In My Opinion

[4th gen]

Yesterday, TC, Lamsey and I were having a discussion. One leg of the discussion was based around a pool table. I stated that although the cloth of the table appeared to me to be red in colour, I could (if I wished), argue that the table was actually blue, or green, or a cat etc. Thus, in my opinion, I would be correct, even if I were in direct contradiction with the popular opinion.

Another point was made around immaculate conception. Lamsey and TC both argued that immaculate conception was impossible, I argued that it was possible until it could be disproved. At this point, and this point only, would immaculate conception become impossible. I thought that until something is proven impossible, it is possible. TC and Lamsey argued that until it was proved impossible, it was unknown.

Discuss :)

[Agrajag]

I have a friend who, because of an eye / brain condition sees in 2D. This is not a joke. The world he sees is 2 dimensional, is his reality any less valid than those of us who see it in 3D, not to him.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 20:48
I have a friend who, because of an eye / brain condition sees in 2D. This is not a joke. The world he sees is 2 dimensional, is his reality any less valid than those of us who see it in 3D, not to him.
Relativity is more important than situation?

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 4th gen+21 February 2004 - 21:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 21 February 2004 - 21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 20:48
I have a friend who, because of an eye / brain condition sees in 2D. This is not a joke. The world he sees is 2 dimensional, is his reality any less valid than those of us who see it in 3D, not to him.
Relativity is more important than situation? [/b][/quote]
Perception is more important than preconception, any scientist knows that.

[WeeMouse]

Liam says you owe him a can of &#39;bru, Noob&#33;

:D

[hobbes]

Originally posted by 4th gen@21 February 2004 - 22:45
Yesterday, TC, Lamsey and I were having a discussion. One leg of the discussion was based around a pool table. I stated that although the cloth of the table appeared to me to be red in colour, I could (if I wished), argue that the table was actually blue, or green, or a cat etc. Thus, in my opinion, I would be correct, even if I were in direct contradiction with the popular opinion.

You would be very hard to communicate with and I would certainly not let you pick up a red shirt for me, as you would bring back a cat.

Another point was made around immaculate conception. Lamsey and TC both argued that immaculate conception was impossible, I argued that it was possible until it could be disproved. At this point, and this point only, would immaculate conception become impossible. I thought that until something is proven impossible, it is possible. TC and Lamsey argued that until it was proved impossible, it was unknown.

Discuss&nbsp; :)

From a purely biologic perspective:

Parthenogenesis occurs in lower plants and invertebrates and involves reproduction by development of an unfertilized egg.

This is essentially what cloners are doing, stimlating eggs to cause them to divide without fertilization.

Being female, there is no way Jesus could be a male as Mary has no Y chromosome, unless Mary is a chimera.

As a backdrop, in Greek mythology when someone became pregnant (likely due to infidelity) they would claim that Zeus or some other God came down in the form of Golden Rain and seduced them.

I think Mary may have been taking lessons from them.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 22:17


As a backdrop, in Greek mythology when someone became pregnant (likely due to infidelity) they would claim that Zeus or some other God came down in the form of Golden Rain and seduced them.

I think Mary may have been taking lessons from them.




So....


Your saying Jesus may have been a Bastard...


B)

[4th gen]

Originally posted by WeeMouse@21 February 2004 - 21:01
Liam says you owe him a can of &#39;bru, Noob&#33;

:D
Tell Liam he can shove his can of Bru down his thrapple :-"

[4th gen]

OK, another point, just popped up again.

I said that if I wanted to, I could say that 1+1 no longer was equal to 2, but infact, in my opinion, 1+1=3.

In my opinion, I&#39;m correct. In popular opinion (i.e. everyone who believes 1+1=2), I&#39;m wrong.

[Rat Faced]

well, i would go along with that....as i can demonstrate that dividing 12 by 2, does in fact equal 7.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 4th gen@21 February 2004 - 22:27
OK, another point, just popped up again.

I said that if I wanted to, I could say that 1+1 no longer was equal to 2, but infact, in my opinion, 1+1=3.

In my opinion, I&#39;m correct. In popular opinion (i.e. everyone who believes 1+1=2), I&#39;m wrong.
Conventions however are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of consensus.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@21 February 2004 - 21:29
well, i would go along with that....as i can demonstrate that dividing 12 by 2, does in fact equal 7.
Yep, fair play. In your opinion, dividing 12 by 2 is 7.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 4th gen+21 February 2004 - 22:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 21 February 2004 - 22:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@21 February 2004 - 21:29
well, i would go along with that....as i can demonstrate that dividing 12 by 2, does in fact equal 7.
Yep, fair play. In your opinion, dividing 12 by 2 is 7. [/b][/quote]
Again a matter of convention, not opinion, see my last post.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 21:38
Again a matter of convention, not opinion, see my last post.
Would I be totally wrong if I took from that statement that if the entire world decided that 1+1 was really equal to 3, then 1+1=3?

[Rat Faced]

XII is 12

Put a horizontal line through the middle (ie divide by 2)

Top half is VII ..........ie 7

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 4th gen+21 February 2004 - 22:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 21 February 2004 - 22:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 21:38
Again a matter of convention, not opinion, see my last post.
Would I be totally wrong if I took from that statement that if the entire world decided that 1+1 was really equal to 3, then 1+1=3? [/b][/quote]
Absolutely as long as you accepted that it was just a series of symbols to represent the concept that if you add one apple to another apple you have twice as many apples.

(This goes for everything and not just apples, for clarification)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+21 February 2004 - 23:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 21 February 2004 - 23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@21 February 2004 - 22:17


As a backdrop, in Greek mythology when someone became pregnant (likely due to infidelity) they would claim that Zeus or some other God came down in the form of Golden Rain and seduced them.

I think Mary may have been taking lessons from them.




So....


Your saying Jesus may have been a Bastard...


B) [/b][/quote]
We have 4 options:

1) God did it
2) Mary cheated and Jesus is a bastard
3) Mary is a chimera who under went parthenogenesis
4) Mary and Joseph were pulling a fast one.

[bigboab]

Originally posted by Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 21:48
I have a friend who, because of an eye / brain condition sees in 2D. This is not a joke. The world he sees is 2 dimensional, is his reality any less valid than those of us who see it in 3D, not to him.
Any person blind in one eye can only see in 2d. It does not alter their perception of things except distance.

I am deaf in one ear. It means I have no sound directional sense. I often have to ask where is that sound coming from.

As for immaculate conception. Would cloning not &#39;almost&#39; fit the concept?

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by bigboab+21 February 2004 - 22:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 21 February 2004 - 22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 21:48
I have a friend who, because of an eye / brain condition sees in 2D. This is not a joke. The world he sees is 2 dimensional, is his reality any less valid than those of us who see it in 3D, not to him.
Any person blind in one eye can only see in 2d. It does not alter their perception of things except distance.

I am deaf in one ear. It means I have no sound directional sense. I often have to ask where is that sound coming from.

As for immaculate conception. Would cloning not &#39;almost&#39; fit the concept? [/b][/quote]
He is not blind in either eye boab, he has a condition which causes the eyes not to work together properly for some reason (which I don&#39;t understand) and as such has no depth of vision. His world, of sight, is 2 dimensional.

[4th gen]

Before humans, did 1+1=2?

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 4th gen@21 February 2004 - 23:14
Before humans, did 1+1=2?
Yes, that is just a representation for it, however it is not that simple. It does not work for the very big, the very small, the very fast or the very slow. It is just a convenience of Newtonian physics. It works for the vast bulk of what we experience (though it is not entirely accurate) so we just accept it.

2 bodies traveling towards each other at 90% of the speed of light, their relative speed is not 180% of the speed of light.

[(>Zero Cool<)]

Originally posted by 4th gen@21 February 2004 - 21:45
Yesterday, TC, Lamsey and I were having a discussion. One leg of the discussion was based around a pool table. I stated that although the cloth of the table appeared to me to be red in colour, I could (if I wished), argue that the table was actually blue, or green, or a cat etc. Thus, in my opinion, I would be correct, even if I were in direct contradiction with the popular opinion.

Another point was made around immaculate conception. Lamsey and TC both argued that immaculate conception was impossible, I argued that it was possible until it could be disproved. At this point, and this point only, would immaculate conception become impossible. I thought that until something is proven impossible, it is possible. TC and Lamsey argued that until it was proved impossible, it was unknown.

Discuss :)
My discussion would pretty much be ....in a nutshell....summing up.......


I never want to play pool with you guys :frusty: :helpsmile: :blink:

[kAb]

I move my horsey to f1

[bigboab]

Originally posted by Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 22:53
He is not blind in either eye boab, he has a condition which causes the eyes not to work together properly for some reason (which I don&#39;t understand) and as such has no depth of vision. His world, of sight, is 2 dimensional.
It is probably some disease associated with the crossover area of the optic nerve which only allows only infinitesimal one sighted vision. This is too complicated for me at this time of the night. Or any time of the night. :lol: