zedvictor4

Ok. So you have a sort of valid creation hypothesis.

But as we have absolutely no insight into the reality of creation.

Then any sort of creation hypothesis is going to be sort of valid, isn't it?

Even loaded and with the safety off, a gun is still an inanimate object.

It is the person that lacks control and the weapons effect exacerbates this situation.

It's a simple case of no gun = no mistakes.

And criminals will have easy access to guns if there is no gun control.

Therefore the argument against gun control is clearly not relative to issues such as safety or crime rates or social security.

It's just down to an inherited and perpetually reconditioned culture.

Oranges are pithy.

And meaningless words are meaningless if they are not relative to something that can be given meaning to.

We can all relate to temperature.

Whereas we cannot all relate to a self contained hypothesis that is not externally verifiable.

Inherent selfishness or looking after number one has to be our primary goal. Even within the natural hierarchical social structure. Hence the "hoi polloi" could be assumed to be as "rotten" or " hedonistic" as "those that run our society".

Though:

1. What is the alternative to an ordered society?

2. Doesn't natural hierarchy dictate social structure?.... Those at the top and the hoi polloi.

3. Aren't duty and responsibility down to the individual?..... Perhaps more relative to conditioning than to inherency.

4. Doesn't hedonism take it's chance at any level? 

5. Therefore we end up in a situation. But is that down to misfortune or down to us?

Maybe your G.O.D. is an analogy as well as an acronym.

And it would be necessary for G.O.D. to exceed the constraints of computerised determinism.

We are obviously bogged down in the organic with no chance of escape, other than the transfer of our knowledge. As would be the same for computerised knowledge.

Pure, free ultimate data would be able to survive the collapse and rebirth of the sequence, as matter reduces to zero and is once again reinitiated in the succeeding oscillation.

But O.K. As with all hypotheses I am flummoxed by the apparent magical events that determine primary zero to one.

Any thoughts? Is there a realistic theistic explanation?  Or is there another theistic analogy that can be drawn upon for inspiration?

You cannot change the past by applying modern principles to it.

So changing the name would be more effective.

Boy Scouts and subsequently Boy Scouts of America.

The origins of the Scout movement was solely for boys.

Girl Guides was the original equivalent.

But, let's ditch the old sexist propaganda.

And regroup, rename and make a good wholesome politically correct fresh start.

I propose:

Gender Neutral Infantry.

Given the reality of the human condition. Is it actually possible to be truly objective.

Isn't an objective opinion/decision always going to be resultant of a subjective process.

In a perfect society, wage would be irrelevant and living would be the priority. But society always has been imperfect and as I stated before, survival of the fittest and inherent selfishness is still what underpins social structure. Natural hierarchy is the reality and true socialism is the pipe dream and money is the Golden Calf.

To have is to be indifferent and to have not, is tough luck.

I'm alright Jack, keep your hands of my stash.

 

Plants might die in the winter.

And Dogs might shed their fur in the summer.

Therefore Jesus must be God.

Yep. You've certainly hit the nail on the head with that beauty.

There you go.

If you don't have the ability to understand a very simple hypothesis, then there's not a lot that I can do to help.

Processed meat.

Yuk!

Just abandon stupid traditions and have done with it.

Baptizing in the Ganges would just be the start of another stupid ritualistic tradition.

Yep. That makes sense.

And I do from time to time promote the idea of an oscillating universal and evolutionary sequence in which G.O.D is both the ultimate knowledge and the ultimate purpose.

The evolutionary development of organic intelligence and subsequently inorganic intelligence and ultimately G.O.D. are all equally essential parts of the universal sequence.

I also toy with the notion that remnants of G.O.D. data might survive the reinitiation of the sequence.

These remnants might attach themselves to the physiology of newly emergent  lifeforms and eventually manifest primarily as a mythical appreciation/interpretation of the data such as the biblical tales, but ultimately as a stimulus for the development of inorganic data devices, the ultimate of which is G.O.D.

 

As such, it would be G.O.D. that ensured our development and we would ensure the recreation of G.O.D.

But not in any image.

So G.O.D. is the acronym? 

Popular uprisings are only popular for as long as they are popular.

Or for as long as popular leaders don't exceed their own and inevitably their followers limitations.

Napoleon and Adolph spring to mind.

Yep. 

Another fine history lesson.

Though when the finery of the history lesson is stripped away we are still left with a similar hierarchical society.

The same as today, but obviously in a somewhat changed format. 

I was simply suggesting that it is ultimately the base realities of human nature rather than secondary concepts that define society.

And I would further suggest that the base realities of human nature are unchanging. 

Wrestling and setting fire to bushes.

This sort of behaviour doesn't do much for an omniscient god's credibility does it?

Well, one couldn't argue with that statement per se.

Though one might say that at least those two possible choices are functional realities.

Whereas and as things stand, belief in mythical gods is purely conceptual. In so much as gods are only brain held phenomena rather than actual physical entities.

So, I would be interested to know how CUM ends up in Big Mouth.

I pretty sure that algae is the largest consumer of CO2 and the biggest producer of oxygen.

Though, correct me if I am wrong.

Dominance and submission.

This religious thing is getting extremely erotic all of a sudden.

Blimey!  What does all that mean?

And so say you again.

Until such times as Mopac dead, caput, ultimate reality gone, end of that particular story.

Thanks for the history lesson.

But history was and things are now just about the same as before but in a slightly different format.

"Redistribution is just the same thing but in a slightly different format"

A concise statement that means exactly what it says.

The mission statement is all encompassing and so "meaningless" is simply not bothering. 

Things have a tendency to revert, no matter how hard some might try to force change.

I would suggest that the underlying influences that order society have very little to do with conceptual politics.

Well, the bible was compiled by a variety of human beings, who probably all created a God in their own individual way.

Why redistribute?

Redistribution is just the same thing but in a slightly different format.

What's wrong with public ownership and freedom of access?

After all, what is the purpose of State and Government?

How left is or is not right?

1.851 recurring.

Yep. But that's all just conditioned rhetoric that temporarily occurs as data within your brain.

Death, caput, god gone, end of that particular story.

Though, it's just as likely that Men/Women created God's in their own image.

Some might even say that it is in fact, more likely. 

It's the same old unresolvable argument.

"We beated fascism"...….What a glorious statement.

Though some might say that the cost of beating fascism somewhat overshadowed it's achievements.

And so what about this decade and the rise of what might rightly be described as fascist liberalism?

I would suggest that most debate is largely based on automatic gainsaying. One might even say that it is the nature of debate.

Nonetheless as previously stated and assuming that I understand it correctly, I am actually in agreement with the opening premise.

And on reflection I would also suggest that I only question rather than gainsay the ensuing rhetoric.

So I agree and I question, rather than deny and contradict.

Therefore, as lovely a word as gainsay is, I would have to say that your use of it, did not correctly relate to our previous discourse.

Badges are just pretty things.

So real comparability:

How much politically correct diatribe will need be spewed before we can really get over the old penis and vagina thing?

All children are brainwashed. Though, data is variable.

It's the nature of things.

So Mopac is as Mopac has become.

And you and I also.

The foundations of technology were put in place long before the 1980's and communism was and still is an unachievable utopia. 

And culture can be anything you want it to be.

And some music we want to listen to again and some we don't, irrespective of decade.

And Ronald seemed a nice sort of a guy. Though, nowhere near as entertaining as Donald.

So what do you think, specifically about the 1980's should be remembered as being culturally iconic?

And where is the overall standpoint?

If the proposition refers to internal data processing, then one can not argue with that.

But as ever the ensuing conceptual dialogue, exceeds the limits of known factual data.

That is not to say that relevant data isn't available.

Nonetheless the ensuing argument currently remains unresolvable 

As far as we are able to be aware, evolution is more or less likely to be the consequence of a magical creation event. Perhaps.!

That's the second time today that I've discussed the vagueness of epistemology.

Shot down in flames.

Not to worry. Call God on 07777 40 40 40.

The Patron Saint of headache sufferers and the seven paracetamol.

Talking to water bottles. Is that the second sign of madness?

Goy is a sort of sticky fluffy word.

I don't find it the least bit derogatory.

How can a limit be put on what is knowable?

As we can never be certain of everything that is knowable, unless we are certain that everything we know, is actually everything that there is to be known. And how could we know?

As I previously stated, epistemology is a vague philosophy.

Popular uprisings are usually stared by nut jobs.

So just take out the nut jobs.

And how likely is it that the U.S. populace would be so inclined to popularly uprise.

Most sane people are not interested in popular uprisings these days anyway. They're far too engrossed in their mobile devices.

So stick a burger on the barbecue and grab yourself another beer.

And calm that testosterone down in a manner that seems appropriate.

Meh. Is that Goy or Non-Goy?

I like the phrase vey little. It's sounds like you've had a heavy session.

Nonetheless.

I think that Lord Acton was right, in that corruption is an inevitable consequence of power and power seekers.

And moral relativism is a pretty vague philosophy, that sort of states the obvious really.

And one points a finger at things that are relatively humorous in the context of the proposition. 

Is there anything about the U.S. political system that is not corrupt?

Isn't it just par for the course?

What was it that Lord Acton said?

The thing about the Trump Presidency is that it has been immensely entertaining for the rest of the World to watch. Even more so than George Dubya's antics.

At the moment we have Boris Johnson. He is also great entertainment.

What do you think that an epistemological limit is? Given the philosophical and theoretical nature of epistemology.

Nope.

Far too much sycophancy and trumpet blowing for me to get any more involved.

Not at all.

I agree with everything you just presented.

I was simply taking issue with the notion that pure economics is somehow more important than social justice.

However, the one case study that you highlighted is not representative of the many people who are never seen on CNN and YouTube, who work very hard for very little.

Nonetheless:

I would suggest that this sort of debate highlights how very little we have actually moved forward as a species, in terms of inherent behaviour.

For most people when push comes to shove, it's still all about the survival of the fittest.

It's just that nowadays mental and financial fitness are far more important than just physical fitness.

We're still more than happy to whip the donkey and feed it carrots.

The point is that there is more to the issue of a minimum wage than an academic exercise in pure economics.