Log in

View Full Version : Politics and religion


Johnshadows
October 20th, 2009, 04:13 PM
hey guys, Whats up? I have a debate paper due on the mixing of religion politics, and figured it would be a good topic to bring to the fourms. Im taking the side that they shouldn't be mixed, and I could use a few more solid arguments if you guys have some. Thanks buds! :D

Will.
October 20th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Well a good subject would be the Religion and politic threads of the CoG X[)

Johnshadows
October 20th, 2009, 05:03 PM
well it might be somthing Ide look into.

tagnostic
October 20th, 2009, 06:07 PM
from a purely empirical look,
you are attempting to mix to completely separate authorities
both of which are ill defined at best and neither of which
can be quantitatively measured either to its sphere of influence
or rank in the heirarchy of daily mores/morals ant authority.

taking two things that no one can agree on
giving (it can't be taken or bestowed) these
undefined concepts authority over yourself is
stupid if not criminal, Neither Religon nor
Politics has ever shown a shred of evidence
of moral or intellectual superiority to the
average person, why then would you want
to mix two inferior social control mechanisms
and comingle them in any position of authority?

Will.
October 20th, 2009, 06:13 PM
from a purely empirical look,
you are attempting to mix to completely separate authorities
both of which are ill defined at best and neither of which
can be quantitatively measured either to its sphere of influence
or rank in the heirarchy of daily mores/morals ant authority.

taking two things that no one can agree on
giving (it can't be taken or bestowed) these
undefined concepts authority over yourself is
stupid if not criminal, Neither Religon nor
Politics has ever shown a shred of evidence
of moral or intellectual superiority to the
average person, why then would you want
to mix two inferior social control mechanisms
and comingle them in any position of authority?

I hate to say it but, religion defined the Justinian law system. It may be an adaptation of course, but our adaptation is depicted on another dead cultures relgion, therefore doomed to fail.

tagnostic
October 20th, 2009, 06:25 PM
all religions and all governments
are based on the misguided assumption
that somebody knows how to live your
life better than you do.
if they spent more time living theirs
and less time worrying about how
others live theirs neither would be (or is)
necessary

Will.
October 20th, 2009, 07:57 PM
all religions and all governments
are based on the misguided assumption
that somebody knows how to live your
life better than you do.
if they spent more time living theirs
and less time worrying about how
others live theirs neither would be (or is)
necessary

But you see, if they are not necessary, then how do they get paid?

OfficerFriendly
October 20th, 2009, 08:22 PM
Fear pays them

tagnostic
October 20th, 2009, 11:12 PM
gullibility and its easier to blame
a god than to take responsibility

Will.
October 20th, 2009, 11:13 PM
If you say Jesus really slow, it sounds like gullible.

Al Farabi
October 21st, 2009, 06:48 PM
hey guys, Whats up? I have a debate paper due on the mixing of religion politics, and figured it would be a good topic to bring to the fourms. Im taking the side that they shouldn't be mixed, and I could use a few more solid arguments if you guys have some. Thanks buds! :D

The fields of morality and law are independent of each other, though they have similar goals. This is easily demonstrable through the fact that we have laws which are necessary for a complete law system but do not concern morality (like traffic laws), and many moral tenents that do not concern the law (like 'you should treat your parents with respect').

The reason that they (morality and law) diverge in this way is that they fundementally approach their common goal (that being the reduction of behaviour seen as improper or harmful) in different ways.

Law seeks to reduce bad behviour by increasing its oppertunity cost (to borrow a term from economics). The law makes doing actions which are seen as bad cast large ammounts of money (fines) or time (prison sentances) which most people would rather spend other ways. The action is less worth it, in other words, because you might end up losing a lot.

Morality seeks the same goal by decreasing individuals inclination to act in certain ways.[[Note that morality is different than social code of conduct. There are many things which we are socially discouraged from doing but are not immoral.]] A moral code makes you not want to do certain things for no reason of cost (or not only reason of cost) but also because "It's wrong."

Both law and morality can present consistent and rational guidelines for behaviour, but rational progression within either system can only be made from within that system. You cannot make a rational argument about one from the point of view of the other. To draw on an earlier example, most people would agree that it is good to be respectful to your parents, but that does not provide any basis for law of any kind. People get confused about this fact when examining laws which are also moral tenents, but the overlap does not imply equality. Think of it as a venn diagram.

The only way a religion can be applied to law at all is through its moral system, but as we have demonstrated, that cannot be the basis of rational law, and therefore should not be involved in the making of laws.

tagnostic
October 21st, 2009, 07:33 PM
The fields of morality and law are independent of each other, though they have similar goals.

I would stipulate that the goal is control of many by the few.
whether they be priests or politicians

This is easily demonstrable through the fact that we have laws which are necessary for a complete law system but do not concern morality (like traffic laws),

again, just a question of control, not to mention safety, got to keep the population alive to control it

and many moral tenents that do not concern the law (like 'you should treat your parents with respect').

still control, if the parents raise them this way, they will still have control even when there is no physical means of coersion

The reason that they (morality and law) diverge in this way is that they fundementally approach their common goal (that being the reduction of behaviour seen as improper or harmful) in different ways.

Law seeks to reduce bad behviour by increasing its oppertunity cost (to borrow a term from economics). The law makes doing actions which are seen as bad cast large ammounts of money (fines) or time (prison sentances) which most people would rather spend other ways. The action is less worth it, in other words, because you might end up losing a lot.

Morality seeks the same goal by decreasing individuals inclination to act in certain ways.[[Note that morality is different than social code of conduct. There are many things which we are socially discouraged from doing but are not immoral.]] A moral code makes you not want to do certain things for no reason of cost (or not only reason of cost) but also because "It's wrong."

I would stipulate that both use implied threats, the political/government with direct physical force, whether by, fines (depriving of property by force with the threat of incarceration), incarceration(depriving of liberty by force), physical force (tasing, shooting, various forms of death). whereas the moral code is an implied threat ex post facto, all the various punishments are meted out after death, while the former is more immediate the latter can be more threatening/frightening if inculcated at an early/impressionable age.
the problem is in the overlap of punishments, ie when the moral code is enforced through immediate physical violence, there are too many historical precedents to list, but for now Sharia law is a prime example, and we can all see how well thats working out. On the other side when the government/politicians resort to the implied ex post facto punishments, ie emporers, kings et al claim Divine Authority and/or Divinity, again multiple historical examples, none of which worked out that well for anyone (Caesar comes to mind)


Both law and morality can present consistent and rational guidelines for behaviour, but rational progression within either system can only be made from within that system.

there can be no rational progression if the premise is faulty/irrational
ie people require control from an outside source in order to act in the best interests of the society that they are in.

You cannot make a rational argument about one from the point of view of the other. To draw on an earlier example, most people would agree that it is good to be respectful to your parents, but that does not provide any basis for law of any kind.

concur, by the same token it is a good idea to not run stop lights, but to be threatened in the afterlife with punishment for breaking a law dilutes the power of government by implying that it requires the force of religon to back it up.


People get confused about this fact when examining laws which are also moral tenents, but the overlap does not imply equality. Think of it as a venn diagram.

on those occaisions where they overlap, it is generally a socio/historical retrogression, ie common law, its been a societal norm for so long that no one remembers the original reason, but has been usage for so long that the legal precedents are implied

The only way a religion can be applied to law at all is through its moral system, but as we have demonstrated, that cannot be the basis of rational law, and therefore should not be involved in the making of laws.

again, neither religon nor laws can claim rationality or prove benefit to society et al


(big fun al)

Al Farabi
October 21st, 2009, 07:59 PM
I would stipulate that the goal is control of many by the few.
whether they be priests or politicians


again, just a question of control, not to mention safety, got to keep the population alive to control it


still control, if the parents raise them this way, they will still have control even when there is no physical means of coersion

Absolutely the goal of both is control. I won't argue with that...to desire to reduce some kinds of behaviour is to want to control behavior.


I would stipulate that both use implied threats, the political/government with direct physical force, whether by, fines (depriving of property by force with the threat of incarceration), incarceration(depriving of liberty by force), physical force (tasing, shooting, various forms of death). whereas the moral code is an implied threat ex post facto, all the various punishments are meted out after death, while the former is more immediate the latter can be more threatening/frightening if inculcated at an early/impressionable age.
the problem is in the overlap of punishments, ie when the moral code is enforced through immediate physical violence, there are too many historical precedents to list, but for now Sharia law is a prime example, and we can all see how well thats working out. On the other side when the government/politicians resort to the implied ex post facto punishments, ie emporers, kings et al claim Divine Authority and/or Divinity, again multiple historical examples, none of which worked out that well for anyone (Caesar comes to mind)

I think that all of those kinds of punishment fall into essentially losing time and losing property. Being killed is loss of time, right? The time left in your life is lost. Incarceration is the same except that it usually takes less than the rest of your time; you are released while alive.

Also, I would argue that morality in no ways implies reference to an after life. An atheist may think that it is fundementally wrong to murder. It doesn't require belief in any kind of deity, only belief in the fundemental value of human life. I think morality is a sepearte thing from religion, though religion includes a certain set of moral beliefs. Just because humans have hearts, and they are essential, does not mean that every heart is human.


there can be no rational progression if the premise is faulty/irrational
ie people require control from an outside source in order to act in the best interests of the society that they are in.

I actually just meant that you can't make statements which will be logically valid if you are borrowing premises from another system. Think about it in math terms:

x+y = 10, a+b = 10

just because they both add up to the same thing doesn't mean you can swap out the variables and have it still work.


concur, by the same token it is a good idea to not run stop lights, but to be threatened in the afterlife with punishment for breaking a law dilutes the power of government by implying that it requires the force of religon to back it up.

You don't need religion in order to say that running a stoplight in itself is not immoral.


on those occaisions where they overlap, it is generally a socio/historical retrogression, ie common law, its been a societal norm for so long that no one remembers the original reason, but has been usage for so long that the legal precedents are implied

This may be how things are, but I was considering what I will call 'pure' law and 'pure' morality. That is, systems which are built logically consistently from some basic axioms, which is what both are, ideally, though that isn't how they manifest usually (if ever). All of what I was saying stems the fundemental reasons that, even if you had a perfect moral code and a perfect legal system, they would not coincide. I think that our basis for creating a system which we intend to live by should be reason, and so should follow a perfect rational model as closely as possible.

The key is figuring out what that model is. (Hard Part haha)

But in any case, morality has no place in law.


again, neither religon nor laws can claim rationality or prove benefit to society et al

No system we have is perfectly rational. I don't think that from this it follows that no system CAN be perfectly rational.

We should persue the Ideal system.

tagnostic
October 21st, 2009, 08:45 PM
Also, I would argue that morality in no ways implies reference to an after life. An atheist may think that it is fundementally wrong to murder. It doesn't require belief in any kind of deity, only belief in the fundemental value of human life. I think morality is a sepearte thing from religion, though religion includes a certain set of moral beliefs. Just because humans have hearts, and they are essential, does not mean that every heart is human.

concur to a point, while I concur that morals do not require belief in an afterlife or diety, the belief that they should be applied to others and enforced in anyway is inherently religous, to use your analogy, the atheist who finds it immoral to murder, simply will not murder, he will not coerce or threaten with physical violence anyone prior to thier committing a murder, however in the interest of self preservation, he will if able prevent the murder because of his belief in the sanctity of human life, and if murder is committed will use any means necessary to prevent another act of murder, not just preach morality. morality is in action, not thoughts or words. religion is enforced morality which is a contradiction, morality is self imposed because of personal beliefs, it cannot be enforced except by changing those beliefs (strayed a bit there, my bad)






I actually just meant that you can't make statements which will be logically valid if you are borrowing premises from another system. Think about it in math terms:

x+y = 10, a+b = 10

just because they both add up to the same thing doesn't mean you can swap out the variables and have it still work.

thanks, good clarification

You don't need religion in order to say that running a stoplight in itself is not immoral.

you don't need anything except self preservation, laws and religion won't keep you from running it, morals will, sanctity of human life should be sufficient


This may be how things are, but I was considering what I will call 'pure' law and 'pure' morality. That is, systems which are built logically consistently from some basic axioms, which is what both are, ideally, though that isn't how they manifest usually (if ever).

while I recognize the concepts per se, I believe that 'pure' morality and law fall into that category of agnosticism, ie I don't think we can ever truly concieve or comprehend a "pure" morality (which if were doable would preclude the need for "law" pure or otherwise), even stipulating that we could ever concieve of and attain a society of "pure" morality, how would we know?, at best society would exist in a state of "so far so good" but that doesn't mean that at any time the bug, flaw, new premise or reality could not or would not occur, that being the case the best you can hope for is the concept of it since , Premise:Pure moraility is speculation at best, since empirical evidence is unattainable. Premise:A Pure Moral Society would be unable to prove empirically its existance to itself. Conclusion: A purely moral society cannot exist therefore all attempts at achieving a purely moral society are inherently flawed.

(big fun)


All of what I was saying stems the fundemental reasons that, even if you had a perfect moral code and a perfect legal system, they would not coincide. I think that our basis for creating a system which we intend to live by should be reason, and so should follow a perfect rational model as closely as possible.

actually I would say, mutually exclusive, in a perfectly moral society you wouldn't need laws
if laws were always obeyed, we wouldn't need morality


The key is figuring out what that model is. (Hard Part haha)

hold that thought, repost that when we achieve synthesis here:D


But in any case, morality has no place in law.

I could live with without laws, and an 'imposed' morality
I'm ok with my morals, but then, so is everybody else
which is why we have both laws and imposed morality.


No system we have is perfectly rational. I don't think that from this it follows that no system CAN be perfectly rational.

if everyone were perfectly rational, no system would be required

We should persue the Ideal system.

hehehehe, freudian slip? I concur that we can Peruse it, pursuit however
is contraintuitive, a=a, to have a perfectly rational system requires perfectly rational people, there is no empirical data or ways to attain said data that at any given point in time all humans in any isolated society will be completely rational at any give or for any length of time...postulating an infinite universe and this does happen, then the system would be unnecessary, and it still could not be empirically proven even by and to said members of an isolated perfectly rational population, perusal however can help to formulate a "better" system however the law of unintended consequences and human history show that humans get it wrong a helluva lot more than they get it right :shrug: it is what it is, speculation can be insightful, implementation usually sux:(

(now, about that model.....:icon_lol:)

Johnshadows
October 21st, 2009, 09:30 PM
Congratulation! All you guys are getting cited in my paper, lol. Thanks for the assistance. Hopefully one day I'll get to repay the Knowledge.

tagnostic
October 21st, 2009, 09:36 PM
hehehe, thanks for the fun
Al and I could do this all day
you should jump in more
have some fun:D


addendum:on further thought I would add the premise
It is impossible to impose positive morals or behaviours on a society in general or people in specific when your only means of enforcement is negative. All control per se is negative/depriving in nature, there can be no positive reinforcement of control, in that anything positive can be posited as the abscence of the negative (semantics, but I'll follow that up in a second), there is also the law of unintended consequences, by providing positive reinforcement to cease a negative behaviour, you have also rewarded early negative behaviour in order to be able to recieve the reward. This shows the positive as the abscence of the negative in both cases of the rewarder by not pre-providing the reward (a negative) has encouraged the negative behaviour, and the beneficiary of the reward no has the absence of not having it, the abscence of the negative in both cases. This then precludes any beneficial form of control other than that inherent in the individual, any extra-personal control is counter productive and counter intuitive and if morals are an individuals standards and beliefs as seen in his actions without any outside control, any attempt at control is immoral.

just a thought

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 03:57 PM
I love how people believe in words so much. You know if you close your eyes really tight, and wait for a full moon and a shooting star and say them three times fast, words like Moral, Morality, Religion and Politics might make sense.
If you're Jiminy fucking Cricket .

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 04:19 PM
its not the words,
its the ideas that
your trying to
convey with
them

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 04:25 PM
its not the words,
its the ideas that
your trying to
convey with
them

People don't know what those ideas really are.

One person says "Unity and Acceptance" while another person interrupts with "YOUR A COMMUNIST! LYNCH HIM!"

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 04:46 PM
thats true,
thats why agreed upon definitions
are so important, the more specific
the definitions the more shades of a thought
you can communicate/understand..
semantics & communication are fun topics
it can range pretty far and out there

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 05:47 PM
thats true,
thats why agreed upon definitions
are so important, the more specific
the definitions the more shades of a thought
you can communicate/understand..
semantics & communication are fun topics
it can range pretty far and out there

How? What? So...
Propriet, a good Ideal, using false adaptations based on modified ideals of the original idea?
That makes no sense.

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 06:06 PM
fine,
you
start
a
topic


I gotta run,
back in a few hours

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 06:55 PM
o.o...
Ow. Tag, that I think should've hurt my heartless hinterland.

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 09:35 PM
best big block ever
from the factory
not race built?

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 10:01 PM
best big block ever
from the factory
not race built?

Well Personally, I'd have to say 454

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 10:08 PM
good bottom end
good torque
not enough windout
got kinda flat before the redline,
dependable as all hell

426 hemi?

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 10:38 PM
good bottom end
good torque
not enough windout
got kinda flat before the redline,
dependable as all hell

426 hemi?


Good boost,
its wpm numbers are nice
Excellent torque
Like all hemi's melts down once or twice in its short life.

If you dabble in the hemi's try a 540.
Insane Torque
Insane Boost
Surprisingly long living.
Relatively cheap hemi wise.

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 10:56 PM
429 FoMoCo
high winder
power through hi revs
lose a little bottom
durable
torque could be better lowrpm

compromise? motor?

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 11:07 PM
429 FoMoCo
high winder
power through hi revs
lose a little bottom
durable
torque could be better lowrpm

compromise? motor?

I believe so. :P

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 11:13 PM
best all around 4X4 vehicle
daily driver under any conditions
any road surface or none

:icon_wut?:

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 11:22 PM
best all around 4X4 vehicle
daily driver under any conditions
any road surface or none

:icon_wut?:

Jeep Cherokee, with a 4.6L (I like Ramchargers but they're godawful expensive, in the long run)

Decent power, get you anywhere, and not to evil on petrol.

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 11:33 PM
I always liked the 4.0 straight six,
dependable as all hell,
huge torque
easy to work on under adverse conditions

but for all around,
they're a little thin on the body metal,
kinda noisy in the cab
and the creature comforts are pretty thin and cheesy
dependable yep

I think I'd go mid 70's ramcharger
with the straight six
4 speed manual
hub lock front axles

Will.
October 22nd, 2009, 11:48 PM
I always liked the 4.0 straight six,
dependable as all hell,
huge torque
easy to work on under adverse conditions

but for all around,
they're a little thin on the body metal,
kinda noisy in the cab
and the creature comforts are pretty thin and cheesy
dependable yep

I think I'd go mid 70's ramcharger
with the straight six
4 speed manual
hub lock front axles

I've got a mid 70's ramcharger but its no straight six. It goes wherever it wants...

tagnostic
October 22nd, 2009, 11:58 PM
the six had incredible low end torque
smooth power curve
indestructible, lasted forever
not a big topender but fast enough
decent mileage with a big 2bbl
more versatile than the jeeps
and the body could take more
of a pounding

Loki
October 23rd, 2009, 12:09 AM
Volvo T5 - laugh if you like but it creams most cars at the traffic light Olympics.

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 12:34 AM
volvo T5?
i'll have to Goddess it,
not enough ground clearance
it would bottom out on a speedbump
you need at least 14" to get off the sidewalk

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 04:46 AM
I Tag, have figured out the 4x4 dilema.
1986 AMC SX4 with the mopar curb package (324 small block)

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 11:32 AM
good call,
I had forgotten those,
a neighbor used to have one
it was a workhorse, good in the snow
cruised like any station wagon, plenty of
power,
yeah, you got that one...
and I love those oddball AMC motors..

(first car was a '62 rambler station wagon, straight 6, pushbutton tranny)

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 02:17 PM
good call,
I had forgotten those,
a neighbor used to have one
it was a workhorse, good in the snow
cruised like any station wagon, plenty of
power,
yeah, you got that one...
and I love those oddball AMC motors..

(first car was a '62 rambler station wagon, straight 6, pushbutton tranny)

Lol... I've got no mopar start, but it still was a cool car.

(75, Toyota Corona with a pushbutton 4 spd.)

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 02:24 PM
allright,
most oddball engine you've ever had
or had to work on?

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 02:39 PM
allright,
most oddball engine you've ever had
or had to work on?

Well the 324 in my possession (tis why I'm tinkering on a pos displacement)
301 Buick.
a 288 Nash
And, what was in that k car... a, 270? I think it was...


So... About five. (one other I can't remember, but its heads are around here somew-.... They're my puter desk! XD)

Uh.... Lets see..

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 02:41 PM
1970 suzuki jeep
air cooled
380 cc 2 stroke twin
25 hp
chain drive 4X4
top speed 42mph

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 02:44 PM
Daihatsu, o.o Oh yeah! A hi-jet.

It was like a glorified lawnmower.

Let me get my measuring device...

1.1L o.o....Pfft..... XDDD

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 02:52 PM
to be honest
I gotta give the wankels
some cred too,
the dual distributors
took a while to get my head around

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 03:18 PM
I still have that 13b Honda. :D No bike under 500lbs should have a mazda rotary. :icon_lol:

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 03:29 PM
hehehehe
yeah, I rode one once
the weight was pretty low in the frame
but you werent going to throw it around
a little boggey on the take off
but power was sewing machine smooth
once you got into the powerband
a lot like a guzzi with a slightly
lower center of gravity (love the old guzzi t-3)

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 03:48 PM
hehehehe
yeah, I rode one once
the weight was pretty low in the frame
but you werent going to throw it around
a little boggey on the take off
but power was sewing machine smooth
once you got into the powerband
a lot like a guzzi with a slightly
lower center of gravity (love the old guzzi t-3)


My goal in life is to go as fast as humanly possible... Then one step faster.

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 04:06 PM
I believe in Love & Rockets
they're as
Fast as a man has gone,
as High as a man has gone,
the biggest rush a man can get,
but you sure hope the chute deploys
and you get let down gently

fastest I've personally gone on land
160, tz 750 at laguna seca on a fun run
in the air I don't know flown in everything
most fun was a pitts special
fastest probably mach 1.6 in an f111 aardvark
being decommissioned, final flight required
a nuke spec security guard on board
I got the ride..

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 04:45 PM
I believe in Love & Rockets
they're as
Fast as a man has gone,
as High as a man has gone,
the biggest rush a man can get,
but you sure hope the chute deploys
and you get let down gently

fastest I've personally gone on land
160, tz 750 at laguna seca on a fun run
in the air I don't know flown in everything
most fun was a pitts special
fastest probably mach 1.6 in an f111 aardvark
being decommissioned, final flight required
a nuke spec security guard on board
I got the ride..

o.o On my honda at SIR. :P 241.14 mph, still had one more gear.
8.86 on a quarter mile (Carb kept de tuning itself)

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 06:25 PM
where do you find that much road?
the salt flats?
I do have a bud in TX
who has a one of a kind
GSXR1100turbo,
He kept taking it back to Suzi
and telling them it wasn't fast enough
until it hit 210, then he was happy

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 06:45 PM
where do you find that much road?
the salt flats?
I do have a bud in TX
who has a one of a kind
GSXR1100turbo,
He kept taking it back to Suzi
and telling them it wasn't fast enough
until it hit 210, then he was happy

An international raceway in the poorest province in Canada and a 2 minute burnout launch.

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 06:50 PM
whoa, didn't know there was a high bank
in Sask, what do they run there?
Texas has TWS & TMS
out Here we've got Firebird
and PIR, dirt tracks are everywhere
the Only Canadian racing I've really seen
was when they had the Montreal Grand Prix
and motorcycle ice racing

gimme a sec I gotta find a link
buried on the hd...

can't find the link i want
but this is close (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2397429/volcano_sv_awesome_off_road_performance/)
theres a club in Iceland
that build nitro burning blown
6000hp 4wd's
take them to the bottom of extinct volcanoes
and race them out, that looks like fun

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 07:00 PM
whoa, didn't know there was a high bank
in Sask, what do they run there?
Texas has TWS & TMS
out Here we've got Firebird
and PIR, dirt tracks are everywhere
the Only Canadian racing I've really seen
was when they had the Montreal Grand Prix
and motorcycle ice racing

gimme a sec I gotta find a link
buried on the hd...

Well http://www.racesir.com/

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 07:01 PM
A NASCAR event happened here and everyone all of a sudden gave a shit... so we built a track.

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 07:33 PM
cool, loved the pics from 68

most of my aquaintences that go fast

the text it, they send a couple of scouts around the valley
a couple monitoring the local police bands
when somebody hits a good spot
everybody gets the text
everybodys got 30minutes to get there,
get with the organizer and its on
usually eveybody's scattered again
in an hour,
big fun

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 07:39 PM
I got Mopar club rights.
Well, when I'm driving anything registered.

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 07:48 PM
its usually drifters out here
street racers rarely build
for drags anymore,
and theres soo many
little dirt tracks
you can slap a modified together
for less than $5grand
sand buggies you can pick up
for about $3grand
more bang for your buck out here

Will.
October 23rd, 2009, 07:56 PM
Meh, If it aint a straight line or slightly curved I cannot compete. (a couple of my trucks are straight axles.)

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 08:12 PM
hhehehe
my drag racing buddy's in Tx
call Nascar roundy round limiteds
The Nascars say NHRA is
Push Pedal then stop.

Loki
October 23rd, 2009, 11:32 PM
What about F1?

tagnostic
October 23rd, 2009, 11:46 PM
used to love it,
now its over regulated
the idea used to be to feild
the fastest car that would finish the race
now, the cars are all identical, innovation
is frowned upon if not considered outright cheating
if they really want to race, it should be
height, weight, length, width
and pass a safety check,
now its down to how many millimeters of wing
how the body work blends with the ground effects
let em race,,,

the last real race is Pikes Peak
run what you brung
if you can qualify and pass safety
you can run, 2,3, 4 wheels, tracks
carbouretors, injected, blown, turboed
1-12 cylinders, it doesn't matter
if you can get it to the top the fastest
your king of the hill

F1 was cool when elf was running 6 wheeled cars
mercedes was running a v-12 turbo diesel
V-10's, twin turbos you could tell the cars apart
now it might as well be Nascar, the only difference in the cars
is the paint and the body wedges, the beginning of the end was
when The King took that 43 factory dodge and won Daytona
ford & chevy couldn't compete so they changed the rules
King Richard was so Disgusted he quit racing for 5 years.
Then they did it again in F1 Bikes, nobody could touch the TZ750
so instead of building better bikes, they outlawed 2 strokes in that class
2 years after that if you wanted to run a two stroke you had to race the
4 strokes in twice the class, 400cc two strokes were still beating 750 4 strokes, so they outlawed the two strokes altogether

kinda defeats the purpose of competition and engine development

I still Follow McClaren, but not like I used to...

Will.
October 24th, 2009, 02:47 AM
Meh, not all of them :P

One of them is a superstock (clone) Painted it up fine in the style of the challenger T/A. :D

tagnostic
October 24th, 2009, 03:32 AM
one of my roomies back in TX had an E-body, 440 dual quads
big fun (he's a race mechanic) faster than crap in the 1/4
but it finally got pushed out of shape coming off a light
and a tree jumped out in front of him
we had a 68 valiant that was tubbed
full cage, same setup, we ran it b/gas
painted it green and dubbed it
"the Atomic Pickle"
never won a race (couldn't get it to bite & go)
but we won the burnout contest everytime

Skuzzlebutt
October 28th, 2009, 02:42 AM
Sorry to go off topic, but what do you all think about Zeitgeist, It's an film that is hosted by google, I think that it might have been the first one to hit fifty million views.

rmw
October 28th, 2009, 03:36 AM
Sorry to go off topic, but what do you all think about Zeitgeist, It's an film that is hosted by google, I think that it might have been the first one to hit fifty million views.

Don't worry about it--it happens. A lot. And usually for reasons less thoughtful than yours. :icon_lol:

tagnostic
October 28th, 2009, 04:07 AM
what? who?
derail? naw!

Cheesemonkeys24
November 3rd, 2009, 10:00 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/23/128928519067955637.jpg
:icon_lol:

I made it official...

tagnostic
November 3rd, 2009, 11:16 PM
where's thomas the train when you need him?

Will.
November 4th, 2009, 06:14 AM
This thread has been re-railed.

Also, don't quote Zeitgeist, it wont take you far. ;)