BikerBabe

yup. i'm a tree-hugging, sierra club card-holding green freak, but we will be getting a jetta (or maybe even a BMW) deisel once CA finally catches up to the rest of the damned world next year and actually allows them to be sold in the state. If our current car craps out before then...well, we'll drive to vegas and buy one. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Or it's more like he's trying to prove that SC folks will argue about ANYTHING! Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

hehe, my sister was born on leap day. i think it had something to do with karma, my mom was born on christmas day. that's a good idea, though! leaping on leap day...hmm... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

and here we have an unintended consequence of bonfire bannings! mods, save the topical forums! un-ban the post whores! Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

well...there might be a bit of psychology behind that. for me, i always get ginger ale on the plane because it's not something i EVER buy, but i like it, and since it's readily available, i'll take it. Another reason is that ginger ale used to be made with real ginger, which calms the stomach and helps with motion sickness, so it's possible that a lot of older fliers were given it on planes as kids, or remember the days when ginger ale was real. As for tomato juice? i can't fathom why. ugh. i get nauseated just from the smell Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

i LOVE these guys...really nothing to do with daft punk but the title of this song, but if you've never heard LCD Soundsystem...go. run. buy their two albums. NOW! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbaOFkC8tQE Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

You forgot Bill Richardson Honestly, he's the most qualified, and i personally like him the most. of yours, i picked...ugh....none. I don't like any of them. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

the 360 has the most robust support and amount of games. get rock band, mass effect, and assassin's creed. i love my 360, and i haven't had any trouble with it. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

saw it in half, put a binding on each half, and face forward down the slope....or maybe just put skis on instead >< that's my secret to snowboarding. Actually, the best things are those little blade skis. i can do snowboard tricks but not have to deal with that "bound up and can't move" feeling that a snowboard gives me. Should see me in the terrain park with those things! so fun! Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

oh man, i can't wait for indy next year. unlike laguna seca, they are actually bringing the gp support classes over. My hubby used to ride 250 GP in AMA before they killed it...can't wait to see a good 250 race again. if anyone is interested in homegrown (in the states) 125 or 250 cc GP racing, check out the USGPRU: http://www.usgpru.net/ Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

rock band is GH but with guitar, drums, and a microphone :) Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Interesting strawman. However, i won't fall for it. Lemurs and whether they have moral values have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Shall we return to the roots, then? Here are the words of Protagoras, a Sophist who was perhaps the father of the relativist doctrine: "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appear to you, in that way they exist for you". This statement is a nice summation of relativism. Just put it in the light of moral truths and we have our relativist argument. "The way morals appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way morals appear for you, in that way they exist for you." Shall I now play Plato? Let me try. Plato says: "If the way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is false." Poor Protagoras...he cannot say that Plato is wrong, since the basis of his entire philosophy says that whatever Plato believes to be true is right for Plato. So if Plato is correct, then Protagoras is wrong...bye bye relativist doctrine. How is this supposed to convince me of anything? Especially that relativism is a true and valid belief? If you wish to present relativism as a TRUE doctrine, then logically you must exclude its opposite (absolutism) as FALSE. However, relativism says that no doctrine can exclude it's opposite (everything is true, and there is no falsehood), so long as someone believes the opposite to be true. So which is it? exclude the opposite, or not? Relativism wants for itself the very thing (objectivity) it denies exists. It is a self-referential inconsistency. The thing about moral relativism is this: it's EASY. It allows us to brush aside the tough questions. It allows us to live in our own little worlds and not care about what's going on outside our bubbles. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

You are missing the point of the previous posts. you cannot logically make the statement "there are no moral absolutes" (or phrase it however). it is not logically defensible. That is my point. Moral relativism as a vocalized or codified philosophy does not hold up under logical scrutiny. I don't know where you got it from, but no where in any of my posts have i proposed any details behind a universal moral code. You seem to think that i'm trying to say that my moral code is the universal one...which is ridiculous. I'm saying that there ARE objective moral standards. that's it. now THIS is what we SHOULD be debating. This is the true question. shall we propose some? murder rape adultery lying stealing cheating pedophilia (i've purposely added some grey area ones) Are you saying that murder is OK in some society if said society deems it to be? how about rape? How about lying? HERE'S where my moral standards come in: I am saying that's horseshit. murder is always wrong. i don't care if you live in the USA or in a tribe in the Amazon. murder is always morally wrong. There are any number of reasons. Religion. Good of society. Survival of civilization. pick one (of course that leads to the next step of the debate...where they come from). Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

I think you are using faulty logic. Morals differ from person to person yet you think there is some "Universal Standard of Morals". From culture to culture and different time periods there are different sets of accepted morals. The people that believe in Sharia Law believe in it just as strongly as you believe in your "Universal Standard of Morals". *headsmack* Your assertion that there are no universal moral standards is YOUR belief! it is not mine. i am using logic (in the platonic tradition of debate) to refute YOUR argument that there is no universal standard of morals. You are voicing the "moral relativism" standpoint. I am refuting it. yes, i think there is a universal standard of morals/ethics. you think there is not. do not try to refute my argument by asserting yours as absolute truth (which is very funny, because that in and of itself is a contradiction!) Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

You misinterpret my statment. I did not say there no correct absolute statments. I did say that your absolute statement is not correct. A big difference. BTW when I say there is no "Universal Standard" I am refering to the topic on hand. Meaning your "Universal Standard of Morals" not any universal standard. There is no universal moral standard? is that what you are saying? if so, then please re-read my post again. Of course we are talking about MORAL standards here...please don't argue based solely on semantics. I am not misinterpreting anything...there are two possibilities here: 1. If you say "there is no universal moral standard, it's all relative" and you mean it as an absolute, 100% thing that applies to everyone the world over...then you are contradicting yourself by in fact, applying your own moral standard (that standard being that there is no standard). If your moral standard (that there is no standard) is allowable, then why not others? 2. If you say "there's no universal standard, it's all relative" but mean it only to apply to yourself, then your personal moral code now ALSO allows for objective, universal moral standards to exist, since another person besides yourself believes them to exist. Once again, contradicting your own argument. It matters not whether I believe in moral relativism. What matters is that it is not a position that can be borne out when held up to logical scrutiny. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

how many times do i have to say it over and over? can someone else maybe explain this in simpler terms? it's really not hard: Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

*bangs head on wall* reread what you just wrote! then re-read what i wrote. Or go read about Russell's Paradox! I suppose i should thank you for proving me right. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

"All generalizations are wrong." it's an old "joke" but if you can see the flaw in that statement, you've now seen the logical argument i'm trying to make here. But let me spell it out. My universal standard: Murder and rape are wrong. Your universal standard: There's no universal standard. You are making an absolute statement when you say say "there are no universal standards". JUST like i am when i say "Murder and rape are wrong". YOUR absolute statement is basically saying that NO absolute statements are correct. Well, if no absolute statements are correct, then you have, in fact nullified your own absolute statement. Where it gets sticky is that if you say your statement is NOT absolute, then your statement is relative, which of course means you can't argue against MY statement. It's all relative, right? This is an extension of Russell's Paradox. Google it if you want. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ I am not talking about my own personal moral yardstick here. I am using logical reasoning that has been used for centuries for rational discourse and debate. To be honest, i wish relativism held up under scrutiny, because it's easier. Wouldn't life for us be so easy if relativism were true? But it's not, and life's not easy...so the real questions become where do we draw the line between what's tolerable and what isn't, and what do we do if that line is crossed. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

"there's no such thing as a universal standard" that statement, made in the context of this argument, is, in fact, a universal standard (or at least it's being presented as one). So you've already proven yourself wrong. Why is your universal standard correct, but others' incorrect? See the issue here with moral relativism? the "philosophy" doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. The argument here is not IF there is an objective moral standard. the argument here is what things fall into the right vs wrong category of those standards. Would you not agree that in this case, rape is, in fact, being viewed as morally wrong? The rapists are being punished. What differs between our society and theirs is the location of the line being drawn between what is right and what is wrong. In most societies, females riding in a car with unrelated males doesn't cross that line of right vs. wrong. So rather than fighting about the existence of objective moral truths (they very obviously exist), we should be arguing about what those objective moral truths (universal standards, if you will) are, and what they are not. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Another thing that makes me angry is the fact that skyride has pretty much ruined the chance that a LEGITIMATE skydiving booking agency might have to get into the market. A couple years ago i was researching business opportunities and had considered trying to start a skydiving booking agency. I found skyride as part of my research. And of course, all of the negatives that came with that discovery. Say i started my own booking agency...how would i disassociate myself from skyride? not to mention, i'm SURE i'd have to deal with unscrupulous tactics on their part to drive me out of the market (or never let me in in the first place). So the effects of skyride are not only immedate. Many people on here have said a real booking agency would be great, but in the current market, skyride has ruined any possibility of it being realistic. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

and therein lies the fundamental flaw of moral relativism. Think about it for a minute. You realize that your statement contradicts itself, right??? I don't know how you think it contradicts itself. Are you trying to say that there is only one set of morals? That all cultures and peoples have the same set of morals?? no. you say "there is no universal standard" which according to you is, in fact, a universal standard. sort of like saying "all generalizations are wrong". so moral relativists cannot be correct without first, themselves, asserting an objective truth. But if one objective truth exists (i.e. there is no universal standard), then logic tells us that you have in fact allowed for many objective truths to exist. Such as "rape and murder and 200 lashes to a VICTIM are wrong". Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

and therein lies the fundamental flaw of moral relativism. Think about it for a minute. You realize that your statement contradicts itself, right??? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Well, from the current results of this poll, it seems that the most vocal of the POSTERS in SC don't necessarily represent the majority opinion of the READERS of SC. Very interesting....I wonder how much that parallels society as a whole? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

hehe...actually Billy, you might. it's much more visually-cued than sound, at least for me. There's even a 360 achievement that requires you to master a song with the sound completely off, lol I love it. I'm stuck on the 7th group of songs on hard...and this one IS harder than GH2 was, that's for sure. i'm skydiver8 on xbox 360 =) Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

I went to an Air Force event in Chicago on Saturday. The "social hour" consisted of standing around in a corridor. When we finally got on board the boat (don't ask) they kept us standing around another 15 minutes while they sorted out the seating protocol. Then they proposed a toast to the colors before anyone had been served a drink. In contrast, the Navy/Marine Corps Birthday Ball on Friday ran like clockwork (most likely because a Gunny was in charge of the arrangements). Hmm. Well, like i said, the AF is technologically advanced. that means they are a big buncha geeks. geeks don't have social lives! come on! how do you expect the poor geeks to host a party??!!! Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!