Your parents, what are they like?

[Padawanbater2]

Ever notice he doesnt answer his own questions?

I already know all of my own answers

It seems like I'm the only one that ever asks any questions around here that don't relate to cannabis, and for whatever reason, that's odd to a few people

 

[Blue Wizard]

I think it's just the frequency in which you make poll threads, and the fact that unlike most polls I have seen by other people, you don't lead the thread with your own answers first.

That might be why they think it's odd.

 

[mysunnyboy]

I already know all of my own answers

It seems like I'm the only one that ever asks any questions around here that don't relate to cannabis, and for whatever reason, that's odd to a few people

you don't get around here much i guess. there's a lot of talk about things other then cannabis, cars, dogs, cats, food, you name it. but even if that were true it is a freaking marijuana website after all.

 

[monkeybones]

mother is very admirable, selfless, dependable. taught me many ways to be

father rode through life on the misery of others. taught me many ways not to be

 

[neosapien]

 

[shrxhky420]

I already know all of my own answers

It seems like I'm the only one that ever asks any questions around here that don't relate to cannabis, and for whatever reason, that's odd to a few people

It's nice that you know your own answers... but the rest of us don't. You sometimes expect these detailed answers from everyone else yet refuse to share your own experiences. Everyone shares for everyone else to read, not just for you. Why can't you start your polls with a question and then provide your own answer?
If I ask will you respond???
How do you feel about your parents?
Stay high
SH420

 

[monkeybones]

yeah, asking a question you are not willing to answer

that is a fine way to advertise a special sort of insecurity

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

I keep saying, Padawanker asks questions that could eventually narrow your identity down. Like 20 questions. It's not even paranoia, it's just plain weird. There are a million threads here, but his are the only ones asking specific questions about you: have you ever broken a bone, had surgery, tell me about your parents, where have you travelled, how much money do you have, etc. It's just weird.


For him to respond "I already know my own answers" implies a disdain for all of you. He holds himself above you, even though he is an insecure kid who tries to make himself feel superior intellectually by harrassing religious people, demanding they prove god exists using scientific method; then telling them he does not because they cannot. While I am not a religious person, it is disgusting to me. Who cares what others believe, and follow, as long as they don't push it on you?

 

[greenswag]

hey now let's not all jump down his throat over it. I think it's just genuine curiosity. Notice how in other threads he presses for more information on random topics like lahada and kk. I bet you do pretty well with talking to women pad because you can ask so many questions and be so interested in in-depth answers. I'm the same way lol, I just don't go making polls about every question online But try making it a habit to answer the question you pose for everyone else, we're just as curious about your answer as you are of ours.

 

[neosapien]

I think Padawan is just a curious chap. Curious about the world and curious about himself.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's nice that you know your own answers... but the rest of us don't. You sometimes expect these detailed answers from everyone else yet refuse to share your own experiences. Everyone shares for everyone else to read, not just for you. Why can't you start your polls with a question and then provide your own answer?
If I ask will you respond???
How do you feel about your parents?
Stay high
SH420

I don't normally provide an answer to poll questions or vote on my own polls right away because I don't want to add bias or sway anyones real opinion to the question.

I'll answer pretty much any question anyone asks me

I love both of my parents

yeah, asking a question you are not willing to answer

that is a fine way to advertise a special sort of insecurity

I'm not sure why you assumed I would not be willing to answer anything. Nobody asked me anything.

I keep saying, Padawanker asks questions that could eventually narrow your identity down. Like 20 questions. It's not even paranoia, it's just plain weird. There are a million threads here, but his are the only ones asking specific questions about you: have you ever broken a bone, had surgery, tell me about your parents, where have you travelled, how much money do you have, etc. It's just weird.

For him to respond "I already know my own answers" implies a disdain for all of you. He holds himself above you, even though he is an insecure kid who tries to make himself feel superior intellectually by harrassing religious people, demanding they prove god exists using scientific method; then telling them he does not because they cannot. While I am not a religious person, it is disgusting to me. Who cares what others believe, and follow, as long as they don't push it on you?

Then I guess I'm weird, stop the presses!

It's pretty clear at this point you're either willfully ignorant or too stubborn to accept it, organized religion is pushed. The response you see from me and others here is the push back. Fortunately, the success of such tactics doesn't rely on subjective sensibilities or approval ratings. The internet is the last place you should go looking for political correctness, especially if you can't take a small dose of reality served with a side of logic as in the 'ghosts' thread.

To avoid upsetting yourself further, I'd suggest simply skipping my threads or questions.

 

[kronicsmurf]

my life was sort of dysfunctional but i had good parents my dad was a cop (the only cop i ever respected) and my mom was a nurse. was never a doubt i was loved sadly they passed away a year apart in 88 and 89. thats life though.

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

It's pretty clear at this point you're either willfully ignorant or too stubborn to accept it, organized religion is pushed. The response you see from me and others here is the push back. Fortunately, the success of such tactics doesn't rely on subjective sensibilities or approval ratings. The internet is the last place you should go looking for political correctness, especially if you can't take a small dose of reality served with a side of logic as in the 'ghosts' thread.

To avoid upsetting yourself further, I'd suggest simply skipping my threads or questions.

You, sir, are the height of hypocrisy.

Religion is not pushed on me, or anyone here. While you suggest I skip your threads or questions "to avoid upsetting myself further", may I suggest you do the same in the religious or paranormal threads? Nobody is pushing religion on you. You seek out the threads and attack them, or start them yourself. You are also a champ at straw man statements. I never said anything of political correctness. Nothing about this site is pc. I'm "willfully ignorant or too stubborn to accept" that religion is pushed? That was ignorant.

And regarding ghosts, there is waaaaay more evidence of their existence than you will ever admit, simply because they cannot be proven using scientific method. That doesn't make them non existent.

Do love, hate, fear, anger, etc exist? Is it the same for everyone? Can you prove it using scientific method?

Five Things Science Cannot Prove (but are necessary for science to work) http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/five-things-science-cannot-prove-but-are-necessary-for-science-to-work



1. Reality is rational.
That is, its makeup is such that it exhibits order and consistency, so that we can make predictions and postulate laws and theories. Now this may seem like common sense, but that would be common only to sensibilities formed in and shaped by what could loosely be defined as “western” thought (though of course we mean history more than geography here). To the ancients, and to many of the east today, the idea that the universe is rational and subject completely in its physical workings to consistency and order is not something assumed at all.
Nor can reality be “proven” to be rational. Indeed, ask yourself how this would be proven from the viewpoint of someone within this reality. You cannot prove it by experiment, for you cannot experiment on reality as a whole. You cannot prove it by induction, arguing that since everything we have studied has proven rational that reality itself must be. An inductive argument like this fails for four reasons. First, an inductive argument of this sort will only grant a probable truth, not a certain one, so the best we could say is that, “reality is probably rational” which is a world different from saying “reality is rational.” Second, we have no way of measuring how much of reality we have “figured out” versus how much we have not, so there is no way of knowing if we have high probability or very low probability for our inductive claim. Thirdly, it is simply not the case that we have figured out everything we have been able to study. When Richard Fenyman wrote, ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,’ he was including himself, which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. No one today can give a satisfactory answer to the most basic question of physics (how quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity can both be true since they contradict each other) nor can astronomers and astrophysicists give an agreed upon answer to the quandary that most of the matter of the universe (dark matter and dark energy) cannot even be observed (but must be assumed to make sense of everything else). Fourth, even if everything we can study shows rationality, that is no proof that we do not inhabit a slice or bubble of the universe that has qualities different than the universe as a whole (an idea which some astrophysicists argue as possible).
Now, I do believe reality is rational, for I believe it is the creation of a rational being. And I suspect the legacy of this belief gives a clue to why science developed more successfully in theistic societies than pagan, pantheistic or animistic ones. So I am not arguing that reality is not rational, but that science is logically dependent on a belief that it cannot prove. Unless reality is rational, science is not possible.
2. Reality is knowable.
This is not the same argument as above. The success of the scientific method assumes not only that reality has the quality of rationality, but that it is also knowable. That is, it is conceivable that realist is rational, but I could be irrational, and not able to form valid conclusions about reality. My mind must be “on the same wavelength” to capture its rationality.
Steven Pinker, the famous evolutionary biologist, unwittingly encounters this very issue when he writes on page 561 of “How the Mind Works”:

We are organisms, not angels, and our minds are organs, not pipelines to the truth. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we are capable of asking.
​

Somehow, one gets the impression that Pinker feels his own mind is an exception to this rule, else why would he write the book (or even ask us to believe the above quote).
But indeed, how could we prove that the human mind is a capable tool for understanding reality and finding truth, especially on the assumptions Pinker makes (that the mind evolved to solve practical problems that affect reproductive success, not to find truth)? But without the belief that the human mind can understand reality, there is no reason to study reality. One is better off not wasting the time.
Again, I am not arguing that reality is not knowable. I believe it is because I believe the same rational being who created reality (thus ensuring its rationality) also created mankind in His own image, thus ensuring the possibility of valid knowledge of, and reasoning about, that reality. No, I cannot prove that scientifically. But neither can the scientist prove that his or her mind is capable of anything more than an utilitarian problem solving that may or may not speak actual truth.
3. The uniformity of nature across time and space
Quick, what is the speed of light? 299,792,458 meters per second, of course. But what was speed of light a second after the big bang? Or 4 billion years ago? Or what will it be 4 billion years from now (or even next week?) Of course we don’t know, in one sense. No one measured the speed of light 4 billion years ago, and any knowledge of the measuring of the speed of light in the future is inaccessible to us. Nor can we measure the speed of light right now except in that small sliver of the universe we can actually observe. And the same is true of other laws of nature: gravity, the interplay of the parts of the atom, etc.
It should be noted here that the speed of light, for example, is derived from observation. Every time we observe it, it is always that speed (or its speed makes possible other equations that correspond to present reality). But nothing in the nature of reality mandates that it must be at that speed; other speeds for light are at least conceivable.
So how do we know that the speed of light or other laws of physics apply across the universe (when we’ve only studied a sliver) and across time (when we only have access to the present?). Technically, we do not know. We assume. Since all the places and times we have been able to observe follow these laws, it seems logical to assume that is also the case for the places and times we cannot observe. But notice, this is an inductive argument, and as such can only give a probable conclusion, not an air-tight certainty. Yet every science, if you dig deep enough, operates on the assumption of continuity and uniformity. This is no mark against science; it can hardly do otherwise. But it is still worth noting that the foundation is an assumed deduction, not a proven fact.
4. Causation
Surely, if there is one thing science can prove, it is that one thing causes another, right? Actually, nothing could be farther from the case. The very idea of causation must be assumed.
David Hume, of course, is the one who most famously has shown this. Imagine, he said, I have one hundred windows in a row, and I take a hammer and hit the first 99. All of them shatter. I approach the last one. Will it shatter also when I hit it? Hume argues that you cannot know that, for there is no way of proving that the impact of the hammer caused the other windows to break. It is conceivable (even if unlikely) that some other forces or forces broke the windows at the exact time the hammer hit them. Causation, he argued, is an attribute of the mind, by which it tries to make sense what happens in the world. But there is no way to prove beyond doubt that causality applies beyond the mind’s interpretation.
Hume’s argument is epistemological, that is, a question of how we know things. But 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century science (in the form of quantum mechanics) itself has undermined the concept of causation (please read up on simultaneous causation and the uncertainty principle to see this).
Also, as I am writing this, the world of science has been shocked by the apparent find of a team at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) that some particles travel faster than the speed of light. One article notes,

The existence of faster-than-light particles would wreak havoc on scientific theories of cause and effect.
“If things travel faster than the speed of light, A can cause B, [but] B can also cause A,” Parke [head of the theoretical physics department at the U.S. government-run Fermilab near Chicago, Illinois] said. ”If that happens, the concept of causality becomes ambiguous, and that would cause a great deal of trouble.”
​

At this point, both philosophically and scientifically, the simple idea of causation (A causes B) is very much a working assumption that makes science possible, not the result of science itself. [Please note I am talking about the concept of causation, not examples of one thing causing another.]
5. The very existence of an external universe consisting of matter
I will spend the least time here, for this is unable to be proven by any worldview or any method of knowledge. Suffice it to say that both solipsism and idealism would deny the existence of an externally existing material universe. Solipsism argues this world does not exist outside my mental projections, or, as my epistemology professor put it, “I’m the only pebble on the beach. And there is no beach”. Idealism argues that only the spiritual is real, and the material world is an illusion (or, as for Berkeley, real only as the thoughts of God). Technically, neither idea is refutable (any arguments against them must come from inside the projection or illusion).
Again, this does not count in any way against science. Of all the five things on this list, this is to me the least substantial (since no-one can consistently live out this idea). I include it here to remind us of the need for intellectual humility, whether we are a scientist or theologian.
Other presuppositions of science include the following:

• The laws of logic (especially the law of non-contradiction)
• The adequacy of language to communicate reality and truth
• The existence of numbers

All these have been argued by philosophers and others, and none of them can be proven by the scientific method. In short, they are metaphysical assumptions, not proven facts.
Also, related to this but somewhat a distinct issue is that science assumes certain values in order to proceed, without being able to scientifically prove the validity of these values. Chief among these values is that of honesty.
All this to say that science is a wonderful tool for granting knowledge about this universe we find ourselves in. It in no way is to be despised or denigrated. But enough of the foolish talk that it alone traffics in certainty and what is beyond doubt. It is an invaluable servant, but makes a terrible idol.

 

[Padawanbater2]

As I said, willfully ignorant

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

As I said, Height of hypocrisy.

As I said, willfully ignorant

Can you prove that religion is pushed here; and to the point that it needs pushing back.....using scientific method?

Fantastic claims require proof. Isn't that what you profess?

 

[neosapien]

One time my parents wouldn't let me stay at my friends house to work on a science project. So I snuck out the window and went to the rave anyways.

 

[Granny weed]

Overall I had good parents I come from a large family my dad worked but their wasnt much money, my mum could and did do everything from cooking sewing and decorating I adored her and always said if I was half the mum she was I would be happy. My dad was very strict and he had a drink problem he was funny and loving as long as you didn't upset him, if you did you knew about it and I did on many accasions. My dad died 26yrs ago and my mum 21yrs ago I still miss them very much and I wish they had been part of my kids lives.

 

[Padawanbater2]

As I said, Height of hypocrisy.




Can you prove that religion is pushed here; and to the point that it needs pushing back.....using scientific method?

Fantastic claims require proof. Isn't that what you profess?

I said organized religion is pushed [in America, and indeed, most religious countries]

Yes, I could prove it to any reasonable person

 

[neosapien]

Funny true story....

The first time my folks realized I smoked weed was when they opened my school bag "to look for matches" and found my stash. My dad asked what all the white stufff was on the bud and I told him "THC crystals" to which he replied "PCP CRYSTALS!!!" Lol, it was hilarious. Now, they're my patients.

 

[mysunnyboy]

• You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to neosapien again.