Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't help them, just wait until they commit criminal acts and then pay $31,000.00 per prisoner per year. Sounds great.
First, not subsidizing them is not the same as not helping them; second, are you under the impression that because there's a correlation between poverty and crime that your cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is valid--i.e. criminality is inevitable among the poor? Weren't you the one that created the thread, "Poor = Bad," where you contradicted that notion?
Try this, [LINK]
Where did he state that debt wasn't bad? He said that using debt as money isn't taught in schools (as in the real estate industry.) Though that is patently false--it depends on which school. (I certainly learned that when studying Economics and Accounting.) He doesn't qualify it at all. In fact, he mentions that the people were being screwed over with debt. And he made two gaffes: the gold standard was removed in 1933, not 1971. In 1971, Richard Nixon disallowed the conversion of U.S. currency to gold. Gerald Ford would somewhat reverse this by allowing the conversion from gold bullion to U.S. currency in 1974. What is meant by the gold standard is that each certificate or fiat can be redeemed by U.S. banks at a fixed amount of gold. And that hasn't been the case since 1933. His second gaffe is that derivatives went from 700 hundred trillion to 1.2 trillion. That's false. He probably meant, 700 hundred billion.
I do agree with him that the baby boomers who are now retiring are going to be a huge problem.
Oh, sure, ok, please explain your road-map to a better system. I'm all ears.
Get rid of taxation; get of rid of centralized governments; privatize everything. Let policy be subject to the free-market. Does this not suffice?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I presume they've replaced one form of indoctrination with another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that the primary factor is conditioning.Though it is fair to say that physiological attributes related to skill, talent and inheritance are probably pre-conditioned.Nonetheless, how or if we decide to utilise inherent traits, will be dependant upon how we are conditioned.
What about agency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The lower levels still get back more in benefits than they pay in.
I don't doubt that at all.
Public schools cost $20,000.00 per year per-child. Most families with 3 kids don't make $60,000.00 per year.
Then perhaps it would behoove us all to not subsidize the behavior of those who don't plan for their families.
This is demonstrably false. Debt-free corporations have no chance of competing with Debt-full corporations.
Please demonstrate this falsehood.
Please explain your road-map to utopia. I'm all ears.
Did I mention "utopia"? Is getting rid of taxation utopian? Or the government itself? How?
I speak not of "utopia" but of "approach." And that approach is autarchy (not to be confused with autocracy.) Does that not suffice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Many people seem to think that poor people are poor primarily because they are bad people.
Who are these people? And why would the poor concern themselves with the opinions of these alleged people?
Poor people are lazy, fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil (criminal), or intellectually deaf and blind.
Well some could be. It's not out of the realm of possibility.
Do you believe that every infant has an equally fair shot at becoming a billionaire?
What is "fair"? If by fair you mean prone to the same outcome, then that is nonsensical. Wealth is derived from a value-based system of exchange where scarcity is its metric. Being a "billionaire" would have no significance if everyone else was a billionaire.
What do you believe are the primary factors that grant some infants an ADVANTAGE over the others?
Talent, skill, intelligence, diligence, nepotism, inheritance, culture, etc. Take your pick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#1 the EFFECTIVE tax rate for people who make $31,300.00-$52,999.99 is -39% that is A SUBSIDY (BONUS, FREE MONEY) EQUAL TO 39% of their earned income. PAYING TAXES MAKES YOU RICHER THAN NOT PAYING TAXES.If you make less than $88,700.00 a year, you not only pay NO TAXES, but you GET MORE BACK (federal transfers) THAN YOU PUT IN.Effective Tax Rates,Poorest 20% -- gets 56% backNext 20% -- gets 39% backMiddle 20% -- gets 15% backNext richest 20% -- pays 3%Top 1% -- pays 34%RIGHT NOW. IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. [LINK]
The professor from your video not only focuses entirely on just federal taxes (state, local, and perhaps fica taxes notwithstanding,) but also neglects to mention that federal transfers are subject to taxation as they are a part of personal income--and that assumes that the entirety of those specific taxed demographics collect on the entirety of the federal transfers available. You may want to redo those numbers or cite a more detailed analysis of taxation. What would be the issue with eliminating taxation?
#2 as an individual, debt = bad. I get it. However, if you run a business, especially real-estate, debt = good.
Debt is always bad. One is borrowing against one's future (definite) when one incurs debt; so it's incumbent upon on one to redeem this loss and turn a profit through investment (indefinite.)
But what you seem to be forgetting is that all of the rules for individuals and for individual businesses DO NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEBT.We live in an incoherent system where basic principles that are true on one scale are absolutely NOT true on other scales.
So do away with the incoherent system. Does that not suffice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Try this, [LINK]
I'm not talking about reducing/cutting taxes; I stating to eliminate it all together. The government can service its current debt with its gold stock, spr's, and land; it can default on its future obligations (i.e. social security, government pensions, welfare programs, etc.) And the bank sponsored politicians (which is likely all of them) can service the rest of the debt by selling their own assets. Does this not suffice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain your hypothesis on the causes and possible solutions for criminal behavior.
What is the cause of criminal behavior? Agency. What is the solution? There is none. As long as an individual has the discretion to act, you cannot "solve" criminal behavior. You can address the matter by creating incentives and disincentives, but those are merely stalls, not solutions.
PUBLIC SCHOOL IS ALREADY A SUBSIDY FOR THE POOR.
I already know. And like public school, you're merely reallocating funds from one welfare initiative to another, presuming nothing will spillover from absence of that which you name "bureaucracy." You have yet to provide a schema informing how you intend to monitor the expenditures as they are intended to be spent.
All parents can teach kindergarten. All parents can teach first grade. All parents can teach second grade. The parents will learn what they need while teaching the kids.
What about third grade? Tenth grade? University level? Post-graduate level? How do you address the costs of cultivating the necessarily skills to instruct at these levels? Throw them another bag of money assuming "they'll learn as they teach?"
The children are independently tested for aptitude quarterly at testing centers. If the child scores low, their weekly education payment is cut by 5% per week until the child reaches their benchmark.
Even current home schoolers have to pass state tests. I'm not sure how this "marginalizes" anyone.
How do you intend to pay for these accommodations for testing aptitude? What if the child never reaches his or her benchmark? Do you fire the parents and put an end to their subsidy? You're assuming a lot.
The difference between Home schoolers and that which you propose is that home schoolers primarily risk their own funds. That's much of an incentive to manage their spending better. The fact that they decided to go the homeschool route also demonstrates their intentions with said route because they are once again risking their own money. And if they fail, they assume responsibility.
If your father is killed and your mother has to work two jobs, how is this situation your choice?
What situation is that? How does a mother's working two jobs, and a deceased father, prevent one from making a choice in service to one's own good? What about personal responsibility?
Don't get me started on fiat. [LINK]
I know how fiat works.
Fix-US will not affect inflation COMPARED TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM.
You're presuming. Runaway inflation (hyperinflation) is always possible with any measure which creates inflation. Just because the government has a target inflation rate (usually using the CPI) doesn't mean that there'd be no effect on inflation--affecting real purchasing power. And given that the U.S. dollar has been on a steady decline for decades, while the inflation rate doesn't "worsen," your mention of comparisons is of no consequence. The U.S. will likely be forced to adopt a "global currency"--most likely something similar to bitcoin--eliminating the need for paper. If one already thinks of the effects printing paper has on inflation, one would be able to imagine the effect of the bit. But I digress.
It's just the same money that's already GOING to be spent.
Which requires money it doesn't have to be printed.
You're presenting "Fix-US" as a zero-sum game, yet you haven't provided any information, much less a schema, as to how that is. Your proposal while noble lacks grit. Why not take it to its extreme: eliminate taxation, and allow all laborers to keep 100% of their income? And if there's to be a public option, it can be financed by volunteers. Does this not suffice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Assuming of course, that the subsidy rather than the investment of own funds doesn't play a role in the dynamic of the two-parent household, which in and of itself, doesn't provide psychological and social stability.The dissolution of the core family unit and the associated break-down of social trust is a fundamental contributor to crime....so if this is an issue you want to see addressed, keeping the family together should be your number one goal and all incentives should be toward that goal for the welfare of the child and the welfare of society on the whole.Perhaps if you put in a requirement that this money can only be given to 2 parent families (doesn't have to be heterosexual families), then MAYBE I can get on board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please speak up if you disagree.
I disagree. Break down of social trust and the dissolution of the family unit is not a fundamental contributor to crime. You must be aware of that for which can control; hence, these factors are often cited as factors which correlate to criminal activity, not cause it.
The average American school gets about $20,000.00 per year per-child.Conservatives have been pressing for a while now to get that per-child funding converted to a voucher, ostensibly to fund private (often religious) charter schools. They (post-hoc) rationalize this as a "free-market solution".This seems problematic on its face for a number of reasons, separation of church and state for one, but more significantly because these private schools are not required to have the same oversight as public schools and are not required to make the same accommodations for students with special needs.However, imagine for a moment that instead of handing these vouchers to private for-profit institutions, the parents had the option to CASH IT IN THEMSELVES.Imagine how many mothers and fathers could stop working long hours to make ends-meet and could instead spend more time with their kids.Financial stress is a major contributing factor for divorce and marital strife which both have demonstrable negative, often life-long effects on children (contributing to anti-social behavior, depression, suicide and criminality behavior).If everyone had the option to get a supplemental income of $60,000.00 per year to home-school their 3 children, don't you think they'd jump at the chance?
You're ignoring one fact: this voucher of which you speak will not act as an inter-temporal grant for future investment and production; it's just another subsidy for the poor. And the poor have low marketable skills and little capital. (There are reasons, for example, most lottery winners burn right through their cash winnings quickly if you're interested in the read.) You speak of the lack of oversight for private charter schools yet how do you intend to oversee the use of these vouchers and how they're spent if they are to act as a direct cash transfer? How do you plan to instruct the recipients on spending the money wisely? Wouldn't that cost more money? And if you set a performance standard for those who decide to homeschool their children, don't you risk marginalizing those whom these vouchers intend to help?
Your "solution" is essentially to throw many at it under the presumption that these recipients are "victims of their circumstances" rather than subjects of their choices.
It wouldn't affect inflation because it's not NEW money, it's just the same money that's already being spent, it would just be going to different people (trickle-up economics).
The only money which has been spent is money that has been spent. You're speaking of money the government intends to spend. And since the government doesn't have this money, it has to print fiat (i.o.u.'s.) And printing money with no (precious metal/resource standard) creates inflation.
(1) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer criminals?
It's hard to tell. The recipients can use their vouchers to invest or save, or spend on their vices. You've haven't really present any schema that oversees their spending activities.
(2) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer school-shootings?
Same as above.
(3) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer cases of child abuse/neglect?
Same as above.
Your scathing critique is requested.
It's my duty to oblige.
Created:
Posted in:
@TheRealNihilist:
Well metaphors can be funny. Unfortunately, this metaphor is quite accurate.@AthiasPageant: a public entertainment consisting of a procession of people in elaborate, colorful costumes, or an outdoor performance of a historical scene.Funny way of saying democracy.
Yeah selected by the people who voted for him and the electoral votes.
And the international banking families who sponsor him. That's been true for every president since McKinley.
Non-sequitur to him winning by votes.
Not really. Exposure is significant to vote-getting; banking sponsorship is important for exposure. It's quite simple.
Not an argument against him winning just after the fact he won.
I'm not arguing against his "winning." He was selected, as most if not all presidents have been, are, and will be.
What he does that isn't vote tampering like banking and atrocities doesn't make how he won any less fair.
Fairness? There's no fairness in democracy because it is by virtue an immoral system. It is a means to coerce minorities and dissenters into submitting their property, labor, and other resources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Don't misunderstand: pointing out the hostile humor is not tacit information of being "unable to handle" it. By all means, indulge your amusement. Its is of no consequence either way.So atheists find religious ideas amusing and theists can't handle atheist humour.
Therefore, wherein lies the most pervasive emotion.
You're projecting.
It takes far less effort to smile than it does to brood.
I'm not sure what this demonstrates or conveys, but... okay.
And if we all agreed about everything, who would you have to debate with at 8.25 BST.
Disagreement is fine. Rigorous exchange of conflicting ideas within a logically consistent format is better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
Inflation is not a result of printing money without a standard per se, it's just the increase of whatever society uses as currency. When that increase in the amount of currency happens, the amount of goods for sale does not increase, and so the price increases instead. In Renaissance Spain, for example, the price of gold dropped significantly after more gold was brought from the Americas, and so gold-based prices increased. But Renaissance Spain did not use paper money not backed up by precious metals, it used actual precious metals as currency. Blaming paper money for inflation is incorrect and irrational.
Fiat money is nothing more than an i.o.u. And with the abundance of paper and the ease in which it can be printed, there's really no difference between a five dollar note and a 100 dollar note because the scarcity in procurement is no longer there. Gold and silver are precious metals and scarce resources so even if there is an abundance of gold entering Europe for example during the 16th century, the upward trending prices would regulate themselves, whereas printing paper without any standard does not. Blaming the printing of paper for inflation is in fact quite correct and rational. Because if we were to take all the paper notes and attempt to redeem them at the value at which they were produced, would the purchasing power of money increase or decrease?
And don't misunderstand my argument: I'm not stating that inflation can only result from the printing of paper. I'm saying that once paper is printed (without a precious metal standard) inflation is an inherent result. And when currency is digital, the effects of inflation will be just as inherent but more pronounced.
Created:
Posted in:
Elections are nothing more than pageants. George W. Bush was selected to be the president. It's not about "deserving" to win. His family comes from old banking money, which if one does one's research, funded the Nazi campaign. The atrocities the Bush family is responsible for, particularly the 20th century and early 21st, is quite substantial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's a long winded way of saying that people have varying opinions, but my opinion is far better than theirs is.
No, that's my long-winded way of stating that many of the atheists in my experience employ an inconsistent use of logic, and that their hostile humor is often a veil for high emotional content.
And far to much angst to boot.
I'm far too old for angst. People my age "brood."
Who's the highly emotional one?
You're only making my point. Why else engage the "angst" of a "long-winded" individual? You're projecting. I observe; I point out; I state in contribution to introspection, self-scrutiny, and intellectual honesty. You can't find a single statement of mine where I make reference to my emotions. But I'd be able to find one of yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
Artificially raising people's salaries only results in two things:Companies increasing their prices, which will cause inflation (i.e. decrease the value of currency). So the people who the minimum wage was trying to help will now have a higher salary, but all the products they consume will cost more as well. Anyone who proposes a minimum wage lacks even a basic understanding of economics and inflation.ORCompanies losing money, which will cause them to fire employees and which will improve unemployment. This would be terrible for the economy, since less job positions = worse economy.So, a minimum wage will either not do anything or make people lose their jobs. Anybody who tries to promote a minimum wage lacks even a basic understanding of economics.
It's fortunate you edited the comment before I responded. I am in no way arguing in favor of a minimum wage. Minimum wage automatically creates unemployment, but does not automatically create inflation. When there's a minimum wage, the law in effect is prohibiting the legal employment of all those whose marginal productivity falls below the price floor. Therefore unemployment is an inherent result. Inflation occurs only if the producer extends the increased cost of labor to the final product, and that depends on the sector and the product's elasticity. Depending on how the price floor is arbitrated, the employer can reduce costs of labor by disemploying (firing) or underemploying (reducing hours.) My point is that inflation is neither an immediate nor automatic result of the minimum wage. If you want to know that which results in inflation inherently, it's monetary policy particularly the printing of money without a (precious metal) standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Their motives aren't all too difficult to discern once one deconstructs their arguments and expose their rationales which in my experience are usually based on some perverted or bastardized understanding of logic. Their tools of perception and their means of rationalizing them according to their definitions and concepts would be considered what they allege is "magical" as well. But that part is conveniently left out of the joke. Instead they'd rather trade feelings than cogent and logically consistent arguments, which are the essence of debate. Instead, they're more preoccupied with letting you know how little they think of your "magic" with enmity and hostility, while maintaining their obliviousness to their unsubstantiated claims of "magic" as well.At least you guys are revealing your true motives
"
In other words, they're highly emotional and they often engage psychological projection (e.g. finding it "fun.") They merely disguise their dogma and ideological fervor with hostile humor, but not very well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
If you force employers to raise their salaries, they will raise their prices to keep even, and that will result in inflation.
That depends on the sector. It's all contingent on the elasticity of the goods being distributed and disseminated. If your argument concerns food, gas, medicine, etc. then producers can extend the increase cost of labor to their products without worrying much about a drop in consumption, but if it's for example cars, or a television subscription, furniture or a brand of water, then employers would sooner disemploy before alienating their consumer base by raising prices. Because those items can easily be substituted. It's not an immediate consequence that raising the minimum wage would result in inflation. The only monetary policy that immediately results in inflation is printing fiat. The more i.o.u.'s printed which have a diminishing redeemable value in gold, the less the fiat is worth, decreasing the purchasing power of currency; hence everything becomes more expensive, sector notwithstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Does God exist? Simply yes. He is perceived and believed by his adherents. And the papacy is actually a Pagan rite--in reference not to Peter, but to the Babylonian fish god, Dagon. If you notice the staff of the cardinals and bishops, "the crosiers," they're actually derived from the staff, Lituus, also known as the "crooked wand." The papal headdress, "Mitre," further informs the aforementioned argument because upon further inspection, the folded hat likens to a fish's mouth. Vatican city used to be known as "Saturnia" in veneration of the roman god, Saturn, who in his many incarnations over time can be related to the greek god, Chronos, the Egyptian god, Osiris and P'tah, and the Sumerian god, An. In other words, I'm stating that Catholicism is a pagan religion. With that said, most religions are.
Created:
Posted in:
It's a simple economic virtue: the minimum wage creates unemployment. And the extent of disemployment usually correlates with the price elasticity of the final product. Many employers pay the minimum because they're legally bound--and they shouldn't be. Labor contracts ought to be negotiated and entered willfully by the involved parties. When you apply the reasoning of sustaining or increasing the minimum wage in any other context, one will find that the logic is quite inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
A world where trust is no longer needed I'd a nightmare to people living under tyranny and to the opposite; anarchists who often will deal in crypto currency. Both ends of the spectrum have reason for their populace to be dissatisfied with a block-chain Utopia.A world where everyone is exposed to everyone is great but it means we all need to sacrifice privacy at once and that's never ever gonna happen, let's face it.
They'll sell the idea to an unwitting populace (much like they're trying to sell the RFID chip.) Much of the populace is unaware (at best willfully ignorant) that they're living under a tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Data creation is data processing.
And vice versa? That is, data processing is data creation?
Does anything actually have meaning? We can only assume that it does. Therefore a level of certainty as a state of mind, is the best that we have.
Yes. The meaning of which isn't necessarily independent of our perception. In fact, I'd argue it's dependent. But the meaning of which I speak is relevance. Near certainty communicates nothing more than assumption, right?
When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.What do you think?
Remember, a percentage is a ratio. In order for you to relate levels of certainty, you'd have to be able to perceive each part of your scale (from one to 100.) If you don't know what 100 percent is, then how can you characterize anything you presume to know as a level of certainty? And this is quite analogous to my argument. If "actual existence" as it's been argued is something independent of perception, then why would one relate what one does perceive to that which they can't perceive? It's not really on a scale from one to 100; it's a scale from one to x, where x is unknowable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That "trust" you provide banks is codified with slave labor as collateral. The banks can ensure the "safety of your money" because citizens are liable for public debt. They can print fiat against their capital reserves and index the value of each note to your labor prospects. Is that not morally reprehensible?If the bankers will win no matter what, I'm safer staying with the banks.I understand that some nations oppress their people and that cryptocurrency and online anonymity really are the 'only way out' for some to access things online that aren't morally reprehensible as such... However, overall what are cryptocurrency purchases and online anonymity used for? Exactly.If both from a pragmatic stance that banks are going to win when and if an economic-control war breaks out and also a romantic stance that cryptocurrency is used for morally reprehensible purposes, I have two strong angles to conclude that I'm better with my cash in a bank that I trust.
And by no means am I stating that cryptocurrency is safe. Quite the opposite. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have become popularized because the Banking families intend to streamline the Block chain technology for the masses (i.e. government regulated monetary transactions.)
Created:
Posted in:
Bitcoin is not a (crypto) currency; it's a stock. The "cryptocurrency" is merely a guise to make the block chain technology, which is essentially an online ledger, more palatable to the masses (a la the removal of the "gold standard" after "The Great Depression.") Funny how it popped up after the housing "crisis." 1.7 Billion people don't have bank accounts, meaning they have transactions which are unaccounted. Therefore tribute... I mean "taxes" cannot be deducted from said transactions. It's already started with these payment apps. The banking families will have their cut by any means necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The state sponsored history books will mention as much. If you're however interested in a more shrewd and nuanced analysis, then read Robert Higgs' Depression, War, and Cold War.Why, what is your solution, what I mean is that WW2 ofically marked the END of the depression
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No. Had FDR not imposed New Deal policies, remove the Gold Standard, and threaten private property rights, the U.S. would've recovered from the "Great Depression" sooner.It fully healed America, is that fair
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The industry ended the depression
The War Industry? No, it didn't. Only the means to measure the aggregates (in GDP) changed. They paid soldiers below "minimum wage" and had millions of them in fox holes avoiding bombs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you said it about the depression as whole in its middle stages
Middle stages? What are you talking about? It's an assessment of the effects before, during, and after the war. For example, the unemployment rate appeared to have lowered because of the men who were conscripted into the War efforts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What is this supposed to mean?you said it about eh depressiona s a whole in its middle satges
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you mind resubmitting that in layman's terms?You didnt debunk that, you said it about eh depressiona s a whole in its middle satges
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure you understand how a public forum works.
I'm confident you've already figured it out.
If you'd like to have a private conversation, perhaps you should send a private message.
No, I would like zedvictor4 to answer the questions I posed as I've already stated. I don't know what you're reading into that, nor am I invested in finding out. It doesn't concern me. I can't dictate the participation of anyone else. But I can dictate my own. Our discussion on the topic has ended. If you want to offer your input on my statements, then you're well aware that I can't stop you. But I will not respond with or initiate any arguments with you on the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I said FULLY SOLVED
I know. Repetition doesn't inform its veracity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here you go, [LINK]
I don't know what you believed that link was supposed to substantiate, but our discussion on the topic has already ended. I would like zedvictor4 to answer the questions I posed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
@Dr.Franklin
@Dr.Frankin:
The great depression was fully solved by WW2
No it wasn't. As Greyparrot mentioned, it happened by reason of relaxed price-controls; not to mention, there was a draft, so conscription was coerced, obfuscating the real costs of WWII.
@Snoopy
Worked to undercut a socialism/fascism worldview which was taking root in the United States during the Great Depression
Is that the reason a socialist like Adolph Hitler and a fascist like Benito Mussolini praised his policies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fundamentally transformed the country where the government controls, regulates and oversees most aspects of commerce and welfare.
And extended "the Great Depression" to make it so (especially considering the measures taken by his predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, when dealing with a similar recession.) Not to mention that the fourteenth amendment coupled with FDR's removal of the gold standard essentially makes each United States' citizen a debt-slave in perpetuity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I see it data processing is data processing. Therefore Gnosticism, Theism, commands and distinction are all part of the same internal process.Things are almost certainly out there, but the actual information is all contained within. So we can only be certain of our knowledge, but not 100% certain of the external reality.
What is the difference between "data processing" and "data creation"? If our knowledge can be, at best, self-contained, then why would you posit an "external reality" with "near certainty"? Does near certainty ("almost certainly") have any meaning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There's nothing more for me to say. At this point, it's just redundant. And redundancy is regressive. Enjoy your day.
Created:
Posted in:
What is the exchange rate of this "steem dollar/token"? It doesn't necessarily have to be to the dollar, but to a basket of various online goods. From what I gathered, the "steem dollar" is worthy only a "steem dollar."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Now, do you believe there is an important distinction between TRUTH (LOGICAL COHERENCE) and FALSEHOOD (LOGICAL INCOHERENCE)?If you don't recognize a bright line between REALITY and IMAGINATION, then how can you determine COHERENCE from INCOHERENCE?It's like we've been having an argument on television.I produce a television program that tries to explain the difference between television and not-television.Then you produce a television program in response basically saying that you can't understand what I'm saying because everything that I've communicated to you was ON TELEVISION. So even the stuff I present as examples of not-television are ON TELEVISION rendering them incomprehensible and self-contradictory.Certainly LANGUAGE ITSELF is ABSTRACT.HOweVeR, that does not mean it is wholly incapable of describing ACTUAL REALITY.
So we now get to your point. In the context of abstract logic, yes there's a difference. In the context of existence, no there's no difference, because both truth and falsehood exist. Furthermore, your argument operates on a non sequitur. Your analogy doesn't suffice and demonstrates your lack of understanding of my argument. So consider these my closing remarks as we've now come full-circle: everything you experience is inextricably tied to the abstracts you ascribe them. In order to substantiate your posit of an "actual reality" you must be able to control for the portion of your experience which is independent from abstracts. That is, you separate it, you isolate it, and you observe its behavior. That means no Science, no Math, no Language, no Logic, no Sensations, no Thought--because as soon as you think about it, you're subjecting it to the "bias" of your imagination/abstraction. What is it you'll experience then? "Something" you're able to neither communicate nor rationalize. (And I put scare quotes around "something" because it is rational.) Hence, it would be epistemologically insignificant. You're unwittingly stating that there's a significant difference between abstracts and an experience rationalized by abstracts. I am here to tell you: no there isn't.
The irony is that abstracts dictate your distinctions: "reality" vs. "imaginary" (scientific veracity -- concept); "truth" vs. "falsehood" (logic -- concept.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You've managed to utterly shatter my preconceptions.I'm simply trying to get my bearings.Please answer the question with a simple "YES" or "NO".
I don't believe that at all, especially given your response to keithprosser's statement. And since this isn't an "AMA" thread, I'm not inclined to answer your questions without context. This mouse has rejected your cheese, so skip to the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Now, do you believe there is an important distinction between TRUTH and FALSEHOOD?
Rather than lead me through a maze of yet to be contextualized queries, might we skip to the point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
@keithprosser:
Yes. I'd describe it as 'logically incoherent'.Now what did you really mean to ask?
Wrong person.
@3RU7AL
Do you believe there is an important distinction between REALITY and IMAGINATION?
I don't subscribe to notions of "reality" and "imagination." So I won't answer with a simple yes or no. Note that from the very beginning my argument has been that I believe God exists because I can. If I were to address the juxtaposition merely based on that which I presume you intend with the statement, then no, I don't believe there's an important distinction between that which you call "real" and that which you call "imaginary."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe it is possible to describe a concept that is logically incoherent?
Yes, but it would be just logically incoherent and paradoxical (and I haven't denied that.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You experience raw sensory input (like an infant) BEFORE you understand the concept of "existence".
What about this isn't abstract? You state that an infant experiences raw sensory input before understanding the concept of existence, but how do you discern this independent of your abstracts? Is any of this information indicative of a substance independent of your representation? In order for one to do this one must isolate the abstract and that which isn't abstract; and thus far, you've only attempted to do this by arguing semantics--an abstract. Even when we speak of physical senses and the experience of sensation, what is "sensation" without conceptual contextualization? How does someone know that they're doing something different with vision, audition, gustation, olfaction and somatosensation independent of the abstracts? They don't because sensation (or sensory input) is abstract in and of itself.
The map is not the territory.
This analogy doesn't suffice. Your argument essentially amounts to "your notions of that which you see, isn't the same as that which you see." Except your notions rationalize that which you see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The concept of "nothingness" is logically incoherent. The concept of "nothingness" is an abstract concept (not "nothing").
Were we discussing concepts? Or is there no distinction between the aforestated and this:
It is IMpossible that it's nothing, because "nothingness" is logically incoherent. "Nothingness" can only be no-where at no-time.
?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is IMpossible that it's nothing, because "nothingness" is logically incoherent. "Nothingness" can only be no-where at no-time.
Yes, but it's also paradoxical in that once you subject it to some logical framework, you are implicitly stating "nothingness" is not "nothing."
I believe Athias (Athiest) is simply trying to make an ontological argument for "perception/conception = reality".
Not necessarily. I'm stating that perception and conception are inseparable from rationalizing existence. And existence we're incapable of knowing (or rationalizing) doesn't matter. And "Athias" is a family name; not homonymous with "Atheist." Research the name and you discover its origin.
Are you asking how one assimilates raw sensory input that is not yet categorized (pre-Qualia)?
What is raw sensory input independent of abstract notion?
Just think of a newborn baby.
What about a newborn baby?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".
It's possible that it's nothing, but it's insignificant because one can't know it.
Please rephrase or expand this statement.
How does one control for information that is not abstract?
You've just described epistemological limits. Which is the single most significant aspect of epistemology.
Once again, it's a matter of formal logic; it's "p" and "not p"; not necessarily "p" and "q." Epistemology delineates all which is enclosed in set "p." Logically, this would create the negation of "p," but that can be expressed inversely or conversely creating sets "q" or "r." It's not the same as understanding that which we don't know (a known unknown which essentially are knowns); we can't know it, therefore we can't understand it (an unknown unknown which essentially are unknowables); hence, it's irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
INDEPENDENT REPRODUCTION IS DE FACTO CONSENSUS.
I didn't address this part of your comment because the logic is the same. Agreement may occur after the fact. But it's not the fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Quantifiable reality is the individual pixels on your computer screen.The sheer number of pixels and their brightness and their color and position are DATA (QUANTA) and emotionally meaningless.Your brain deciphers and extracts identifiable (QUALIA) WORDS from a meaningless smattering of pixels.Your brain projects MEANINGFULNESS (QUALIA) into those WORDS. Like spraying paint onto a blank canvas.
One's understanding of which is informed by abstract notions. How does one control for the information that isn't? Assume it exists?
NOUMENON = UNKNOWN/UNKNOWABLE.The problem with using the term "unknown" is that people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".
I'm not conflating "unknowable" with nothing; I'm conflating "unknowable" with "epistemological insignificance." The unknowable's being a limit is a matter of formal logic than epistemology: you can know only that which you can know; therefore the unknowable (can't be known) is a limit to the can be known.
The case for using the term NOUMENON is to emphasize that it is not "nothingness" and it is not only important, it is foundational.
There's a difference between stating that it can't be anything (nothingness) and that it doesn't matter (accepting the possibility that it's something, but it's not relevant to understanding the nature of one's knowledge and its advancement given that it's unknowable.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
FAILURE TO REPRODUCE RESULTS IS DE FACTO DISAGREEMENT.
No it isn't. Disagreement may occur after the fact. But it's not the fact.
Created: