OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more! - Page 31

Arryn · #**301** July 29th, 2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
FYI the dimensions of T34 are 2.44m x 3.25 m (from the straigth front perspective). It not clearly as huge as you seem to believe Arryn.

T34/76 is 2.4m (h), 3m (w), 6.1m (l). T34/85 is 2.7m (h), 3m (w), 8.15m (l). IOW, it's as tall as the average home's interior ceiling height, 1.5 times as wide as a Chevy Suburban, and 20-60% longer. And by today's standards, it's a small tank. But still a large object to frame in the viewfinder. (One of my hobbies is photography/astrophotography, so I'm quite familiar with taking pictures, and I've probably been doing it since before you were born).

BTW, I've not only seen tanks, I've driven one (the M1A1, as well as the old M113 APC).

Stormbinder · #**302** July 29th, 2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spirokeat:

quote:
posted by Arynn

It gets worse yet: no brain, no neurons. No neurons, no thoughts at all. Sounds like oblivion to me.

Quote:

posted by stormbinder
But according to your logic, after death the human will lack not only receptors, but pathways and even brain itself. At this point the question of your afterlife existense become rather moot

Filthy Monists ! and material ones at that !

Heh, Arryn had beat me by few minutes to it.

Aye, it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it. But you have walked this road first with your neurological pathways, I just could not resist...

Norfleet · #**303** July 29th, 2004, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROLF. Norf, unfortunately for you, I happen to be a military history buff, with particular interesst for WW2 weapons. And what more, my grand-father got a top State Award of the Soviet Union (Stalin's Premium) for designing very different oil filtering system for T34 during WW2. So please, don't tell me about T34 unless you want to show yourself even more stupid that you already did, and make me laugh harder that I am laughing as already.

*golf claps*

Bravo. Good for you. As you can see, it's not too hard to get to one.

[ July 29, 2004, 10:49: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Stormbinder · #**304** July 29th, 2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:
Originally posted by Stormbinder:
FYI the dimensions of T34 are 2.44m x 3.25 m (from the straigth front perspective). It not clearly as huge as you seem to believe Arryn.

T34/76 is 2.4m (h), 3m (w), 6.1m (l). T34/85 is 2.7m (h), 3m (w), 8.15m (l). IOW, it's as tall as the average home's interior ceiling height, 1.5 times as wide as a Chevy Suburban, and 20-60% longer. And by today's standards, it's a small tank. But still a large object to frame in the viewfinder. (One of my hobbies is photography/astrophotography, so I'm quite familiar with taking pictures

Than we both share the photography hobby Arryn. Are you saying that you can not frame object 2.4m x 3m from 30 feets on standart camera with regular-angle lenses???

Arryn · #**305** July 29th, 2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it.

No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

Stormbinder · #**306** July 29th, 2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:
Originally posted by Stormbinder:
it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it.

No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

I am not arguing with that Arryn. The cold hard logic is very materialistic.

And there is nothing wrong with being materialist, I was just playing along with Spike.

As for my personal believes, I can say that I am more or less agnostic, if I have to put a label on myself.

Arryn · #**307** July 29th, 2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Are you saying that you can not frame object 2.4m x 3m from 30 feets on standart camera with regular-angle lenses???

On further thought, yes you can. You can probably even get the side aspect of the tank in the frame, and not just the front aspect, from 30' away. 30' is pretty far. If I remembered my high school trignometry from 29 years ago better than I do, I could tell you for sure.

Arryn · #**308** July 29th, 2004, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
As for my personal believes, I can say that I am more or less agnostic, if I have to put a label on myself.

Okay.

Then try the following:

The notion that some all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity capable of existing outside the laws of the universe would actually deign to care about something as insignificant as humans is arrogance and conceit on the part of such believers.

spirokeat · #**309** July 29th, 2004, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Posted by Arryn the Monist, Functionalist Materialist

No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

Materialism albeit compelling still has many difficulties. May I assume by your logic that you are a hard aethiest ?

And my suggestion that sensory input is causal to sensations like pain etc is quite congenial with both dualism and monist spiritualism.

And storm ! its Spirokeat ! as in a mispelling of that critter you get with limes disease. !

Stormbinder · #**310** July 29th, 2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:
Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROLF. Norf, unfortunately for you, I happen to be a military history buff, with particular interesst for WW2 weapons. And what more, my grand-father got a top State Award of the Soviet Union (Stalin's Premium) for designing very different oil filtering system for T34 during WW2. So please, don't tell me about T34 unless you want to show yourself even more stupid that you already did, and make me laugh harder that I am laughing as already.

*golf claps*

Bravo. Good for you. As you can see, it's not too hard to get to one.

LOL.

The point is that you don't have one.

You don't even know how big or how small it is, as you just clearly demonstrated. It is just another delusional story that you mumble about, since you think that it fits your "tough" fictional character, if he would be driving around on very own T34. Along the lines of your other stories, like attacking people with LAWS, booby traping your garage with deadly explosives, being shot by misitrious assasins, hiding in nuclear shelter for the Last several years, et cetera...