Ooh, ooh! Another round of Guess that Plotline!

Love, graphic design, music and a cat :-)

Moderator: Gisele Lagace

Postby parryzane on Fri Jan 12, 2001 7:00 am

OK, here's my thought... Belinda obviously is feeling something toward children, somewhere along the lines of wanting one... and Sophia is pregnant... so here's three options...<P>1) Sophia gives child to Belinda
2) TWINS!!! everybody gets a kid today!
3) Belinda is made an official "Godmother"<P>
<B>EDIT! TAKE NOTE!</B><P>If anyone wants to discuss the plot, please do so - there are quite a few messages below that aren't strictly related to CCS predictions...<P>------------------
Oh, yes; it's Go Time...<P>*^wulfsbane^*
Royal Hui Clan<p>[This message has been edited by parryzane (edited 01-22-2001).]
User avatar
parryzane
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2000 12:00 am
Location: St. Paul's Hellgate

Postby TheBlackCupid on Fri Jan 12, 2001 9:27 am

Hmmmf. Rather annoying really, that Belinda has fallen prey to the idea pushed by society that a woman is useless if she doesn't bring a child into this world. Pffft. Yeah, there's only about 6 billion people in the world. Please, infest the world with another drain on our resources! Give up the chance of ever doing anything useful in your life for the purpose of creating another statistic! Fill your body with drugs and watch your twelve children become mutants! All for the passing thrill of having total domination over another life!Blech.<P>But I'm sure it will be a good story though.<P>------------------
-TheBlackCupid
"There's more to democracy than having a vote."
-Black 47
TheBlackCupid
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4408
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Stillwater, MN, USA

Postby BenSpinSpace on Sat Jan 13, 2001 3:15 am

I expect the aliens to help Belinda have a child.<P>
...What?<P>------------------
-Ben Landis
Dinosaurs Need Coffee!
<A HREF="http://www.fishandworm.com" TARGET=_blank>Fish & Worm</A>
<A HREF="http://www.spinspacegames.com" TARGET=_blank>SpinSpace Games</A>
BenSpinSpace
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 11:00 pm

Postby Stig Hemmer on Sat Jan 13, 2001 7:04 am

Now now, the idea is that an adults main purpose is to produce kids is not only pushed by society, if is in fact a big part of what it means to be human.<P>Most people Belindas age want children. This goes for both genders. There may be other things you want more, but the need is there. It is very real.<P>And of course, if you _can't_ have children, the need suddenly becomes much more felt.<P>I doubt Belinda feels <I>useless</I>, she probably just feels a very strong need that she knows she cannot fill.<P>Making Belinda the God Mother or at least adopted aunt of Sophias child(ren) would probably help her a lot. But I expect the Creators to have less ordinary plans... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/biggrin.gif"><P>------------------
Stig Hemmer, at your disservice
User avatar
Stig Hemmer
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Postby Steve-o on Sun Jan 14, 2001 2:16 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BenSpinSpace:
<B>...What?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>
Personally, my money goes on Michael using his powers to help her have a kid.<P><butthead>
huh huh huhhuh huhhuh double entendres are cool. huh huhhuh
</butthead><P><p>[This message has been edited by Steve-o (edited 01-14-2001).]
Steve-o
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:00 am

Postby geebee on Sun Jan 14, 2001 9:15 am

And of course, I assumed at first that Belinda is the one who's biologically unable to have children, but that isn't necessarily so. What if it's Jeremy who can't father kids?<P>--geebee
geebee
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Silver Spring, MD, US

Postby TheBlackCupid on Sun Jan 14, 2001 12:50 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geebee:
<B>And of course, I assumed at first that Belinda is the one who's biologically unable to have children, but that isn't necessarily so. What if it's Jeremy who can't father kids?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then they could just artificially inseminate(all it takes is a turkey baster and a <I>really</I> good friend).<P>Maybe instead of polluting the world with more spawn by unnatural means, Belinda will somehow find a way to adopt . Maybe an alien baby, in keeping with the theme. Yeah, alien babies. For some reason I like saying the words "alien babies."
TheBlackCupid
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4408
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Stillwater, MN, USA

Postby Czhorat on Mon Jan 15, 2001 10:32 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheBlackCupid:
<B>Hmmmf. Rather annoying really, that Belinda has fallen prey to the idea pushed by society that a woman is useless if she doesn't bring a child into this world. Pffft. Yeah, there's only about 6 billion people in the world. Please, infest the world with another drain on our resources! Give up the chance of ever doing anything useful in your life for the purpose of creating another statistic! Fill your body with drugs and watch your twelve children become mutants! All for the passing thrill of having total domination over another life!Blech.<P>But I'm sure it will be a good story though.<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Wow. Do you really dislike people that much? I don't consider human beings to be an infestation or a drain on natural resources; human beings are actually capable of finding new resources, and learning to use the ones we already have more effectively.<P>I do see child-rearing as useful, not as giving up "any chance of ever doing anything useful in your life". Another poster already pointed out in this thread that many adults consider having children to be a major goal in their lives. <P>On a more personal level, I'm a male and have wanted to be a father for as long as I can remember. I wouldn't feel useless if it weren't possible for me to have children, but I would be very deeply dissapointed.
Czhorat
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 12:00 am

Postby TheBlackCupid on Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:07 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Czhorat:
<B> Wow. Do you really dislike people that much? </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the contrary; I love the human race immensely. Which is why I want to see it survive. It's the same reason why people who love dogs and cats want to spay and neuter them. So there will be less of a drain on our collective resources and we will be able to care for them better. It may go against their natural evolutionary urges, but, well, it's for the best.<P>Hopefull we won't have to start spaying and neutering <I>people</I>, but, well, you never know.
TheBlackCupid
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4408
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Stillwater, MN, USA

Postby TheBlackCupid on Tue Jan 16, 2001 1:13 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T Campbell [faans.com]:
<B>
What's really a stinging injustice is that people like Belinda go childless while countless children are born to neglectful and abusive parents. <P>Clearly, the right amount of people, neither much more nor much less, need to breed if the human race is to survive. But giving birth to a child is actually the EASY part. Far harder is bringing one up right. <P>[This message has been edited by T Campbell [faans.com] (edited 01-16-2001).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is why I favor massive adoptions, rather than the current child-birthing mania That exists. Yeah, it's not an easy switch to make, but nothing worth doing is ever easy.<P>Thank you so much, Czhorat, for defending my sloppy language. I assumed everyone would know what I meant by using the word "evolutionary," but, oh well. Ugh. I can't stand semantics-its just linguistical nitpicking. Anyway, even though you're completely wrong, I like you, Czhorat. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif">
TheBlackCupid
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4408
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Stillwater, MN, USA

Postby Czhorat on Tue Jan 16, 2001 5:38 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheBlackCupid:
<B> [QUOTE]Originally posted by T Campbell
Which is why I favor massive adoptions, rather than the current child-birthing mania That exists. Yeah, it's not an easy switch to make, but nothing worth doing is ever easy.<P>Thank you so much, Czhorat, for defending my sloppy language. I assumed everyone would know what I meant by using the word "evolutionary," but, oh well. Ugh. I can't stand semantics-its just linguistical nitpicking. Anyway, even though you're completely wrong, I like you, Czhorat. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif"></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Aw, thanks...<P>You still won't get me to agree though. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif"> I think the question of population is more complex than the overall human birthrate. There is, as the article T linked shows, an actual declining population in many of the most economically successful countries; in many the third world countries, infant mortality still keeps the population somewhat in check. Then there are places like China or India that are just WAY out of control population-wise. Unfortunatley, there's no easy way to export babies from China to Sweden. <P>Even if one could move enough people around to balance the population, that wouldn't solve the underlying problem, which is the grossly unequal global distribution of wealth. The capitalist in me would like to think that the poorer countries can grow their way into some kind of prosperity; the futurist in me thinks advances in technology might somehow lead the way. The cynic in me isn't sure how we'll fix this mess.<P>The final issue I'll bring up is that of selfishness. I admit it: I want kids of my own because that's what I want. Yes, it is self-centered. For that big a decision, shouldn't I have the right to be a LITTLE selfish? I know that I'm a good person, I have a great familly that I'm proud of. I want to pass on as much of the Czhorat (no, that's NOT my real name) familly line as I could. That means fathering my own children. Consider it the ultimate do-it-yourself project. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif"> I think it'd make a big psychological difference in how I see myself and my familly. For me, that's reason enough.
Czhorat
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 12:00 am

Postby parryzane on Tue Jan 16, 2001 8:21 am

-k, that's confusing...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"...people who love dogs and cats want to spay and neuter them."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I didn't know that... so if I <B>really</B> love my cat, I'll have it castrated?
I guess this also means that breeders don't love their pets.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"...go against their natural evolutionary urges..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hmmm... dogs and cats and whatnot have evolutionary urges. For some reason, that is just disturbing. Do you seriously think that our pets wish to ascend to a higher form of life? And since when do *evolutionary urges = procreation*?<P>This might get a little religious, but here goes.<P>The word procreation means
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>to beget or bring forth offspring (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The word itself stems from two parts
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>pro, meaning 'for', 'to', or 'in favor of'
<LI>Creation, coming straight out of the Bible, as in God's Creation
</UL><P>Now, how can your so-called 'evolutionary urges' coincide in any way whatsoever with procreation? The very <I>concept</I> of procreation is the ultimate contrast to evolution!<P>I do not mean to offend you, but I could not let my opinion go unsaid.
<P>------------------
Oh, yes; it's Go Time...<P>*^wulfsbane^*
Royal Hui Clan
User avatar
parryzane
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2000 12:00 am
Location: St. Paul's Hellgate

Postby Czhorat on Tue Jan 16, 2001 8:53 am

I disagree with Black Cupid, but I can't let logic this sloppy slide by without saying anything. <P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...people who love dogs and cats want to spay and neuter them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>I didn't know that... so if I really love my cat, I'll have it castrated?
I guess this also means that breeders don't love their pets.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I believe that what Black Cupid meant to say is that SOME people who love cats and dogs want to spay and neuter SOME of them. Obviously if every feline or canid were made sterile they'd go extinct. Still, having strays breeding only to die of starvation or exposure is NOT compassion.<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...go against their natural evolutionary urges..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Hmmm... dogs and cats and whatnot have evolutionary urges. For some reason, that is just disturbing. Do you seriously think that our pets wish to ascend to a higher form of life? And since when do *evolutionary urges = procreation*?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>A slightly better phrase might be "genetically inherited instincts". Black Cupid is saying that beings evolved with the urge to reproduce built in; from a stricly Darwinian point of view, you should have as many offspring as possible to pass on your genes. Human beings can make the intellectual choice NOT to act on instinct. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
This might get a little religious, but here goes.<P>The word procreation means <P>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to beget or bring forth offspring (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>The word itself stems from two parts<P>
pro, meaning 'for', 'to', or 'in favor of'<P>Creation, coming straight out of the Bible, as in God's Creation<P>Now, how can your so-called 'evolutionary urges' coincide in any way whatsoever with procreation? The very concept of procreation is the ultimate contrast to evolution!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Does you think "program" means "in favor of a metric unit of mass? The DEFINITION of the word "procreation" has nothing to do with "God's Creation". The definition is, as you stated, to bring forth offspring. BlackCupid said that we have an inherited urge to beget offspring.<P>Your etymology, in addition to being irrelevant, seems to be just plain wrong. According to Webster's, "procreate" comes from the "Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare, from pro- <B>forth</B> + creare to create". (emphasis added). "Forth" and "in favor of" are not interchangable. Also, the verb "to create" does not necessarilly have Biblical connotations. You need to pay a little more attention to the context, and stop trying so hard to be clever.<P>
Czhorat
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 12:00 am

Postby parryzane on Tue Jan 16, 2001 9:21 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Czhorat:
<B>I disagree with Black Cupid, but I can't let logic this sloppy slide by without saying anything. <P>
Does you think "program" means "in favor of a metric unit of mass? The DEFINITION of the word "procreation" has nothing to do with "God's Creation". The definition is, as you stated, to bring forth offspring. BlackCupid said that we have an inherited urge to beget offspring.<P>Your etymology, in addition to being irrelevant, seems to be just plain wrong. According to Webster's, "procreate" comes from the "Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare, from pro- forth</B> + creare to create". (emphasis added). "Forth" and "in favor of" are not interchangable. Also, the verb "to create" does not necessarilly have Biblical connotations. You need to pay a little more attention to the context, and stop trying so hard to be clever.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>
Ok, perhaps I should elucidate on my points...<P>1) Procreate <I>did</I> in fact stem from pro- and create, whereas program was never a contraction - simply one word with no separation.<P>
2) The prefix pro- has multiple meanings. First, it can mean in favor of (Pro-life)
Also, it can mean forward, as in Progress (as opposed to regress)<P>And how can you say that procreation has nothing to do with God?<P>It says in Genesis 1:22 "God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and increase in number...'" Creation has <I>everything</I> to do with God - and procreation is just a derivative of it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Also, the verb "to create" does not necessarilly have Biblical connotations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Are you an atheist? Dear boy, you cannot have any type of creation without God!<P>As I said before,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The very concept of procreation is the ultimate contrast to evolution!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The ultimate form of evolution is that of a person with no need for procreation - for he/she (the difference will be a moot point) will never die. Therefore, from a Darwinistic point of view, procreation is senseless!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You need to pay a little more attention to the context, and stop trying so hard to be clever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Now that is just bad form. Disagreeing with one's opinion is one thing, but outright insults (excluding in jest) are nothing but a disgrace to any message board.<P>I apologize if I have insulted anyone, but these are my opinions, and I am entitled to them. Tooiko no Machide.<P>------------------
Oh, yes; it's Go Time...<P>*^wulfsbane^*
Royal Hui Clan
User avatar
parryzane
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2000 12:00 am
Location: St. Paul's Hellgate

Postby Stig Hemmer on Tue Jan 16, 2001 10:15 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by parryzane:
<B>I apologize if I have insulted anyone, but these are my opinions, and I am entitled to them.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So you are, poor thing.<P>------------------
Stig Hemmer, at your disservice
User avatar
Stig Hemmer
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Postby Maccabee on Tue Jan 16, 2001 12:12 pm

Thank you, Czhorat! You did exactly what I wanted to when I read the post above and saved me the trouble of staring at that TINY text in the Oxford English dictionary.<P>I especially liked the "program" line.
Maccabee
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 12:00 am

Postby Guest on Tue Jan 16, 2001 12:20 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Czhorat:
<B>I disagree with Black Cupid, but...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ah, how Voltaire, Czhorat!<P>For the record, some areas are more concerned about underpopulation than overpopulation: <A HREF="http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20010117/iin17031.html." TARGET=_blank>http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20010117/iin17031.html .</A> On the other hand, there's China.<P>What's really a stinging injustice is that people like Belinda go childless while countless children are born to neglectful and abusive parents. <P>Clearly, the right amount of people, neither much more nor much less, need to breed if the human race is to survive. But giving birth to a child is actually the EASY part. Far harder is bringing one up right. <p>[This message has been edited by T Campbell [faans.com] (edited 01-16-2001).]
Guest
 

Postby Maccabee on Wed Jan 17, 2001 3:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by parryzane:
<B> So what? Here's what.<P>The Bible is real, authenticated by countless historians, theologist, clergy, <I>scientists</I>, scholars.
</B>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Can't let that slide. Some items in the Bible have been independently confirmed -- locations of Biblically mentioned cities, that sort of thing. The same holds true of Greek mythology. Shall we accept Schliemann's discovery of Troy as conclusive proof of the existence of the Olympian pantheon?<P>The Bible also says that pi=3. Shall we burn all our geometry books as heretical? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
<B>
Darwin's writing was made less than 500 years ago. Are you suggesting that the ultimate truth of the origin of the universe was only discovered within recent history?
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you suggesting that mankind is so stupid and incapable that we cannot improve our understanding over time? Should we also give up modern medicine and return to bleeding patients?<P>Besides, if the advanced age of a theory is proof of its truth (a position taken by some theologans) than shouldn't you switch from the bible, the oldest surviving physical copies of which are barely 2000 years old, to the Sumerian religion? There are 4000 year old records of their beliefs. Are you suggesting that the ultimate truth of the universe was discovered only 2000 years ago?<P>And yes, I am aware that some of the historical incidents of the bible take place 3200-4000 years ago and that the Talmud was writen in its current form during the Babylonian captivity, but we're going just by the hard evidence here.<P>I am neither confirming nor denying the validity of the bible as a cosmological guide for the purpose of this argument (though I do deny its infallibility -- you can't get around that pi thing).<P>It is arrogant for you to assume that your religious text is such an obvious truth that the rest of us should of course base all our arguments thereon.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
<B>
I admit that I was wrong about the origin of program, but I do think that this topic has strayed from my original interest...<P>I propose that everyone gives up their own vices about the state of religion and this stupid dictionary war (myself included) and focus on the reason we should be in this board: Camus! (and everyone else)<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Too bad, I'm really enjoying this discussion. Still, if you want to drop it we'll drop it.<P>One question, though: what do you mean "vices about the state of religion"?<P>------------------
Maccabee
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 12:00 am

Postby Czhorat on Wed Jan 17, 2001 5:52 am

parryzane,<P>This is getting silly. I don't have the time and energy to respond to you point-by-point, but there are a few thigns I can say:<P>"Procreate" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "to beget or bring forth (offspring)". Merriam-Webster gives the etymology as follows "Etymology: Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare, from pro- forth + creare to create". Do you have ANY reason to read "pro-" as "in favor of" in this case? I can't see one. <P>That notwithstanding, the etymology is a moot point; the word doesn't MEAN "in favor of creation". It means "to beget or bring forth offspring". It's bad enough that you responded to a very thoughtful post by The Black Cupid by quibbling over linguistics; what's worse is that you were wrong.<P>Yes, God said that Adam & Eve should go forth and multiply. By your logic, does this make the verb "said" Biblical in nature? In this context, "procreation" is a biological idea, not a religious one. Furthermore, creativity and creation can refer to non-religious things, such as art. An artist is a creative person who creates works of art. An artist is not God, and may or may not believe that his creative talent is divinely given. <P>My comment to you about paying more attention to context than at attempts at cleverness referred to the nature of your attack. You ignored Black Cupid's ideas, and quibbled with him over words.<P>I'll answer one more of your questions: I am an atheist. I don't see how this matters in a discussion of linguistics or population growth.
Czhorat
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 12:00 am

Postby parryzane on Wed Jan 17, 2001 6:26 am

It's not whether I like this discussion or not (I am enjoying it, to a point); it's just that I don't think it really belongs in this posting. Or, for that matter, in any of Keenspot's forums...<P>------------------
Oh, yes; it's Go Time...<P>*^wulfsbane^*
Royal Hui Clan
User avatar
parryzane
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2000 12:00 am
Location: St. Paul's Hellgate

Postby Guest on Wed Jan 17, 2001 9:28 am

It's a bit of a digression, yeah... but I like the fact that the strip can spark such discussions and the board can keep 'em *relatively* civil. <P>Religion is one of the chanciest discussion topics a forum can hold... the other two, of course, being politics and The Great Pumpkin. (Come to think of it, we've got the Charles Schulz relative merits debate in ANOTHER thread...)
Guest
 

Postby Maccabee on Wed Jan 17, 2001 12:47 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by parryzane:
<B>
The ultimate form of evolution is that of a person with no need for procreation - for he/she(the difference will be a moot point) will never die. Therefore, from a Darwinistic point of view, procreation is senseless!
</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's just so far removed from logic that it blows my mind. Okay, here's what Darwin's theory <B>really</B> says (and yes, I'm paraphrasing):<P>Organisms compete, those best suited to their environment survive better and beget more offspring (yes, that word pops up in the bible too -- so what?), and these offspring inherit their parents' traits. Those traits that help you survive tend to get passed on, those that hinder tend to get weeded out. There is no end product. It's a process.<P>Procreation isn't senseless from a Darwinistic point of view, it's the point of the whole proceeding.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
<B>
1) Procreate did in fact stem from pro- and create, whereas program was never a contraction - simply one word with no separation.
</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Wrong. <B>Program</B> derives from the Greek <B>programma</B> which derives from the Greek <B>prographein</B> meaning "to write before" ("pro" before and "graphein" to write).<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
<B>
2) The prefix pro- has multiple meanings. First, it can mean in favor of (Pro-life) Also, it can mean forward, as in Progress (as opposed to regress)
</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Partially true, but this supports Czhorat's position rather than yours.<P>For the record, the prefix <B>pro-</B> can also mean "earlier than" "rudimentary" "in front of" "the front part of" "projecting" or "taking the place of."<P>There are also a great whacking pile of alternate meanings for "create" but why quibble? Because it's fun! (and you thought that was a rhetorical question <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif">)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
<B> Now that is just bad form. Disagreeing with one's opinion is one thing, but outright insults (excluding in jest) are nothing but a disgrace to any message board.
</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But that's just what you did with your condescending "Are you an athiest, dear boy? crack. You took a comment on semantics ("the verb 'to create' does not <B>necessarily</B> have Biblical connotations," my boldfacing) and twisted it into an assault on religion. There was no denial of God in Czhorat's sentence.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B>
I apologize if I have insulted anyone, but these are my opinions, and I am entitled to them. Tooiko no Machide.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Of course you are. You are not however immune from criticism for expressing those beliefs, nor for making factual errors. If you say that two plus two equals seventeen we'll call you on that, too.<P>Greg
Maccabee
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 12:00 am

Postby parryzane on Wed Jan 17, 2001 12:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Organisms compete, those best suited to their environment survive better and beget more offspring (yes, that word pops up in the bible too -- so what?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So what? Here's what.<P>The Bible is real, authenticated by countless historians, theologist, clergy, <I>scientists</I>, scholars.<P>Darwin's writing was made less than 500 years ago. Are you suggesting that the ultimate truth of the origin of the universe was only discovered within recent history?<P>I admit that I was wrong about the origin of program, but I do think that this topic has strayed from my original interest...<P>I propose that everyone gives up their own vices about the state of religion and this stupid dictionary war (myself included) and focus on the reason we should be in this board: Camus! (and everyone else)
<P>------------------
Oh, yes; it's Go Time...<P>*^wulfsbane^*
Royal Hui Clan
User avatar
parryzane
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2000 12:00 am
Location: St. Paul's Hellgate

Postby Guest on Thu Jan 18, 2001 1:27 am

Sex we find to be a relatively nonexplosive subject.<P>Oh, and about the ultimate truth to the universe. There is none. No SINGLE one. The best you can go for (which every day of my life is dedicated to finding) is knowing and understanding the connections from all things to all other things.
As for God, I do not know whether He exists, and do not claim to without further evidence and further scrutiny.
Guest
 

Postby Czhorat on Thu Jan 18, 2001 11:03 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T Campbell [faans.com]:
<B>It's a bit of a digression, yeah... but I like the fact that the strip can spark such discussions and the board can keep 'em *relatively* civil. <P>Religion is one of the chanciest discussion topics a forum can hold... the other two, of course, being politics and The Great Pumpkin. (Come to think of it, we've got the Charles Schulz relative merits debate in ANOTHER thread...)</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Vote for the Ghost of Schultz, prophet of the one-true God knowable to mortals only as The Great Pumpkin!<P>All three of them in one sentence! It's an ugly sentence, but a single sentence nontheless. You can all start stoning me now. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif"><P>All joking aside, a message board is only as fun as the people posting on it. The best ones often digress from the officially stated topic, but meander back eventually. I don't mind discussing religion in general if, as T said, it can be kept civil. <P>There are a few things that I feel one should avoid if one wants to debate religions. <P>First off, it's bad form to use the Bible, Koran, or any other holy book as a source to prove something. That's circular logic. ((God exists. How do you know? The Bible says so. How do you know the Bible is right? Because it's the word of God.))<P>Second, it would be better to discuss ideas than to quibble over very fine gramatical points. I try to use language precisely, but I don't really want to get into a drawn out battle over etymology. <P>Finally, try not to let it get personal. If we can keep talking about ideas rather than about eachother, this can be an interesting discussion. I think it was already starting to get that way..
Czhorat
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 12:00 am

 
Next

Return to Cool Cat Studio

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest