Total posts: 6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Wow. Thank you, I would say I approached that discussion with a lot of rude excitement and I'm glad that I burst into your discussion because you are a very articulate and thoughtful man. I appreciate your guidance and perspective and I feel graced.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Sorry I accidently misquoted you. While breaking down your arguement
I wanted to sum up communism in a humorous fashion. I couldn't decide if I wanted to double team best Korea or bolster his argument by attacking you at a different angle.
As I broke down your arguments and did my own Wikipedia research I started to realize that workers owning the means of production is a joke, because there are no unmoved movers, and means is also stupid because silver in China used by a company from america cannot be incorporated logically if America becomes communist. And when the judge comes along and redistributes he takes ownership, then when he gives it all to each person time makes that robin hood act dumb because that's private ownership among individuals.
The only way it happens is everyone turns off their brain and makes a pile of everything that they consider the common good. Anyone smart enough to point out marriage and children or a person having hands is individual private ownership and those who point this out would have to be killed.
Then all you have is a belief system asserted by mob violence and tradition. What a waste
Workers are individuals. Any inability to see that is satanic and stupid. I'm not sharing my pension with a robot or a screwdriver.
Nor the human equivalent of one.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Communism works it just works
I agree for the sake of causing trouble
I will define booger-aids and so forth... and then use it against you! even though I was not asked to... :( notice me senpai
Note this is the easy version, Ill make a better argument tomorrow. "I've never done anything other than buy into or mock communism"But if you can't refute this then logically I'm write write?
Booger_aids is based on the law of my balls
Migrant workers travel to this country fleeing a cartel capitalism which has destroyed peace.
And as can be demonstrated by history capitalism gives advantage to smart cheats which degrade the physical health of others and other physical harms in history, tradition, and perpetuity. The more complex the system, the smarter the ruler who ends up taking control, and the harder it is to catch him and catch up across generations.
Communism is good and when a person must choose between good and evil you should always choose the good.
Starvation, death, rape occur on the part of a cruel capitalistic society
do not even think of trying tu quo que. :)
A baker will not know his affinity for baking until he is given this job, and if he does not fit the state will move him.
Take the factory workers and make them bread makers, then we will all eat.
You may point to the problem of the grain the tiller the machine worker the machine maker, but we will find those men and fill those positions with men
the state can right now fix starvation, and the water and the collection, distribution, processing, we have many men who will find physical good in their simple life for the state
The state can employ police and ensure the domestic tranquility.
The needs of men are simple, they are physical.
We will fulfill those simple needs and prosper as a nation.
I am not arguing that it is good on this basis, but it deserves a fair hearing when we have seen what Mr. Capitalism can do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I like your thought process!
edit:reread your question. There is always a law the eternal law which I will debate and lose on the matter of at a future time. Peace :)
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes there is an absolute possibility that smart things can sound stupid to you, however just because a Premise is true doesn't make its conclusion true,
P1 a -> c1 b is possible
alongside others
p2 b -> c2 a
And you can apply that logic to a mendel graph
So yeah x can say a y thing and think they are z thing while other people think that they are actually f thing
A lot of the times I was in conversation with someone, any time I used logic they clearly dont understand, they looked at me as if I was stupid.
Premise from anecdote can't be used to qualify the future conclusion (even if it is correct) without other grounds
Now, obviously, this creates the question:
*Nothing is always obvious
*Therefore I do not have to agree with you question as reasonable yet
Why do smart things sound stupid to stupid people?
I'm definitely grasping at straws here but doesn't your premise beg the question because it had no proof, isn't it ad-hominin becuase it attacks a persons characteristic of stupid rather than their arguements?
And if smart things indeed sound stupid to stupid people,
Definitely begging the question, also anecdote, also a qualitative fallacy
Is it possible that things which sound stupid to me could actually be smart and I just dont understand them?
Yes all things are possible until you define reality.
If you don't have tangible division you can't learn, this accounts for the learning process which is itself tangible division of forms
I think your argument was just a relaxed conversation, so don't take yourself too seriously and relax, they wouldn't be praising you if you weren't doing something right.
Any desire to assert yourself as smart or intellectual should be met with proofs!!!!
Hazzahha
Off to go be a redundant pain in the ass somewhere else!
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Sources: Ideas formed from compendium books like the Catechism, the writings of St.John of the Cross, the Summa Theologica, the Bible, The stories that preceded the bible, my damn wacky head, quotes from this forum
Critical-Tim: "I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions."
Me: "I decided to take the question what about insane persons? to its logical conclusion"
Below is the argument
()()()()()()()()()()()()())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()() Proof 1 ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()((()()()()
(1) Can humans truly act selflessly? <I'm not comfortable answering this question if I can't place it in time>
(1a)Can a human being perform a selfless act? <I like when it can be placed in a mover moved format :)>
(2) Can a robot lacking autonomy and understanding act from another person's intention and carry out a selfless act even though the programer or commander does not act selflessly? <I believe that the definition a selfless act is one which does not provide any reward to the mover party that acts on reality of the then moved>
{I believe that morality must act on reality because imagination of curing cancer does not cure cancer}
{ and imagination that leads to discovery can be called learning or discovery dur da dur which I would consider an action}
(2a)can a human being lacking autonomy or memory be considered selfless?
I believe (POSSIBLE CASE) in the existence of bomb defusal robots and that they as robots act selflessly
I believe (POSSIBLE CASE) in the existence of individuals with dementia remembering to do something for a loved one again and again
<In the past their action was not selfless>
<But now its repetition should meet my loosely implied and applied syllogism rules for a selfless act>
I believe (POSSIBLE CASE) in the existence of individuals which experience medically diagnosed depression.
I believe that these persons could donate their life savings and commit suicide without feeling pleasure from the donation. Should this be true, I believe that this demonstrates that good actions can be done even though lack of awareness prevents a reward for the giver party. Done in a private world with no chance of discovery I believe their actions are selfless, yes?
If in a hypothetical world we were to (POSSIBLE CASE)place human robot hybrids (think brain chip controlling neurotransmitters) into robot exteriors (chassis?) and then have them help stranded motorists, the lack of awareness I believe constitutes no pleasure received but the discoverable object which is a human in a case would thus confer virtue on that human, which did charity. Provided you subscribe to moral ideas of measured right and wrong.
<I believe this because if you then give them a memory of what they had done, helping a motorist, and a pleasure on recognition the action would cease the state of selflessness, and become an action done with reward now accessible>
RANT:Therefore, Yes Anyone does truly act selflessly that fulfills those macabre hypothesis, But it would require an outside action of tremendous suffering and harm I would imagine.
Should anyone truly act selflessly?
Yes, in so far as the Object, Intent, and circumstances are good or neutral.
***Suicide is wrong and I am Catholic and worked as a don't kill yourself operator don't kill yourself on the basis of my argument!!! ***
RANT Concluded!:
:) have a nice day I look forward to having my argument shredded!
Attacking you Critical-Tim in your ideas because if you beat up the biggest strongest guy then you know that you have completed a difficult act. And if I lose then I'll have made an enemy out of meanest kid on the block and I can learn how to win when I take my beatings.I'm not doing it to be rude. I have tremendous respect for free thinking men like yourself. Like seriously. Woah. Keep doing what you do by reason and will!
Critical-Tim: I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions. This can range from straightforward transactions, like buying something, to more complex situations, such as fostering mutually beneficial relationships. Even when giving seemingly selflessly, individuals often receive intangible rewards, like a sense of virtue or emotional fulfillment. In essence, I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.
^
I agree with you!
Critical-TimMy favorite quote: "A man's worth is determined by how much truth he can tolerate." - Friedrich NietzscheI believe it has impacted me because I can see it in myself and everyone around me. We seek to understand the world, thus we build a structure to interpret it, but the world always changes, and we gain deeper understanding as we learn. The world cannot remain constrained to our past understanding, but we feel it necessary to persist when it is time to let go. I now having identified this flaw in myself can actively seek to fix it. People are naturally bent in a subjective flaw of imperfection; it is only by actively striving can we force our naturally bent nature to stand upright.
^
I disagree with Nietzsche quote I think my argument proves insane people can be extremely useful!
I don't think I'm right until I can't be corrected Nietzsche was a very smart man but I think I have him here...?
If a man must be deliberate then I agree with Nietzsche but I disagree that a man's worth is determined by individual perception. Even a smart man can err and man is not something to risk erring on lightly.
Without committing a Fallacy Fallacy I believe your world view could use a shake because it doesn't allow for the merit of tools as humans. And I would consider myself quite a tool.
If you see something in yourself as well as everyone around you does that make it true or just possible or probable.
When you say that we seek to understand the world I agree!
But!
I think the word "structure" is too broad and can be used to say a lot of different things. Made clearer for us dummies I think your silique could have a lot more panash!
To say the world always changes is circular reasoning in't?
Because the world by its nature always experiences change even if we do not perceive it
the word world means all that is and all that is does in fact change
So what you said was what always changes always changes
If we simplify the argument to We as all intelligent mammal man attempt understanding of the world and gain a deeper understanding by (tools which are insane like hammers or screws, scalpels, graduated cylinders or concepts held in our brains, they just act and are acted upon)
Some parts of the world can be divorced from all other parts so that the earth becomes the crust becomes a shell of rock and we can go further but we lose the object. Atoms may make up everything but they are only one science. one eye. We have many lenses for the same creation.
In this way some understanding can be held so concrete. Like math or the color green
Some parts of the world cannot be tangibly divorced and cannot be proven or understood by this basis. Were the world flat or an orange we simply cannot know with certainly that higher reality exists using lower reality.
Using your world against you. Yes the world is and will be long after we are gone.
What you see is there but not quite
But it is not a flaw or a vice which can be applied as a global rule to persist in something which is not yet understood. Someday that may be discovery.
And if you are persisting in something understood then you can call that learning.
Funny enough you cannot actively fix this flaw.
Because you don't know what you don't know
circular reasoning :)
You will never be upright except in the eyes of everyone who agrees with you
I am well aware that I am nitpicking but this a dead thread and I saw how you awesomely you treated personal attacks. So selfishly I encourage you to introduce me to my first online debate by introducing me to the bottom of your foot sharply. Best of luck!
Created: