Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Can't you copy it here or lay out the argument here?I tried sharing it with you, but I don't know your email.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Shouldn't you send this directly?Can I have my voting privileges back? It was a long time since I screwed up.
Do you want sympathy for what you did that removed voting privileges?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Check the plan out if interested. If you can't access, then let me know and I can share it with you.
Can't access it.
Can't you copy it here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
What is it?
A progressive tax?
Flat tax?
Or something else entirely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I am the irrational one? I am taking the stance spirituality is based on personal experiences and if there was a shred of evidence scientists would be able to provide proof of its existence. You are the irrational one here. Valuing personal experience over facts. In the face of no evidence you are supposed to default to not believing in it but instead you take the position like theists that no evidence means there claim for there being a God is as valuable as a person says it doesn't and in most cases think they are not on the same level as a non-theist.but i'm not going to get into it if your starting position is "flat earther" so he's dumb. It makes me think i'm talking to an irrational person and i'd rather not waist my time.
What makes you rational? And why?
I don't believe in things without evidence. I ask for evidence and people like you and EtrnlVw have clearly shown you can't meet a low bar as in a claim evidence explanation for you point to be sustainable.
The only evidence that exists is anecdotal. I can't just give you the evidence. If it was hard evidence... spirituality would be proven.
This is as close as I think you are going to concede that your position of spirituality is irrational. If not do prove me wrong.
And, if my belief is right and proven... everyone (just about) would kill themselves. You also wouldn't be you anymore... you'd be spiritual. Every character in the game would be affected by one belief... that's a nightmare. Therefore, if you want evidence... you have to listen to those that experienced it. But even that's hard bc humans are petty... the liars and greedy ones are many. But the truth is... out of all the spiritual experiences people have had through time... only one has to be true. If one truly happened in a metaphysical way... then that's proof. But, again... that's not proof or evidence to you unless you believe them. Your side fails to see that.
This is conjecture. Nothing helpful was added therefore I don't even need to rebut this until you tell me your position is or isn't irrational when it comes to spirituality.
Humans are still monkeys man... are you kidding me? Hard evidence and proof through the scientific method is to figure out this reality. Firstly, why would you think that is a sufficient way to examine something beyond this reality? And secondly, do you truly think our monkey minds right now are even close to understand anything beyond this reality? How about, once science figures out our reality... maybe then we can talk about scientific evidence. My belief is about infinity... beyond this world. Science is actually impressing me, the many world hypothesis is a watered down version of my beliefs. But they ain't close man...Lastly, the scientific method is most accurate with repeatable phenomena. Spiritual experiences are not repeatable. At least in my case. I doubt anyone's is, and i tend to not believe people that say they can control experiences, but i don't know 7 billion people. So who knows. From my experiences, they just happen. I can't repeat them, however... i personally can predict them. Bc certain events in the past triggered experiences. Therefore, when these events happen again i should have another experience. However, i can't predict these future events bc they're also random. That's what i've noticed with experiences... they're random, therefore... the scientific method is not viable. Science however, in my opinion, will figure it out one day... just not now. We're still monkeys. But again who knows... maybe someone in the world knows the truth... again, if i'm right, they would rightly hide that truth from everyone. But i'm pretty sure we are monkeys and have no clue.So the introductory to spirituality on this is... it's whatever you think it is. To me, god is in my mind, my truths are in my mind. Whether i die and become nothing, go to heaven, go to hell... it will be "Me" that has to deal with it. My spiritual belief is that my mind is infinite, and i'm in full control. Therefore whatever you believe is in your mind and has nothing to do with me. Until you can prove to me what happens after death, none of your beliefs apply to me. I am an infinite being having a finite experience with infinite other finite experiences to be had. It's very simple but also very complex.
None of this helps your position so I will not even rebut it. My core claim is that you are irrational when it comes to spirituality. Tell me how I am wrong. I don't need a story that doesn't help me understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
I am not here to talk about lies. If there was truth in it do tell in this you pretty much say in a different context I am not interested in talking about Flat Earth. You are basically position of a lie and expecting me to rebut.why should i talk about it when things are finite. Narrow minded in that you're not even trying to get out of your own way of thinking. That gives me no challenge and gives you no new understanding.
Plus, we aren't talking about flat-earthers, or religious people, or anyone else... you're talking to me.
I made a comparison.
And i very much doubt you have ever heard of a spiritual platform like mine. Without exploring it, you aren't trying to understand it, and if you don't understand it... how are you being rational in critiquing it?
I have heard of spirituality and heard that it is based on emotion not rationale. If it is prove to me you had a spiritual experience or tell me a consistent result you do that will deliver a spiritual experience? This goes into a problem I had with EtrnlVw who refuses to provide a standard for spirituality or provide professionals who have cross-examined evidence in order to get answer. He even if I remember correctly refuses to even consider scientists able to talk about spirituality even though whatever has an abstract concept can be traced back to their material elements This can be the brain when the material component used for dreaming. If what I said wasn't clear spirituality is irrational.
But you wouldn't know this bc you're not asking anything significant to have an understanding.
No you haven't. Where is the evidence for spirituality that you have given?
I started to talk about the spiritual angle bc i noticed you said some interesting things to the religious people here
Yes I talk to irrational people which is clearly shown with my conversations.
I won't assume that which is why i'm willing to spend my time on this. I'd ask for the same courtesy.
Okay then lets play a game which another person failed to even being. Give me a claim evidence and an explanation for spirituality. I would prefer it to be about the existence of it.
In any case, this is all if you even have to desire to... this is my favorite subject, i don't expect it to be yours.
Okay simply do what I said earlier then we can take it from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?they also always involve people, chicken and the egg thing LOLWell stated.
Don't know if he is actually being serious with this one. I think he is. Must have misread the criticism you had.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you admitted that they can't account for a lot of events, because they never get reported, reported incorrectly etc, their "evidence" is based on selective things they could look at or chose to look at which is too narrow because you can't factor all the things mentioned in the links I posted which was not an exhaustive list. all of it is anecdotal evidence at best and I dismiss it for those reasons.
It is not anecdotal at best because that would mean that the anecdotes are fairly limited. They aren't and the explanation behind it is from a credible source which is why I have fulfilled my burden of proof. You haven't stated correctly stated how my source is wrong simply said it is anecdotal evidence even though it is based on personal experience which my data isn't.
here's an analogy for better context of my perspective. of the crimes lists on the fbi site, do you believe those are all the crimes committed in those categories? of course not, what % do you believe go unreported, investigated etc, 1%? 10%? 50? 90%? gimme a guess, do you think whatever the number actually might be that it's statically unimportant or it is important?
This is a non-sequitur. I am speaking about the reported cases not unreported. If you want to talk about that then do but make me aware that this isn't saying how my stance is wrong instead say off topic question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Where did he claim that?claims to be an objective journalist LOL wow
this Andrew is a nobody who is looking to be somebody. He thinks this will bring him to some level of notoriety by attacking a big named person. If that was his best, he should just fade off into obscurity where he belongs.
This makes me believe that you didn't watch the video because the plan stated he is retiring.
they still can't understand how or why Trump was elected.
Trump won because of the electoral college. Does that answer it for you?
I'm waiting for Omar to mount his defense.
I was doing other things up until now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
My burden was fulfilled and if you thought it wasn't you would have said that straight after I gave evidence but you didn't. Instead did it now. My sources are clear and provide answers whereas yours are not even properly sourced. That is a problem because its entire data is based off other data which they do not even cite.there's no way to prove either opinion true, thus I reject what I believe to be your biased studies and opinions, you haven't proven anything, it's your burden, not mine.
Still have yet to say how a biased study means that the study is wrong or at the very least means the data is corrupted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Are you saying I am right or are you saying the other person is?Good attempt at rational, logical common sense with those refute rational, logical common sense out of principleint that rtional, logical common sense may expose truth.
I don't remember be saying the other parts so I will leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure, so is football and lots of other sportsDo explain yourself.honestly you don't know there are violent sports? what country do you live in anyway?
Did an animal consent to being murdered?
How does bias mean wrong? If you are using this against me I can use the very same argument against you if you actually think bias=wrong.they set out to prove what they already believed, where exactly did I use the word 'wrong' oh that's right your the guy who just assumes and puts words in people's mouths, my bad.the numbers and logic prove your statement is wrong which is why you didn't add it to the quotes
So basically you have a problem with people supposedly assuming something to be true and then proving it. 1) You haven't proved that they were set out to prove what they already believe 2) Still have not said how this is a point against my evidence if it isn't why even say it?
You got annoyed that the only critique that you had with what I brought up was that it was biased. I used that as your only argument against what I said if it wasn't then you would be able to actually think of a good argument instead of the argument you came up with.
The last thing you said is basically begging the question fallacy. You have assumed your stance to be true without proving it. Care to do so?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure, so is football and lots of other sports
Do explain yourself.
your take aways are impossible to prove, how many self defense situations don't get reported, no way to know.
You are basically saying since we don't have 100% of lets say gun deaths it is impossible to prove. Tell me how I am wrong.
harvard study yeah no liberal bias coming from them lol
How does bias mean wrong? If you are using this against me I can use the very same argument against you if you actually think bias=wrong.
your one source used tweets, blogs and facebook as evidence? um ok LOL
Saying something attributed is something you don't like doesn't mean the evidence is wrong. Tell me how I am wrong.
The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..
Let me use your argument against you. Random studies yeah no conservative bias coming from them lol.
Awful arguments aside:
One says guns are used more and another says it is an important crime deterrent. Where did you get effective?
Another problem of your source is that they are not cited properly. Where is the link to the CDC so that the readers can verify they are making claims on the evidence instead of making it up?
David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.yup no bias at all
Biased doesn't mean wrong therefore you need to tell me how David Hemenway is wrong.
"part of the reason experts are so divided on the number is the difficulty in obtaining reliable survey data on the issue.Another problem is that there is no consensus on the definition of defensive gun use."
This is no way proves what I said. You simply quoted things and have provided no explanation on how you are right or I am wrong. If you take the position there is no consensus why did you bring in data of your own instead of simply adding this in?
has not accounted and can not of guns used for target practice, collecting or historical uses.there are what 300+ million guns?if they were as you say primarily used for violence which includes hunting there wouldn't be any animals left to hunt and there would be far more murders, such a terrible exaggeration.
This is not a cohesive argument. First you talk about target practice then historical uses then you talk about how many guns then you talk about hunting then you end with saying "terrible exaggeration". None of your claims says you are right or I am wrong instead simply claims you have no proof for. Do you have any evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm states that the firearm homicide rate was 4.5 per 100,000. I was a little off.
What about accounting other uses for guns?
Do you have a source for the uses of guns?
Animal violence is totally legal. I think it's fine for others to kill animals for whatever reason they want. This includes hunting, farming, and fishing.
A "mostly" vegan is animal murder or violence.
I don't agree with libertarians on everything, but I agree with them more then liberals or conservatives.
This adds nothing to the conversation and I don't have something to say since it is too general.
There are other ways to deter crime other then a nuke. Plus, no individual owns a nuke. Most countries even don't have them.
Your argument is that there are other deterrents therefore nukes shouldn't own a nuke. Not an argument against nukes.
Your other argument is that not everyone has a nuke. So basically if I followed the logic of this you are basically for slavery carrying because no individual is safe from slavery back when slavery was prevalent.
Your other argument that countries don't have them. Is basically saying Kim Jong Un should carry on being a dictator because they don't currently have democracy.
In this context, bodily autonomy should be more of a right then the right to fuck whoever you want.
You are not a libertarian then. What are you a libertarian on then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Evidence?You probably won't need a gun, but it's better to be safe then sorry. The article said that .9% of gun owners use a gun in self defense. The homicide rate is about 4 per 100,000 in the US per year. Even over the course of a lifetime, the odds of a gun being used to kill at least one innocent person is less then .2%.
Unless society makes vegetarianism mandatory, it's kindof a double standard to ban hunting. I say this as someone who is mostly vegan.
Double standard? Human violence and animal violence is bad. What are you talking about?
I don't care if you are vegan. Now it just makes seem that you don't even have sympathy for animals even though you are "mostly" a vegan.
A lot of text. I'll rebuttal what I can it seems.
From what it seems you don't address how little you are a libertarian like with most others libertarians.
According to your own link, the definition of anarchy is, "absence of government". With the government gone even for things like rape and murder, there are no laws on it, so it becomes legal.
Was the king and queens a government or a monarchy? I have just shown you one example where the absence of government can have rules. Come back to me when you can provide an argument.
Here are some differences between libertarians and anarchist: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-libertarian-and-vs-anarchist/
This link hasn't even defined the two so basically they can argue with whatever they want and still be correct but if you go by me definition then there is a link to anarchy and libertarians which is anti-government.
On a national scale, yes. Countries can protect themselves. However, on an individual scale, people should not be allowed to own nukes because there is nothing a nuke can do positively that you can't accomplish with a less destructive weapon, like a gun.
Guess you are against disarming nukes so you are against America Invading Iran or carrying on the Iran Nuclear deal. A nuke is a deterrent to crime like a gun so it does have a positive based on a deterrent.
Incorrect. Stopping a rapist is libertarian because it infringes on the rights of the rape victim.
By infringing on the freedom of the rapist.
Rights are given to you by state which they deem to worthy to protect. To even be for rights you are basically for enforcement of freedom of speech even if someone does not want to platform that speech. So basically a libertarian would be both against laws against rapists and rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
But if your goal is to change their belief to yours
Make them see their reasons are bad therefore either admit their beliefs are irrational or change their belief.
i've given you many scenarios but you'd rather play word games from a very narrow minded perspective
Give me a scenario.
What do you mean by narrow minded?
Things like "this is the only reality" "Why even talk about infinite when things are finite" Or assuming it's all "emotional"
Apart from the assuming it's all "emotional" part this is correct. It is like saying to a flat-earther the Earth is round but they would say you have a very narrow minded persepective. With things like "shadows" "Why even talk about Nascar when they are owned by goverment" or assuming my position is of "YouTube videos". You addressed my complaints instead basically pointed them out. If you had a problem and can actually think of a good response then do because then I consider you problem against me is irrational.
You're not trying to push for answers... you're trying to push your own belief.
What? I have a standard and if you can't beat my standard then the fault is on you. My standard is really fair and with your complaints it doesn't even hold up to make fair standard. All I want to be met in order for me to argue about it is a claim, evidence and explanation. If you can do that then we can discuss but you can't even do that. Evidence is helpful but not required. Explanation is required.
don't know why you don't ask interesting questions. I've seen your ability to do so against others here.
Do tell me when I had interesting questions for other people.
Interesting to you doesn't mean it was interesting to me. How do you know both instances were I gave questions were interesting to me?
But anyways, if you push your agenda... an emotional person will naturally get defensive. So maybe that's why you encounter that when talking about it.
If my agenda is I want to know why you think that way and if it is based on rationale then I will argue. I get annoyed when someone decides to not acknowledge when they are wrong or doesn't even care about being reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
An anarchist believes in no rules whatsoever.
No they don't. No rule is a rule therefore an anarchist can't be for no rules because no rule is a rule. I don't think you understand what anarchy is if you think this. I will give you a definition. Anarchy: absence or denial of any authority or established order.
An anarchist believes that rape and murder should be legal.
Evidence?
A libertarian believes that only the things that don't infringe on anybody's rights should be legal.
Rights are whatever the government deems to be enough of something to protect. With this mind in stopping murderers to murder is an infringement on their freedom. So basically protecting someone against what someone else wants to do is against freedom.
This means that I think murder should be illegal since that hurts the person who got killed without their consent.
Not a libertarian position. Libertarian: a person who believes that people should be free to think and behave as theywant and should not have limits put on them by governments:
So basically limits as in protection against murderers is anti-libertarian.
It means that I think rape should be illegal because that infringed on the rights of the rape victim.
Since stopping a rapist to do what they want to do freely is anti-libertarian.
However, weed is fine. Guns are fine, as long as you don't want to shoot anybody with them.
So basically you don't have an argument against nuclear bombs, tanks or fighter jets until someone uses them.
It means that Muslims should not be banned, but that people should be judged as individuals, so no affirmative action.
You are talking about two different things here. One about Muslims and another about affirmative action. They do not link. Affirmative action is making it easier for some people which results it making it harder for other people. Muslims banning is not the same as affirmative action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Alec
is that true? citation?what % of gun owners use them for violence? 7
Takeaway from the first link:
"Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society."
Takeaways from the second link:
"Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense"
"Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal"
"Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense"
"Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime"
"Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions"
Guns are primarily used for protection and homicide is from a percentage standpoint, very small, just like terrorist attacks. A typical gun will almost never get shot unless it's for hunting or target shooting.
I would like data for "Guns are primarily used for protection".
Hunting is a form of animal violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
People un-ironically call themselves that and for you to get offended over a label which I think you would associate with since you believe in few rules you are an anarchist.Calling me an anarchist is an ad hominid attack. I believe in few rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If there is one advice to take. Don't take advice from a centrist, moderate or a libertarian on political issues.
Islam is an ideology.
Gun is a tool which can cause harm.
Islam can lead to violence.
Guns can lead to violence.
Islam as in most of their believers are not violent.
Guns are primarily used for violence.
With this in mind don't take advice from a centrist, moderate or a libertarian.
Your link is not funny nor helpful. If you were really did take the libertarian if that links is supposed to show it then you against any thing that infringes on freedom. You are basically an anarchist who is against rules because that restricts what a person can do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Just realised I was still in this.
Don't want to be apart of it any more.
So I withdraw my consent if that is possible.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
My take is that he is a failure. Losing 1 billion and people have already made lies for Trump. The truth is that he isn't the great businessman he claims to be instead the truth is he has a giant ego and would lie to protect it.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
It wasn't straight forward. Beliefs can be based on anything so I don't talk about beliefs more so reasons you have for that belief. Reason is it is an area where I can have some way of having an argument whereas a belief is most of the time an emotional attachment. Since I don't know the person I wouldn't know how to gauge on that level and doubt they would be forthcoming with the emotional attachment and it is also a touchy subject which I think I am a bit of a sociopath when it comes to trying to push for answer when someone is emotional.When it comes to answering beliefs... everyone is pretending to know. I thought all that was pretty straight forward...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In some sense, we are like nihilists.To you, the world is everything and God is nothing. And so your hope is in the void.To us, the world is nothing, and God is everything. And so our hope is in eternity.
I don't even take that position.
Now I also got from you is that God is:
Ultimate reality
Supreme being
Hope
More will be added when you decide to attribute it to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
+1Oh, you're an atheist turned theist. Okay that just means you're hopeless then. I'm glad we could clear that up :D
Created:
You haven't explained why.The Ultimate Reality is what God means.
That is what we mean.
I don't care about your argumentum ad populum. Come back to me when you don't have a fallacious argument.
If you don't accept this, you are arguing to no profit, and showing that your accusations of my being arbitrary are really projecting on your part.
You don't understand and with this statement I don't know what you are talking about. You are being arbitrary because you can't explain God yet you think it is true. That is arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Do you have evidence or are you trying to find an answer in something you don't have evidence for?If the active user to mod ratio gets too high, then the site will crash like DDO. The moderators for DDO got overworked, which caused them to quit.
This seems to me to be a begging the question.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
A definition doesn't mean it is true. Do unicorns exist now? Come back to me when you have an actual argument.Unicorns are not defined as "The Ultimate Reality".
As The Ultimate Reality exists, there is a fulfillment of what God means that exists.
Again more conflation instead of an explanation.
It should be apparent that nihilism itself is an embrace of arbitrariness.
You don't know what you are talking about and it has been a testament with the time I have read your lack of clarification of your stance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Okay?You'll never know the full me unless i allow it. Everyone pretends to know. If i'm wrong... tell me how.
They are way more important than you or me... "they need to create it." Kid... i know his importance.
But you don't understand he is more important than me.
"The real joke is your stubborn, bone deep conviction that somehow, somewhere, all of this makes sense! That's what cracks me up each time!" --- Joker.
Your quote doesn't disprove anything. Reality is reality. Whether you are blind, deaf or can't smell you would still be in the same reality. You would just perceiving reality in a different way.
I'd destroy this bitch if he crossed eyes with what i would call family... are you kidding me..?
Worth not a fight.
It's bc you're only thinking about the finite... That one's easy. It's infinite that's hard.
But most thing in the world is finite like our lifespans.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Just because the dictionary has a word meaning something doesn't mean it is exist.I'm being arbitrary, but you are arguing with the dictionary.
The dictionary has the definition of unicorn. Does it mean it is real?
It is arbitrary because you have provided no reason for why you take that stance. You instead beg the question instead of stating how you got there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Did you have a reason for this or is it arbitrary?I think the ratio of users to mods should be between 60:1 and 100:1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
Old Moderators: Did he have to go through an interview?
New Moderator: Did you have to go through an interview?
Created:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
God is TruthGod is a MysteryWe can't know a Mystery only experience it.Therefore God and therefor we should also stop looking for answers.This is the argument in a nut shell. There's no logic to it.
It can be justified so that it doesn't become arbitrary but he doesn't even attempt it. Sure there is a massive burden with the claims he is making but a massive burden doesn't mean the justification would not be possible instead would require more reason so that all of what he said isn't arbitrary.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You don't understand what you are talking about. In order to have a substantial stance you would need to justify it. If you don't it is arbitrary. It is clear your position is arbitrary and when I press you on explanations why you conflate God to be the supreme being and ultimate reality you can't justify it. If you can't reason the stance you made it is arbitrary.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Yet again you conflate two separate ideas without justification. Come back to me when you are not doing that.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
1I feel like that would run into a similar problem, where we start cluttering the forum. But, this is a solution I've considered, and I haven't ruled it out yet. It is one that would require Mike's okay and help, but I'm still not sold on it.
I am hoping to streamline the pinned threads, and have already unpinned at least one (as you noticed). I think this idea is promising, but, again, I am not sold and it would require Mike's okay and help. It's something to ruminate on, for sure, though.
What would make you sold on it?
Would it require the Admin to have a early version of both a hall of fame and a difference in pinned threads for you to be sold on it?
Created:
Posted in:
Okay. Don't know where to go from there.i would say i have no reason not to suspect my belief's possibility.
I feel sorry for your friends/family if you think some random person is more important to "you" than they are. That's just disappointing to me.
It is not disappointing it is the truth. Elon is not some random person instead a person making innovation. Saying that he is a random person leaves out how much good he has done for many other people and since we should care about others it is only fair to put Elon above me whatever measurement of important that maybe.
so i'm pretty sure i understand what a best reality is a little more than you do since i realize the best of all realities would still not make me important to those i don't help.
There is only one reality. You can be perceiving a variation of a reality because of your eyesight or the world view you associate to observe the world but there is still only one reality. I doubt you have a greater understanding when you don't even know that.
This doesn't make sense. As a drummer, if i thought this way... i would have not had as much fun as i did.
It does make sense. Which is why people don't jump off a cliff because there know their limit of bodily harm. If they didn't then there would be people jumping off a cliff if the bodies were not fragile when it comes to a collision.
1) Bc half my family is rich and i hear them and know their mind set even with wealth... and they're all doctors that save lives so i would say they are more important than Elon.
It had a me in the question. I'll still address it. I doubt your family is worth as much as Elon and I don't know the a good measurement with saving lives what we would be comparing Elon to do. If you can think of a measurement with numbers and why you chose those numbers for both your family and Elon.
2) what does importance have anything to do with happiness?
Doubt anything really.
I never indicated anything to the contrary. Unless your saying this applies when you are infinite... to which case, maybe you're right about you. Maybe you didn't have a goal when you came here... but, you'r not right about me. I have a strong grasp on what it would mean if i'm also infinite and finite rules of limitations wouldn't make sense in that state.
When you were saying infinite and finite you completely lost me. I will give the question again because I didn't understand what you said. Even with what I think occurred I doubt you addressed what I said.
Tell me an instance where anyone has reached every single goal in their life. Life is all about concessions which you use to realise your place in life then you can think about enjoying yourself. You can enjoy yourself by not meeting your goals.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What I am saying is that to say there is no Ultimate Reality or Absolute Truth(which is what God means), is to embrace nihilism.
False. Even the quote doesn't even say that.
So atheism and nihilism are very much connected.
No they are not. One is a disbelief and the other depends on the nihilism. Existential nihilism is stating their is no objective value whereas atheism is a disbelief.
But besides this, truly, nihilism is at its core the denial of reality. Existence is meaningless!
Existence being meaningless doesn't mean reality isn't reality. That point does not logically follow and you have to explain yourself.
God is The Existing One, so what does that mean? God is meaningless!
I am guessing this is a false equivocation. Since I think I am the only one who in this conversation who cares about not being fallacious I'll still point it out.
Nihilism is very consistent, and even the delusions that are used to prop it up on its foundation of sand can be understood better if you realize that a philosophy of denial of truth can only be propped up by lies.
You said a lot of words that don't really say a lot. Basically nihilism is delusions and denial of truth. Nihilism isn't and it would take one Google search to find that out.
And surely enough, atheist arguments(because as I said, atheism is really nihilism) are made out of convenience, not truth. If an argument will sound convincing to someone, it will be used. It is not really important if it is true, because there is no truth. If you can appeal to someone's belief in truth to convince them to adopt a position that means there is no truth, you are arguing like a true nihilist! It is about what is convenient. It is also so easy even the simplest of people can argue like an atheist. Simply deny everything unless you can use the belief of another to convert them!
This is nonsensical. In order for an atheist to debunk a theist it would require to listen and debunk the argument. This can be based on reason or belief. You don't understand simply rejecting God doesn't mean you reject reality. You don't understand reality and God are not linked and for you to say so would require an explanation. Sadly you have failed in the past and have shown no sign of proving the existence of your God and why you conflate God and reality to be the same thing.
Nihilism and its less scary sounding manifestation atheism are satanic in the truest sense. The worldview itself kills, steals, and destroys. The ones who spread it do so by magic. Those who get sucked into it go down a path of delusion.
Guess this must be inspired by the Bible or the idols you look up to. Why not understand if something makes sense before saying it? You have made the claim that nihilism is the rejection of reality so how are they killing, stealing or destroying in their eyes. The only one delusional is the one who conflates God and reality to be the same thing. Telling someone else they are delusional is ironic.
And being so intrinsically tied to pride, it is a particularly dangerous form of prelest that is not easy to overcome. After all, those who don't acknowledge or even recognize they are sick cannot seek to be cured!
Guess more inspiration from the Bible and idols. Not worth rebutting.
Created:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Okay.I would agree that it's descriptive.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
So, I totally agree that having it all in one place can be kind of daunting. The problem is that having a bunch of pinned threads for each of those topics would clutter the main forum excessively. I am hoping to reduce the number of pinned threads, not increase them.
I have two solution.
1) Create another forum category about site functionality which only moderators and admins are allowed to create topics but can choose whether or not they want users to comment on the forums.
2) Remove existing pin threads. First example of mine to remove is the Hall of Fame one. Have another separate page dedicated to the Hall of Fame instead of being part of the forum site. This would also allow more creativity with how you want to represent it instead of simply typing out who did what. You can have pictures of their profile. Their best accomplishments in a bright colour and in a less bright colour less notable accomplishments that still deserve to be mentioned. I am sure you have already removed the changelog if I am not mistaken. So you would have 3 pinned threads you can use to separate the topics.
Created:
No the argument is neither for or against. It simply states a descriptive statement which leaves out to interpret how the person sees fit with what they value.I can't say for sure if it's an argument against nihilism, but it certainly seems like one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Unless i'm proven wrong. I love being proven wrong so i'm waiting.
If belief is how you got there. I doubt I can use evidence to prove your belief to be wrong because it is what you believe not what you have gathered to make it reasonable.
What has Elon done for me?
Clearly missing out what Elon has done for so many other people. This can can come off egotistical since either you state no one else matters who they are not important enough to matter because they have impacted my life in anyway.
I give people importance that make my life better.
Even by that measurement Elon has given more people meaning so I still yet to get a measurement where Elon is worse than you or I that is fair.
Give random people importance if you want
I used reason to measure their point. I am simply saying I am 1 one compared to Elon's more than 1. If this is down to giving people a good electric cars then I would be a 0 compared to Elon's millions.
Anyone would choose the best reality they can imagine.
How can you say you can pick the best reality when you don't even concede that one life is more important than another? Is it all belief to you and no reason?
You're the only one that knows your limits, but don't forget your also the one that can give yourself limits.
Iimits are like rules. You are not supposed to break them.
Some people with everything have nothing. Some people with noting have everything. I've personally seen this to be true.
How can you say this when you don't even say that Elon is more important than me? How are you measuring someone have something and another having nothing when you don't even accept the measurements I use to decide Elon is more important than me?
How do you know?
Tell me an instance where anyone has reached every single goal in their life. Life is all about concessions which you use to realise your place in life then you can think about enjoying yourself. You can enjoy yourself by not meeting your goals.
Yeah... i would do the same. Problem with not letting them go however is they'll compound your next disappointment.
I am guessing compound as in pile up. To an extent yes if I decide to remember them or brain triggers specific disappoints that I don't like bringing up.
Created:
Posted in:
Same.Meh I preferred Infinity War for the most part.
Especially since i'm a big Thanos plan,
The plan is really dumb. He has an gauntlet that has infinite power which means why not ask for infinite resources or remove the elements which causes conflict?
Even his plan cutting the universe in half only means people will just have a while longer for population to increase again. What is Thanos going to snap his fingers again? Oh wait he destroyed the gauntlets without realising people can simply re-produce and create life at that level Thanos doesn't like and if the Thor didn't kill him he would have to see what he did seemingly happen again but this time will not be able to cut the universe in half.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
@Wrick-It-Ralph
"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs no 'thing in itself This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind. "~ Friedrich Nietzsche
If you actually read his work he and what his work states clearly lays out he is against nihilism. Giving a quote without knowing the context is the problem. This by itself means there is no absolute truth which can mean nihilism due to some absolute as what we are can't attain.
I also put you in the receiver. Do you think I am correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Dems and the administration started a full blown investigation right away when Trump said in his campaign , “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got along with Russia?” Or before that. I guess you need evidence for that.
You have your dates wrong if you think this investigation started because of it. Special counsel was appointed in 2017 and I am guessing he said that to Putin when he met him in public or on Twitter so that would be around 16 July 2018.
There are radicals in the Republican Party and they can all kiss my ass. Another reason why I say our four fathers are smarter than congress.
Okay.
President Obama was my president, I had no qualms with that. I hoped for change as well, he won the Presidency which gives him the title of President Obama, which I would and should type out every time I write that name... but unfortunately I get lazy. I’m not delusional.. I live here, and not to admit who the president of the USA is, is just crazy. That is living in a non reality. I don’t know about you, but I think it is best to acknowledge reality, it’s pretty much the definition of crazy if you don’t.
The not my president from what I read was about people pretty much saying I didn't vote for him not they are denying the election. I would like a source for this person denying what occurred instead of simply being shocked or simply stated not my president as in I wouldn't vote for him and I don't like him.
i really don’t consider twitter as evidence of anything.
He shouldn't have made a tweet about a conspiracy theory that he can find no proof for.
The whole point of them asking Trump, during the debates, if he would accept defeat is because of these allegations of voter fraud, which is much worse than Russia starting some Facebook accounts. But they still can’t accept defeat when that is the issue.... but wait, where is my evidence? I don’t need it. If you have paid attention the past three years, you would understand why I shouldn’t have to post evidence of any of this.
I don't know what your point is here so I can't even ask for evidence if I don't understand what claim your are making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
you said he was impeached, I can understand if you mistyped, my apologies. I do know what actually occurred. You are fighting me on everything when you mistyped your post.
I copy what I said initially.
This is a complete joke. Nixon was impeached and he stepped because both Republicans and Democrats impeached him and if he did they would have removed him anyway.
I could have worded that better. What I was trying to say that if Nixon did not step down he would have been impeached. Both would have still resulted in the same result.
Im for a republic, which the United States is... a Federal Republic, not a democracy. I guess you need evidence of that?
No I don't need evidence for you personal but if you say it is better than a democracy then I require evidence that supports your claims which you deem to the measurements you think a republic is better than a democracy.
Because Congress sucks these days.. They are beholden to the party and special interests too much. Our Founding fathers could have structured something way off base to give someone, anyone, the upper hand, they put in checks and balances, they did unbelievably well considering the experience they had. You can’t account for everything, but amendments were necessary.
As much I want to agree with this I still need more than just this. I can simply say no because Congress is amazing. Founding fathers are awful and I think Congress do so much more than what the Founding Fathers did. Nothing is being conceded apart from our claims and since I can make stuff up it does not hold too much substance and when you provide evidence we can use standards to decide who has the better supported argument. If evidence is not given then my claim is just as good as yours because you haven't proved yours and I haven't proved mine and we are just arguing claims not anything more substantial.
Their writing skills are beyond beautiful, and capture what they wanted the new world to be like, using a vocabulary that surpasses some of the most educated (not intelligent), people of our time. I guess you need evidence of that?
I don't really care about what you like about the Founding Fathers so I don't need evidence for what you like.
you are right, I made an assumption based on your arguments in the past about the statues and monuments that you say glorify slave owners, and I say, regardless, they are still a part of United States history.
I just realised you were the that person. I don't think you have improved your arguments from then so I doubt you would have something that states statues/monuments are in any measurement a better source of information than books.
If they took Obama being born outside the US seriously, then proceedings would have happened, a full blown investigation would have taken place, but it was too ridiculous to proceed, regardless if it was true or not..
You can't think this when you have the president claiming he was a little skeptical about Obama's place of birth. He pretty much parroted conspiracy theories of less relevant people and gave it a larger platform. Since Obama did decide to release the birth certificate Republicans can't launch a full blown investigation on the basis on that. To say something is too ridicoulous to proceed is leaving out the fact that Trump is the president of the United States. This guy says things which are basically conspiracy theories which is about Obama's place of birth or illegal voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Once i felt i had it down enough by myself, i started researching beliefs, philosophies, science, etc. It's very interesting doing it this way imho bc you realize people come close to explaining it but never get my exact belief. It's always some form of theirs but with a platform that could be similar.
From what you said. It doesn't mean what you are saying is true it just means you think you know enough read some stuff and created a structure. You have yet to prove that structure to be true.
How are we defining importance?
Giving more good around the world. Good would be beneficial. His Tesla cars and other innovations helped more people than I ever have.
Right now, you are much more important to me than Elon is bc you are helping me evolve my ideas through discussion.
This can't be your stance. Me talking to one person is not the same as Elon giving people an electric car worth buying. Even at a fundamental level. I am helping 1 person whereas Elon is helping millions. Elon is more important by the numbers and innovations. I can't compete which is why he is more valuable than me.
But, if you think fame and money alone makes someone important... i would disagree.
Even in that respect he beats me. I think you can't provide a single case where I am more important than Elon Musk which is fair.
The fact is, they both exist. You don't always have to be 2 and you don't always have to be 1.
2 is more than 1 which is why that is more important. Saying someone enjoys doesn't matter when that person can enjoy his time with 2 instead of 1.
In a finite universe i wouldn't even pick this reality.
In a finite universe there is only one reality. You can say I choose a different time to exist than this one but if there is more than 1 reality then it would be considered a multi-verse not a finite one. I meant finite as in one.
bc you're already assuming your story won't get to his level.
Yes and it is fair to think that because I am not Elon Musk. A person with a drive and the capability to do what he does. I might one day be as capable as him but that is wishful thinking not something reasonable I can say.
You assuming your story won't have anything interesting.
Interesting doesn't mean it is the same level as important as Elon. Anyone can have an interesting life but that is because if the person is not as important as Elon would mean they had to concede on their dreams. A person wanted to do well in life but then realised bills, parents dying and forced to stay in job because it provides healthcare is an instance where his life is less important because that person is not capable of doing what he wanted to do but settled for something reasonable at his stage. He can watch Netflix due to his standing in life but he would like many other people have dreams about things that he would never have like a Yacht or might be simply not a care in a world due to the responsibility he might have.
See... i don't believe that. I believe the majority of people are pretending to be Christians or... well, maybe a little less so with Muslims, but even them.
If you mean they are not really believing Christianity to the fullest only picking parts they like or have time to read while doing other things then I agree. Most people are not following the fullest of their Religion but they are still Religious and would still be a Christian or Muslim.
That is honestly the last thing i would be in this reality. What are boring and self-obsessed role...
A good God to me would be able to control what it has created not be some random person which has less power than a thing that they have created.
How do you know they aren't doing exactly what they want?
This is unfair for you to even question that. Many people make concessions in their life because they can't be what they want in life and are forced in the specific situation they are in. Everyone has goals doesn't mean they will achieve them which is why people don't get exactly what they want.
It's unavoidable. Without risks, you'll stay stagnant.
Yes but with risks you are pretty much opening yourself for harm hoping for a result that doesn't result in that.
This sentence sounds a lot like something i would have said at your age. I've gone through, 8 career changes, 5 interest changes, etc... Things i use to love, i don't enjoy anymore; things i recently enjoyed, i don't anymore, careers i thought i'd love, i hated; on and on. If you're truly like me... in that you get sick of things you love, man... it'll be a bumpy road. I truly believe you should start dabbling in stuff, bc i wish i did it sooner. Being careful in what i wanted to do is what has been kicking me in the ass... I just get sick of things; i hope that's not how you are bc it sucks.
I think mine would be a reduction of what you said but I don't really see me being happy with a specific career but I do have interests. I also understand my interests have changed and I am open to my interests being changed if a specific decides to not be fulfilling to watch. I guess I am going through same as you but I don't think it is any different with most people if not all. I think they lie to themselves that they have things figured out or they are responsible but I think most if not all people are not but they are always trying to be. Always trying to achieve consistent responsibility and happiness only to be let-down by another event in their life. A person they care about dies, getting fired or sheer boredom in what they do or a lover who you've grown apart from. Life is filled with disappoints and I don't really let them go but I do forget about them. If my brain simply did not forget about my disappoints I would be worse of today or maybe I would actually learn from my mistakes but I doubt it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
I said if he did not quit he would be have been kicked out.Nixon was not impeached! He resigned before it happened.
This is why I don't want to look up everything for you. Just take my word for it on the narrative.
When you actually think you are right even though you don't know what actually occurred.
The electoral college takes into account states with a smaller population that have very different needs.
Thank you for telling me you are against democracy.
Believe me, our founding fathers were much smarter than anyone we have in congress today.
How are you measuring this?
But you would say, No, they are immoral and dumb because they owned slaves!
Evidence of me saying this? Oh wait I realised you assumed my position as if you know anything about me.
Every news station talks about impeachment if they want their candidate in. That is why we have opposing sides. But no one took Obama impeachment banter seriously.
Evidence?
I'm saying that republicans would not have fought this hard to try and prove that Hillary was voted in illegitimately if it were the other way around. They would continue to try to get her out of office, but not to these extremities.
Nixon is one example and with Obama there were extreme cases of people finding anything to impeach him on.
"In August 2011, Republican Congressman Michael C. Burgess of Texas agreed with a rally audience member that the impeachment of Barack Obama "needs to happen" in order to prevent Obama from "pushing his agenda".
Isn't this extreme case coming from a Republican Congressman? Oh wait there are actually radicals in the Republican party. I knew that but guess you don't.
We wouldn't be going around saying "Not my President" like delusional idiots.
No conservatives said Obama was not their president and guess how I prove that? They didn't vote for him. That is what that means. Was Obama your president?
They would not have questioned the results.
Give me a break. Here the Republican leader questioning voting. Come back to me when you have an actual point.
Everything after this was nonsensical and yet again no evidence. Do you understand how to make an argument or are you going to carry on providing no evidence for your claims?
Created: