Total posts: 13,876
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I hate no one.
Trump is an entertaining human being, but intellectually inept.
His qualifications for the Presidential job, were access to large sums of money and the ability to entertain the gullible masses.
Thus he bought one Presidency.......But failed to buy a second one, presumably because the gullible masses weren't suitably entertained....But perhaps he will buy a third.
That all depends mostly, on the fickleness of the gullible masses, and to a lesser extent the craziness of the Presidential voting system.
We wait with baited breath.
And just keep taking the disinfectant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
#15 That's a load of baloney.
The basis of which is a wholly inaccurate and imaginary pseudo-hypothesis....A Religion.
So attempting to discredit 6th century "scientists" is a tad arrogant to say the least.
So Mr Clever, how would you precisely measure duration?
Perhaps you should start with the second.......Does it need to have a longer or shorter duration?
Go adjust the atomic clock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Internal function and process.
Nihilism is no more or less a label for a philosophical amalgamation of data, loosely relative to something and not particularly definitive of anything.
We process data and variously attribute meaning and value.....So a greater authority is but one of many derived concepts that we might or might not attribute meaning and value to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't see the connection.
We can extract meaning and value from all sorts of things.
Not accepting the idea or existence of a greater authority, doesn't make one a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Probably true.
Though the us and them voters don't really think a lot about what they are voting for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So are you suggesting that GOD is two groups of 3 individual units of 1.
What should I conclude from that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Good question.
We can always interpret, but not necessarily always agree upon a standard interpretation.
Nonetheless, there is still no external basis to interpret from.
So fundamentally......As in from the very beginning.....I would say yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Jesus never discussed politics.
How can you ever know that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
And then previously there was the Orange incompetentness.
If you don't like incompetence, don't keep voting for it.
What does this say about the competence of the American voter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I'd like to know.
Easy Peasy.
For an example, see #5.
The Moon got me thinking.
Your words, not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So, we can judge right and wrong simply in accordance with social rules.
Though ultimately social rules are contrivances, based upon internally manipulated data.....Essentially hypothetical, when relative to philosophical standards of ethicality and morality.
How do we establish the right and wrong of setting hypothetical standards?
Especially when ethical and moral standards can vary considerably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Bickering is fun.
It's either that or worrying about the Moon.
Which is lunacy.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Let's be honest.
The same old argument
Because all humans are variably and selectively moral.
And enjoy disagreeing and having sex.
And then there's this hypothetical GOD bloke floating about constantly worrying about sinners.
Just saying.
Never seen him myself though.
Or is it people worrying about a hypothetical GOD bloke who might hypothetically be worrying about sinners.
Anyway, let's go and slaughter the fatted calf.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Or the unnamed continent Doc.
It was supposedly, sometime later in the early 1500's that it was named after Amerigo Vespucci.
They'd forgotten about old Chris by then.
And I think that D C was named after Peter Falk.....Though correct me if I am wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
A fully waxing moon. It got me thinking.
Determinism me thinks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nice.
And I always suggest that because of our limitations, Alternative Intelligence is the evolutionary way forwards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You redefined 0.5 as 1....Not me.
1 is merely a base unit
And 3 is a group of three base units of 1
0.5 also becomes a base unit as defined by yourself
So we can define 0.5 0.5 0.5 as 3 base units.
Which is essentially 3 base units of 1.
I reiterate, that I'm simply pointing out that numbers are only relevant to an intellectual observer, and can easily be manipulated......As demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In terms of social law, I would agree.
What about in terms of universal law?
And what about hypothetical situations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I clearly responded to that question. #42
In short...
Under current British social law..... wrong.
Universally....I don't know.
So what is your interpretation of right and wrong?
See if you can not avoid this request again.
If I know what your views are, we can then continue to share data accordingly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
One World
Us and Them.
Selfishness
Survival.
As individuals we tend not to think much further than the ends of our noses.
We move forwards in intellectual output.
But are almost stationary as individuals.
And change very slowly as a collective.
Will we get there?
Assuming that we need to get somewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what is your knowledge of right and wrong?
See how you avoided the question again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Ah...But you defined half a piece of timber as one piece of timber.
I'm simply pointing out that numbers only occur within an intellectual observer as data.
The observer can internally manipulate data how they choose.
And we chose to conclude that .5 as observable data could also be represented as 1
Of course, you can also choose to output contradictory data.
Nonetheless the possibility still remains.
Proof is unnecessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your "obvious" agenda currently...Is not letting on.
You questioned my knowledge of right and wrong.
And I responded.
So what is your knowledge of right and wrong?
When I never sent for you.
I am not your servant.....I read threads and comment accordingly....I do not require approval.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
They are not actually paying you full attention. (Not uncommon)
They are conversing within a secondary internal situation.
And their denial is for obvious reasons.
I am guilty of this.
And when noticed, I usually pretend to be singing to myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Good questions.
1. Data input.......Typical sources.
2. Data assessment.
3. Everyone thinks for themselves......Data input and data assessment.....Though their thoughts/output might be more or less repetition.....Data is usually modifications of existing data......New and unique data is rare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Mostly beyond me.
Though.
3 units of 6 =18
1 is a unit and 6 is a group of 6 units
18 is a group of 18 units....Or 3 groups of groups of 6 units, or vice versa.....or 2 groups of groups of 9 units, or vice versa
What defines a unit, therefore defines a fraction thereof, though a fraction becomes a unit.
So a group of 18 units can be divided into a group of 36 units, and subdivided into a group of 72 units etc.
Such is stuff and how we can variously appreciate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What do atheists believe?
And in real terms, what is a materialist?
I would suggest that we all premise our arguments upon our intellect.....Variously acquired stored and modified data.
How do you think that you are different.
And relative to the issue of 3....I have easily demonstrated that data manipulation can make 2.5 = 3.
What is the premise for this deduction?
Is this an atheistic or materialistic response?
Am I being hypocritical?
Perhaps I am being externally manipulated by Satan.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Don't be sorry about something you had no intention of not doing.
I like that.
One could discuss such an implication at length.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Nope Tarik
You make remarks and ask questions, obviously relative to your own agenda.
An agenda that you seemingly avoid disclosing.
You should know by now that I base my ideas solely upon internal data management and the variability thereof.
So, I'm simply asking...What is the basis of your understanding of right and wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I was simply suggesting that a "grudge" is different to a defensive response.
Let me put it another way:
Does the Crow go back to it's roost in an evening and sit brooding over how it will get the bastard next time he sees it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well if you relate it to human terms then the difference is obvious.
If you held a grudge....Would that be defensive.
The animal response would be instinctive, whereas the human response is intellectual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Did you mean how it is not.
For sure... 3 individual units of 1 plus 3 individual units of 1 = 6 individual units of 1.
As for fractions....You have already demonstrated that half a piece of timber is also 1 unit
Though if we want to rigorously define the fraction, then half a piece of timber is .5 of a unit.
So 2.5 = 3 individual units...Add that to another 2.5 = 3 individual units.
And the total is 5 = 6.
Created:
Posted in:
Never heard of him.
His "fame" never extended to the U.K.
Though with a name like that, it's not surprising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Remembering and acting aggressively, is remembering and acting aggressively.
Not really a grudge.....More like remembering and acting defensively.
Just remembering really.
Clever Crow......Never split the atom or invented a bullet proof vest though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Maybe most homicide victims are killed by people they know.
So is he back yet?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Sorry to interject
But It would seem a fair assumption to make.
Sugar cube V needle though.....Just reinforces some previous assumptions of my own.
Only joking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A sudden change of rules.
So much for a constitution then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
A theory requires a theorist.
And if something is "impossible", then it is therefore not possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So Tarik.
What do you know, that no one else is able to know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
As I demonstrated and as you described, numbers are only necessarily rigorous when they can be individually appreciated as units of 1.
So we cut a piece of timber in half and discard one piece.
Are we left with 3 pieces of timber or 2.5 pieces of timber?
And if we double that quantity of timber do we have 5 or 6.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
With regard to timber for example.
2x2m+1x1m could be regarded variously as 2.5, 3 or even 5. Depending upon how quantity is determined.
Essentially one has 3 pieces of timber....But that relies upon a sensory determination, and not necessarily a specific mathematical principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
True.
Because if A. can potentially deceive B.
Then obviously B. can potentially deceive. A.
An electoral system based upon honesty plus a bit of tit for tat fraud, is probably about as fair as it gets.
Of course, the absurdity of the whole electoral process is another issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
1. Within a specific social system, this would be deemed to be wrong.
But this is not the point that I am making.
2. Within the same specific system, early term abortion is currently deemed to be right.
In the absence of a greater authority, it is impossible to know if either of these two collective decisions is actually right or wrong.
Within the context of the same system..... 1. might appear to contradict 2. and vice versa......But this is just reflective of the wider human tendency to be morally selective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No.
Because right and wrong are always assumptions, based upon variable criteria.
So consequently, what one person assumes to be right or wrong, may not concur with another persons assumptions based upon differing criteria.
Like you and I for example.
And given that there is no known universal constant, then we can never be right or wrong within that context.
So we might decide on collective social agreements regarding right and wrong, but even these vary considerably.....The abortion issue for example.
But even so, in the absence of a known greater authority, no one is actually right or actually wrong....."Actually" being the key defining word in this statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
GAY.
Is a label one attaches to a chosen or preferred activity, and an associated badge one might also choose to wear.
Though one can stick ones knob anywhere and achieve the desired effect and result.
In fact, one doesn't necessarily need to stick ones knob anywhere.
And rollover and go to sleep, until once again one feels compelled.
Of course......The compulsion is an instinctive thing, irrespective of GAY.
Created: