if we were right.
God must be self-evident, and therein lies the problem; it is inherently a circular position. Some people can accept that. I never will, which would make me an agnostic. What makes me an atheist is that if god appeared before me, FINALLY providing the only evidence that can validate your position, I would deny his claim.
If there is a God, and He’s worthy of the name, that last sentence of yours is, y’know, redonkulous. But I can appreciate how empowering it must feel to say it, dude.
I mean, come the fuck on.
