Science debate|current topic: Tea for the wicked!!!

Ever have one of those days?

Moderator: JoeEngland

Postby Omeg@ on Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:02 am

*takes a corn pipe from his lips and puts it inside his lab coat*

Well then.
It seems that everyone's favourite wizard has boiled himself more pudding the he can chew. Why teleport when you can walk?

alright class, any thoughts?
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Postby BrianJ on Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:03 pm

Well, one reason that was put forth in the other thread was the idea that Jack needed to know where he was teleporting to, so that he doesn't "pull a star trek" by accidentally popping into the middle of a solid object or something stupid like that.

There are several major flaws with that theory, however:
1) He did know where he was going. He knew where to send the fence posts (man, that still sounds crazy), so he must have known where to teleport to.

2) He doesn't need to know where he is teleporting to. Proof is in the one place we know he actually used teleportation spell.
    A- This shows him teleporting himself deep into the middle of Tool's tower. He had never been in there before, so he had know idea what he was teleporting into, but still managed to do so without problems.
    B- As depicted, the spell appears to not be so much of a "beam me up, Scotty" type spell, as it seems to be some sort of doorway type spell. It looks to me like he's sticking his head up through the floor in this teleport. Therefore, he'd be able to open the doorway, adjust its position to make sure it's not within an object or otherwise obstructed in some way, then safely step through, even though it's a new place to him.
As far as I can tell, the only actual known limitation to the teleport spell is that it can only affect one person at a time.

My personal theory is that the fence spell took a lot out of him magically (it was pretty spectacular), so he was forced to use mundane methods of transport (ie. run), until he can recover. Of course, now he's tiring himself out physically with all this running, so he's going to show up to what has all the makings of a "final showdown" against a demon when he's both magically and physically drained... Good plan, Jack! :-?

Another possible side-topic for scientific discussion: Magic slides right off demons (from hell) like water off a duck's back, but magic is able to affect items tempered in hell fire. Why is there a difference? Life (are demons considered living), Sentience (the fence post doesn't know it exists)? It can't be Soul (Demons have as much sould as a fence post: none)...

"Chewy pudding"? Yech!
"Man. Floating in a Mindscape while getting sucked on by an evil parasite isn't NEAR this boring in the comic books." -Jack
User avatar
BrianJ
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:59 am
Location: San Diego

crap

Postby MrBigMr on Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:47 am

BrianJ wrote:Another possible side-topic for scientific discussion: Magic slides right off demons (from hell) like water off a duck's back, but magic is able to affect items tempered in hell fire. Why is there a difference? Life (are demons considered living), Sentience (the fence post doesn't know it exists)? It can't be Soul (Demons have as much sould as a fence post: none)...

Lets not forget that Sandra herself causes her surroindings to get corrupted, the "shadows growing darker" thingy or what the hell was it. Corruption of inanimate objects is/should be possible.


I wrote a loooong post, but then the forum crapped it all and I forgot everything I had to say. So, this is the core of the message in all its... crappyness.
MrBigMr
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Finland

Postby Omeg@ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:39 pm

I myself vote for too tired to do magic option. Maybe there's no mana or 'ki', but it's still quite believable that magic tricks consume stamina of some sort.
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Postby vole-in-hand on Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:23 pm

Maybe Jack has to prepare most of his spells beforehand. The big stuff anyway.. like a teleportation would have to be meticulously constructed and fine-tuned, set to trigger like a mouse trap. After all, just because we don't know how he does it doesn't mean the answer's as simple as being low on "magic fuel."

Jack often appears to make unnecessary sacrifices, which a wizard could easily avoid. But is you a wizard. Didn't think so.
User avatar
vole-in-hand
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Postby ShardZ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:46 pm

There have been a lot of different interpretations of teleporting in various universes, from needing to have a picture in one's head of where they're going (which was probably what I was mistakenly thinking of in the other thread) to only being able to travel within one's line of sight. Since Jack seemed to materialize in a dark, enclosed place in Tool's tower, I suppose he didn't do the latter.

As for Jack's current state, I'm still leaning toward magically-and-possibly-physically drained as well. Maybe working with the hell-tempered posts involved infernal magic, which might take more out of him than other types of magic. But he also spent possibly hours in the same stretched position, which could have been taxing in itself. But magically drained would be my first choice.

The posts being sentient is an interesting possiblity, as is the idea that he told them where to go. Personally, I was thinking that he might have enchanted them like Broadshoulders' car winch: material objects that were "programmed" to seek out and restrain a magical (in those cases demonic) source, and stop once their goal had been accomplished. I have no theories on the why or how of the posts being flexible, however.
In order to clearly see what is in the shadows, you must first enter them.

Image
User avatar
ShardZ
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: The haunts of grues, lucksuckers and eldritch vapors.

Postby EroSan on Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:13 pm

I would say that this is a mix between physical tiredness (spent possibly hours in the same stretched position as ShardZ pointed out) and mental tiredness.

I dont think Jack needs something as RPG-esque as MP to cast magic... but it looks like he needs to focus and use his mind... have you ever studied many many hours for a difficult test (try 6 hours of math)...

I would guess thats the kind of tiredness Jack is feeling... plus, he has to run, and he does not look that fit. I mean, how much fitness is there in a mage/perv life? he sits down and meditate, then reads Tomie, then walks on an astral plane... then does the pervy stuff. Still, not much excercise...
---
Ero San
User avatar
EroSan
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:29 pm

Postby Omeg@ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:26 am

Maybe he just knows that Sandra isn't going anywhere. Plus, Wally's there watching her, right? RIGHT??
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Postby BrianJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:59 pm

Good memory (or searching) on the "infernal" nature, Shardz! I like how he noted that he had to "come to" after he had cast the spell on Jacob. This seems to point to a current lack of ability to concentrate properly as a main cause for his foot-peddling now (as EroSan says). He might not need to regain magical power, but he MAY need to re-gather his wits! Without being able to concentrate properly on a spell (such as teleportation), no telling WHAT could result. This seems most plausible to me right now.

As for the fence posts being sentient, I listed that as a possible reason why it probably would NOT be a valid argument. I believe the posts are magically animated (able to move), but not sentient (able to think). As far as we know, Jack does not have the ability to grant life to objects (that would be rather godlike, wouldn't it?). Also, if they were alive and able to "seek out the demon," on their own, Jack would not have needed to wait for a signal from Wally to find Sandra's location: he could have just let the posts find her, and then followed them.
"Man. Floating in a Mindscape while getting sucked on by an evil parasite isn't NEAR this boring in the comic books." -Jack
User avatar
BrianJ
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:59 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Science debate|current topic: Run Jack, run!

Postby strange_person on Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:49 am

The trick Sandra pulled, turning the post into a pitchfork, makes it much clearer to me why she can't cut hell-forged iron. She can slice through any physical object with ease, limited only by her ability to reach it with her various weaponized surfaces, but she never accidentally injures herself, because her life-absorbing abilities refuse to target anything that smells too much like her. When she took control of the hellbubble, it took on her scent, and so did the mystical charge in the surrounding area.

After that final lecture from Mr. Chalk, she found an application for something from his previous explanation of Type O demon anatomy: she's actually a spirit, or a soul, or both, or whatever. The meat is incidental. If some of the meat happens to be made of iron, that doesn't matter as long as it has the same essence, the same magical identifiers. It's like finding a compatible organ donor. Close enough match, the immune system accepts it, and it's as easy to use as any other body part. And she can do some pretty unusual stuff with the parts she's got: tail extends yards and yards, prehensile along it's entire length, wings fold down to nothing. Probably the only reason she hasn't done the same kinds of things with her arms and legs are the human preconceptions of how those extremities are supposed to work.
strange_person
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:37 pm

Re: Science debate|current topic: Run Jack, run!

Postby MrBigMr on Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:40 am

That is a sound theory to say the least.
I always figured it to be a more of a Superman thing. Like among his peers on his planet, he would be as mortals as anyone, but bring any of them here and they're dead 'ard as he his. So daemons vs. anything else = pure pwnage, daemon on daemon would be resolved by their own baselines, so that their claws cut as well as if they were mortal claws vs. mortal steel, etc.
"May those who accept their fate be granted happiness. May those who defy their fate be granted glory."
- Edel, Princess Tutu
MrBigMr
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Science debate|current topic: Run Jack, run!

Postby Omeg@ on Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:07 pm

My theory goes with the names. If you know something, you have certain power over it. Now this is has been used in many other stories as well. Lovecraft, LeGuin, etc. I think the earliest recorded versions go to old Finnish folk lores of Kalevala. Sandra didn't know what it was that binded her into that cage. After she did, she could manipulate the fench post by her will. That is also the reason why Jack is unable to hold her and why Sandra was able to claim Boardshoiders, a.k.a George. This might also be the reason why Sam is dangerous to Sandra. He knows her better than anyone.


P.S.
Chalk-san said to Sandra that her kindom was called Oorth, yes? Did that gave her some power over something? Such as power over that patch of hell?
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Re: Science debate|current topic: Pitchfork patchwork

Postby vole-in-hand on Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:18 pm

Or perhaps we're overthinking this. Jack could've just momentarily relinquished his control over the bars.
User avatar
vole-in-hand
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Science debate|current topic: Pitchfork patchwork

Postby strange_person on Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:46 pm

vole-in-hand wrote:Or perhaps we're overthinking this. Jack could've just momentarily relinquished his control over the bars.

That's part of it. He stopped actively controlling them after they formed the cage.
strange_person
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:37 pm

Re: Science debate|current topic: Pitchfork patchwork

Postby Omeg@ on Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:03 pm

I wonder if the magicgasms have halted. More likely Joe just doesn't care to show them anymore.No need to repeat the old news, right? The problem in that is just that thanks to his slow-slow updateing, people tend to forget lots of stuff what's going on.
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Re: Science debate|current topic: Pitchfork patchwork

Postby Omeg@ on Sun May 17, 2009 11:57 pm

It seems that the fourms have gained new life from Mr.Englands updates like a plant receiving fresh water (or fertilizer). Thus it's time for SDT snicker to emerge from it's spore phase and start yet another topic.

Philosophical mambo-jambo!!!


Lucky for me, I don't have to do anything to start this topic. I'll just collect the best part of the disscussion that has been going on the boards for two weeks now. Bear in mind, though that I've cut some pieces of these quotes in order to save time and not to overwhelm anyone with the flood of information.

MrBigMr wrote:
Dacheran wrote:I always find the concept of too much good leading to totalitarianism/bad stuff/etc slightly ridiculous. Because that's not really good, that's just another aspect of evil.

Well, I think the Moorcock dualism was Order and Chaos. Imagine a world of utter order. We have a word for it, and it's totalitarianism, which is the whole point. The "hero's" mission is not to destroy evil or bring order to the world, but to balance it out, equal amounts of order and chaos.

Besides, what would a world of pure good be like? Brings up the debate between Vash and Knives in Trigun. Vash tried to save a butterfly from a spider's web, but Knives just killed the spider instead. When Vash gets upset, Knives tells him that it was the only way. If Vash was to have his way, the spider would have died anyway out of starvation. You can't save everybody, yet all life is precious. Who has the right to make the decision who lives and who dies? I don't know about you, but to me Vash's attitude was a little too "goody goody" for my taste. I mean, I can understand his goals and all, but Knives is right, you can't save everyone. Yet the whole "survival of the fittest" doesn't appeal to me either.

It just makes me a little sad that in the end it was mostly Knives that was to yield in his conviction, where as Vash never budged an inch, even when he shot a guy point blank in the face. All he could think about was how he failed to find a better solution for the situation.

I guess it just takes more courage to strip down and act like a dog before a gang than to whip out a pistol and shoot every single one of them, even though they ended up shooting Vash anyway.
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Re: Science debate|current topic: Pitchfork patchwork

Postby Omeg@ on Mon May 18, 2009 12:35 am

It seems that the fourms have gained new life from Mr.Englands updates like a plant receiving fresh water (or fertilizer). Thus it's time for SDT snicker to emerge from it's spore phase and start yet another topic.

Philosophical mambo-jambo!!!


Lucky for me, I don't have to do anything to start this topic. I'll just collect the best part of the discussion that has been going on the boards for two weeks now. Bear in mind, though that I've cut some pieces of these quotes in order to save time and not to overwhelm anyone with the flood of information.

MrBigMr wrote:
Dacheran wrote:I always find the concept of too much good leading to totalitarianism/bad stuff/etc slightly ridiculous. Because that's not really good, that's just another aspect of evil.

Well, I think the Moorcock dualism was Order and Chaos. Imagine a world of utter order. We have a word for it, and it's totalitarianism, which is the whole point. The "hero's" mission is not to destroy evil or bring order to the world, but to balance it out, equal amounts of order and chaos.

Besides, what would a world of pure good be like? Brings up the debate between Vash and Knives in Trigun. Vash tried to save a butterfly from a spider's web, but Knives just killed the spider instead. When Vash gets upset, Knives tells him that it was the only way. If Vash was to have his way, the spider would have died anyway out of starvation. You can't save everybody, yet all life is precious. Who has the right to make the decision who lives and who dies? I don't know about you, but to me Vash's attitude was a little too "goody goody" for my taste. I mean, I can understand his goals and all, but Knives is right, you can't save everyone. Yet the whole "survival of the fittest" doesn't appeal to me either.

It just makes me a little sad that in the end it was mostly Knives that was to yield in his conviction, where as Vash never budged an inch, even when he shot a guy point blank in the face. All he could think about was how he failed to find a better solution for the situation.

I guess it just takes more courage to strip down and act like a dog before a gang than to whip out a pistol and shoot every single one of them, even though they ended up shooting Vash anyway.


Rone wrote:I've been thinking about the nature of God lately, which is what most people associate with the nature of "good", and have concluded that if God is infinite, God must INCLUDE not only ultimate good, but also ultimate evil. The Devil and God cannot be separate entities, because that would mean that God was NOT an infinite being, if something can be external to God. Just as we are made up of molecules, we are in turn the molecules of God, who is made up of everything. Thus you are God, I am God, every saint and every psycho is God, in various assemblies of God's "good" and "bad" parts. As such, EVERY act performed by a person is simultaneously an act of God AND of human will, which makes the whole good vs. evil concept even murkier than it already is.

...Ah, and now I'm late for work. Is this my fault, or God's?


MrBigMr wrote:
Rone wrote:Thus you are God, I am God

Ain't that usually what people say right before they climb up to a clock tower with a rifle?

Apart from hardcore religious people, does it say somewhere that God is in fact omnipotent? I'm just thinking since the very definition of a god is pretty much anything that is worshiped as a god, so I don't think that being the one true God means that said being would have to be perfect. Besides, I'm a little scared by the fact that man was made in His image. Imagine a powerful human up there with admin level rights to this world and no one to answer to.

Besides, as I said, morals are defined by the times we're living, where as God lives outside of that frame, so what morals does he follow? His own, I guess, and as he has the power to change the rules of the game any time he wants, when ever he wants, our chances are getting pretty slim.


BrianJ wrote:Whoo-boy. Philosophy. great. :-?

"Infinite" is not the same as "all-encompassing". The problem comes from using these terms in the realm of physical limitations. The biblical God does not have any such limitations. That being said, the biblical God also does not have any amount of evil in His being. As stated before, darkness is the absence of light, and evil is the absence of good. The biblical God is considered the Ultimate Good (He is "Holy, Holy, Holy", a phrasing with the idea that each "holy" tacked on is an astronomical expansion of the all previous concepts of holiness, to infinity), therefore, He is not in any way/shape/form an absence of Himself.

All that above and another 98 cents won't even buy you a cup-o'-coffee anymore. People have been debating and philosophying over the concepts of Good vs Evil for as long as there has been human concepts of these elements. I don't have all the answers, no one does, and I'm pretty sure we're not going to resolve it here on a comic forum. It is interesting to hear everyone's different takes on the matter, though.

Plotwise, I'm pretty sure the main reason we do not see many stories where the immortal Good-Guy types (such as angels) show up to lend a hand is because the fight would be over too quick. There's no real competition: Good trumps - and that's just boring to read/watch. Our human stories are about the struggles of Mankind to overcome, not about the hand-outs of the Nice Beings. If it's too easy, we don't want it.


MrBigMr wrote:
BrianJ wrote:Plotwise, I'm pretty sure the main reason we do not see many stories where the immortal Good-Guy types (such as angels) show up to lend a hand is because the fight would be over too quick. There's no real competition: Good trumps - and that's just boring to read/watch. Our human stories are about the struggles of Mankind to overcome, not about the hand-outs of the Nice Beings. If it's too easy, we don't want it.

Neo from Matrix, Killy from Blame!, Vash the Stampede from Trigun, Alucard from Hellsing (well, good and good...), Hercules... The list goes on. All are beyond measure and have only a few that can stand up to them, if even that, yet the stories are quite good. It's not (just) about beating the evil, but saving the good as well. If the BBEG manage to kill everyone, and then gets slain by the hero, it's not much of a victory now is it? A hero (of good) never fights for himself, but for someone or something, and it is this that makes him weak. If you fight to save humanity, you also have to spend plenty of energy in protecting it, even if you yourself was a god among men, those people aren't and they'd get annihilated when facing the monsters that stand against them.


Rone wrote:If you think of stories of heroes as symbolic representations of self-actualization, the hero is our conscious mind. He or she comes in one form, a limited one, because our awareness of ourselves is limited. The "evil" or threats that rise up against the hero are manifestations of our patterns/complexes/shadows/things that hold us back. They are so varied, because they come from the unconscious and, for anyone who has vivid dreams, you know how screwed up that place can be. Some of these threats need to be fought, but others need to be dealt with in more clever ways to really ever be beaten. There are many stories where killing the wicked beasty in front of the hero is the WORST thing to do. Trickery, entrapment, or (on rare occasions) relation/reconciliation are needed to move forward. So perhaps so many stories have varied evils because we, as people, have so many varied struggles on our own person journeys to know ourselves. Whereas, on the side of "good", we have only ourselves to act as the hero.







Here are my two cents on the topic thus far:

Morals, God (or more accurately the idea of an god), good and evil are all defined by the people, the masses and the culture that we grow from. People create the society and society creates the people, as said by Masamune Shirow in his/her apple seed series. This means that our actions are guided by our surrounding that is sometimes greatly affected by the actions of other people around us. Vice versa, our actions can sometimes have great effect on the other people around us as well. This is an symbiosis that we rarely can control. Sometimes we may get a friend of us to do us a favour, but that action can have some sort of social debt. In the future that friend might want you to do a similar favour to you.

What I'm trying to say is that the world around us is an illusion, sort of. We get infromation from reality through our senses (and senses can be fooled). The basic assumtion is that our senses work mainly the same way with all humans. However, the way we see the world does not. As some one sees an object, eg. a beer bottle, someone might think thirst, someone else might think what happens when you drink the beer inside, someone third might thing that such drinks should be banned because they are harmful for so many people. Where do we get these ideas? Not from the genes, I'm sure. We learn these things and we most certanly learn these things from the people around us. How do they act when they see the beer bottle? How do they speak about it later? How do they act and so on.

Now we get to the point I'm going to make. The idea of god, morals, good and evil and rest of that stuff is inherited from somewhere. Our very world is mainly defined by someone else before us. We've merely learned to cope with that. I often refuse to live through the ideals of others and sometimes put some distant between my thoughts and the social standards, thinking just the opposite of the general opinnion. This can be quite dangerous sometimes, for the society is not always very tolerant to new ideas, especially if they are very different from the old point of views. Religions are a good example of this. They often justify and define themselves through the old texts or old habbits and ceremonies. If everything is changed, they might stop being the old fation and started being a whole new religion.

The idea of what god is has probably come to you when you were still a child. Imagine if you'd have lived your life without hearing of god to this point and then suddenly someone would com eto preach about this omnipotent entity and heaven and hell and stuff like that. How would you react? How would you answer? I'm a christian by culture, but I doubt my ideas of what god is are similar with the popular view of "my religion". Same thing can be said about my Political, moral and ideological views.
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby Skullduggerous on Mon May 18, 2009 6:07 am

Woo! Science thread lives again! Watch it creak out of its dusty grave and shamble forth to eat the brains of the living and discuss matters with the learned men!

Or just post in it.

On the current subject: I see this "subjective perception" opinion of yours as being almost entirely correct. What's vital in understanding the notion of inherited traditions and thoughts which we "learn" over the course of our lives is that we're not aware of the fact that they are becoming intrinsically tied to our most basic understanding of the world around us. Similarly, to suddenly unveil this fact to someone who had taken their trained religious and/or subject-based thoughts for granted is to open up an entirely new world for them. This can be good or bad in terms of results.

Example: When Broadshoulders exposed Sandra to Hell in the Hellbubble, he was essentially "popping the bubble" of her self-perception and the way she saw the world around her. Instead of seeing people as occasionally irritating entities to be avoided and feared, she now sees them as prey, because her trained perception of humanity as a shame-inducing mass has been lifted, allowing her to choose her own point of view.

Unfortunately, now she's a psychotic, evil, hateful hellbitch, because her demon side obviously has an enormous influence over what her new point of view is actually going to be. What a shame. Or is it?
___

"It was like having Jiminy Cricket in your head, if he was a serial killer and kept telling you to eat people."
User avatar
Skullduggerous
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby BrianJ on Mon May 18, 2009 1:02 pm

On the subject of traditions, traditionalism, and traditional values and thinking - I'm immediately reminded of a story: a newly married couple settle in at home. The wife prepares a pot-roast meal, and begins by cutting off a third of the roast and throwing it away. This catches the husband's attention and he asks why she does this. She answers, "that's how my mom always did it". He later asks his mother-in-law, who replies the same way, "that's how MY mom always did it". He eventually has the chance to ask the grandmother of his bride the same thing (yes, the "Rule-Of-3's" lives on), who says, "well, the roasts were always 6 inches larger than my pan, so I had to cut off some to make it fit".

That being said, some traditions live on just for tradition's sake. Other traditions live on because they have been tested, tried, and have proven themselves reliable over time. The problem comes in knowing which ones are which.
"Man. Floating in a Mindscape while getting sucked on by an evil parasite isn't NEAR this boring in the comic books." -Jack
User avatar
BrianJ
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:59 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby Omeg@ on Mon May 18, 2009 9:57 pm

BrianJ wrote:That being said, some traditions live on just for tradition's sake. Other traditions live on because they have been tested, tried, and have proven themselves reliable over time. The problem comes in knowing which ones are which.

A one possible way to study which are which is to use control sample. Grow few kids in a place where they would not be influenced by the factor that we are studying. If no symptoms occur, then the habit is inherited from the environment.
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby MrBigMr on Tue May 19, 2009 2:17 am

Omeg@ wrote:A one possible way to study which are which is to use control sample. Grow few kids in a place where they would not be influenced by the factor that we are studying. If no symptoms occur, then the habit is inherited from the environment.

And if Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
"May those who accept their fate be granted happiness. May those who defy their fate be granted glory."
- Edel, Princess Tutu
MrBigMr
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby Omeg@ on Fri May 29, 2009 6:18 am

That will make a fitting singature
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby MrBigMr on Sat May 30, 2009 1:21 am

Reminds me of what someone once said (over the internets, of course), that if they were a woman, they'd get pregnant, wait for the fetus to take a human form, abort it and put it in a jar. Do this until you have a room full of said jars. Then have a kid. If the kid misbehaved, she would lock him/her into this room to remind him/her just how easily she could have aborted his/her ass.

I think that is how supervillains are made.
"May those who accept their fate be granted happiness. May those who defy their fate be granted glory."
- Edel, Princess Tutu
MrBigMr
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby Omeg@ on Sat May 30, 2009 7:03 am

Would the kid be the supervillain or the mother?
If Pavlov and Mengele had a child together, his name would be Omeg@.
-MrBigMr
User avatar
Omeg@
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:11 am
Location: above the ground level.

Re: Science debate|current topic: Philosophical gibberish

Postby Dentro on Sun May 31, 2009 8:40 am

I think he's refering to the child. Although, You'd have to keep that up for a long time before you can fill a room like that. I wonder if it's possible to do by yourself?
Fan since -07
Lurking since 23/4 -09
User avatar
Dentro
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:37 pm
Location: Umeå, Sweden

 
PreviousNext

Return to Zebra Girl

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest