Makaze

Ah, so the bases level of cause and effect. Gotcha. Why do you think your curiosity ends there? Is there a reason? Wow. You're going to see a lot of my posts above yours in this thread.

Kind of. A wife sends her programmer husband to the grocery store for a loaf of bread. On his way out she says "And if they have eggs, get a dozen". The programmer returns home with 12 loaves of bread.

// joke logic store.inside = true; store.buy("bread"); while (store.inside == true) { store.buy("eggs"); } return; // never reached

No. What's the difference?

Until they ran out of eggs, which caused an eggception.

Don't care. If you are interested in How things work, then there must be a particular fascinating How. What thing works in the most fascinating way? AKA what is the is the most interesting thing you know of?

A wife sends her programmer husband to the grocery store for a loaf of bread. On his way out she says "And while you're there, get a carton of eggs". He never returned.

Meh. What is the most fascinating How you know of?

*person across the room*

Are you introspective? Why or why not? I don't know enough about that to give an informed opinion. It depends on which society would have produced more scientific advancement.

They are delicious. Opinion on free will? Why or why doesn't it exist?

Shinpichu? No. It's a bad habit. What is idyllic for you? I meant it as a mental exercise. If you can come to a refutation in your own head, that is good enough, even if you never speak it. But it is important to consider it and acknowledge the argument to yourself. When you talk about subjects that depend on free will, you have to be able to justify the thing your discussion depends on. Disproving that post is necessary to discuss anything that depends on free will.

When do you think you'll die? I'm not sure. I don't know that many. Partial to roses for obvious reasons.

What is paradise? No opinion.

Same question. v Western for physics, Eastern for metaphysics.

Nope. How are you posting then? That assumes that a person moves without a force acting on them; but a person is just physics and chemistry like any other object. Even in psychology we could go back and say that people don't kill people, childhood trauma kills people. It's completely arbitrary to assume that a person is a self-actuating force. A gun can kill a person if a rock falls on it in just the right way and happen to shoot someone even without a person causing it. It is possible. Therefore every single object kills people, and since people are objects the same logic applies.

Yes.

I have owned one before, so yes. What stereotypes fit you the least?

He can go fuck himself. What stereotypes fit you the best? (Must pick at least 1.)

Yes. What kind of satisfaction to questions like the one you just asked bring you?

No. What brought on your interest in coding?

Why would you kill someone? "The usages are extended from the base meanings of the words, and are consistent with these meanings. A "park" is a place set aside for a specific purpose. The English word way is the equivalent of the Latin word via, meaning "road" or "path." Thus a "parkway" is a road (way) through a park. The road is used by cars, thus you can drive on a parkway, that is you can drive on the road (way) through the park. The term driveway originated as the designation for the place you drive you car into at the house, like from the gate of the farm, or estate, to the house. When you got to the end of the driveway, you would park the car. ("Park," as in the meaning described above, because you are putting the car in the place designated for the car, that is the car park.) The term driveway was thus established and continued to be used, even when people with tract houses had only a short "way" to drive to the house, so the place where you drive the car into by any house is called a driveway. It is still consistent with the base meaning and broader usage of the term in that you "drive" into and onto the "way" designated for the car for that dwelling." "Poison doesn't kill people, interaction between those chemicals and the body does." Should we outlaw momentum/movement? No. Should we outlaw chemistry? No. It all depends on where you draw the -arbitrary- line.

All objects kill people. Some by rolling down hills, some by falling over, some by tripping them, some by making contact. The probability of a gun killing someone is dramatically increased when combined with a person. So is the probability of a rock killing someone. The fatality of a particular object can be defined as a function of its probability of killing someone in various scenarios. Guns have a higher probability of killing people in practically all scenarios than rocks do, therefore guns kill people "more than" rocks do. But people kill people in more scenarios often than guns, rocks, or any object, and increase the probability of any object becoming fatal by folds. By this logic, we should outlaw people "more than" we should outlaw guns. Guns do kill people, but that statement is meaningless if you don't draw the line. What do you think?

It's pretty cool, but I've never used it. Have you?

They're pretty good. "What things about you have always been the same and which have changed significantly?"