Game: Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer

[SD_Ryoko]

Q: Are Vegetarians allowed to eat animal crackers?

 

[Chaoscontrol]

A:beacuase they want to seem smart to make up for their stupdity in real life...
Q: Where in the world is carmen sandiego?hehe

 

[Chaoscontrol]

whoops you ansewed while i was typeing...sorry

 

[The Helper]

SD_Ryoko - yes they are but they are supposed to feel guilty about it.

Carmen San Diego is in your mind.

Who was the first Blizzard Forums MVP?

 

[XXXconanXXX]

A. Teehee, you. (if I'm correct)

Q. Why has Starcraft: Ghost been "almost released" for over 3 years now?

 

[The Helper]

It's all Nihilistic's fault....

What is the meaning of life? lol SD_Ryoko

 

[SD_Ryoko]

A: If you (not to my knowing) followed my history of posts to Mind, my meaning of life is reproduction. If no one got it on, we wouldn't exist. So PLEASE, get it on.

Q: If a 'fly' didn't have wings, would they call it a 'walk' ??

(ooooooohhhh)

 

[Rinpun]

A. Yes. Unfortunately, the Chinese would no longer call their frying shallow pots a "wok", a "fly", and I don't know why. v_v


Q. Why is it called Schizophrenia? Doctors have to be smarter than that to call it such a short name....

 

[Mind]

A: Definitely, this is the dumbest possible answer.

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko:
A: If you (not to my knowing) followed my history of posts to Mind, my meaning of life is reproduction. If no one got it on, we wouldn't exist. So PLEASE, get it on.

meaning

adj : rich in significance or implication; "a meaning look"; "pregnant with meaning" [syn: meaning(a), pregnant, significant] n 1: the message that is intended or expressed or signified; "what is the meaning of this sentence"; "the significance of a red traffic light"; "the signification of Chinese characters"; "the import of his announcement was ambigtuous" [syn: significance, signification, import] 2: the idea that is intended; "What is the meaning of this proverb?" [syn: substance]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Main Entry:
meaning

Part of Speech:
noun

Definition:
intention

Synonyms:
aim, animus, design, end, goal, idea, intendment, intent, interest, object, plan, point, purpose, trend

No matter how you interpret the word "meaning", your rhetoric, in my insight, makes no sense. How does reproduction benefit us?

Reproduction means, though insignificantly, intensifying the global overpopulation and pollution. Indirectly, it is also an egocentric deed…

Your belief concerning the aim of life reminds me of bacteria, constantly reproducing themselves as mindless, aimless slaves of nature.

Q: Why was Bush elected?

Yes, I am conscious that that is a humorless question, but I simply could not find anything better.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

A: Because the freak protesters from 'Not one damn dime' were unsucessful.

My answer? The whole point you miss. If no one did, no one would exist. Not even us. Bacteria? Exactly! Compare the earth to the orange. An orange has billions of bacteria on its skin, even after washing.

Q: If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it considered a hostage situation?

 

[Mind]

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko
My answer? The whole point you miss. If no one did, no one would exist. Not even us.

How is that our concern? Does the destiny of humanity influence our own after our deaths? In a word, no.

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko
Bacteria? Exactly! Compare the earth to the orange. An orange has billions of bacteria on its skin, even after washing.

If that is supposed to be an argument, please explain it.

Yes, I know this sounds cynical and arrogant, but I don't intend to make it sound so.

In fact, I used a slightly wrong comparison; Bacteria are useful, while we are not. Bacteria cause certain matter to slowly decompose. In this matter, they help us digest our food, but are also slightly hostile to us.

We, however, rapidly destroy what is essential to every living entity we know, without any purpose.

At the other hand, we, humans, are very useful to nature in the long run. In future, our race will terrasformate other planets, enabling them to be inhabited and plants to overgrow them.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

Originally posted by Mind
In fact, I used a slightly wrong comparison; Bacteria are useful, while we are not. Bacteria cause certain matter to slowly decompose. In this matter, they help us digest our food, but are also slightly hostile to us.

We, however, rapidly destroy what is essential to every living entity we know, without any purpose.

Are you saying Chlamydia is usefull?

[edit]

Oops.

Q: Is chlamydia is usefull? (now there are 2 q's queued)

 

[Rinpun]

A1. Depends which side gets the lawyer first.

A2. To the bacteria, yes it is useful. To the human, no.

(Honestly, why have this debate? You can NEVER be sure exactly what life is about. Can't be about reproduction because you can simply choose to stay single and not reproduce, and I don't believe anything cataclysmic will happen. Everyone has their own opinion, so there is, to a certain extent, no real "meaning" of life. My thoughts on the matter may be considered "corrupt" as I am Christian.

I suppose that life is about giving glory to God, though people will most likely oppose me and state that this "God" doesn't exist. I also theorize that reproducing is not the goal of life, for not every human reproduces. And, certainly, every human has their own goal in life that they always reach, and I'm not talking about wishing to be rich or wishing to be the Playboy of a mansion. Rather, I'm talking about a preprogrammed goal, which is causing an impact on the humans around you and leading to something being done in the future. Whatever you do, you're always effecting SOMEBODY in either a negative or positive way.

So life isn't about reproduction, for you could be changing the world by NOT reproducing. Chances are, it will not cause anything having to really do with population, but rather a possibly better or worse marriage/relationship on whoever you were getting together with had you decided that reproduction was your goal.

And it isn't about drugs either, for drugs cause more negative than positive effects in the long run, and so I highly suggest they not be done, but this point is rather off-topic.

I refuse to believe we're the only ones destroying nature. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but bacteria, as you two vaguely mention in your posts, do destructive things to other animals and us. I believe their goal is to just live, and by any means necessary. Chlamydae are that kind of bacteria. If they have to kill a human or a dog to reproduce, so be it. Humans, actually, have the same idea, just warped in the way that we feel we have something called "emotion" and that we absolutely, positively have to feed it. I'm talking about pleasure.

To a Human, if shooting a bird or chopping down a tree creates pleasure, so be it, he will do just that. Ask yourself why that is wrong. Can you come up with an answer?)

Q. What is the difference between an Evolutionist and a monkey? That is, excluding the "evolutionary difference" that an evolutionist may suggest.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

A: The evolutionist will probobly get Clamydia, while the monkey probobly will not.

Q: Why do kraft macroni and cheese box's have a push and pull on thebox, when neither one works?

 

[Mind]

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko
Q: Why do kraft macroni and cheese box's have a push and pull on thebox, when neither one works?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Seriously, I don't.

Ah, isn't this the dumbest answer in the entire thread?

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko
Are you saying Chlamydia is usefull?

[edit]

Oops.

Q: Is chlamydia is usefull? (now there are 2 q's queued)

Of course, there are exceptions, but the majority of the microbes and nanobes are essential to all life.

Originally posted by Rinpun
…so there is, to a certain extent, no real "meaning" of life.

As I said earlier, the only purpose of life is enjoying it.

Originally posted by Rinpun
I suppose that life is about giving glory to God, though people will most likely oppose me and state that this "God" doesn't exist.

I don't consider it as entirely impossible that there is an entity which could be vaguely compared to a god - although I regard this idea extremely sceptically, because I simply can't proof the contrary.

Originally posted by Rinpun
I refuse to believe we're the only ones destroying nature. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but bacteria, as you two vaguely mention in your posts, do destructive things to other animals and us.

Some bacteria are hostile, but most are essential to our survival, as I explained in my previous post.

Originally posted by Rinpun
To a Human, if shooting a bird or chopping down a tree creates pleasure, so be it, he will do just that. Ask yourself why that is wrong. Can you come up with an answer?)

There is this emotion called "sadism", but there is also this emotion called "empathy".
Sadism was born from empathy, and only intelligent life forms know empathy.

Of course, there is no rational explanation for emotions, thus your question can't be properly answered.

However, we can't empathize beings whose torment we can not see.

How ironic. This thread was supposed to be absurd and hilarious, but transformed into a philosophical debate.

Originally posted by Rinpun
Q. What is the difference between an Evolutionist and a monkey? That is, excluding the "evolutionary difference" that an evolutionist may suggest.

There is none, definitely.

Do you consider the Theory of Evolution as idiocy, or was that merely a joke?

The latter, I hope.

Q: Why mustn't I ingest saltpeter-acid?

 

[Rinpun]

A. Why do you not?

Q. Why does brown snow taste good?

(The first quote was Ryoko's not mine. *Sigh*

Exactly, you can't prove or disprove God. Same with Evolution, except that quite a few Evolutionists mysteriously believe that Evolution is totally right and is proved and that God is disproved. Psh....

Exactly, the whole idea was that you CAN'T answer that question. It is rhetorical, and as far as I know, Ryoko believes he can solve it according to his believes.

It is surely philosophical. Perhaps we should move this particular discussion to another thread.

Of course it was a joke. IMO, it is idiocy to insult. If you feel the person's wrong, why not just say it either in your mind or flat out to them without accompanying pathetic adjectives? Of course, maybe now I'm condemning myself as an idiot, as I'm insulting the whole idea of insulting O_O

I personally think the Theory of Evolution is just wrong, but that is simply taken on faith--it can't be proved and it can't be disproved. Same as my belief in Christianity. I take on faith it is true, but it may not be. It doesn't mean I'm stupid to think so, though, since Evolutionists act a lot like Christians with the exception that each has a different theory and acts differently with it.

I think like a mathematician, and perhaps that may be my undoing one day. We think that everything is either "right" or "wrong". Being direct, we can accomplish much, but I suppose that everyone who has the idea of "sorta right" and "sorta wrong" will get very, very mad.)

 

[SD_Ryoko]

^ This IS becomming the stupid question thread.
.|

A: Because brown snow is like fine wine, it gets better with age.

Q: How do we know that we all don't see different colors, but we were just raised to call them staple names, like green and blue?

Maybe your blue is my green, but we were both taught to call them blue, no matter what we see.

 

[Mind]

A: Perhaps by describing the colors we see, we could find out.

The colors of this forum are warm and exciting.

Originally posted by Rinpun
I personally think the Theory of Evolution is just wrong, but that is simply taken on faith--it can't be proved and it can't be disproved. Same as my belief in Christianity. I take on faith it is true, but it may not be. It doesn't mean I'm stupid to think so, though, since Evolutionists act a lot like Christians with the exception that each has a different theory and acts differently with it.

There is evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct: Archeologists found skeletons of many of our ancestors, such as the Homo Habilis and the Homo Erectus.

Also, the genetic material of the chimpanzee is nearly 95% similar to our genetic material.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

How are we supposed to contribute with no question to answer?

And some threads have to answer to the question!

Originally posted by Mind
There is evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct: Archeologists found skeletons of many of our ancestors, such as the Homo Habilis and the Homo Erectus.

Also, the genetic material of the chimpanzee is nearly 95% similar to our genetic material.

Go with the 'Half' theory. We evolved, a higher power helped us do it. Too many missing links. Thats where it ties together.

Q: Does a one legged duck swim in circles?

 

[Mind]

A: Yes, but vertically.

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko
Go with the 'Half' theory. We evolved, a higher power helped us do it. Too many missing links. Thats where it ties together.

Higher power? We call this "Natural Selection" in modern terms.

Q: Is the answer to this question false?