Total posts: 14,000
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:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Define love; define communism.
Love is a more or less vague word, that we can apply to a variety of things.
And communism is a philosophers pipedream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
It also diminishes when you remove active people.
Dead is dead.
Not sure what "pretty dead" is......Perhaps adorned with brightly coloured flowers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
3+3 will = 6, until the end of time.
Time is only a potential relative to duration.
So based upon your own criteria, the potential for time will never end.
Interestingly though, and based simply upon quantity rather than observable quantity.
Anything between 2 and 3 could potentially be 3.
So based upon these criteria 2.9 + 2.9 or 2.1 + 2.1 could also = 6.
And GOD is representative of observable potential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If no one is actually right.
And no one is actually wrong.
Then it doesn't matter.
Because there is a continuous stalemate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Life taking is an essential survival strategy.
We simply apply overthink to the issue and conjure up notions of specialness.
To which we then apply selective moral thinking.
And then come up with varying levels of specialness.
Sometimes cuddly wuddly little foetus.
And sometimes inconsequential blob of organic matter.
You takes your pick, often relative to other notional influences.
Though the bottom line always remains the same.
No one is actually right.
And no one is actually wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
No saying these days.
If Person 1. Was a darker skinned trans lesbian in a wheelchair, and Person 2. was a perfectly ordinary light skinned male, but perhaps a bit over bearing.
Then we have an abusive relationship with all sorts of PC violations.
So Person 3 is undoubtedly motivated by a righteous desire for social justice , especially if they are a Q Inuit with a speech impediment and an abusive father.
Under these compelling circumstances both 1 and 3, would probably get off with a slap on the wrist, and a lucrative book and film deal.
And 2 would be be portrayed as a chainsaw wielding psychopathic homophobe, played by Doug Jones or Chucky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Meaningless ritual speak.
In other words..........Five statements of insubstantial waffle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Ooops.....Didn't think that one through.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Certainly do remember.
Offence is just a modern contrivance.....Another consequence of the of the media/communication and litigation industries.
If there wasn't profit to be gained, no one would bother to be offended.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Very true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
People are inherently selfish, driven by a survival instinct.
Of course, we have immediate associates (family), who we perhaps have a great deal of faith in.
Just an observation of reality, so I'm not sure what it is that I am supposedly denying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Just repeating what you stated.
That the Mother was in fact a victim, who was being violated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Christ is a character in a book.
And an analogy for GOD
And GOD might have been.
And GOD might yet be resurrected.
But not for a few billion years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Independent blobs of organic matter, inextricably tied to the past by memories.
Created:
Posted in:
These days a degree is just an unnecessary but necessary notch on a stick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
123 Days Later.
And still.
Just stand and stare at the night sky.
In wonderment.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I too, strongly hold the opinion that humans are worthwhile.
But for the reasons given above.
Nonetheless, humans are still dispensable.
Otherwise we would live forever.
We have a very brief time frame in which to be effective.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Short explanations above, to a multi-faceted socio-material symbiosis.
Whereby "wealth" is the catalyst.
And material development and progress, is the universal objective.
And human beings are dispensable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In Lak'ech Ala K'in.
Do not be deceived.
Try to find the best in others.
But trust no one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
A foetus does not intentionally violate it's victim.
Something of a contradiction.
Pro-lifers would have us accept, that a foetus is a separate human entity.
Therefore, if the "victim" deems the foetus to be an unwanted intrusion, then the foetus is in fact, violating the "victim".
"Victim".....Your choice, not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That old "sin" thing again.
Do you really think that an omni-sensible GOD would be worried about sin.....Or ritual methodology for that matter.
I find it odd that theists who revere an omni-everything GOD, always make it out to be so stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"The Bible"
Which translation /interpretation might that be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
That which equates to Math is the constant, even if it might change.
Math itself is human data assessment relative to something........Always subject to the possibility of extinction.
Created:
Posted in:
It's "Great" at half hearted meddling in global affairs and consequently leaving jobs half finished.
And.....Election Circus again in a couple of years (as if it hasn't already started)......That will undoubtedly make for "Great" entertainment.
Will the Rep's be rolling out that "Great" Orange and Rudi clown act again.
Created: