Ramshutu

Find out what specifically; my problem has nothing to do with not wanting to find an answer: it’s that the question itself doesn’t make sense.

I can explain communication in the context of relativity - and I can explain what quantum communication is.

Putting the two together sounds like something you would say right before you suggest reconfiguring the phase discriminators to improve the integrity of the pattern buffers to compensate for nadion radiation interference.

What do you mean by quantum communication or Quantum computing - because the way you’re using those terms don’t really gel in any way with the question asking.

It’s like asking which radio station has the biggest impact on car aerodynamics.

It’s not possible for you to be correct.

We all know that the inverted sine wave to rotated our of phase by 45 degrees into 4 dimensional space, 13 dimensional microgravity transmutes into 11 dimensional dark energy. The inverted Chalabai Yau toroidal force energy would expand exponentially into the meso derm micro evolutional energy, and end up twisting our collocate: cos wave energy pattern /\/\/\/\/, and inevitably prevent our matrix multiple resolving down to the root of Pi.

We can tell this because ...1....5....b....o...o....b....z....p83...r1.... in n dimensional state space of all the atoms vibrational energy.

Duh.

1.) We can see a lot of it.

2.) We can apply the laws of physics that occur now to the universe when it was younger and extrapolate backwards in time; use that hypothesis what happened in the early universe then look for observations that confirm it.

A good example is Big Bang theory; it uses the known universe expanding, extrapolates back in time to the early universe; we then did a lot of maths to hypothesize the Big Bang and Big Bang physics - used this to predict a universal background radiation at the temperature at which the primordial atomic soup would have become transparent to radiation as it cooled; and ratios of primordial atoms; then made observations of both those things.

What has Quantum communication have to do with black holes?

Why would you ever, ever want to teach a child faith? 

Faith is absolutely not a concept of how to determine what ideas are true or not; it’s the very Antithesis of that. 

It’s basically how to be way more confident in a belief than you have any right to be based on the actual evidence, and in many cases how to maintain confidence in a belief despite logic and evidence refuting it.

He’s been doing it for years, no one listens to it; I’m hoping he just copies and pastes this stuff, because it would be sad thinking of him enthusiastically writing all this stuff day after day, post after posts, hoping someone will read it - but no one ever does.

The observer premise of Quantum theory is solely that the process of making an observation inherently changes what is being observed.

In the double split experiment when observing the light as it passes through the slit disrupts the interference pattern, not because your conscious brain is somehow magic, but solely because interacting with the light in order to measure it, changes what the light is doing.

“Observer” in this sense is often taken wildly out of context by people who don’t grasp the nature of what it means.

I wrapped s bit of exodus into Genesis there, but you get the gist.

You seem to be mostly ignoring the key points of my arguments to circle back to the same logical errors I already pointed out.

I will reiterate my position to prevent the argument driving off the rails, and try to bring everything back to my central points:

Organisms that evolve as part of a society need to evolve some sort of mechanism to prevent individual behaviour harming everyone’s collective survival by harming the group. Without this, individual selfishness prevents the group from succeeding and thus harms individual survival chances.

In other words, I have a plausible, technical, naturalistic explanation of how humans can acquire a sense of good and bad, and exhibit a conscience without the existence of God.

This need to maintain balance between individual and social group is an objective imperative; as in it can be objectively determined that such an imperative is necessary for those in the group to follow, can be independently constructed - even intelligent spiders without human morality would be able to deduce the generalized basics of our morality based on it. 

As well as being a concrete technical explanation; it also has staggering explanatory power. It nominally explains a large part of human moral interactions and behaviour - why murder is wrong, but murder for self defense is okay, but torture in response to small harm is not (straying from balance presents a harm to society); it’s explains why most individuals are not okay with killing children, and why humans have an innate ability to make moral distinctions between their group differently from other groups; it explains psychopathy; honour among thieves, and any number of other examples of the expression of morality in humans.

My framework provides an objective explanation of almost all facets of human behaviour.

However this morality is inherently subjective - good and bad are only in our heads, and changes from generation to generation, group to group - as it is a learned reaction based on the social norms of a group - there is no separate, objective “true” or “good” outside that; and much of it is purely the arbitrary product of that learning. 


This presents a simple, consistent, logical and extraordinarily reasonable explanation of morality that clearly matches almost all the facts and evidence and doesn’t require God.

Conversely; morality from God is an arbitrarily asserted set of moral truths that cannot be independently deduced, and must be explicitly asserted as truth based on trust with out any capacity to really explain or validate anything. It’s simply arbitrary ignorance asserted loudly as if truth. There is a difference

An objective morality would be one everyone could agree on, anyone, regardless of culture or belief can validate is correct and true, and can be deduced independently without belief, preference; or assertion. 

Like, say, the mass of a proton. That’s an objective quantity.


Religion clearly and definitively doesn’t provide that - religious leaders of the same denomination often cannot agree what their religion says is moral.

Your argument here, is that God is the moral framework - and even though we can’t see what that framework is, we cannot seem to deduce how it works, we cannot independently assess its validity, and all we really have to show it exists at all is a 2000 year old book that lists a bunch of things we shouldn’t do - this unseen, unknown moral framework is totally objective - and the foundation of good and evil.

To argue the latter is somewhat more reasonable than the former is beyond intellectually dishonest and is, for want of a better phrase, intellectually obnoxious.



This atheistic position of morality blows theistic morality out of the water in every respect as a coherent framework for explaining what we see around us. The central question you posed.


if you pay attention haven’t actually attacked any of the details directly; you don’t attack the technical side, what evidence explains, etc, you don’t challenge the framework or cite objective agreed facts that are antithetical to this explanations.

Instead you just repeat the same underpinning errors I pointed out in my last post over and over again. You put a lot of verbiage in, but really everything you say boils down to a handful of logical fallacies.

I’m going to address these somewhat out of order:

They said that about he Portsmouth block mills, the cotton Jenny and the computer.

They were right in that they all overturned the state of the conventional labour market. 

However, they also opened up a their own huge labour markets in their own right.

Imagine you’re a white male  who is neither strong, nor adaptable, and is dependent on his current social status for his self worth, and his social status is mainly dependent on white males being afforded more opportunity on balance than everyone else. 

Changes in the economy means that you have less job security; and you now have to work harder and do more to maintain your work based social status.

Women and minorities are now afforded more opportunities due to the realization that discrimination against those groups is bad, women do better, have more power; in both In the workplace and relationships - even the jokes you can tell in the workplace, now that you’re not telling them to an almost exclusive white male group - are under attack.

Now that your having to rise or fall based on your ability; instead of having an inbuilt advantage in the system; your unique social identity, from bread winner, to high flyer are under attack.

On top of that, these other groups that your own prejudice perceive as inferior  are now becoming more successful, having their own power, and wanting different things from you, and being empowered enough to get them; add another element to it.

So, even though they still have an inherent advantage over the others: their unique power and advantage has been eroded over others, and that reduction in power through the empowerment of others is perceived as unfair.

In reality, all that’s happened is that the monopoly on power has been broken a little, and all the people who defined themselves by that monopoly are now left unable to deal or adapt.

All that’s left now is often an angry knee jerk reactions to anything closely related to the reduction on that monopoly, nostalgia for how good life was in that monopoly, or various forms of attack on breaking that monopoly, from hysteria to hyperbolae now that they’ve lost a big part of their identity.

We should really be working out how to build a new identity, rather than trying to return a system where the identity was inherently built upon discrimination of others.

Should we argue in the type of good faith and appeal to intellectual honesty present in the first line of this post, or the second?

I know - I was using “you” in the generic sense:

Like “anyone can do science, but you have to follow the process” 

There are an infinite number of ways of measuring the curvature pr lack thereof of the earth.

All of them require you to accept the results for you you believe the conclusion is valid.

If you’re willing or able to simply assert any type of unprovable nonsense to explain why observations do not agree with you - you can believe anything

FYI: This is literally how they proved gravity existed as newton specified:

The small deflection of a Plum line whilst next to a large mountain in the Sciehellian experiment, and the attraction of lead masses in the cavendish experiment.

The force you experience due to gravitational attraction is F=G * mass1 * mass2 / r^2

G is very small, (-11th power), and r is squared meaning that force you experience has to be very big or very close to have an impact.

Gravity is an exceptionally weak force.

When you were the one with the power - equality feels like oppression.

For a few hours every day, every human on the planet experiences vivid and elaborate hallucinations whilst unconscious.

It’s almost if our brains have some innate or inherent ability to make us perceive complex and vivid scenarios - often relevant to both our own beliefs and the things we have recently experienced - whilst the conscious parts brain is turned off, wouldn’t you say?

The answer here is quite simple.

We evolved as part of a social mammals. Evolution of individuals dependent on social groups is a balance between individual and group needs. To prevent individual needs overriding the group and harming everyone’s collective chances of survival; individuals need to be motivated to prevent themselves or others from harming the group.

To this end; what we experience as “morality” is the learned emotional response that helps drives behaviour to conform to the groups ideals, and want to punish others that don’t. 

That is an objective imperative that leads to learned subjective moral systems and does not necessitate the need for any deity.

To follow up on a few points:

1.) Morality appears subjective.

What you experience as moral drive is dependent on where and when you lived. Humans at various times have been fine with murder, slavery, infanticide, rape, genocide, etc - and that’s in the Bible - the place where your objective unchanging moral standard is written.

You can even take individuals who are moral, and place them in a scenario where they have power over others - and you can change their moral decision making.

Nothing at all, in any aspect of human behaviour even whispers that a universal objective moral standard exists - everything screams that it’s learned/taught and influenced behaviour based on social groups. And you can’t suggest otherwise unless you want to beg the question and assert that behaviour of those in the 1st century that they considered valid and moral was actually truly “immoral” by some objective or singular standard.

2.) If morality is subjective, why should it matter what we do?

What makes you think it does? In fact presupposing that morality exists above and external to us such that how we act “matters” in some universal sense is inherently begging the very question (again) you’re answering.

Why does it matter to us as individuals? We still live and exist in a society in which acting badly can impact our quality of life. Just should remember that there’s a difference between morality being subjective and morality not existing, after all.

Put us in the zombie apocalypse that calculus would definitely change.

3.) Subjectivity is more than preference.

You are confusing subjectivity a little here by limiting its application.

Taste and preference - whether I like cake or ice cream better - is subjective. But that’s a false equivalence as we don’t have as much of an inherent emotional reaction to ice cream as we do morality.

Compare morality to something like fear. Fear is subjective.

You can be afraid of clowns, heights, falling, dogs, cats, etc; I could not. 

What you’re afraid of is not down to preference, but experience and learned behaviour.

Conflating Learned behaviour and experience driving subjectivity with purely taste and preference downplays the inherent nature of the thing you’re comparing.

4.) Gods Morality is not objective either.

Simply declaring God as the source of morality, then giving up doesn’t really solve the problem.

If God arbitrarily declared murder is immoral; he could just have easily have declared that murder is fine, and eating with your mouth full was immoral. 

That means morality is just as arbitrary and subjective as what you’re attacking in Atheism, no?
 
If God has simply arbitrarily declared murder is wrong - why does it matter if we murder people? Without an objective imperative - which arbitrarily declaring sets of behaviours as good or bad, there’s no reason for any given moral standard at all.

If God didn’t arbitrarily declare murder is wrong - then that implies that morality and ethics is external to God.

Indeed simply invoking a deity and declaring that they made morality isn’t an explanation of anything - it’s an absence of an explanation.

The reality is fairly clear though, one of our explanations boils down to an objective imperative, explains the nature of human moral experience; one of us is postulating an arbitrary moral standard that is invoked without explanation or necessity; with no objective foundation.

I actually think you’re asking the wrong question.

Let me illustrate with an example and myself. Take UBI, I think this could be a very positive thing, and I don’t share the same view of the inherent laziness of people would prevent it working or cause harm.

At the same time: if we did a longer term study on it, and it didn’t work, I would change my mind.

Take anti-government ideology; of conservatives today: If some random socialist policy did not cause the problems you thought it would, and actually helped in the way expected; would this change your mind?

The pressing issue is not necessarily where we start from; but asking whether there are actually that many issues which only have a subjective answer - and if not what blocks us from getting there?

Let me help you out with a little meta analysis for the future.

Post: 111 you start off with a fair point - about whether it’s too broad to claim fear is a driver. Argument A (using your definition of fear)

Post: 113 to make sure we’re on the same page, I re-iterate the point but now specifically clarify my terms; and the things I am talking about.

Post: 114 - this is where you start to come off the rails. You complaining about them usage of words. Arguing that the thing I’m talking about shouldn’t really be called fear, is semantics. You should be focused on disproving whether what I’m talking about is not responsible for ideology.

Post 116: here’s were I invalidate argument A. I disprove your definition as valid as it doesn’t incorporate things we refer to as fear. I also concede there is possible confusion on the word; and suggest you just give it a better name (you don’t)

So I’ve basically conceded that there is some ambiguity in the terms I’m using and suggest to focus on what I’m talking about rather than fixate on specific names.

Post 117: subject change #1. You throw out two fallacy accusations (with no explanation), you don’t defend your definition from the last few posts, and you now change your argument to be suggesting that avoidance of danger (my definition) isn’t all there is to risk vs reward. This is now argument B (using my definition)

You do not defend the definition for argument A (this is drop #1). This argument is just a warrant assertion (eg: I haven’t proven...), it’s kind of a fair point, but you need to put more detail other than just try and fluff up accusation “you haven’t proved anything”, that’s weak sauce: find an example where ideology could be arguably based on some positivity.


Note: Everyone reading can see you just changed the context of what you’re arguing without any acknowledgement of the formee. Don’t do this in a debate/discussion as it makes you look like your squirming like a fish on a hook


Post 118: I refute your acusation of non sequitor, and false equivalence: look at what I did here - I spell out what they are, I spell out what I did, and compare. 

Also, I give an example of how to show a fallacy. Explain what it is, explain what you did - and explain.

I also draw your attention back to post 113 where I clarified how we can claim what I am talking about fear being pervasive. Now, this isn’t great from me; but I’m inviting you to try and poke a hole in what I said. I’m offering it up in a plate (I don’t always fully thrash out my argument often to give space for discussion - hint for others)

Post :123 Switch back to argument.

You assert that I am drawing a false equivalence (yet don’t attempt to rebut why I said that wasn’t the case in the last round), 

You serve this one up to me on platter by reiterating your objection (we know your argument at this point - this is when you start sounding silly) - you can’t simply repeat your claims - especially if you’re not addressing the core issues.

Remember I have already invalidated this argument in post 116.

Post 124: bam. I’ve taken exactly what you said your argument was - and demonstrated how it’s equivocation. I go on to expand rebuttal from post 116.

I refute your claim that I am asserting the definition by pointing out that it’s really just defining terms, and the use of the word has no impact on the conclusion I am drawing.

Post 126: you largely concede my point on definitions with “If we accept your definition - sure”, 

You reassert your definition of fear (even though I just demonstrated in 116 that 124 that it’s not complete.

You then defend your definition - by deviating from your definition. 

You do not defend your non sequitur claim, explicit false equivalence claim, or explicitly defend against accusations of equivocation.

You go onto partially concede the point then flip back to Argument B (which you avoided by changing the subject earlier) mostly with other weak sauce “you haven’t proved anything” complaint.

You then launch into a personal attack about pedantry that is frankly laughable. If just makes it look like you know you f****ed up and you’re trying to save face. 

Post 136:

I go to town on your “expert definition argument by pointing out its absurdity.

I point out that you are deviating from your own definition. I point out that your point is starting to get a bit incoherent.

You as you changed back to argument B - I decide to go full proof. I explain the position completely from full principles.

Post : 138

You’re utterly flailing in circles.

The definitions we’re using of fear is clearly meaningless at this point, it’s importance was obliterated in 116; but you’re still trying to claim it has an impact.

You keep flipping between the definition, and asserting it’s not sufficient to explain ; then flipping back to the definition- but have dropped literally every argument in the previous post. This is incoherent at this point. Just drop the definition issue and stick with attacking whether it’s sufficient.

In this post is THE closest you come to making a coherent point; you should have removed the entirety of the last 4 posts: and just focuses on the examples you have, such as power.

However, you generally completely ignored my argument, you can’t do that, it makes you look like a fool who knows they’re wrong; you have to attack the specific claims I’m making. I made a tonne of specific relatable ideology references - you’re talking in the abstract. Pick an example of a clear ideological decision that is based on positivity.... I mean come on.

But again, you completely ruin it by intertwining the definition issue. They’re different inherent arguments: and your pretending they’re the same.

Post 145

I deal with your new claim about power. By pointing out subtle differences with power.

I correct the last post: as much of the claims your making had already been detailed before; I can’t go into any more detail relating to definition; as it’s already been shown irrelevant from post 116. The remainder is trying to pump out the bulge on a sunk ship.

Post 146:

I didn’t spot it, but you go back to claim Argument A (your definition of fear can’t cause all ideology), is argument B (my definition can’t cause all ideology).

Ya Pulled a little sneaky on me!

You claim your making argument B, then
Go back to argument A; basically full on weird equivocating.

You finally drop some really weird argument that I cannot understand how it even relates to anything I said, and from here you just start spinning wheels in the mud.

Here are my take aways:

1.) Your focus was on reiterating your point; you spent little time justifying your point in context, and very little time attacking my explanations - this makes it look like you avoid everything I said.

2.) you were equivocating back and forth between two different arguments. It made you look like you were flailing around.

3.) your arguments were both weaksauce. One was just semantics - and got you backed into a corner very quickly once the semantic ambiguity was accepted; the other was really just variations “you haven’t proved anything!”

4.) Dont make accusations you don’t back up and can’t defend.

5.) You’re not a member of the obsidian order: you don’t need to deny every accusation, you have to disentangle and argue them. Too many people here use denial as a strategy - it’s stupid


How to actually attack my argument.

1.) if you’re going to argue semantics and the meaning of fear, you have to show my definition is outside common usage.

Find something that drives ideology that isn’t obviously fear based. I even laid up a softball with pro life, you could have talked about morality as a driver, and argued that morality drives decisions; that would have pushed me to defending fear as a motivating factor for morality.

Hell, you could have attacked the concept that choosing cake over ice cream involves fear in any meaningful or sensible usage 

There was a whole world of obvious arguments here of which you chose the silliest.

2.) Don’t just got around asserting fear isn’t an driver, and being incredulous; use an example. Like the pro life above. You could talk about positive reinforcement; that while there is indeed negative weight, the underlying ideology and risk vs reward such as small government could be weighed based on positive experience of doing things by yourself as a child. That taxation ideology could be based on the positive feelings of all the things you could use extra money for.

I mean there was a plethora of things you could have gone with that could have pushed me onto the defensive.

This is the same circular, incoherent nonsense: please refer back to post 116, 136 and 145.

You’re going around in circles; and mixing and muddling your various different arguments with each other’s. You’re being totally incoherent.

You complain about my definition of fear - I defend It as valid common usage.

In response you tell me, but it isn’t the only factor in risk vs reward - I explain why it is.

In response, you complain that if doesn’t count because its not a valid usage of the word fear....


This makes no sense.

I’ve defended why my definition of fear, and refuted your usage as incomplete in terms of every day language in post: 124 and 136, 

I’ve defended why fear is the major factor in post in political statements: 136

I specifically explained why actions and political biases are different things in post:  145


Thus far, I’m waiting for an answer to why my definition is still insufficient and yours is valid given my arguments; how that minor semantic triviality invalidates anything I said (given that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet : which I outlined in post 116. 

And this would be largely a strawman; given than I haven’t really argued any specific Distinction other than the actions vs ideology I referenced earlier and you have ignored 

As I explained - at length - and have told you have ignored multiple - multiple - multiple times now: and summarized At least twice; but let me summarize again politics and ideology are always trade offs of multiple negative factors: meaning Reward side is also dependent on fear too. Why do you keep ignoring this?

And we’re back to the weird semantics again. This is just weird equivocation; I’ve repeatedly justified the definition; you keep ignoring it.

You’re just going around in circles, reiterating stuff I’ve disproved, ignoring all the key points of my argument where I have explained where you’re wrong; then simply being an argument back from the dead having ignored the disproof.

You’re just embarrassing yourself at this point: so unless you actually deal with what I’ve actually said; I’m just going to refer you back To my previous posts.

It is indeed the most fundamental driver in the root of our politics and the underlying ideology we hold  - I explained exactly why we can determine that - twice - in the body of posts you’ve ignored.

You have dropped every argument; I pointed out the specifics of why politicians specifically is primarily fear - you have dropped it.

I have pointed out that you’ve been equivocating, switched my definitions - and even switched your own definition to mine when pointing yours is not sufficient - you dropped it.

Same goes for denying derivations of fear, actions vs ideology, etc.

I have detailed why your usage of definitions is ridiculous; and mine is both more accurate and reasonable - and you’ve dropped it.

I’m suggesting that you have dropped them because on your responses you have not at any point even referenced these arguments, nor explained why any of them were wrong; insisting only on fixating one or two specific misrepresentation of stuff I’ve already answered.

If at any point you want to go back and address my points on usage of language; the differences between ideology and action, or any one of the specific arguments I have raised and you have ignored please do so:

At this point you’re really just going around in circles whilst angrily objecting that you haven’t ignored things you have clearly ignored; I can’t really do much more than point out I’ve already answered, and be embarrassed for you 

You have an odd habit of not reading things properly, then criticizing an argument reconstructed from what appears to be a few choice phrases you have pulled out rather than what I said.

To start with - I didn’t say that you never mentioned broadness of fear ; just that 99% of your argument was haggling over the definition of fear. Which is accurate.

I’m also, not arguing that fear is the most substantial motivator behind risk vs reward in general, but in specific terms of politics - which I clarified and explained extensively in the posts you just ignored.

I also have to correct you again; you initially said that I was arguing fear is the only factor; I corrected you by pointing out in merely arguing it’s the most substantial factor. You are now forgetting what my post was in response to; and appear to be confusing what I said to be changing between politics to ideological - whereas I was just correcting your straw man.

Frankly though; given that you don’t seem to be even reading anything I’m saying, have dropped almost every argument you made in the last Dozen posts, and are now simply fixated in overtly and transparently straw-manning every point I make: I suspect now is time for you to stop digging.

I think in actuality, everyone needs to focus on metacognition and critical thinking; exposing themselves to and embracing conflicting positions: to try and hone in on the intersection of that fear and rationality.

Or to put it another way; there is much arbitrary, subjectivism in ideology that can never really be resolved by an argument; but around the edges of that is a lot of room to be “irrational”

All we really need to do, is understand that some elements are purely subjective; and try and argue until that’s all that’s left.

For example; I think our values about the fundamental balance of government between freedom Of individuals and benefit to society are fundamentally different, but are subjectively value based with no true answer.

However if we argue with each other long enough In good faith, take enough data - provided that it’s not just calling each other fascist or communist - it should be possible to cut through the aspects that are irrational and left with venn diagram of actions that we could all agree that are definitely right, definitely wrong, and stuff in the middle that solely falls down to preference.

The problem is not that are beliefs are arbitrary, it’s that almost no one can rationalize anything properly or even recognize the way their emotions control their reasoning.

Triangulation depends on knowing the distance between two observers, the angle between the observers and the object; and the two observers having the same orientation.

Given rulers and protractors would still work on a flat earth; and that you can’t triangulate the position of the sun on our plan run - that means the only possibility is that the observers don’t have the same orientation and therefore the earth cannot be flat.

It was all stolen from Zoroastrianism.

I feel I have to walk you through all of this, as it seems there’s several things you don’t seem to be grasping.

Firstly:

If we substitute how I have used and meant the term “fear” with your completely different definition I haven’t used and didn’t mean - of course my conclusion wont follow. lol. That’s how equivocation works

That’s your argument - substitute fear how I have defined it with how you’ve defined it - implying we’re talking about the same thing a then complain my argument doesn’t work when you do.

If you use fear the way I have - everything in my argument works; so this is all boiling down to how you want to define things.

Secondly: the subject of my argument is the “emotionally driven avoidance of Negative consequences” in common English usage of the word Fear - it’s not unreasonable to define that drive as “fear”.

Your definition is insufficient as I pointed out and you ignored - as we would all readily admit that “fear” prevents us from jumping into a tiger enclosures even without experiencing fear as you have defined it.

Finally my argument is unchanged if you don’t call that drive fear; and is not predicated on the word fear being defined as I have said, so the idea that I’m “asserting the definition” makes literally no sense, and has me scratching my head.

TL;DR:

1.) You’re putting your definition into my argument then complaining my argument doesn’t work - that’s a fallacy.

2.) even if you weren’t, your definition is both incomplete and largely inaccurate with regards to common usage - mine is more reasonable in context.

3.) Lol Wut?

Let’s figure it out; let’s work out a position we disagree on, figure out what value or motivation we can get to before we can’t answer “why” any more, than try and figure out what’s driving both of us to have that value.

I was making neither a false equivalence (as

I was not comparing two things), nor a non-sequitor as they conclusion follows.

As I clarified; all decision making involves weighing some form of negative consequence - we have an emotional need to avoid those negative consequences; variances In the strength of the emotional response, and how strong is primarily what drives decision making.

You’re not arguing any part of that, but merely getting tripped by your objection to me referring to the emotional need to avoid negative consequences as “fear”, which is entirely semantic.

Indeed, if you want to play fallacy bingo, what you’re doing is “equivocation”, I am talking about “fear” - for which I have clarified meaning and context; your talking about “fear” with a subtly different context and meaning and trying to switch out the definition

You’re now delving into more semantic nonsense now. Fear is both the emotional response, and describes the conditioned behavioural choices that comes from it.

IE: I have a fear response if I am chased by a tiger; fear if being chased by a tiger is why I don’t climb into a tiger enclosure- so in that regard you completely miss all semblance of the point with that quote.

I’m talking about that behavioural avoidance, learned from various emotional responses through our lives - and can be changed; that pattern of avoidant behaviours is what assuredly helps drives all our decisions.

If you can think of a better name for the subtle learned behaviours triggers that push us to want to avoid certain actions that lead to perceived negative consequences than “fear” than knock yourself out and use that instead.

Let’s think about this. 

To move your legs you would need to not have time frozen for you( you’re in in different intertidal frame of reference.)

You’d be Able to move your legs in a vaccuum.

In the atmosphere, as you moved, you’d have to displace air. This is where it gets complex

If the air is not in your frame of reference, moving it would need it to be moving faster than the speed of light in its frame (time is frozen so it must move on infinitely faster), if it is partially in your frame of reference, then you’d be able to move the air forward, but the air behind you would not rush into take its place (it’s still frozen)

So you’d move slowly, compression the air infront, creating a high pressure wave in front and vacuum behind - a little like pushing sand with your hand.

When time returned; there’d be something similar to explosive decompression in the void you left behind.

For example: a number of democrats may believe that Trump got peed on by hookers in a Hotel bedroom. A number of republicans believe that Democratic leadership are Satan worshipping paedophiles.

On one side, a number of prominent democrats often don’t practice what they preach, have inconsistent mask policies and should be criticized; on the other, a number of prominent republicans attempted to use political chicanery, and pressure to overturn the democratic results voted for by the people in order to install the loser of an election as president; including to encourage a mob of angry supporters who believe they are about to lose their democracy (because they’ve been told so), to go to the capital - knowing from all reports - that this could easily lead to violence.

While it is definitely true that many democrats were mean to republicans; not recognizing that the vitriol went both ways in many cases is intellectually dishonest; as is ignoring all the objective ways in which modern republicans are definitively systematically worse across the board simply because the other side are not perfect.

We have higher level reasoning ability that sits on top of a system of emotions. With almost every decision we make being driven off some aspect of risk vs reward. Fear or some derrivation of it is present in everything.

Want to eat at McDonalds vs Pizza Hut, fear that one may take too long, fear of getting the order may factor in - but even what you’re feeling like right at that moment has that fear component - worrying about whether the meal will be satisfying.

Fear is much more nuanced than simple “x scares me” we weigh all these negative factors; but the inherent nature of every decision we make boils down to weighing the negatives of something and the corresponding drive to avoid it ; that always boils down to some subtle form of fear.

While some feats are overt: fear of chance, fear of the other, and fear of attack - some are much more subtle, but still boil down to fear nonetheless.

How much did Gary Busey charge for the Charisma lessons?

Imagine as a group all humans decide that we don’t have the right to free speech. We all amend our laws, teach our children that freedom of speech is not a right: and we all go about our day believing it’s not a right.

Fear. Or various nuances or manifestations thereof.

Most issues boil down to either/or choices that have positive or negative implications.

Which side of the issue you come down depends on how much you have, and how you weigh it.

Did you say it into a mirror?

I’m not really here....

I will assume that any reference of me or my name will be tacit consent for you to be mocked if it’s not funny/bad.

No mod has ever had a 100% win record.

It would be nice to see which one of these secret magic mods apparently had a 100% win rate!

Alec is a conservative; he holds conservative positions and has debates on conservative ideas. He hasn’t taken a liberal position on any debate that I’m aware of - and he won so many debates because people like me voted for him, despite him being conservative. What you’re doing is called the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

It seems facts are not relevant to your argument; so I think the actual reality of these votes speak for themselves. 

feel free to cite - literally - any example of a moderator with a 100% win rate that had it when becoming a moderator - any debate where a conservative lost despite making an objectively better argument or a debate vote that is clear unfair or biased.

Until then, you seem to be projecting your own biases and faults onto us.

You said that the moderators all had 100% record. That was a lie. 

Alecs debates are almost all completely in line with core conservatives beliefs when he has taken a political stance; and he won so many he was top of the leaderboard. 

I’m not sure what your logic is here; that I thought Alec was a conservative, and that he had conservative positions - and yet I still often voted for him despite being wholly biased against conservatives? Doesn’t seem to be consistent.

Frankly, your proving my point; half your claims are demonstrably untrue, the rest simply make no sense; you’re simply irrationally biased against liberals, feeling that they cannot be impartial. Your claims say more about your own position than ours

If you’re talking about the RFD I removed, that isn’t quite what happened. If it’s the one I’m thinking about, there was an issue with sources that I asked you to clarify in the debate comments because I didn’t want to remove it for your sources missing a key issue for the very reason you had put in the effort and I didn’t want to just remove the vote and dissuade you from voting again. I even detailed what your source point was missing and what you needed to do to correct it.