Total posts: 12,563
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Dont say deviant.
The correct term is "valid sexual orientation".
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nothing quite as pathetic as pretending to be brave by saying something that will get you preferential treatment and congratulations from nearly every public and private institution of any size.
I do like to pretend, however in posts above, I wasnt pretending to be brave.
In fact, word "brave" wasnt used at all.
What was used is "high intellect".
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Every major corporation and every pro establishment politicians and most anti establishment politicians are pushing for more acceptance of homosexuality and more gayness in society.
Its good that society is becoming like Sodom again.
Created:
-->
@Cougarbear121212
I believe this thread is in the religion section
I believe that you are wrong.
And, it’s impossible by logic and reason to worship God and Mammon at the same time.
Thats why I dont do it at the same time. I do it at a different time.
I would agree that when we willingly sin, the Holy Ghost withdraws and we are at the control of Satan unless we repent. There have never been fence sitters in the Kingdom of God. We are either for or against God.
I can be for God one day, and then against God the other day. It really depends on my mood.
However, I dont acknowledge Jesus as full God. I think he is good, but he is not better than other Gods such as Zeus or Artemis.
Created:
-->
@Cougarbear121212
We have very religious people who are of high intelligence as well.
Well, I dont see how does religion relate to this topic.
In fact, I never mentioned religion anywhere in this post, except the small mention of hell at the start.
I did mention idiots, so you probably thought I was talking about religious people, but no, I was talking about idiots in general.
And yes, I know that religious people can be smart.
I am very religious myself.
I sometimes worship Jesus, but I also like Satan and the dark Gods.
Created:
-->
@Cougarbear121212
Thats nice.
Created:
I was raised in a very homophobic society.
I was taught that homosexuals are something disgusting, something which you burn in hell for, something which needs to be ridiculed and attacked.
Sadly for the homophobic society which teaches children to hate gays,
The cultural indoctrination is not something which can control those of high intellect.
In fact, those of high intellect quickly learn that people around them are idiots and you are supposed to use your own thinking as opposed to repeating what you were taught.
Thats why those of high intellect are usually the ones who approve of homosexuality.
In fact, those of high intellect are able to use reason to conclude that even if they find homosexuality disgusting, that is no reason to attack homosexuals, because people of high intellect dont act on small feelings like animals do.
In fact, only an idiot follows the line of reasoning:
"I dont like that person, so I will attack him".
And once you realize that high intellect takes priority, and sound reasoning replaces small primitive feelings, you enter into a new world.
You enter a world where you desire knowledge, a world where with every new information, a new world opens, and one information adds up to another.
And you realize that knowledge is all that matters.
Thats because human brain is made to learn, made to think.
It is not made to hate or to go back to copy primitive behavior of animals.
It was Kim il Sung who wrote a story about a bird who had no brain of its own, but just copied and repeated what others said.
This worked well while others were saying good things.
But then the bird heard bad words, insults, and kept repeating them, which caused others to attack the bird and chase it away.
The story basically says:
if you copy others, you will copy their mistakes as well, and if you repeat what others do, you will repeat their mistakes.
A reasoning is needed, and not mere copying, to be better than others.
Thats why you will never see person of high intellect blindly copying others.
In fact, thats usually the characteristic of an idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They would (and did) find homosexuality just as disgusting without cultural training.
I was raised in a very homophobic society.
Sadly for the homophobic society which teaches children to hate gays,
The cultural indoctrination is not something which can control those of high intellect.
In fact, those of high intellect quickly learn that people around them are idiots and you are supposed to use your own thinking as opposed to repeating what you were taught.
Thats why those of high intellect are usually the ones who approve of homosexuality.
In fact, those of high intellect are able to use reason to conclude that even if they find homosexuality disgusting, that is no reason to attack homosexuals, because reasonable people dont act on small feelings like animals do.
Created:
There are basic rules of survival and economy:
1. How much you need
2. How much you have
If you cant increase 2,
its maybe possible to decrease 1.
I dont have a car and I never will have a car.
Person doesnt need a car, despite popular belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The ones I collected were from Alder tree.
However, the catkins growing on hazelnut trees look very similar to catkins on Alder trees, almost same, but I dont want to pick from hazelnut tree as it cannot produce hazelnuts without catkins, and I do like hazelnuts.
Alder tree only produces catkins and cones, with catkins being edible and its cones are not edible.
Created:
Posted in:
The only reason why Putin is not completely defeated in Ukraine is because North Korea is saving his ass.
Apparently, Ukraine cannot intercept North Korean missiles used by Russia.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Donald Trump was the greatest president
He had 66% disapproval rate at the end of his term.
Maybe in 2028 he can achieve 80% disapproval rate and beat his own record.
Only Nixon's disapproval rate can match current Trump's record of disapproval rate.
Created:
Posted in:
Now, most of the people have probably never heard of catkins.
Catkins grow on certain trees, such as hazelnut trees, pine trees...
I was not familiar with what catkins were until recently, when I saw them on tree branch.
It obviously wasnt the fruit of a tree, so I figured it must be pollen.
I took about 30 of them from tree, I weighed them and they weigh about 25 grams.
Thats a good weigh, so then I wondered if they have calories.
So I did research, and apparently, they are called catkins.
While there is no exact data on them, some sources say that they contain lots of protein and are edible.
Now, when collecting catkins in a survival situation, you must know that only certain trees have edible catkins.
So you must know how to identify a tree before you can eat from it.
Trees were historically a source of survival for ancient people.
Fruit trees, nut trees, berries... were very important food for them.
I know that trees are very easy to grow, and berries are also easy to grow, so I plant them often in an effort to create great food source.
Trees like hazelnuts, walnuts... live very long and dont require any care if you live in area with sufficient amount of rain.
I do plan to plant about 60 tree transplants in total.
I dont plant seeds, because they have high failure rate.
Transplants so far had over 90% success rate, and they give fruit much sooner than seeds do, so they pay off much more.
I like planting trees much more than I like planting vegetables.
Trees require much less work, just involve more waiting.
But if you plant dwarf tree, you wait less.
Apparently, one of the apple dwarf trees I planted started producing in year two.
So since vegetables involve lots of tilling and weeding, and trees dont involve that, and since trees are more beneficial for the environment, I chose to grow lots of trees and only some vegetables.
With trees, all you have to do is learn how to plant properly, make sure there is enough space between trees and water after planting.
Created:
For some time I have lived on around 1000 calories, so after slowly losing weight, I increased calories to 1200 per day.
At that point, I also changed the way I drink water.
I used to drink water often in smaller amounts.
Now I drink water twice a day in larger amounts at once.
After doing those 2, I stopped losing weight.
Apparently, 1200 calories is enough for me.
And my mood has been good ever since I reduced amount of food I eat.
It seems that my bad mood in the past was result of eating more food than I need.
Now, there were certain flaws in this experiment.
The most obvious flaw is amount of calories in food.
Only certain foods have exact calorie number on them.
For other foods, I had to rely on data about it from internet.
The other flaw is that I wasnt able to keep up with one meal per day, but often I practiced one big meal per day and one much smaller one later.
But regardless, this experiment yields fantastic results.
It stands as opposition to overeating.
I stated before that overeating also makes person happy, which is true because if you eat way more food than you need, you feel happier.
But this experiment seems to be more effective because not only I feel better than when overeating, but I enjoy food more.
So to sum it up, there is:
1. Eating 1200 calories, which feels better than overeating
2. Eating a lot, but not overeating (causes bad mood)
3. Overeating, which feels good
It seems that the option 2 is the worst, option 3 is second best, and option 1 is best, as conclusion of the experiment.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If leaders of a communist, socialist, or fascist nation tells it's citizens they own their property, does that mean they're okay with neighboring nations coming in and helping themselves?
Ah, yes, the false idea that Communism has something to do with "leaders owning everything".
Really impressive how people dont even bother to google what Communism is 🙁
Created:
-->
@WyIted
feel free to chop your sons penis off because he seems a bit feminine
Trans issue is too rare in reality, but comes up in discussion too often.
I dont see why would I prevent someone from getting trans surgery.
Their choice, really.
I dont prevent people from getting vasectomy either.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well, I do like Communism, but I can understand that capitalism is attractive too.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Created:
Zeus of the lightning-strike, Zeus of the sturdy oak,
we hear you in the clash of thunder, we see you
in the bright-lit night, we feel you in the air,
in the exhilaration of the storm. I praise you,
O god whose will it is that the clouds gather low
in the sky, whose gift of rain pulls life from the earth.
Great Zeus, friend of those who wander the world,
of those who are ever again among strangers,
friend of those who rely on the honor and virtue
of others, I praise you, O god of the righteous
whose wrath falls on those who prey on the exile
and the outcast, the recluse and the solitary.
Zeus of the prophets, Zeus of many oracles,
kindly one whose words we hear in silent voices
or see in the throw of the bones, whose messages
we know by their truth alone. I praise you,
O god who is the source of all visions and signs,
of all that is foretold by mortal seekers and seers.
Glorious Zeus, king of the starry heavens, master
of the thunderstorm, swift-striking hurler
of firebolt and hailstone, we know your might well,
in torrents of rain, in winds that tear a man
from mother Gaia’s embrace. The summer showers
are yours, O Zeus, that bring the earth to life each year;
yours too is the windstorm, the cyclone, the typhoon.
Each season’s storms, O Zeus, that bear the names
of women and men, are yours to guide; your hand
it is that brings winged death to one house
while its neighbor stands untouched. I pray to you,
O god of the lightning, god of the wild winds,
grant to us your blessing, grant to us your favor,
grant to us your good will. O kind-hearted Zeus,
I pray to you, keep from us the terror of the storm.
Created:
Great Zeus, Father Zeus, master of Olympos,
bearer of the thunderbolt whose might it is
that draws together the darkening clouds,
well-honored one, kind-hearted god to whom we turn
when we are far from home and family, I call to you.
Zeus, I am alone; I stand in the sphere of strangers.
Friend of the foreigner, friend of the visitor,
friend of those who must rely on the good will
of those unknown, the kindness of the host
to the outsider, I pray to you, lead me
to a place of welcome, bring me safely home again
Created:
I was told that I reject religion because my religious parents didnt beat me enough when I was a child and because they spoiled me.
And I thought "yeah thats probably true".
Maybe if my parents hit me more when I was a child, they would beat the satan out of me.
Because really, to be religious you must have great fear, and what better way to give your child fear than to beat him.
In fact, without fear, there is basically no reason to be Christian or muslim.
You only become Christian if you have fear of hell.
I spend my days on Earth living as half-Christian half-Satanist.
I do try to be nice and kind, but every day I feel the dark world pulling from within.
Which is why I must say now: gay is okay.
In fact, I think its not okay not to be gay.
Being straight is wrong.
We live in the world full of Christians and muslims.
This means that religious people reproduce faster than atheists, which is true, according to some studies, atheists do reproduce less.
So is religion beneficial for reproduction?
If so, what is reproduction beneficial for?
Nothing.
So what is religion beneficial for, again?
Nothing.
Religion is just what you get when people believe in magic, and to no great surprise, religious people are more likely to believe in fortune telling, ghosts, supernatural things...
Science is not like religion,
because in science, you believe in something after you get proof of it,
where in religion you believe in something and spend years searching for proof for it, and then when you find no proof you still keep believing.
The religion is based on no logic, as there are thousands of Gods, and you picked one of them hoping that your guess is right.
Now excuse me, I gonna go pray to Zeus.
Father Zeus, protector of the weak,
help me to be strong against my fears.
Father Zeus, protector of the wronged,
help me to do right by all I meet.
Father Zeus, protector of the home,
help me to safeguard those within my walls.
Father Zeus, help me to do what I must,
be with me as I walk in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, thats an unsafe marriage.
By the time she turns 20, that old man will likely die, as life expectancy isnt really high there.
Created:
-->
@Mall
This is what I mean thinking outside the box.Is there anybody here familiar with the expressions "can I hit dat" or " did you hit dat" or " is you hittin' dat"? Referring to the vagina.
Well played, sir.
Created:
By pain morality:
There is almost no case where beating a wife is justified.
"She is trying to harm someone greatly and will do it unless beaten, and beating will prevent more harm than it causes" is a scenario that is almost non-existent in the world.
Created:
Every argument has a counter argument to it.
However, the science behind writing a counter argument goes very far.
It is not as simple as "I need to explain how that argument is incorrect".
Each argument has premise and conclusion.
So attacking premises or conclusion is the usual way, but lets explore different options when writing a counter-argument.
The different ways of writing counter-argument are:
1. Challenge assumptions by asking for proof.
Many arguments have assumptions as their premises.
Therefore, pointing out that premises are assumptions, or pointing out that they are unproved, greatly diminishes the strength of an argument.
Also, one must know that sometimes premises are true, but conclusion doesnt follow.
Conclusion drawn from facts can still be an assumption, if it is not logical that such conclusion follows from facts.
2. Disprove premises
It is sometimes possible that even if opponent presents evidence for premises, there could be more evidence against those premises than there is for them.
So by presenting evidence which disproves a premise, the argument collapses.
This can be done by presenting studies, facts, statistics or examples which disprove a premise.
3. Present a different option as counter argument
Its not always necessary to disprove premises.
It can be enough to present a different option which has more or equal evidence to support it.
For example, presenting a different premise or different conclusion from same premises.
If one of the premises is:
"If it rains today, I wont go outside."
You can challenge it by saying that there are cases when you go outside when it rains.
You can also say that its possible to go outside when it rains.
This places doubt on the premise.
4. Outweigh
Outweigh is a form of indirect negation.
You basically concede that argument is true, but that it is outweighed by your arguments.
This usually works better if there is a comparison done.
5. Exposing hidden assumptions or an incomplete argument
Even if premise is conceded to be true, and if conclusion is also conceded to be true, it could still mean that the argument doesnt prove the topic enough.
This happens when argument only covers one part of the topic, or doesnt cover all cases.
Such arguments are incomplete and depend on hidden assumptions to be accepted as true.
By pointing out how argument doesnt cover the case it is supposed to cover to prove the topic, and by pointing out that there are indeed such cases which are not covered by the argument, it diminishes the argument's strength.
6. Moving debate into area of assumptions
This is usually considered as trolling, but every argument depends upon some assumption being true or false.
For example,
"I see a building" is a premise which depends upon an assumption that what you see is what is real and that you are not just insane or hallucinating or that your brain isnt deceiving you.
This is considered as trolling tactic, since it moves the debate to what cannot be proven or disproven.
But since every argument becomes challenged when it meets these limitations, this is still a form of counter-argument.
7. Proving that argument is irrelevant
Argument could be true and everything, but still it could be not relevant to the topic.
8. Challenge by definition
It sometimes happens that people try to change the definition argument uses, and use definition which isnt commonly accepted.
It is also possible that people misrepresent the meaning of the definition they use.
9. Exposing contradictions and logical fallacies
If opponent's one claim contradicts with another, he will logically have to concede that one of the claims is false.
If opponent uses logical fallacies, his argument becomes invalid if you point out which logical fallacy is he using.
10. If argument is true, it works for you
Some arguments dont need to be attacked directly, but they have whats usually described as "undesirable outcomes or costs".
Basically, by pointing out that if given argument is true, then things which disprove the topic also must be true.
This is similar to reframing an argument, where you concede that argument is true, but that it works for your case or against your opponent's case.
By limiting your opponent to an options which he must defend to defend his argument, it places doubt on if said argument is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
President Trump says that aiming machine guns at migrants would be a "very effective" deterrent.
So he wants to turn USA into North Korea?
Created:
Posted in:
Now, all of you already know that most of the formal debates come with character limit or time limit.
This basically means that as long as you use full character limit or full time limit, opponent cannot respond to each of your sentences individually.
In most formal debates, people dont respond to each sentence, but break the logical link between premises and argument to negate it by presenting counter options or proving that premises are false or assumptions, or try to outweigh the argument.
However, gish gallop changes the rules of the game.
In gish gallop, there is plenty of arguments and reasons which make it impossible to respond to them all.
And since there is plenty of them, outweighing them is also difficult.
The basic way of doing gish gallop is to write as many as possible independent reasons which support the topic.
They must be independent reasons, which means that they dont depend on each other.
That means, if one is proven wrong, others still stand as true.
Whats also important in gish gallop is to avoid assumptions, but use facts as reasons.
That way, you will be creating lots of conclusions in minds of those who read it, even if you yourself never state those conclusions.
And opponent will not be able to dismiss them as assumptions either.
Gish gallop is also useful when attacking an argument.
Instead of focusing too much on building one counterargument, you use plenty of smaller ones, forcing opponent to negate each if he is to save his argument.
The goal in gish gallop is to create a situation where it takes more text for opponent to refute your argument than it takes you to write it.
This basically leaves opponent with only 1 option, which is to drop some of your arguments and instead try to outweigh them indirectly.
But gish gallop is not easy work.
Thinking of enough reasons to fill character space with takes time.
You can of course use google and spam facts and statistics, but that only works on some topics, apparently those where there is a lot of facts and statistics supporting one side of the topic.
Now, the best example of successful Gish Gallop is Trump.
In fact, it made him president once.
He won countless of debates by saying too many things in short amount of time, basically overwhelming an opponent.
Created:
I mean, its your house.
No one is really defending the position that two homosexuals can break into someone's house and kiss there in a sexual way and do all kinds of hot things that would probably be fun to watch.
Created:
Posted in:
Many people would vote for Trump simply because they think Biden is worse.
But people in 2020 voted for Biden because they at that time thought that Trump is worse.
Its a common reasoning fallacy of
"If Biden bad, Trump good"
And
"If Trump bad, Biden good"
What this reasoning fails to see is the other option:
"Both are bad".
Politics in USA are no longer about who is good.
Politicians dont even try to be much good, but they just spread propaganda to make the other guy look worse.
And Trump is not the cure for this.
Trump had his chance as president.
It didnt work out well.
In my opinion, Biden is far from perfect, but that doesnt make me support Trump.
I concede that Biden is not doing very well as president.
Its hard to deny it when Israel is being supported in doing what it does, which could result in a lot more wars than what we have now.
I understand that Israel has nukes, but that does not mean it deserves unconditional support in what it does.
But Trump would also support Israel.
Trump would support Putin.
Americans have a bad habbit of "If current president is doing bad, elect the other."
What we must understand is that Trump is not someone who fights for democracy.
While Biden fights against Putin, Trump will concede to Putin, giving him victory so that he can move on to next target in the future.
It will also send message to dictators world wide that "yes, you can get away with invading a country and even profit from it greatly.".
To claim that it wont send a clear message how being aggressor is good, is clearly false, as Putin winning in Ukraine would be an example of how being aggressor is good.
So Trump is not a cure.
He will not save USA from anything, just like he didnt do anything special the first time he was president.
Created:
Posted in:
So far I mostly focused on having lots of debates at the same time.
Now I want to try to have one debate at the time, so that I put more effort and time in one debate.
Right now, I have the open challenge debate about Communism.
Unless someone accepted by now, here is the deal:
I am ready to change the topic a bit, but I am not ready to change the definition of Communism.
Communism is basically defined as democratic ownership, and thats what the topic will be about.
I can make it "Communism vs Capitalism" or something like that, but the definition of Communism is taken from google as it is, and you can use whatever definition of capitalism you want.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Small brains and therefore reduced neuronal connections?
Well, yes.
Computers cant start programs which demand more working memory than they have.
Created:
A lot of the times I was in conversation with someone, any time I used logic they clearly dont understand, they looked at me as if I was stupid.
Now, obviously, this creates the question:
Why do smart things sound stupid to stupid people?
And if smart things indeed sound stupid to stupid people,
Is it possible that things which sound stupid to me could actually be smart and I just dont understand them?
Created:
Posted in:
Sometimes definitions arent well defined to suit all situations.
Since law defined what is unlawfull, and group who makes the law decided that only it can make the law,
there is simply no way for your actions to be permitted by a group if the group doesnt exist.
And as long as definition of unlawfull requires that, it makes everything unlawful by that definition in that scenario.
Its more of a definition issue,
Where before law is created, everything is unlawfull (non-approved by law).
Created:
Posted in:
What happens if consent is withdrawn during sex?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
best korea- "two things in contradiction cannot exist"me- *literally contradicts him*
Thats not a logical contradiction.
I am really done explaining at this point.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Already explained to you the difference between sound arguments and cogent ones.
As much as you would like to change the topic to whats not even being discussed, I really have no interest in debating irrelevant things right now.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
covered in my last post with zero rebuttals to my reasoning method.
I dont need to provide rebuttal to something irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.
We were discussing contradiction, where you provided examples of things which can both exist, hence not in contradiction.
Things in contradiction cannot both exist, otherwise it wouldnt be a contradiction.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
There are 2 types of arguments though. You have cogent vs sound arguments. When 2 sides are arguing for policy positions than they will likely be making cogent sounding arguments not sound arguments and both sides are usually concerned about different things, so they may both in fact be correct. So a contradiction doesn't imply one side is correct and one incorrect only that they have different ideals about how things should be.I think you are confusing cogent with sound. You can't have 2 opposite sound arguments. One has to be true and one false. Either the animal is a dog or not a dog, it can't be both. So contradiction would not make a side wrong.
Do you know what is a logical contradiction?
"Sun exists" or "It is false that Sun exists".
They cannot both be true, even if two people hold these opposite views.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Synthesis means to kind of marry 2 things together
No, thats a common misunderstanding of dialectical argument.
Two contradictive things, by definition, cannot both exist.
So there is no way to make them both exist.
Synthesis doesnt "marry the two", but either creates new thesis which is different from the previous one, either maintains original thesis by negating antithesis.
There is no way for both thesis and antithesis to be true, since one is by definition a negation of other, a contradiction to it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
These societies also were small in scale but the power vacuum left by "true communism" meant the system did not last long.
Yes, the power vacuum is a common argument which goes into Communist dictatorship.
Which is why I will probably be arguing for Communist democracy.
The Laissez Faire examples were successful and the criticism are usually that it wouldn't scale well beyond small tribes.
Well, tribes arent exactly what one has in mind when defending capitalism, since tribes are not very competitive on a large scale, and wealth creation drives most of society past the point of tribe.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
In this case I am only concerning myself with a statement you made and not the over arching argument.
Okay, let me explain then.
"Then a synthesis happens, where either antithesis is negated either thesis is negated."
Antithesis is contradiction to thesis.
They by definition cannot both exist because existence of one excludes another.
So an increase of capitalist's wealth includes decrease of worker's wealth, excludes increase of worker's wealth, when the amount of wealth is limited.
And since amount of wealth is limited, the growth of antithesis means decrease of thesis.
Every increase in antithesis negates same amount of thesis, and complete realization of antithesis negates thesis completely.
Therefore, increase of capitalist's wealth negates increase in worker's wealth, due to them being mutually exclusive.
Thats the best I can explain it.
Now, I hope you read the complete text so you get the full picture.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I wrote this because I soon plan to have a debate of Capitalism vs Communism.
One must prepare well, given that Communism is not exactly an existing system where capitalism is to some degree.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
One side wouldn't be negated, there would be a type of synthesis of ideals where you would have a free market, but it would be regulated to constrain the excesses of capitalism.
This was already covered in possible synthesis outcomes.
Created:
I wanted for a long time to reach for the idea of dialectical materialism, but I was busy.
Now I finally found time to do great research on the idea of dialectical materialism, based on Karl Marx's view of Hegel's dialectical argument.
It might be difficult to understand at first, but later I will follow up with example which makes it easy to understand.
Lets first explore what is dialectical argument.
Dialectical argument is based on law of non-contradiction.
It is made of:
1. Thesis
2. Antithesis
3. Synthesis
Thesis is the first position, original position.
Antithesis presents contradiction to thesis.
If antithesis is true, the thesis is false.
If antithesis is false, thesis stands true.
Then a synthesis happens, where either antithesis is negated either thesis is negated.
If antithesis is negated, thesis stands true.
If thesis is negated, original position is false, which gives birth to new position different from the original one.
Synthesis either maintains original thesis either creates new thesis which is different from the original one.
Antithesis is negation of thesis.
Negation of antithesis is negation of negation.
So, by simple deduction, synthesis is one of these:
1. Negation of the negation while maintaining thesis
2. Negation of negation by changing thesis, creating new thesis
3. Negation of thesis while upholding antithesis, where antithesis becomes new thesis
Lets now look at the example, and how dialectical materialism sees capitalism.
Capitalists are seeking to get as rich as possible.
Workers are also trying to get as rich as possible.
There are limited resources in society.
Therefore, the more capitalists get rich, the less wealth is there left for workers.
1. Worker's wealth is thesis
2. Capitalist's wealth is antithesis, which increases at the expense of worker's wealth, which means at the expense of thesis.
One cannot increase without other decreasing.
Antithesis cannot increase without thesis decreasing, because they are in contradiction.
The synthesis only has 3 options:
1. Negation of worker's wealth, so abolishment of capitalism.
2. Negation of capitalist's wealth, so abolishment of capitalism.
3. Balance between capitalist's wealth and worker's wealth which makes it possible to maintain thesis and antithesis.
Karl Marx argues that both 1 and 2 lead to Communism, as it is not possible to abolish worker's wealth or capitalist's wealth without abolishing capitalism.
While Karl Marx concedes that option 3 maintains capitalism, he argues that option 3 is much harder to achieve than either option 1 or option 2.
This is because option 3 is the only thing maintaining capitalism in existence, and both workers and capitalists are actively working to abolish option 3 in their favor.
Then follows the famous negation of the negation.
Since survival of society is negated by its own contradiction which is capitalist's wealth being contradictive to worker's wealth, one must negate this negation, which means to negate capitalist's wealth, to produce a new thesis, a new society, a communist society that is not negated by any internal contradiction, where worker's wealth is not negated but upheld.
This new society must not have capitalist's wealth, therefore must negate capitalist's wealth.
Marx argues that crisis in capitalism is caused when capitalist's wealth prevails over worker's wealth, or when worker's wealth prevails over capitalist's wealth.
Since its impossible to keep them in balance all the time, crisis happens often which shakes foundations of society.
New society, society without contradiction, can only be society which is neither capitalist, nor feudal nor slavery.
So it must be society which either always maintains balance between capitalists and workers (government regulated economy)
Or
It must be society without capitalist's wealth, which is Communism.
Since government regulated economy is, by nature, difficult to keep in check, since it often either leans to workers or to capitalists, it is not a good synthesis.
This leaves only Communism as the option.
Communism must, therefore be society without contradiction.
It must be a society entirely ruled by workers, as it cannot be a society entirely ruled by capitalists.
This means that workers dictate the distribution of means of production and of wealth, as opposed to capitalists dictating it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
islam is obviously a false religion where the quran talks about cutting of heads and hands,
Those are the less bad parts.
The way torture is described in muslim hell is sick.
They burn person's skin alive, and then after it entirely burns, they give person a new skin to burn him again.
i think a thing that you struggle with, is having principles.
Yes.
I am a person who weighs benefits vs harms.
I dont have one principle, such as saving lives or reducing pain.
I recognize that a little bit of pain can be tolerated.
I recognize that not all lives are worth living.
it's okay to stand for things, but you need to make sure that you are speaking and acting, based on truth.
Truth is discovered through dialectial argument.
It is not something which just waits to be accepted.
Natural path of truth is presented in Hegel's dialectical argument:
1. Thesis
2. Antithesis
3. Synthesis
Thesis is the original position.
Antithesis presents challenge and contradiction to thesis.
Then a synthesis happens, where either contradiction is negated either thesis is negated.
If contradiction is negated, original position stands true.
If thesis is negated, original position is false, which gives birth to new position different from the original one.
it's okay to say islam is a trash religion, and that muslims are simple mistaken and deceived
I know its a trash religion, but you really dont wanna be saying that in a muslim country.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I was raised by muslims.
Muslims also have their version of hell,
Which is described in horrible ways in Quran.
Created:
Posted in:
Isnt screen there for cameras at the back, to remove blind spot in cars when they go backwards?
I dont think its for scrolling while driving.
Created: