2012

[Crystal Shards]

And the years 2050 and 2060 are on topic?

Jokes aside, I just find outright mockery unnecessary and provocative, especially since most 2012 theorists are religious. Violence and religion ... good bed fellows.

Alternate years are off-topic?

And so what if they're religious? If it's a dumb idea, it's a dumb idea. And considering what the Bible has to say on the topic of the end of the world, they're even bigger idiots for buying into the hype. It's hard not to make fun of that kind of stupidity. A fear of violence is not a good excuse to opt out of telling someone when they're wrong.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[BK-201]

And the years 2050 and 2060 are on topic?

Yes, both have been mentioned as years in which the world might end, and since 2012 is about people freaking out because a calender ends and think they are all going to die, so yes, it is on topic.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Anyway, I don't like the discrediting that goes on. Maybe if people came after people on this 2012 stuff for the right reasons then it'd be different, but for the most part it's just mocking. I'm glad there are plenty of people who can just shrug and ignore it instead of becoming anti-religious/anti doomsday bigots.

Headfucked ideas need to be discredited. If no one discredits clearly false information, then that information is more likely to spread. You're not a bigot if you discredit something.

[Phoenix]

Yes, both have been mentioned as years in which the world might end, and since 2012 is about people freaking out because a calender ends and think they are all going to die, so yes, it is on topic.

Never mind ... that wasn't specifically what I was talking about.

Headfucked ideas need to be discredited. If no one discredits clearly false information, then that information is more likely to spread. You're not a bigot if you discredit something.

Mockery=/=Discredit

Aside from your idea of discrediting things, there's also the issue of what is "clearly" false? Even if their reasons for believing what they do are totally wrong, that can't stop them from being right simply because the world actually does end on that year.

In plain english. A lack of evidence doesn't make a claim false. I wish it did, but however unlikely, they could end up being right for the wrong reasons. Do I believe it will happen in 2012? The end of the world? No. The end of something specific? Yes.

[Crystal Shards]

That doesn't do anything to show that the "proof" that the Mayans got the end of the world right (because, you know, they got so much else right) is credible, or that any of the people backing said ideas are credible.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Phoenix Wright]

Never mind ... that wasn't specifically what I was talking about.

Mockery=/=Discredit

Aside from your idea of discrediting things, there's also the issue of what is "clearly" false? Even if their reasons for believing what they do are totally wrong, that can't stop them from being right simply because the world actually does end on that year.

In plain english. A lack of evidence doesn't make a claim false. I wish it did, but however unlikely, they could end up being right for the wrong reasons. Do I believe it will happen in 2012? The end of the world? No. The end of something specific? Yes.

It isn't completely discredited without proof. Just look at ALL the other "prophets" of our known history (most notably Nostradamus). One could use that as proof that all prophets only spout bullshit. If that's not what you meant, then where do you expect proof to arise besides the date that the prophecy takes place?

Also, your last point makes no sense. Every second is the "end of something specific."

[Defeatist Elitist]

Mockery=/=Discredit

While that is somewhat true (I mean, you can discredit something while mocking it, or mock it while you're discrediting it), that doesn' t matter, because YOU said

Anyway, I don't like the discrediting that goes on. Maybe if people came after people on this 2012 stuff for the right reasons then it'd be different, but for the most part it's just mocking. I'm glad there are plenty of people who can just shrug and ignore it instead of becoming anti-religious/anti doomsday bigots.

Sure the middle bit mentions mocking, but you stated fairly clearly (or maybe you meant something totally different, in which case fairly unclearly) that you had a problem with discrediting.

Aside from your idea of discrediting things, there's also the issue of what is "clearly" false? Even if their reasons for believing what they do are totally wrong, that can't stop them from being right simply because the world actually does end on that year.

In plain english. A lack of evidence doesn't make a claim false. I wish it did, but however unlikely, they could end up being right for the wrong reasons. Do I believe it will happen in 2012? The end of the world? No. The end of something specific? Yes.

If I think that farting monkeys in the deep blue sea will cause the sun to come up tomorrow, I am not right when the sun comes up, I'm still wrong. Just because part of what I said was right doesn't make me correct.

In addition, a lack of evidence makes a claim false about as much as anything makes a claim false. Sure, there is a minute chance of it occuring, but as we have said over and over, and as you consistently fail to understand, there is no point in pursuing that minute chance or giving it any credence. It is, for all intents and purposes, false.

[Serene Flight]

Do I believe it will happen in 2012? The end of the world? No

Yes! I'm going to military at 2012.

Me. Military. Year 2012. I guess I don't need to say more.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Tygr

[Phoenix Wright]

In addition, a lack of evidence makes a claim false about as much as anything makes a claim false. Sure, there is a minute chance of it occuring, but as we have said over and over, and as you consistently fail to understand, there is no point in pursuing that minute chance or giving it any credence. It is, for all intents and purposes, false.

Never mind everything said on this site. All that shit aside, I disagree wholeheartedly. In scientific aspects of course. Something smaller than a quark. We have a very small, small chance of ever finding out what that may be. Even into the next two hundred years probably. Should we abandon it?

Wormholes. Bending fucking space. Should we deny its possibility just because of our lack of evidence? Our lack of being able to test this? Our lack of understanding?

I know I know, you probably didn't mean it to go that far, but still. Scientific hypotheses are no doubt different from what's being argued here, but a lack of being able to observe is also a lack of evidence. According to your logic, no evidence means it's false.

[Crystal Shards]

Never mind everything said on this site. All that shit aside, I disagree wholeheartedly. In scientific aspects of course. Something smaller than a quark. We have a very small, small chance of ever finding out what that may be. Even into the next two hundred years probably. Should we abandon it?

Wormholes. Bending fucking space. Should we deny its possibility just because of our lack of evidence? Our lack of being able to test this? Our lack of understanding?

I know I know, you probably didn't mean it to go that far, but still. Scientific hypotheses are no doubt different from what's being argued here, but a lack of being able to observe is also a lack of evidence. According to your logic, no evidence means it's false.

No. Those are actually worthy causes. You're listing actual scientific endeavors that could help mankind.

Some calendar from people who weren't as scientifically advanced as us somehow read that shit in the stars. Think about it.

There are just some scientific endeavors that aren't worth pursuing. If that's not PC enough for you, tough. I'd rather these people learn shit about real science and move on to study quantum mechanics or wormholes instead of derping around about some ancient calendar as if it--or Nostradamus--are worth anything beyond historical interest.

[Phoenix Wright]

No. Those are actually worthy causes. You're listing actual scientific endeavors that could help mankind.

Some calendar from people who weren't as scientifically advanced as us somehow read that shit in the stars. Think about it.

There are just some scientific endeavors that aren't worth pursuing. If that's not PC enough for you, tough. I'd rather these people learn shit about real science and move on to study quantum mechanics or wormholes instead of derping around about some ancient calendar as if it--or Nostradamus--are worth anything beyond historical interest.

You are mistaken. Read my post again. I disagree with his general statement. I DO NOT agree with the bullshit spouted by Phoenix or Nostradamus, or any other false prophet. Read Revan's post, then mine. I made clear what I meant when I posted.

Here it is:

"Never mind everything said on this site. All that shit aside, I disagree wholeheartedly. In scientific aspects, of course."

Meaning: Who gives a fuck about what's said here? Actual scientific endeavors should NOT be ruled out using Revan's logic. If they were to be ruled out, I'd like there to be evidence against them.

To which you replied to me, attempting to disagree, when in reality we posted the same thing.

EDIT: I bolded the part I disagreed with. Not only that, Revan was giving general advice to Phoenix, not attacking his argument. Don't assume I agree with Phoenix and attack me out of no where.

Edited June 27, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Defeatist Elitist]

Never mind everything said on this site. All that shit aside, I disagree wholeheartedly. In scientific aspects of course. Something smaller than a quark. We have a very small, small chance of ever finding out what that may be. Even into the next two hundred years probably. Should we abandon it?

Wormholes. Bending fucking space. Should we deny its possibility just because of our lack of evidence? Our lack of being able to test this? Our lack of understanding?

I know I know, you probably didn't mean it to go that far, but still. Scientific hypotheses are no doubt different from what's being argued here, but a lack of being able to observe is also a lack of evidence. According to your logic, no evidence means it's false.

Yes, no evidence means it can be disregarded. That is what science is BASED on. Now, we don't say "This is completely impossible and never will be possible". We simply disregard it until there IS evidence. Science is constructed on evidence. The question must always be "Is there evidence?"

Let's take something smaller than a quark for example. There is a possibility it may exist. By all means we should look into it, try to find evidence. But we should never say "This is it" without having evidence.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look into the possibility of the world ending at some point, or that we shouldn't look into the possibility of something smaller than a quark, or that we shouldn't look into the possibility of bending space.

I'm saying we should disregard someones claim of when and how the world will end, or that they've found something smaller than a quark, or that they can bend space, unless we have evidence.

Sure something may be possible, but before really considering it, we require evidence. There is a difference between looking into something, or examining it, and believing something to be true.

[Crystal Shards]

You are mistaken. Read my post again. I disagree with his general statement. I DO NOT agree with the bullshit spouted by Phoenix or Nostradamus, or any other false prophet. Read Revan's post, then mine. I made clear what I meant when I posted.

Here it is:

"Never mind everything said on this site. All that shit aside, I disagree wholeheartedly. In scientific aspects, of course."

Meaning: Who gives a fuck about what's said here? Actual scientific endeavors should NOT be ruled out using Revan's logic. If they were to be ruled out, I'd like there to be evidence against them.

To which you replied to me, attempting to disagree, when in reality we posted the same thing.

EDIT: I bolded the part I disagreed with. Not only that, Revan was giving general advice to Phoenix, not attacking his argument. Don't assume I agree with Phoenix and attack me out of no where.

Who's attacking? If you don't like your statements challenged, don't post here.

Revan summed up what I was going to respond with, so I won't bother.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes, no evidence means it can be disregarded. That is what science is BASED on. Now, we don't say "This is completely impossible and never will be possible". We simply disregard it until there IS evidence. Science is constructed on evidence. The question must always be "Is there evidence?"

Let's take something smaller than a quark for example. There is a possibility it may exist. By all means we should look into it, try to find evidence. But we should never say "This is it" without having evidence.

If there is a possibility then that means you aren't disregarding it. Also, if you are looking for evidence, you are not disregarding the claim. I never said to state FACTS without evidence.

I agree with you in any other aspects (things that aren't science), as I have already said.

Edited June 27, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Crystal Shards]

If there is a possibility then that means you aren't disregarding it.

I do not disagree with you in any other aspects (things that aren't science), as I have already said.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Are you actually trying to make a point or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? That's not an attack, mind you, but an honest question. What are you getting at? It doesn't seem like anything all that important.

[Phoenix Wright]

Now you're just splitting hairs. Are you actually trying to make a point or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? That's not an attack, mind you, but an honest question. What are you getting at? It doesn't seem like anything all that important.

I was trying to state what I thought you two already knew, but apparently I was wrong. I clearly stated that in only scientific aspects (hypotheses), you should not disregard something. Both of you continued (regardless of what I said) to claim that I was trying to back up the fucking moronic Nostradamus and the idiotic "end of the world in 2012" claim, when I clearly was not.

If you two would have read my post instead of skimming it, this would have been avoided. I was really only putting my two cents in, not arguing at all.

EDIT: I know that isn't an attack. I knew about your other post as well. I was humoring myself by being overly dramatic.

Edited June 27, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Crystal Shards]

EDIT: I know that isn't an attack. I knew about your other post as well. I was humoring myself by being overly dramatic.

Which you're still doing. You disregard something when you can't find evidence for it (whether that's because the evidence isn't there or you can't find it). Does it mean it doesn't exist? No. But there's no damn reason to propagate bullshit you can't prove, either. You can theorize, sure, but that requires some sort of logic and reasoning, which is lost on the 2012 case. Therefore, it should be disregarded.

It's not that difficult to understand. I don't know why you're beating a dead horse.

[Phoenix Wright]

Which you're still doing. You disregard something when you can't find evidence for it (whether that's because the evidence isn't there or you can't find it). Does it mean it doesn't exist? No. But there's no damn reason to propagate bullshit you can't prove, either. You can theorize, sure, but that requires some sort of logic and reasoning, which is lost on the 2012 case. Therefore, it should be disregarded.

It's not that difficult to understand. I don't know why you're beating a dead horse.

Did I ever say it shouldn't? In no way did I state that 2012 was a scientific theory. In fact, I said quite the opposite. It's just a silly speculation. Just like Y2K, and any other end of the world scenario.

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

[Crystal Shards]

Did I ever say it shouldn't? In no way did I state that 2012 was a scientific theory. In fact, I said quite the opposite. It's just a silly speculation. Just like Y2K, and any other end of the world scenario.

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

No. I'm asking you why you keep posting stuff when you're not going anywhere with anything. You tried to pick apart someone's post and you failed miserably. You knew what Revan was saying but you still tried to split hairs that weren't meant for splitting.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Phoenix]

It isn't completely discredited without proof. Just look at ALL the other "prophets" of our known history (most notably Nostradamus). One could use that as proof that all prophets only spout bullshit. If that's not what you meant, then where do you expect proof to arise besides the date that the prophecy takes place?

Also, your last point makes no sense. Every second is the "end of something specific."

I wasn't talking about proof. I was saying that no matter what anyone believes, if something will happen at a certain year or date, it will happen and the reasons for people believing that date are irrelevant.

If it happens in 2012, it still doesn't matter that some people believed it would happen beforehand. If you keep guessing the year the world will end ... sooner or later someone's going to guess right, that doesn't mean that their reasons for believing in that date are correct, they just happened to guess right.

That's what I'm saying.

Sure the middle bit mentions mocking, but you stated fairly clearly (or maybe you meant something totally different, in which case fairly unclearly) that you had a problem with discrediting.

I only have a problem with it because the motives nowadays are shifted toward mockery. I wouldn't mind it so much if people weren't so Revan-esque about it(yeah that's a new word for people emulating you, though I'm not sure who you're emulating).

If I think that farting monkeys in the deep blue sea will cause the sun to come up tomorrow, I am not right when the sun comes up, I'm still wrong. Just because part of what I said was right doesn't make me correct.

I meant that they would be right about the date, not about their religion. Basically what you said, just lacking extreme examples.

In addition, a lack of evidence makes a claim false about as much as anything makes a claim false. Sure, there is a minute chance of it occuring, but as we have said over and over, and as you consistently fail to understand, there is no point in pursuing that minute chance or giving it any credence. It is, for all intents and purposes, false.

Who the hell said I was pursuing anything? I didn't say "It might happen, let's prepare for it." "I said, stop being dicks in your attempt to disprove people." You already said that science is based on evidence, and that if you find no evidence, you should leave a matter be. So leave the matter be and focus on finding evidence on something worth your time.

As for me, I prepare for what I will in life, and that's not the end of the world, trust me.

[Phoenix Wright]

No. I'm asking you why you keep posting stuff when you're not going anywhere with anything. You tried to pick apart someone's post and you failed miserably. You knew what Revan was saying but you still tried to split hairs that weren't meant for splitting.

Your dramatic interpretation made me laugh. No, seriously.

Do you have any idea what I actually disagreed with? I agreed with what Revan posted, except for one measly sentence. To that one measly sentence, I provided my two cents (my OPINION), then, both of you reply to me going on random fucking tangents that really had nothing to do with my OPINION.

"I know I know, you probably didn't mean it to go that far, but still. Scientific hypotheses are no doubt different from what's being argued here, but a lack of being able to observe is also a lack of evidence. According to your logic, no evidence means it's false."

You're right I knew what he was saying, therefore I included that tidbit. Notice, I did say he probably didn't mean it to go as far as I posted, but the fact remains that he posted it. I told him that in my opinion, science shouldn't be treated with that same train of thought (lack of evidence makes a hypothesis incorrect).

@Phoenix: Nothing of the sort was said in your original post. lol

Edited June 27, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Crystal Shards]

Your dramatic interpretation made me laugh. No, seriously.

Do you have any idea what I actually disagreed with? I agreed with what Revan posted, except for one measly sentence. To that one measly sentence, I provided my two cents (my OPINION), then, both of you reply to me going on random fucking tangents that really had nothing to do with my OPINION.

"I know I know, you probably didn't mean it to go that far, but still. Scientific hypotheses are no doubt different from what's being argued here, but a lack of being able to observe is also a lack of evidence. According to your logic, no evidence means it's false."

You're right I knew what he was saying, therefore I included that tidbit. Notice, I did say he probably didn't mean it to go as far as I posted, but the fact remains that he posted it. I told him that in my opinion, science shouldn't be treated with that same train of thought (lack of evidence makes a hypothesis incorrect).

@Phoenix: Nothing of the sort was said in your original post. lo

That's not dramatic nor an interpretation, and so what if it's your OPINION? If it doesn't mean anything or have an effect on the topic, if doesn't mean anything and doesn't have an affect on the topic. Continue beating your dead horse but you've failed to make even a remotely useful point in regards to this topic.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Phoenix Wright]

That's not dramatic nor an interpretation, and so what if it's your OPINION? If it doesn't mean anything or have an effect on the topic, if doesn't mean anything and doesn't have an affect on the topic. Continue beating your dead horse but you've failed to make even a remotely useful point in regards to this topic.

"You failed miserably in picking apart someone's post." That's a dramatic interpretation of what I actually did and what actually happened.

With regards to the topic? I failed? Er, the topic is about what I think about 2012. I made myself clear in nearly all of my posts (bullshit guess with no merit). BTW, there's no "point" to have. I wasn't trying to fucking argue in the first place. You brought these near-meaningless posts upon yourself. I can't argue WITH YOU when there's no point for me to argue with.

Edited June 27, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Crystal Shards]

"You failed miserably in picking apart someone's post." That's a dramatic interpretation of what I actually did and what actually happened.

With regards to the topic? I failed? Er, the topic is about what I think about 2012. I made myself clear in nearly all of my posts (bullshit guess with no merit). BTW, there's no "point" to have. I wasn't trying to fucking argue in the first place. You brought these near-meaningless posts upon yourself. I can't argue WITH YOU when there's no point for me to argue with.

You did fail miserably, and you're right: you aren't arguing with me. You're digging yourself a hole. You just said you didn't have a point, so why bring anything up to begin with?

Anyway, I'm done. Have the last word if you will but I'm ignoring this bullshit after this.

2012 theories are stupid. As mentioned before, it's the same thing over and over again, y2k, etc., and it certainly won't be the last, though of course no one who buys into this crap is going to remember the failed "prophecies" from before.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Sophius]

You know, there is actually a relatively high chance(that being, above .67%) that the end of the world may come in 2012. This is because, espacially considerinfg the instability in the world today, that people will work themselves into such a frenzy about 2012 that they end up causing something to happen. In other words, it's possible that 2012 is one of those prophecies that would not come true without the meddling of a prophet.