The Debate Hall Social Thread

[adumbrodeus]

RDK, you remember him as SOLID.

 

[GoldShadow]

This needs to stop.

So what? I suppose I should thank you for the clarification, but that still doesn't change anything. He made a dumb-*** call, and I'm questioning it. Excuse me for wondering where the hell he's been for all these years, but not that it matters.

EE does a lot of work behind the scenes, like CK said. The debate hall would not even exist today in the proper form that it does were it not for their work. Moreover, I have known EE and a lot of the work he's done on this site for some years now. I respect him and I trust his judgment. I have known CK and a lot of the work he's done on this site. I respect him and I trust his judgment too.

Don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not trying to insult you, but you yourself said you don't even really know EE. You think that just because he hasn't made as many posts on this board as you have, he is an unqualified nobody. By that logic, Gideon should have had no power over SWF back when he was still running the site; after all, he was almost invisible in the later years, right? The fact that you are not familiar with EE does not mean he shouldn't be making decisions. Rather, it means that you are in no position to criticize him.

Succumbio on the other hand is relatively new. His debating skills aren't up to par and he has a few things to work on before helping other people, let alone being a mod.

I've been a main player in the DH since 2006. Who is more qualified to moderate the Proving Grounds? Me or Succumbio?

CK and EE already said that debating skills were not the most important aspect of a PG moderator.

Moreover, your sense of entitlement based on the length of time you've been here is shocking. I have been on SWF since 2003. This is my first moderator position. If I had a nickel for every time somebody who joined after me became a moderator, or super moderator, or senator, or administrator, or evil overlord (and I'm not just referring to the DH, I mean any of the areas that I frequent), I'd be a rich man. I never cared. I never had a sense of entitlement. This is because I realized that these other people were more fitting for the position at the time that they received it. Maybe it was because I didn't have time and didn't frequent a specific board when they were choosing moderators; maybe it was because that person's personality or specific skillset was more valuable to the position than mine; maybe it was any of a thousand other variables that were simply out of my control.

I never cared because I never had any expectation of becoming a moderator. I figured, if it happened, it happened; if it didn't, it didn't. No use in making it out to be anything more than that.

I don't harbor any ill will toward CK, EE, Azua, Scav, LT, tmw, Livvers, McFox, or countless others who became mods of rooms I frequented. I'm happy for them, and our relationships are unchanged.

I didn't expect to be picked, or even considered, for this DH moderator position. I was taken aback when CK and EE petitioned me. I accepted because I felt it would be a privilege, and because I may finally have the chance to give something back to the SWF community that has been my "e-home" for so many years.

The problem isn't who was appointed to be moderator. The problem is what is being done to boost activity in here, and we're going about it in the wrong way.

Like that matters. We've been trying to "reform" the DH ever since I joined. The "reform the DH" thread comes up every 6 months or so. Believe it.

This is understandable, and you're right. Upping the activity in this place has been an issue for some time.

Perhaps you have been suggesting changes for some years now, and you have yet to see them materialize. I would be unhappy about this too. Perhaps the moderators in this forum in years past could have done a better job implementing changes. They are partly to blame, but they are only human. Perhaps it was partly a result of this forum being understaffed in the recent past.

Who knows? Who cares? Grow up, stop complaining and get over it. What's done is done. Now, you've got me and Sucumbio, the new additions, as well as EE and CK. This time, we're going to get it right; we have active moderators for each board, plus overseers. We've got more ideas flowing in from all the debaters than ever before. Forget the past. Throw your ideas at us again, even if they've fallen on deaf ears before. Maybe this time, we'll get it right. I certainly think we can.



Finally, I want to quash the Sucumbio-bashing. Whatever criticisms you may have, Sucumbio was chosen based on his merits and fitness for position as PG mod. I support him and think he will do very well in this position. Moreover, EE and CK appear to hold the same opinion, and I trust their judgment.

If you feel you would have made a better moderator than any of us, that's fine. Keep posting, and perhaps in the future, you'll receive a moderator position too. In the meantime, this is the team we have. I think we will accomplish a lot of positive things with everybody's help. It would be in everybody's best interests to stop complaining and arguing (except in debates, of course!) and work together to better everybody's experience in the Debate Hall.

Anyway, sorry to add to the Social Thread clutter. If there are any more issues, please take it to PMs.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't take it personally, D but there seems to be a serious lack of understanding going on here, so let me clarify.

There is absolutely -no- reason why ANY Debate Hall member cannot help foster PG hopefuls (restrictions aside, I realize not all DH members retained their access to the PG but that can be fixed, just ask). My job is purely administrative. I neither require nor expect anything from anyone except the obvious. PG members are there because they want access to post in the Debate Hall; to participate in Debate Hall debates. There was a vacuum in both forums due to lack of mod support. I took the initiative to bring it to CK's attention, and here we are. If its clout you want, or a shiny red name, then you're petty. I didn't volunteer for this assignment because of any such reason. It's because I truly believe that I'll be able to keep a closer eye on PG hopefuls better than most other posters -based on the activity since my own arrival in the PG-. Excuses for one's personal involvement in the boards are irrelevant in general and to this discussion. The whole point of this most recent reform movement is because the most active posters were tired of the dead zone. Now that we actually tried to change things -and succeeded- a few vets from the woodwork wanna come out and cry foul. No dice. You had your chances, you all did, and sat by while it happened, and now you want to complain? Well instead of complaining, DO SOMETHING, make good suggestions, -participate- ... this is not my forum, or CK's, or EE's, or Vraels, or KG's, it's all of ours, every DH member alike, and its with combined vision that we accomplish.

As for the PG, it doesn't mean it's ONLY my job to foster debate skills in new posters. That's EVERYONE'S job who cares to do so. If you don't want to do that, then don't! Just post in here. But if you seriously think you're that good at debate that you can offer support BY ALL MEANS do so, it's not like it'll harm anything.

I don't think he's qualified for the job. And I'm not the only one.

This is a baseless opinion. Identifying posts that violate the TOS and doling out infractions? Easy. Coordinating with EE and GS? Yep. Coming in here and posting the names of PG hopefuls for review. No sweat. Giving debate pointers? Well considering I was a debate coach for 2 years, yeah I think I have it covered. And remember, RDK it's not what you say, it's how you say it. If you were more professional in your approach, I'm sure you'd have been strongly considered. But when a coaching opportunity presents itself, what do you do? You patronize. You brow beat. That's not conducive to ... anything. This isn't schoolyard rules, this is intellectual discourse. The irony is that you fault posters for being ignorant, when you're on here as well trying to hold teatime discourse with teenage video game addicts. We can't have it both ways, either we accept that we're trying to talk shop with minors and mostly non-intellectuals, (or sub-par debaters as you classify) or we just don't have an online debate hall at all.

By the way if you don't mind my asking, who's been let into the DH from the PG since Succumbio's appointment?

mariobrowser's the only one that's come up for consideration, and EE let him in after putting it up for vote, and no one said "no." next for consideration is werekill, and though aesir did point out his issue, CK has even said he'd give him another chance, so it's now up to EE to decide. He's thinking he needs more time, I think it's up to him, but imho he's ready.

next up will be C-stick (he got back to me, he's interested, gave him the drill) and omnicron (who has also got back to me, and has started back up in the PG) and both with the expectation that it'd not be more than a week or so, due to the fact that they already showed their stuff ages ago, just gave up basically because of the time issue.

The problem isn't who was appointed to be moderator. The problem is what is being done to boost activity in here, and we're going about it in the wrong way.

This is the only intelligent thing you've said since you started throwing flames like a drag queen on broadway in winter. Of which I take no offense, btw. I understand your frustration. But now that you've brought it up, what do YOU think we should be doing? "We're going about it in the wrong way." Ok, what's the RIGHT way? eh? The consensus (that you WERE here for, but made no attempt to input on, even after I was obviously soliciting YOU for input) is that the DH entrance requirements should be relaxed. We have two ends of the spectrum. blazed is on one end, all for just opening the doors wide open. He's agreed however that just won't work, too lax, too open... the PG's gotta stay, and effort needs to take place in there, its not just a stop-gap, it is a place for DH members to evaluate their debate technique and ability. So, please... speak up and make it known what you think would be a better way to improve the DH, to increase activity, to better utilize what few systems we have in place.

 

[CRASHiC]

Honestly, there was another nod he deserved, that he ended up getting passed up for this reason.

What? RDK as mod? Yeah, let's make me mod of Media Metropolis and pool room while we are at it, and Falcon mod of Blogs, and Pink Reaper mod of Pokecenter, and Gates mod of Light House. Trolls don't make mods.

 

[RDK]

Ok, what's the RIGHT way? eh? The consensus (that you WERE here for, but made no attempt to input on, even after I was obviously soliciting YOU for input) is that the DH entrance requirements should be relaxed. We have two ends of the spectrum. blazed is on one end, all for just opening the doors wide open. He's agreed however that just won't work, too lax, too open... the PG's gotta stay, and effort needs to take place in there, its not just a stop-gap, it is a place for DH members to evaluate their debate technique and ability. So, please... speak up and make it known what you think would be a better way to improve the DH, to increase activity, to better utilize what few systems we have in place.

It's a little late for that. For the entire duration of our time in the DH I and others threw out ideas for what we thought would make a better Debate Hall and we got snubbed. Not just on one occasion, but multiple times.

Enjoy your extended inactivity.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

It's a little late for that. For the entire duration of our time in the DH I and others threw out ideas for what we thought would make a better Debate Hall and we got snubbed. Not just on one occasion, but multiple times.

Enjoy your extended inactivity.

Wow, that's a lotta salt.

You know, I'll try to be a voice of reason to all of this.

RDK, I do see how you could be a little salty that you didn't get the nod. You have been here for a hot minute, and for a while were quite good @ it too. Shoot, I even modeled my debate style after yours in all honesty. You're a great debater, and I know that one day you'll get yours.

@ Sucumbio--I can see where RDK is coming @ as well. Maybe he sees that you holding this position is some flavor of the month BS. I for one don't, but becoming one of the brass surely depends on the time and the place. You were making the PG interesting again, which IMHO you got the spot (amongst other reasons). A year ago, who knows, that could have been someone else, but it's no good to dwell on the what-ifs and just focus on the what-is.

I know firsthand what it's like to want a spot pretty badly. I'll admit, that I was a little aggressive (shoot, more like a full court press ) when I wanted to get the mod spot for the Meet & Greet. However, I got a little angry, and those chances flew out the window. Instead of being recalcitrant about it though, I decided to build from the ashes, change my tone, and not be, well, so sanctimonious about what I want out of posting in a given thread so much. I feel that it has made me a better member on the boards here, and may one day prove to be an added bonus. In what way, I don't know, but it's just feels like the right thing to do.

So, you can actually g@me on aim to talk about this further and what not. I know you feel a little bit crummy, but keep your head up. You'll pull through.

 

[blazedaces]

GM Recalling 1.5M Vehicles Over Fire Concerns

Interesting story that I overheard at work yesterday, thought I'd bring it up.

Not much to debate, but until I heard this story I was under the perception that GM was doing incredibly well, joining up with google and the droid, bla bla bla, etc. Then again, recalls are not as uncommon as people think, and this recall is no where near as big on the scale as the Toyota incident...

Any thoughts?

-blazed

 

[Evil Eye]

The Toyota incident will definitely overshadow the severity of this one; just the same, there are some PR concerns, most notably GM's near-implosion during the global recession. That, in conjunction with this recall, is bound to shake their stock up a bit.

However, it seems they learned from Toyota's example and are recalling due to "concerns" -- as opposed to "incidents".

 

[Evil Eye]

Alright, looked into Werekill more. I like him... for the most part. Interesting views, will definitely add spice to the Hall. I'd just like more clarity and expounding upon the points in his posts. Just more of everything debatery in general.

I don't have a join request from him, but as soon as he sends me one he has a new shade of pink to enjoy.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, sometimes Werekill will post a head-scratcher but he does a fairly good job for the most part.

--------------------------------------------

RDK, go to forum support, not here. But to fair, pretty much everyone in this argument has been whiny. Enough of this. This argument doesn't belong in the social thread.

 

[Crimson King]

I'd like to discuss my ideas for outside interaction. Skyler and I are cool, so I will bring it up here first.

AIM debates in the PRoom. What we can do is have a few of you guys serve as mediator with EE, Sucumbio, or GS as a watcher and host an AIM debate with PRoomers. I expect low activity, but I would like to post the chat logs (edited to just the argument) to generate interest.

While a prize is kind of pointless, we could offer a title and debate critique.

 

[blazedaces]

I'd like to discuss my ideas for outside interaction. Skyler and I are cool, so I will bring it up here first.

AIM debates in the PRoom. What we can do is have a few of you guys serve as mediator with EE, Sucumbio, or GS as a watcher and host an AIM debate with PRoomers. I expect low activity, but I would like to post the chat logs (edited to just the argument) to generate interest.

While a prize is kind of pointless, we could offer a title and debate critique.

I have a suggestion to make:

In another forum I once used (it was actually a forum about an MMORPG I played once, but that doesn't have any relevance to the suggestion) there was quite literally a chatbox INSIDE the forum.

The chat box was actually just a form of instantaneous, short, forum posts, but it looked like a chatbox. You could actually click on an icon next to the chat and it would open up to what looked like a thread with all chat posts, by date, listed. In my mind, it was probably programmed as a thread that simply updated in real time and any time someone typed something and clicked enter it was posted. Like I said, it looked just like a chat box, but behind the scenes operated just like a thread.

I'm willing to bet that SWF could easily utilize an existing extension using the website's content management system to implement this (if you have experience in web design at all you probably know what I'm talking about).

And of course, there's always the old DC++ chat that I remember I used years ago in connection with this forum (correct me if I'm remembering the wrong thing).

Yeah, so anyway, something to think about and I do like the idea of a hosted aim debate/discussion. It would certainly be fun.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

The Toyota incident will definitely overshadow the severity of this one; just the same, there are some PR concerns, most notably GM's near-implosion during the global recession. That, in conjunction with this recall, is bound to shake their stock up a bit.

However, it seems they learned from Toyota's example and are recalling due to "concerns" -- as opposed to "incidents".

That's how a company should be acting, you know doing the right thing. If a company knows it's product is junk and they still sell it presenting it as something else, that's bad. But when it turns out their product can be potentially fatal that borders criminal.

Glad to see GM has matured and no longer does what it use to do. Aka ignore problems and hire PI's against people who try to do the right thing.

 

[blazedaces]

That's how a company should be acting, you know doing the right thing. If a company knows it's product is junk and they still sell it presenting it as something else, that's bad. But when it turns out their product can be potentially fatal that borders criminal.

Glad to see GM has matured and no longer does what it use to do. Aka ignore problems and hire PI's against people who try to do the right thing.

I have had almost no sleep the last 48 hours and am under the influence of tons of caffeine (it's finals week)... but what does "PI" stand for?

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Private Investigators.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'd like to discuss my ideas for outside interaction. Skyler and I are cool, so I will bring it up here first.

AIM debates in the PRoom. What we can do is have a few of you guys serve as mediator with EE, Sucumbio, or GS as a watcher and host an AIM debate with PRoomers. I expect low activity, but I would like to post the chat logs (edited to just the argument) to generate interest.

While a prize is kind of pointless, we could offer a title and debate critique.

This is a cool idea. Here's my thoughts:


Pros:
1. Creates a neat synergy/interconnectivity between the PR and DH.
2. Allows us to implement time limits, especially if this is going to have something to do with the Debate Hall Activities Thread.
3. Makes debates move faster.

Cons:
1. Due to being open to the public and being on AIM, debates could become VERY spammy.
2. Could bring activity to the DH, but there needs to be some incentive for people who enjoy these debates to apply to the PG. Otherwise, they would just not apply, but they would still be able to be in the AIM debates since anyone can be in the PR.
3. Inability to edit posts is a bit worrisome, but is a minor hindrance.

 

[Sieguest]

Been out of town for a little, and did absolutely nothing. While I was gone though I did some thinking about life.
I always here people talking about "protecting free will" and stuff related to that, but do we really have free will? Can we actually make a decision completely unbiased in any way whatsoever? The more I thought about, the more farfetched I found the idea to be. Any thoughts?

Also, the outside interaction thing sounds pretty cool.

 

[blazedaces]

Been out of town for a little, and did absolutely nothing. While I was gone though I did some thinking about life.
I always here people talking about "protecting free will" and stuff related to that, but do we really have free will? Can we actually make a decision completely unbiased in any way whatsoever? The more I thought about, the more farfetched I found the idea to be. Any thoughts?

Also, the outside interaction thing sounds pretty cool.

I haven't looked in debate hall archives in a while, but there have been multiple threads about this EXACT debate. It's an age old one too...

So let me ask you, if you don't believe in free will are you a complete determinist?

Also, welcome to the DH! Glad to have ya...

-blazed

 

[Reaver197]

The idea of "free will" is merely an illusory by product of how the human mind operates. Our "decisions" and actions are largely predetermined by our unconscious processes before we are even consciously aware of them.

 

[blazedaces]

The idea of "free will" is merely an illusory by product of how the human mind operates. Our "decisions" and actions are largely predetermined by our unconscious processes before we are even consciously aware of them.

... how does this make free will an illusion? You're just saying that a lot of decisions are made underneath the surface... not that no choice is ever made...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

A better argument is we're a byproduct of our environment. Which begs the question if free will exists at all.

 

[Sieguest]

I haven't looked in debate hall archives in a while, but there have been multiple threads about this EXACT debate. It's an age old one too...

So let me ask you, if you don't believe in free will are you a complete determinist?

Also, welcome to the DH! Glad to have ya...

-blazed

Whoops, I didn't search far back enough. Sorry.

I guess you could say that. The way I think on it is this. Every decision we make was influenced by another decision.

Why did you get up this morning?
Didn't want to stay in bed all day/thought of something you wanted to do.

Why did you come on smashboards?
Check for any new posts in any places of interests/read stuff

There is always an answer to the "why" question as to an action. Because of that I don't see free will as free will is completely uninfluenced by any factors.

Thanks for the welcome by the way. Much appreciated.

 

[blazedaces]

Whoops, I didn't search far back enough. Sorry.

I guess you could say that. The way I think on it is this. Every decision we make was influenced by another decision.

Why did you get up this morning?
Didn't want to stay in bed all day/thought of something you wanted to do.

Why did you come on smashboards?
Check for any new posts in any places of interests/read stuff

There is always an answer to the "why" question as to an action. Because of that I don't see free will as free will is completely uninfluenced by any factors.

Thanks for the welcome by the way. Much appreciated.

I've heard this argument before... but is "a reason" the only way to make something not have free will?

So if a choice is made randomly is that free will? Doesn't really fit in my eyes... so how do you define free will while we're discussing this?

-blazed

 

[Sieguest]

I've heard this argument before... but is "a reason" the only way to make something not have free will?

So if a choice is made randomly is that free will? Doesn't really fit in my eyes... so how do you define free will while we're discussing this?

-blazed

The second definition here is how I define free will:

2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

And that's just it, is it even possible to make a truly random decision?

Now looking at the first definition I saw in the source I provided:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice

I can see how one can say that we have free will, but then I'm left with the question of whether our free will isn't derived from free will (From comparing the two definitions). Can free will exist as something not of itself?

 

[Aesir]

I wish I had the luxury of dropping out of debates because I'm being ganged up against. I've been tempted a few times during those gun control debates, talk about a headache.

 

[blazedaces]

Personally, I've never liked that definition of free will. Because it's defined in such a way as to be non-existent.

I asked my philosophy professor once what a good definition of free will would be, and he gave me one by a famous philosopher (can't remember the name):

The ability to change your choice.

If you can prove to me that people can't change their choice then you can prove to me that we don't have free will. In my eyes, I don't like making choices that don't have reason behind them, but that doesn't mean I think I don't have free will. I'd prefer to go through life making reasonable choices. But because I can change a choice I previously made at any time, I have free will...

-blazed

 

[Sieguest]

I'll give that a go.

In terms of chronology, you can't "change" your choice, you just make another choice. Think of how time never stops, if you make a decision at X time then that's all ready history. You can't take back the fact that at X time you made X decision. Truly changing it would mean going back to that exact moment in time and making Y decision instead of X, doing so any later is just making another decision in its respective moment of time, it may happen to be on the other side of a spectrum, but it's still its own respective place in history, just as the previous decision you made has its spot etched in history.

 

[Lore]

I've never really been someone who enjoys debates about free will, so I'll stay out of this one.

Does anyone have an opinion on bringing back the "quick list?" Personally, I think that it would be an easy way to see what everyone thinks about different issues.

 

[blazedaces]

I'll give that a go.

In terms of chronology, you can't "change" your choice, you just make another choice. Think of how time never stops, if you make a decision at X time then that's all ready history. You can't take back the fact that at X time you made X decision. Truly changing it would mean going back to that exact moment in time and making Y decision instead of X, doing so any later is just making another decision in its respective moment of time, it may happen to be on the other side of a spectrum, but it's still its own respective place in history, just as the previous decision you made has its spot etched in history.

How are you defining decision/choice? Making a choice can't be the same as taking an action... they are not synonyms. I'm not saying that the second we are able to make time machines go back in time we will have free will... that doesn't really make sense to me anyway...

I've never really been someone who enjoys debates about free will, so I'll stay out of this one.

Does anyone have an opinion on bringing back the "quick list?" Personally, I think that it would be an easy way to see what everyone thinks about different issues.

I personally never liked that thread... and never posted in it either... You could always re-make the thread, and if it's popular enough it'll get stickied...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I liked it, gave us ideas what to make threads on. if I saw people were divided on an issue I would make a thread on it.

I say you should ask better questions, like actual issue based questions lol.

 

[Sieguest]

How are you defining decision/choice? Making a choice can't be the same as taking an action... they are not synonyms. I'm not saying that the second we are able to make time machines go back in time we will have free will... that doesn't really make sense to me anyway...

I'm not talking about taking action. I'm talking about making a conscious decision starting in your mind. You still made that decision at X time so it's forever placed there chronologically to change that decision would mean you would have to go to that exact time and make it Y decision in X time. But as you and I both know, we can't do that. So chronologically we can't change our choice. Meaning even by the definition you've given of free will, we don't have it.

And I know that you're not saying that if we had time machines we would have free will. It's that I'm saying that we would have to have time machines to have free will.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm interested in making a thread regarding Morgan Freeman's "Through the Worm Hole". We could all watch the episodes as they go along and discuss 'em.

If you haven't seen the first episode (I haven't either yet) here's the link. I'll be watching it later tonight

http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/69252

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm not talking about taking action. I'm talking about making a conscious decision starting in your mind. You still made that decision at X time so it's forever placed there chronologically to change that decision would mean you would have to go to that exact time and make it Y decision in X time. But as you and I both know, we can't do that. So chronologically we can't change our choice. Meaning even by the definition you've given of free will, we don't have it.

And I know that you're not saying that if we had time machines we would have free will. It's that I'm saying that we would have to have time machines to have free will.

I don't think that our inability to influence events in the past (it may be possible through some weird physics that I'm not familiar with), constitutes a lack of freewill in the present.

I'm honestly unsure about freewill.

 

[Evil Eye]

Stayed up way too late and sleeping now. What is "Through the Worm Hole"? Its name alone entices me.

 

[Dre89]

I have a really stupid question.

I was watching a documentary about meteorites and it was basically saying that the universe is trying to destroy Earth.

They then showed a massive empty crater in the ground, saying that a meteorite landed there.

My question is, if a meteorite landed there, why isn't the meteorite there?

 

[Sieguest]

I don't think that our inability to influence events in the past (it may be possible through some weird physics that I'm not familiar with), constitutes a lack of freewill in the present.

I'm honestly unsure about freewill.

I'll reference blazedaces's definition first. And his challenge.

The ability to change your choice.

If you can prove to me that people can't change their choice then you can prove to me that we don't have free will. In my eyes, I don't like making choices that don't have reason behind them, but that doesn't mean I think I don't have free will. I'd prefer to go through life making reasonable choices. But because I can change a choice I previously made at any time, I have free will...

-blazed

Basically I'm using time to show that when you come up with the idea of your choice, it is then history, set in stone that you made X choice at X time. And as we can't move backwards in time, you can't really change it moreso than supersede it with a later choice, which is the center of blazedaces's definition.

In reference to making a decision in the present, it's chronologically impossible to perform what constitutes free will in the present, because unlike the future or the past, the present is always changing. Also a thought is only in the present for an infinitesimal amount of time and then it's history. Free will in a state like that (considering only that instant moment of being in the present) would have to follow the definition I provided of being without any outside influence, but since the "why?" question always has an answer, there's no free will there either

I have a really stupid question.

I was watching a documentary about meteorites and it was basically saying that the universe is trying to destroy Earth.

They then showed a massive empty crater in the ground, saying that a meteorite landed there.

My question is, if a meteorite landed there, why isn't the meteorite there?

There's any number of things that could have happened to it. If they didn't tell you how long ago it landed, it could have weathered and eroded away over time. Been broken apart by numerous scientists studying cosmology, or a combination of the two along with many other variable factors like the weather that may have crumbled it away.

 

[Aesir]

I have a really stupid question.

I was watching a documentary about meteorites and it was basically saying that the universe is trying to destroy Earth.

They then showed a massive empty crater in the ground, saying that a meteorite landed there.

My question is, if a meteorite landed there, why isn't the meteorite there?

lolwut?

Because when a meteorite collides into the earth it pulverizes it self.

edit: sometimes that isn't the case, it really depends on the velocity and size of the object.

 

[Sieguest]

There are a lot of meteorites that stay in tact when they hit Earth's surface.

 

[Aesir]

There are a lot of meteorites that stay in tact when they hit Earth's surface.

And yet I don't care.

 

[Reaver197]

Most meteorites will burn up in the atmosphere, before reaching the ground. But, for the meteorites that are massive and fast enough to reach Earth and cause an explosion to create a crater will generally be pulverized by the impact, leaving very little of the actual meteorite left other than dust and powder, and maybe some chunks of it.