zedvictor4

I have been described as nihilistic.

Basically, because I suggest that everything may be purposeless.

But I always counter that sentiment with but of course everything may be purposeful.

Nonetheless, I also think that all species are instilled with the purpose of existence and everything that the purpose of existence might entail.

Deciding if something is wrong or not is the moral dilemma.

What has the universal authority to apply a universal standard of wrongness or rightness to an individual human's processes.

Collective human decisions are ambiguous, because we will apply morality variably relative to varying contexts.

Therefore, we should also expect variability of individual thought.

What this says is that there are always people who will try and dictate what others should do.

How would you define nihilism?

I'm assuming that Vici's is fake too.

And I also assume that someone as erudite as yourself realised that I was not being serious.

Perhaps video sex games would be better.

But interestingly video sex games are far more distasteful than violent video games.

Even though we are all the outcome of sexual activity.

Why's that?

So, not resolved then.

Though I'm not sure that the GOD concept is even a question.

Probably got better things to do.

Well, another political opinion, from a Democratic Republican.

Designed to goad and elicit a response from other Democratic Republicans

That's assuming you are all Democratic Republicans and not fascists or anarchists.

Though such arguments do tend to focus upon the machinations of U.S. style democratic republicanism.

Political Tinseltown if you like.

What does this mean?

Or a more accurate question would be, what are you asking?

The above narrative doesn't really explain anything.

Feminism is quite definitively specific and therefore is what it is within a wider social context. As a stand-alone ideology there is nothing to falsify.

Yep, I get that.

I find mental contentment through physical exercise. The more tired I am, the more relaxed my mind becomes.

Cycling and long walks, not obsessively but perhaps more than a lot of people.

No good if one dislikes exercise I suppose. Though it's like you and your breathing techniques, if one is going to try and improve one's wellbeing then one will also need to make an effort to do so.

Exercising the brain is also necessary to keep oneself mentally sharp. But certainly not morbid overthinking or continual social media bombardment.

I would suggest that social media dependency can result in over-expectation, consequent disappointment and depressive negativity.

Debateart is good compositional exercise, which I do when I have a spare moment or two.

For sure.

I just toss random thoughts about on a wet Sunday morning.

And yep, with no sense or certainty of positive outcomes, especially regarding the organic beast that is homo sapiens.

Though I do think that if material evolution has a purpose, then A.I. is probably the way things will go.

Is it possible to exist without thinking?

Or more accurately is it possible to be self-sustaining without thinking.

Like RM suggested, I think that physical and mental relaxation and contentment can be achieved without the need for deliberate effort. Walking is good.

Deliberate effort by definition would seem to be counterproductive. 

Many years ago, I did dally in Buddhists retreats and being the type of thinker that I am, I readily concluded that it was just about substituting one regime of physical and mental effort for another.

I think that most people do it to look cool within their peer group.

Which is not to say that achieving coolness within their peer group did not afford them a certain amount of physical and mental satisfaction.

Horses for courses I suppose.

Though most Western non-conditioned Buddhists will eventually fall into a typically Western style of materialism, it's just that they will tend to decorate their lives with reference to more youthful dalliances.

Oh.

It was just that you were both born on the 1st of January 1930.

Mods are only human.

For sure.

My advice to Roman Catholics is:

Fashioning sex toys out of soft wood is fraught with dangers.

You will need to choose a close-grained hardwood and apply plenty of wax.

Synthetic models are available but don't have the same eco-credentials as wood and beeswax.

This is based upon the assumption, that since the outlawing of altar boy's there will be a greater demand for personal stimulation.

A nice length of 4 x 4 is perfect for fencing and some construction applications.

Or did you mean a Mitsubishi.

Sound advice.

Was I correct?

But, there's no such thing as communism.

Communism is the thoughts of people with too much free time on their hands, who along with all the rest fall naturally into a system of hierarchy relative to intellectual and physical ability.

How inclusively or corruptly a system is managed obviously varies.

Brazil has a more stable democracy that the United States of America.

Not sure that's either correct or incorrect.

Events would suggest a certain current similarity.

Perhaps a lot fewer people than you think, regard excessive political rivalry and hero-worship with such importance.

Agree.

Everyone instinctively discriminates relative to perceivable differences.

Skin tone variation is one of many obvious stimuli.

It's all to do with survival strategy.

Tolerance is the answer, though we haven't as yet mastered the seemingly simple technique of tolerance transfer. Sort of educating/conditioning all kids with total tolerance data.

Though a system of total tolerance transfer and consequent survival strategy override might be a tad risky, unless we firstly iron out the more dangerous flaws in some people's data processing systems.

Oh, and then there's social inequality and all that sort of shit to iron out as well. That is to say the removal of all resentment triggers.

Maybe technological evolution will eventually sort of intellectually homogenize humanity.

Though there will certainly be strong resistance from within steadfastly ideological sub-groups.

Which is currently just about everyone.

And sort of where we started.

Which is why I always suggest that A.I. (Alternative Intelligence) is probably the only evolutionary way forwards.

Organic data processing units just get way too emotional.

Just ask Mr Spock.

Just had a look.

And for sure, cult is widely defined.

So, anything can be cultish.

Overuse of a mirror renders one a self-cult.

Dear Deb 2000.

The voice of reason.

Fingers twitching,

Keys clicking,

Words tumbling,

Into the binary world,

Of this and that.

GOD was perhaps a flat earther.

And it is often proposed that ancient Egyptians were from outer space.

It's the hat thing.

And pictures of ancient Egyptians look nothing like modern day Egyptians.

Though that might be to do with when and who drew the pictures.

Perhaps, therefore, maybe lighter skinned peeps are descended from ancient Egyptian type space-persons.

Which was that Deb.

I will plump for the Sun.

The most obvious big fella in the sky.

Active during the day and goes to bed in the evening.

Second in command is the Moon, out shone during the day by big daddy but keeps watch in the evening.

Often peeping from behind something.

A curtain perhaps.

For sure, nuts can be dangerous.

Especially coconuts.

Athias.

Yep, I think you got it.

I don't think that RM got it though.

I got it from post 1.

My advice is, either ignore or play.

Nonetheless there's a chance that everything is not chaos. 

There is perhaps an overriding evolutionary certainty to everything. 

Or perhaps there isn't, in which case hope is futile.

Nonetheless hope is beneficial if it gives us a lifetime of hope.

Sounds like an interesting film.

But what is a verified person, other than a verified person?

People just adopt, modify and apply labels.

If one does not ride a Pennyfarthing is one therefore not a real cyclist.

We could apply the same rule to any outdated concept.

Though as things stand, aren't most U.S. citizens basically democratic republicans?

So, you feel shamed and humiliated then?

Nope, relative to the thread I was therefore temporarily captured by the American loop.

And so, the rest of the globe is temporarily irrelevant.

You guys are good at unnecessarily conflating issues.

Yep, I understood that.

But was asking what that had to do with white supremacism.

So, you might be reasonably arguing that the aforementioned policies discriminated unfairly.

But wherein lies the correlation between white supremacism and Democratic health and welfare policies.

True.

Discrimination for sure.

Sense the difference, assess the difference, respond to the difference.

Pretend to be indifferent.

And some people are better than others at maintaining the pretence.

Tolerance and respect of differences only works if all parties are tolerant and respectful of differences.

Winding up is the objective,

And I think that you are losing the winding up battle.

If you had not replied to post 1, there wouldn't have been a post 3.

Presumably we're talking 2022 here.

Or have we just time warped back a few hundred years.

Nope, you can only assume to know a fact. By which time you will have processed that data.

Relative to you nothing exists unless you are able to process data.

See a shoe, feel a shoe = data input, data assessment and an internal personal conclusion.

So, are you wearing a shoe?

Yes.

How do you know?

Because I know it is there.

How do you know?

Because I can see it and feel it, and I have already processed that data. and concluded that I am wearing a shoe.

And did you not just reprocess said data in order to come to a secondary conclusion?

And so on.

The only place that shoe wearing data exists is in your head, rather than as an actual fact upon your foot.

Of course, it might actually be there, and a secondary data processing unit might attempt to confirm it.

But any secondary source of data is subject to all the above conditions.

Similarly, any data transfer between units and any subsequent assessments are also subject to all the above conditions.

In fact, the Universe only exists because we think it exists

Of course, I only think that is a fact.

Well, I guessed you were referring to the Far East, but I couldn't work out why as we were discussing U.S. Republicanism within the context of the U.S.

Strawman for sure.

And for sure also, ethnocentrism is a super word and would certainly befit the Old European Republican agenda.

And if self-defeating strawmanism and contradiction is the epitome of nuance, then you certainly have nuance by the bucketful.

As things stand you have only managed to confirm my initial assertion.

Such is your valid opinion.

Which like my valid opinion might or might not be correct.

So, is the worship of the Sun a cult or a religion?

Not sure what you are driving at with the first bit of your reply.

Though secondly, my opinion is my opinion so I'm not certain if either to blame or not to blame is applicable.

And you also state that "White Europeans usually think they own everything". Which loosely agrees with my opinion in relation to Old European America. 

Old European supremacism dressed up as Republicanism, if you like.

Let's face it, extreme Republicanism is still all about the fear of change from a "white" dominated Christian society to a multicultural egalitarian society.

And I use the term "white" very loosely.

Perhaps I should say Old European.

So of course, the big lie is feigning interest and support for multiculturalists, for the purposes of political gain and the perpetuation of the Old European Christian agenda.

This atheist would say that all theistic devotion is non-sensical, and therefore, there is no real difference between cultish or religious practices.

Cult is really all about the size of a group and it's established social acceptability.

Is worship of the Sun a cult or a religion?

Can we ever be objective?

Those are your examples and therefore only relative to your database, irrespective of any other data acquisition and storage processes/systems.

Such is personal subjectivity and output.

Even a seemingly instantaneous repetition of data from a narrative source, is still subject to internal processing. That is to say, your own personal reinterpretation of data. Therefore subjective.

One might argue that if the stand-alone narrative data is verifiable, it is therefore objective. Nonetheless you cannot actually internally possess or lay claim to that objective data. You must always process it.

Yep, some good buzz words and phrases there.

But in my book, tolerance is a virtue and ignorance is bliss.

So be content with your own cognitive methodology, ignore data you don't wish to interact with and be tolerant of other people's individuality.

I would also dare to suggest, that you choose not to ignore probably because you enjoy not ignoring.

Nope, no personal attacks.

But I've fathered children so proven myself to be a real sperm producer.

Which is what a real man is in my opinion.

Though more to the point, assuming the influence and authority to limit another user's participation is a tad egotistical.

Just remember to switch off the fan.

I notice quite a few arrogant egos in this thread.

Power corrupts, doesn't matter how it is labelled.