Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

DripOfAWish

Members
  • Content Count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DripOfAWish

  • Rank
    Member
  1. the TITS production in that alley that was better. it's all legal, so i guess it really doesn't matter.
  2. TWIST and JOSH are two of approximately five writers who put SF on the map nationally and internationally for graffiti. two no-name out-of-towners went over their landmark spot. no one's crying. just stating facts.
  3. I usually dont care for anything posted in this thread, but this is, by far, the best thing i've ever seen in here. Respect.
  4. did those fools actually go over a historical landmark spot, or was it dissed first?
  5. yes, CrossedOut were the shit. i still have those 7"s, even the bleeeaaauuurrgghh record.
  6. DripOfAWish

    Bush's War

    i normally disagree with kabar, and i hate Bush, but kabar hit the nail on the head with his first paragraph. BUSH'S WAR FOR OIL WAS ONLY TO MEET THE U.S. DEMAND FOR EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION. If you disagree with the war, why do you consume so much? stupid americans
  7. if you'll be there longer than a month or two, you should live on Oahu. if you're just gonna visit for a shorter time, Maui or Kauai is the island you wanna live on. Maui or Kauai has all the magical beauty of hawaii, the nature, the beautiful beaches, the great camping spots in the mountains... Oahu has beautiful spots as well, but it's not as pristine. the advantage of Oahu is that it has a real city with the advantages of modern civilization including an efficient and clean bus system, as well a night life, and then getting to the beautiful untouched natural parts of the island never takes longer than a half hour or so. Kauai and Maui are more natural and feel more like Hawaii, but like i said, if you're gonna live there longer than a month, you'll need the variety Oahu has to offer, because living on one of the more pristine islands will get old: they're more narrow minded, everyone knows each other, and they'll nose into your business... basically all the drawbacks of a small redneck town.
  8. "Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously, he said."
  9. off the subject, but you can't compare jimi hendrix to anyone today for the simple fact that history/time/nostalgia made him great. during hendrix's time, there were many people who hated him. perhaps our children in ther future will revere someone you or I can't stand today as a genius. so give up the analysis of who is great, it will always be subject to history's perception. oh, and einstien definitely was great, but relativity was the first revolution in scientific thought since Sir Isaac Newton, who passed away over 200 years before Einstien. So don't be expecting any new paradigm shift in scientific thinking to occur anytime soon.
  10. yay! more corporate stores....this time encroaching on independant organic grocers. it wasn't enough that chains like albertsons and safeway leave no competition for independant grocers... no, we need a chain now to get rid of the last vestige of independant grocery retailers: organic health food. glad your job gives you great benefits, i hear starbucks also treats their employees quite well
  11. yes, people's beliefs are ruining our lives, because they make important decisions in arenas that matter like voting, legislation, and what is taught to our children in schools, based on irrational beliefs that have no basis in reality.
  12. 9th garde physics? if thats your basis of understanding time, you should give my argument a bit more thought. i've taking so much calculus-based physics as an undergraduate, you would be blown away. throughout all my studies, time has never been more than an arbitrary social-construct to describe a standardized spacing between two or more seperate events. if you've studied sub-atomic chemistry, as well as astronomy, you would see that time is irrelavent on micro and macro scales, showing that time is much more relevant on anthropologic and geologic scales: essentially, what it means to the human mind and the human environment. how is the speed of light relavant when physicists cant even understand how light is both a particle and a wave? i've actually gotten my idea of time from well-renowned physicists i've studied under. they are all just hypothesizing, but no physical or theoretical evidence is arguing against it yet. time being a social construct of the human mind isnt proven, but nothing exists to disprove it, and must therefore be further investigated, and that right there is the basis of science. if you prove me wrong, i'll accept it, but i'll continue to think so until then
  13. my view on religion ties in with what i learned while studying ethnobotany as an undergraduate. i would repeatedly read how many old cultures held supernatural beliefs that obviously aren't true from a scientifical perspective, but ensured the survival of the tribe. one example was a south american tribe that held the belief that a certain species of red ants were spirtual and thus the ants were revered as deities. a special protective law was placed on the ants so that no one could harm them. it turns out that the ants were pollenators of the tribe's staple crop. if the ants were killed, they can't pollenate the crop, and the village will starve. even though the average person of that tribe doesn't comprehend how pollenation works, their religion ensures that the pollenation will happen. this validates that religion is an irrational belief to explain something they can't yet comprehend, yet it is beneficial to believe since it ensures survival. what's important to understand is that the irrational religious beliefs are only beneficial to the place and time that they were initially used, and when taken out of that context, it is no longer valid, and in fact can be harmful. take homophobia, it makes sense to say homosexuality will damn you to hell back in a time when infant mortality was high, and more people reproducing ensured survival, and having children gave you people to help work your crops. but homophobia doesn't make sense today when infant mortality is low, and enough people are having children to ensure a stable population growth. not everyone needs to reproduce. homophobia is like people outside of that village still worshipping the red ant, even though the crop that it pollenates doesn't even grow there. it's an irrational belief, and it's not beneficial to believe it. all these stupid religious beliefs people hold today made sense at some point. basically, these judeo-based rules (christianity, islam, and judaism) made it easy for a ruling class: it's a lot easier to govern a large population if everyone believed that there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and invisible person watching their every move, and going to punish them for doing things that are harmful to their survival. religion may have worked at a place and time, but science has been a lot more effective at telling us what's better for our survival. science is the new religion, without the boogieman/santaclaws factor
  14. i watched that hour-long video that browner provided a link for. it did a good job articulating with great examples what i've always thought about the media. basically it's conservative in that it protects the interests of large corporations since the media is in fact owned by these large corporations. there are some loose ends left by some of the statements in the video, that i thought should have been further addressed, basically statements that rely on the presupposition that you already agree with them, which i thought was faulty on their part. kabar, try to spend the hour watching it, even if it starts stating things you greatly disagree with, just stick it out for the entire hour.
×
×
  • Create New...