Miles

3 hours ago, ShadowDash13 said:

That's really cool! You've sparked my interest. Now I'm really looking forward to taking a look at those pictures.

To be honest, the majority of pictures are just regular old tractors with either diesel or gas engines. There are multiple pictures of oil pull threshers in there, but overall there weren't as many as we originally expected to see. But nevertheless, I'm sure you'll love the pictures anyway. There are some rare gems in there for sure. I was in bliss the entire time I was there. Oh how badly my father and I want to have one of those Ford 8N tractors (light grey body, red chassis)! The Ford that was painted maroon-ish/burgundy-ish red was my favorite, though. To turn a simplistic tractor into something that looks sleek and elegant without making it seem hoity-toity (or posh) is brilliant.

3 hours ago, Miles said:

4 hours ago, ShadowDash13 said:

Hmm... I don't really know much about tractors, but that oil pull one looks really cool! I'll have to take a look next time I've got a computer to unzip those files.

Yeah, it generates steam using the oil, and the steam powers the belt (as well as the rear wheels when the transmission is in gear). It's quite similar to locomotives of its time. Steam powered trains and tractors were a really big deal.

Do note that I corrected the caption for the picture above. However, my explanation is still correct as to how it works, I just initially typed the wrong name; that is an Advance Rumely not, an Oil Pull - but there are a couple of Oil Pulls in the photos. 

---

For most of the photos my dad and I took, it should probably be easy to tell what kind of tractor you are looking at in the photos. However, I don't have in-depth information to give. So, I'd gladly accept positive comments any of you may have, but I won't be able to answer specific questions about the tractors such as their model year, their horsepower, and their torque. 

57 minutes ago, ShadowDash13 said:

Hmm... I don't really know much about tractors, but that oil pull one looks really cool! I'll have to take a look next time I've got a computer to unzip those files.

Yeah, it generates steam using the oil, and the steam powers the belt (as well as the rear wheels when the transmission is in gear). It's quite similar to locomotives of its time. Steam powered trains and tractors were a really big deal.

Yeah, zipped folders might not be too mobile friendly.

56 minutes ago, Radience said:

We have a 1954 farmell cub, it still works and my dad uses it to plow the snow in the driveway. 

Nice! We don't have any classic/antique tractors, just a late '90s or early '00s Cub Cadet 7205 with a 21hp Mitsubishi diesel engine.

10 minutes ago, Jeric said:

Check the tags for a fun inside joke

Oh shit  that is hilarious!

> Forgotten names...

Oh, I remember Ghostie. Yep. Sure do. 

Yeah, she's lucky she didn't waltz into some creepy guy's room.  
I, on the other hand, wanted her to gtfo so I could go back to sleep, lmao.

Pun? If I made one it was on accident, but I don't see one.
Ohhh, your name.  Gotcha, nvm.
Btw, this is a true story, though I'm sure you knew

*Shrug*

I guess we're at an impasse.

Oh I'm an emotional sap as well, btw.   

~ Miles

 

The entire post was written as a stream-of-consciousness, which is why it reads more like a rant than a scientific journal. One major point of this that I possibly didn't do very well in elaborating was my view that morality is a disguise.

 

Complex issues, requiring an incredible amount of logic and evidence to debate effectively, are effectively reduced to soundbites and buzzwords because it's easier to build an echo chamber. Morality is built inside of these echo chambers, and screamed at max volume whenever people don't want to argue like adults.

 

Pointless buzzwords that serve no logical purpose, draped in a guise of morality. This is what has taken over political discourse in our world. I have an opinion on abortion, I just don't drape it under undeserved righteousness.

Ahh okay I get what you mean.

So, when a Muslim man beheads his wife in an honor killing, you are not disturbed by the fact that there are millions who consider his actions "objectively moral?"

 

One can "interpret" morals to their heart's desire, but this does not change the fact that all existing schools of moralistic thought can, have, are, and will be used to promote atrocity. Whether it's the middle east, the DPRK, or the Soviet Union, once enough people believe that something is "right" simply because it is, that is the course that history will take. And it usually does not end well.

??? What ???

Of course I'd be disturbed.  I think you misinterpreted me...

Let me use your prior example of abortion... On one side, people say the moral is allowing the woman to make her own decision rather than taking it away from her - on the other side the moral is not taking away the life of the unborn child.

My view is that both of those are valid moral arguments...

But I subjectively think it's immoral to take the life of an unborn child (aka, I'm pro-life [or anti-abortion as you say]).  

In other words, even though I understand that they are arguing from their own moral perspective, I view their stance as immoral.

I'm not amoral like you say you are.

I believe that morality is a construct of the human mind, either built within a man's mind to justify or temper his own actions, or indoctrinated into his mind by somebody else.

 

In either case, the idea of moral principles superseding reality is what I despise. There is no shorthand to life. There is no cheat guide to making good decisions. There is no checklist to being a "good person," and putting on a righteous mask does not score you a shortcut.

 

I am amoral because I own neither the checklist nor the mask.

I can't say I agree with you on this.

Essentially you're saying morality doesn't logically exist.  

I believe it does logically exist.  Just because something may be a construct of the human mind doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality.  

To be honest, the more I think about it, for one to say he is amoral sounds slightly socio/psychopathic.  

Not that I'm saying you are - I'm saying that I think you're explaining yourself in an odd fashion.  

~ Miles 

First I just want to say, good blog; it was well thought out and well written.

Now, about the way you're regarding morality...

I like to think about this in a way that looks at the "cause of the cause."  In this case, I believe that is: Laws must exist.  But the thing about social issues (such as abortion) is that there are too many people on both sides, such that any outcome is never a true "win."  But nonetheless, there must be a law (for obvious reasons) about abortion (one way or the other, regardless).  The existence of the "need" for the law, in itself, causes more problems than the law's stance on the issue.

So, as to the way you describe both sides, in terms of abortion, whether or not you're right about the way they describe their reasoning for their stances, you've got to take in mind the fact that there doesn't exist (and didn't exist) and other route to any other current possible situation.  Ergo, inevitability. 

With my predisposition in understanding that it's an inevitable "thing" for people to sugarcoat their stances, for either side, I'm not so sure I can follow what you mean by saying you're amoral (in terms of abortion specifically).  

Moving on to racial issues...

Simply put, I agree with you. 

Next, SJWs...

I really just don't like them, lol.  I don't have much to say about them.  I agree with your view on them.  

---

As a side note to all of this...

As much as I hate having to use this word... I believe there exists two types of "moralities" - an objective one, and a subjective one.  Now, understand that I believe nobody can judge their own morality or anyone else's on an objective level - only may we judge it subjectively.  The "objective" morality I speak of is in a different sense - I see it as "does a moral exist in this [situation]." If it does or doesn't, that is the objective morality I'm talking about.  But one's *view* on what that morality *is*, is the subjective part.  

Of course, that is my own subjective view on the matter.

In simpler terms: interpretation is subjective morality.  For example, how we here on the forums sometimes debate over the morals of MLP episodes... The way I see it is that "of course, a moral exists in the episode" - but how we each interpret what it is and our views on it is the subjective part.

To apply that route of thinking to your position in your blog blog here - when you say that you're amoral, you're saying you don't have a subjective view (or possibly rather, don't care to have one) on the morality of the issues, right?

Essentially what I'm trying to understand is whether or not you agree that morality exists by default in the way I see it or not...  

(And I'm not saying it exists everywhere.  The question of "should I try to find a spot to park my car closer to the entrance, or just park back here away from it while this spot is already open in front of me" holds no moral value).

~ Miles

HA!

 

I saw this and thought "hey, I did this one time, I'll link my post to show what stats I found." Thank you, Guess a few people around here still remember how awesome I am.

 

My stats are pretty out of date, though.

Hehe, true, but it's nice to see some old stats, too.  I'm glad to see others who share interest in site statistics.

Tis possible.

 

Here's a blog from about three years ago with some stats, if you're interested.

Lmao, though I didn't mention it, I did this for the same reason - I was bored and couldn't sleep.  

Interesting statistics, thanks.

Reminds me of something else actually (even though he didn't mention it)... The time online counter we used to have.

I'd be interested in seeing whether the number of active members has changed. While I know loads of people still use the site regularly, it feels like the number of people online at any given time is lower than it used to be.

Yah I wonder about that, too.  Maybe when the show is back in season more members will be active.

Just as a note, I know that a couple of those zero-post members do have statuses and blog entries, which are not counted as 'posts' by the system. Probably not a significant number, though.

Of course.  But for the intents and purposes [or lack thereof, really] of my blog, I'm just generalizing and grouping anyone who has 0 posts into one category.

hahaha, nice

@@Miles, let's just say I saw pieces of myself in that whole story and leave it at that. 

Oh, okay.  I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound impersonal.  

Your situation is vaguely similar to my own. For a long time I've been in flux and asking similar questions but images of who or what I can become is coming into view.

 

And really, people being heartless is something you're going to have to get used to and do not take my word for it. It's something life will give you a hard lesson in down the road. To everyone else out there, you are but a resource. If you can't make a contribution then why have you around? Sure, people will project themselves as being good people but as soon as the rubber hits the road, it'll fly into a million pieces -- especially if they can put their lapse under wraps before anyone else sees it. Just dare to step outside the boundaries that people impose on you and you can see for yourself. Being a people person often means shoving your authenticity to the side. Sacrificing authenticity is how you can feel lonely even as you are surrounded and praised.

 

Questions remain... Will your heart bleed to the point where there is no blood left to bleed? You may well be on that trajectory and once there, what then? Dried hearts become hard and cold. We'll see if that's where you'll be in five years.

Ummm... what?

Sorry... but I don't really see the connection this has to what I said in my blog.

---

To be honest, this was more of a "vent session" for me.  Sometimes I just need to get something off my chest that's been bothering me for a while.  

Of course, what I said is true, but mind you, I was in the heat of the moment (emotionally) when I wrote it.  Currently I'm much better now, after coming home from work.

~ Miles

In all honesty these are question I continually ask myself as I'm in a similar boat; though 29, a college graduate, and hold a steady job.

 

It's never an easy question to answer, and not everyone finds an answer for it. I hope you find that inner-peace in time my friend. *hug*

*hugs*

At my inner core, my motivation stems from wanting to do things for others.  I am at an inner-peace when I know I have made someone else happy.  Not that I don't do things for myself, but... doing things for others, in my head, is the best way I can do something for myself.  

It's crazy.  We're forced to make the decision about college while we aren't even adults yet.  When I was 17 or 18, I didn't know what I wanted.  I didn't know what I needed.  I didn't know who I could be.  Yet, only just 2 and a half years later, in the middle of my college path, I've found out who I am, and who I could be.  

I am one of the few people who wouldn't care about the difference between finding a career that could make me 50k a year versus 250k a year.  I don't want more than what is necessary.  I just want to have enough to live comfortably, and have enough to allow me to find a way to help others.  

And truthfully, if I could find a way to do that while still living in a somewhat small town, I probably would.  But if not, so be it.  

---

At least I have what I have now.  I'm so thankful that I can be a part of this online community.

I like many things about this post although I disagree with one huge facet. There are not "many" ways to the Lord. The ONLY way to the Father is to accept him as Lord and Savior and to truly believe that Jesus sacrifice of crucifixion is the ONLY way our sins can be paid for in order to be in gods presence. There is no other way. "No man cometh unto the father but by me." Just being a good person and loving everyone wont do it, though it is commanded of us to love others, it is not a way to the Father. The salvation part is critical.

Yes, but I believe you misinterpreted what I meant.  Each person accepts Jesus as their Savior and the Lord as their Creator in their own way.  That's what I meant by "many ways" - your way, my way, and other's ways of accepting the Lord.  

The only way to the Lord is through faith and acceptance, indeed, but the way you do it, the way I do it, and the way others gain faith and accept the Lord may differ.

Love comes in infinite flavors, is essentially what I'm trying to say, and hate comes in one flavor.

Thinking and describing it this way like I do can make it easier for those who are not believers, that want to believe, be able to do so.  It's not hard to follow Jesus!  It's easy to accept Him, and you can accept Him in your own way!  And that's what I'm trying to say.

~ Miles

You know, before I read this I had a different outlook on the episode.  So I will say that I can understand where you are coming from, and that although I may not agree to every little detail of what you say here, I now can finally understand what makes this episode so hated...

Rainbow Dash didn't just slightly overreact, she went nearly psycho.

That being said... even though I understand that, and understand why you dislike the episode...

I'm still going to like the episode in the same way that I did before.  I personally don't have any issues with a few illogical or noncontinuous episodes every now and again, because I find it funny.  I know you don't like that.  I know you don't think there is any reason at all to have illogical or noncontinuous episodes.  But I can sometimes be humored by a few stupid episodes.

To me, Tanks wasn't bad enough for it to be unacceptable.  But I do admit it was on the edge.  I guess I'm too easily entertained, lol.

---

A side note about something else you said...

 

 

In Mare Do Well, Dash was acting stupid because her popularity crumbled, and she tried to do something for others to like her. It was torturous to watch her fall from grace because we were supposed to laugh at her misery, but her actions were believable.

Yes it was.

Dafuq?  Laugh at her misery?  You got that wrong.  The way they made it believable was so that we feel sympathy/empathy for her.  Not to laugh at her!

But whatever floats your boat, man.  To each his own.

~ Miles

9/10

Thanks Storm!    Truth be told, I give myself a 7.5/10, as I hadn't noticed there was a tiny, tiny bit of clipping (split second distortion) around 1:39 and 1:54 in the right channel.  But I doubt many will notice that, save for audiophiles like myself.

Different strokes for different folks

I swear I didn't just think of something car-related when I read that.  Nope.



---

I feel you, ooBrony.  I started to dislike all the violent shows on TV after getting into ponies.

Any approximation on this truck's payload or towing capacity?
Hehehe, just joshing yuh

Looks good, DQ.  

I would say the most simple definition of sin would be:

Doing something against God's teachings.

While some sins may be worse than others, we all have the same preliminary punishment; earthly death.  Beyond that, God's judgement on us and our sins will determine the rest.

The absence of love and/or the presence of hate is just one sin in a list of many others.

Nice article. While it did get kind of heated there at times, the heat conveyed passion, not anger.

 

[1.] If there is many ways to love, and if all God is, is Love, then why do we still need a Saviour? To save us from the hate that is in our nature? To perfect us?

 

[2.] If so, then the eastern thought of "enlightenment" is really being perfected in Christ. Perhaps?

 

 

[3.] In other words, all human Love is an expression of God, but to be perfected in Love, you need Jesus Christ. Right?

Indeed, it is passion.

1. Well, God is not merely only Love; He is our Creator... etc.  We need Jesus because humans are all sinners, and to have forgiveness we must repent our sins to Christ.

2. I guess you could say that.

3. Correct.