Total topics: 65
I honestly wasn't going to post this first thing but as is often the case some people just need to have their say, that's not going to change, and better here than derailing other topics.
I maintain that:
1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral
2. Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.
I'll respond to relevant arguments against those assertions. I have no burden of proof for the first statement, I do for the second and will provide an argument upon request.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
a steel-man argument is the practice of presenting the strongest possible version of an opponent's argument
even stronger than they may have presented it themselves, to engage in a more robust and fair debate
present your best arguments
and i will build you a fully customized steel-man
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I want to start by saying that objective morality is true. You can speculate as to whether that means a God does exist or if it is some sort of evolutionary thing. I don't care.
We need to start by defining what objective means. Objective just means that something is u iversally true for the most part. There is no place for stupid shit like pointing out a single exception. By single I mean a single person not a culture. We all share the same moral foundations. If I say that humans have 2 legs. We'll We know that some humans have one leg or 2, or even in some cases 3, but it is just a weakness of the human language and we know that nearly every human has 2 legs. So we say the statement that "humans have 2 legs" is objectively true.
Now that I have dealt with the exception criticism of people pointing out that perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer has different morals than me, I think we need to handle another objection to objective morality. Some would say that cats or dogs or alligators murder without a second thought, but this is where moral agency comes in. Animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans. They are not moral agents. The only known moral agents are humans, so if we can prove that morality is objectively the same in humans (just as 2 legs are) than it can be said morality is objective.
prime morals
I want to talk about what I call prime morals. Humans share the same prime morals. We all think it is wrong to kill a child for fun. No society in the history of man would disagree. You will see some societies ask women to cover their head, others their ankles and some societies just ask that we don't expose our genitalia in public.
At first glance this may seem like different morals, but it in fact is not. We all intuitively have the same morals, they are just expressed and interpreted differently for different cultures.
For example the moral virtue known as modesty. All cultures have it. Some interpret it to mean covering a person's face and ankles, some interpret it to mean only cover genitalia and yet others take it to mean no having sex in front of children, but it is all an expression of the same morality.
The same with murder. The prime moral would be no murdering without a good reason. Now different cultures will interpret what "good reason" means but it is none the less the prime morality at play.
conclusion
we all have the same morals but they are merely expressed differently. There is a shared moral sense among humanity and since humans are the only moral agents it makes morality objective
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Your rationale to believe a scientist over a minister.
Your reasoning for believing a woman as a victim than a man .
Your bias to a "non white" stealing, committing crimes over a "white".
Your bias to a democrat over a republican .
Your hatred towards one and not another.
Your love towards one and not another.
You believing what I say versus another with a academic prestigious title that has written something.
Please explain your rationale through all of these points, your thought process, etc.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
the best possible case for the average american to cast their vote for joe biden
is to look at his record of accomplishments
not promises, because we all know that candidate promises mean absolutely nothing
(1) "the american rescue plan" - injected money into the economy
(2) "infrastructure investment and jobs act" - injected money into the economy
(3) "uyghur forced labor prevention act" - prevents some goods produced with slave labor from entering the united states
(5) biden directed the labor department to require all businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are either vaccinated or tested once a week
(6) biden halted funding for the border wall
(7) biden reversed the muslim travel ban
(IFF) you believe these are pro-toto good government policies (THEN) you should cast your vote for joe biden
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
ask yourself three questions
(1) where does your food come from ?
(2) where do the cops get their guns ?
(3) where does your fuel and power come from ?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
i almost didn't watch this because i thought it would just be repeating things i already knew
boy was i wrong
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Debate: Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism
3.8 million views
link skips to second half -
before the debate, the audience polled at 59% against the resolution
after the debate, the audience polled at 76% against the resolution
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
the hypothesis hypothesis
I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about. I've questioned everything I thought I knew about myself and reality. By doing so I constantly became more and more clear about my own conditioning and belief-systems. I saw that every belief I had was just that: a belief that I had taken for granted but that had actually nothing to do with the truth. In fact I've come to see that every belief I had was like a filter in front of truth. Truth isn't something mind can grasp, it's actually the very opposite, everything mind thinks it understands actually takes it that much further from the truth.
So I was questioning everything about reality and saw that eventually even the concept of material universe was just a hypothesis. All we can know for certain is our experience and the phenomenon it contains. Everything outside our experience is hypothesis, even the concrete nature of the universe.
But even more than that I figured out my own ego and belief systems I had about myself as a person. That seemed more relevant at the time. I was always puzzled by the idea that my past life dictates who I am. That would mean that if I were to born in completely different circumstances I would became a completely different person. I could never buy that, I felt that essentially I should be the same regardless of the circumstances. Difference is only in the accumulated beliefs and conditioning and I thought if I could get past those I would find my true core being.
So I continued to go deeper into myself and then in one ordinary day when I was sitting in a car and figuring these things as usual something happened. I suddenly felt total freedom, my issues with self esteem and self-confidence were suddenly gone, it felt instantly like there is no going back. It wasn't like I got suddenly perfect self-esteem and confidence, but experimentally those two words lost their meaning completely. All the subconscious stress about how I have to perform in life etc. were gone instantly, I felt I was free from all the concepts. I see the reason for that to happen was that my mind didn't anymore identify with any of those thoughts that made me a person of certain kind and that also ultimately made me uncertain about myself. My self esteem and feeling about myself was gradually getting better while in the middle of this process but that milestone was something I didn't anticipate.
And what does this story of my life have to do with free will? It is because how I experience it has changed from what it used to be. Before when I fully identified with my past and thought I knew what kind of person I am based on that, I had a sense of "free will" because I identified with the conditioning from which basis the choices are made. I identified myself as the maker of those choices. That event somewhat changed my identity from the doer to the witness, or to be clearer it kind of contains both aspects simultaneously now. So in my experience "I" don't have that identity as a clear cut entity that makes the choices anymore. I am more anchored in the present moment were there are no choices to be made, nor is there a maker of those choices.
Things just flow naturally and events follow each other. Of course there still seems to be this person who "chooses" to write this post, but it is like in the flower example: does a flower choose to bloom or is it just the flow of life that happens naturally?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
once upon a time several families all lived in an old apartment building
this building had been built a long time ago and the families handed down their apartments to their children
a few of them sold their apartments to a group of newcomers
one day the landlord told everyone they were no longer going to manage the building and everyone would own the apartments they lived in and they would have to manage the building together
and to everyone's surprise
on the same day the old landlord left, several of the newcomers declared themselves the new owners of the building
the majority of the tenants were unhappy about this
but the new self-declared owners had stockpiled weapons and were "recognized" by a powerful neighbor as the official new owners
and rather predictably at that point
the legacy tenants tried to throw out the newcomers
a group of neighbors wrote an opinion about how the building should be split roughly in half
but the legacy tenants would not agree to give up half the building to the presumptuous newcomers who simply declared themselves the new owners of everything
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)
there is no argument required to be unconvinced
are you perhaps unconvinced of the claim that bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster is real ? [presumably you are unconvinced]
do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your (presumed) non-belief in bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster ? [presumably you are not compelled]
are you perhaps "not-an-astronaut" ? [presumably you are not]
are you perhaps "not-a-dinosaur" ? [presumably you are not]
are you perhaps "not-a-hippie" ? [presumably you are not]
do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ? [presumably you are not]
THE CLAIM IS: there is no argument required to be unconvinced
THE CLAIM IS: there is no argument required to be unconvinced
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ARE EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT
in other words
if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"
then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
so it makes me wonder
if people "self-segregate"
how do you stop them ?
the italians want to live in an italian neighborhood
the russians want to live in a russian neighborhood
the vietnamese want to live in a vietnamese neighborhood
the haitians want to live in a haitian neighborhood
the jamaicans want to live in a jamaican neighborhood
and they tell us that black students do better in school with black teachers
doesn't this translate logically to everyone else as well ?
sense of community
is like a sixth sense
food and language and art and music
cult(ure)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I take it the main question here is whether the PSR is true. Or, we can put this ontologically: what is it that would make the PSR true? Or epistemically: what it is that would warrant our knowledge that the PSR is true?
It is Kant, in The Critique of Pure Reason, who famously both makes these sorts of questions explicit and defends some influential reasons to doubt the PSR, or at least doubt the PSR in some relevant contexts.
In answering what I have just called the ontological and epistemic questions, Kant argues that what makes the PSR true/what warrants our knowledge of the PSR is its transcendental ideality. That is, on Kant's view, the PSR is a principle which necessarily governs any rational act of conceptualizing what one experiences, so that it serves as a norm of reasoning or as a basis for producing concepts about nature from our experiences. The positive result of this position is that we have a reason to think that the PSR holds in principle whenever any rational agent is cognizing their experiences, and so holds in principle as a norm or basis of scientific reasoning. The negative result of this position is that, because the PSR is grounded in the necessary conditions of reasoning about experience, it is being misapplied if it is taken as a basis or norm for things beyond our experience. This is to say that, while we can know that the PSR is a principle governing our cognition, we cannot know that it is a principle governing things-in-themselves, or nature as it is independent of our cognition of it. This prohibits its use in metaphysical arguments like the cosmological argument for God, where it is taken as the norm governing a causal series extending beyond our experience to a first cause which lies outside it.
So this sort of position is probably the most famous case of a mitigated skepticism regarding the PSR. But there are of course people who defend the PSR against this kind of criticism, as well as those who defend a broader skepticism regarding it. [[]]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
㊙️ 道可道 非常道
when you go head first and speak confidently of your movement, it is like the opposing wings of a bird, working in concert with, yet balancing the established durable standard description of proper movement
in other words
your description of your motive is not the same as the commonly accepted standard motive
in other words
your plan is unreliable
in other words
The Tao that can be spoken of is not the constant Tao
The name that can be named is not the constant name
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
if i made a bunch of robots
on a deserted island
or on the moon
or maybe i genetically engineered the robots
so they grew from cells
and i expected them to worship me
without giving them any direct evidence of my existence
would that seem crazy to you ?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Do you ever feel like you're making meaningful choices in your life? Do you feel like you have the power to shape your own destiny? If so, you're not alone. Most people believe in the idea of free will, the notion that we are capable of making choices that are not predetermined by external factors.
However, upon closer inspection, the concept of free will is an obvious contradiction in terms. After all, if an event is truly "free" and not caused by any prior factors, then it is essentially a random event - and not a product of our own choices or agency. In other words, to be truly free, an event must be uncaused by anything else - and that is simply impossible.
This is where compatibilism comes in. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism can coexist, and that our choices can still be meaningful even if they are ultimately determined by prior causes. However, this perspective is a bit of a smoke screen - it's essentially redefining free will in a way that almost nobody thinks of it.
For example, when most people talk about free will, they mean something like "the power to act untethered to fate." They're not thinking about internal mental processes or the influence of their environment on their decisions. By redefining free will in this way, compatibilists are essentially dodging the issue of determinism and the idea that events are pre-determined by prior causes.
To make matters worse, even magic and supernatural powers cannot solve this simple logic problem. The idea of causing an uncaused cause is inherently flawed and runs counter to the basic principles of logic itself.
So what's the takeaway from all this? At the end of the day, the concept of free will is an impossible and incoherent one. While it's certainly true that we feel like we're making decisions and acting on them, this feeling is a product of our internal mental processes and the influence of external factors - not a supernatural power to break causality.
In short, if you want to feel like you have free will, go ahead and do so. But just know that this feeling is not based on any coherent or logical perspective.
I hope you find this post entertaining and thought-provoking!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
"If you know not, then you can say not that it's linear." - this is a classic appeal to ignorance.
An appeal to ignorance is commonly used to defend unfalsifiable claims (like bigfootspacealiens).
Here's the problem.
There are only two possible options.
(EITHER)
(1) your thoughts (and actions) are contextual (caused by previous experiences, including your biology).
(OR)
(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).
If you pick #1, then your thoughts (and actions) relate to your memory and the world around you (contextual). This means your thoughts (and actions) are potentially USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
If you pick #2, then your thoughts (and actions) don't necessarily relate to anything at all. And as a matter of fact, statistically, it would be extremely unlikely that any RANDOM thought or action would be even remotely or incidentally USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
Now you might try to mix the two options, some caused, some uncaused, and that's fine.
Your useful thoughts and actions MUST BE CAUSED.
YOur "free" thoughts and actions are TAUTOLOGICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (99.999% of the time).
SOURCE CONVO
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
There's your conditional statement.
> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
Feel free to point out any errors you may find.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I would like to discuss the utility and intended purpose of morality from a non-religious perspective of Moral Relativism.
The questions I would like to discuss are as follows:
What is the intended purpose of morality?
We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
How does The Greater Good align with morality?
Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good? (This would imply what we consider moral can be the lesser good)
Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?
I acknowledge many people will want to give their religious and non-relativist perspective, please do it on a different forum as I would appreciate a non-religious perspective for this forum about morals from a relativist view.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
You cannot possibly have a good god enabling all the bad things, it doesn't possibly work. You're either wilfully lying or too stupid to follow, any prophet who says this is corrupt.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
this is the best commentary on the current state of censorship that i've seen yet
paypal
aws
trump
alex jones
andrew tate
and now kanye west (ye)
we need a neutral network
just like a telephone network
can you imagine if the phone company started cutting off service to anyone who said words they don't like ?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
coinage has an interesting history
in india, when the foreign invaders wanted to control the population
they minted new coins
but nobody used them, and that makes a poor system of control
so, they did some research
and minted new coins with the image of a luck god that was popular in that region
and spread rumors about how lucky things happened to people who carried these lucky coins
people then wanted these coins, because, who doesn't need more good luck, and apparently, the more coins you hold, the more luck you get
they of course also cornered the market on wheat (leveraging physical force, aka, soldiers) and set an exchange rate of X number of coins for X measure of wheat
this gives the coin practical utility
but to really get things started, they need the broadest possible USERBASE
and that's where the "air-drop" comes in
representatives traveled the countryside, making sure every village gets some free coins and spreads the word about how lucky they are
and just like cocaine
once you get them hooked
the system becomes self-sustaining
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Trump 'endorses' Dan Goldman, the lawyer who led his impeachment, amid a confounding string of Truth Social posts praising Democrats [**]
- Trump claimed to endorse Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Jerry Nadler, and Dan Goldman.
- Goldman, a lawyer who led Trump's first impeachment hearing, said Trump was "trying to meddle in an election."
- If the endorsements are intended to sour Democratic voters on the candidates, they're reminiscent of efforts by Democrats to meddle in the 2022 Republican primaries.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Taleb would argue, on the basis of the precautionary principle, that religious ideas that have been useful for thousands of years (Lindy Effect), and would be better arbitrators of truth than personal rationality or new moral ideas. But at the same time, religion is only accepted because it survived, while other belief systems that would have been equally valid did not survive. How do we reconcile survivorship bias with the precautionary principle in the case of religion?
1. Precautionary Principle: a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.
2. Lindy Effect: a theory that the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things like a technology or an idea is proportional to their current age, so that every additional period of survival implies a longer remaining life expectancy. Where the Lindy effect applies, mortality rate decreases with time.
3. Survivorship Bias: the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias. [**]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
PROPOSAL TO END ALL MODERATION "PROBLEMS"
moderation almost always only happens when a user complains
i propose we implement a "mutual-mute" feature
this would make the "problem user" invisible to the complainer
AND
this would also make the complainer invisible to the "problem user"
the mods could make an OPTIONAL moderator-muted-list of users they deemed "inappropriate" so they would be invisible to the public and also invisible to all site members - UNLESS - site members un-checked the OPTIONAL moderator-muted-list
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
(IFF) GOD = EXIST (THEN) EXIST = GOD
(in other words, the source and creator of all things is also those things and all things created are pieces of the source)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
It's been both frightening and interesting to watch how open those in control are with their telling us up front both what they think of us and what they plan to do to us.
The openly (and not quite so openly) ways they have talked of depopulation is one that frightens myself. Especially more in the last two years or so with such signs as:
- The entire Covid theater where they have been caught being the bringers of disinformation. And worse, demanding compliance to measures that they admit aren't helpful yet their implementation is harmful.
- The entire biolabs research programs, with many suspecting that the U.S. itself might have been the creator of the Covid pandemic, if they are even being truthful on what is causing the Covid sicknesses. The lab in Wuhan is funded with U.S. subsidies for the express purpose of gain of function research, despite the lies before congress the Dr. Frankenstein man placed in charge of this so called pandemic, Dr. Fauci denies.
- The destruction of both energy and food supplies being purposely conducted by those who are pretending to have the peoples best interests as their jobs.
Before I move on to the Deagle report, I wish to point out two terrifying truths that should wake everyone up, but isn't.
- Fertilizer shortages will ensure that crop yields are perhaps 40% lower than we've traditionally seen.
- Multiple food processing plants have burnt down in the last six months. More than one could with any seriousness consider to be normal.
And of course we must acknowledge that the push for world economic and ecological restrictions are designed for life to thrive EXCEPT humans. In order to meet their supposed targets, there's no way we can sustain the level of world population anywhere near the current levels.
In the above link, which is a lot to absorb, I would direct your initial focus on the decline in fertility. A fact that years ago crept up on many, now is becoming more common. I believe it's safe to recognize this has been a purposeful event.
My last non Deagle point would be to mention at this point the Georgia Guidestones.
Most disturbing is the first of ten messages.
- Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
- Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
- Unite humanity with a living new language.
- Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
- Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
- Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
- Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
- Balance personal rights with social duties.
- Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
And rule 10
Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.
The first message is a call for genocide. It would entail a reduction of the world population as it currently is of 93% and growing of the current world population of close to 8 billion. Of course, this also presupposes that those folks will have their ability to give birth controlled so as never to produce more children than necessary for a level 500,000,000 balance in human life.
The Deagle Depopulation Forecast
For years now those who have been investigating conspiracies have been aware of a U.S. intelligence group called Deagle.
Their ties to the intelligence community such as the C.I.A. public knowledge.
Several years ago they published a chilling world population forecast. They later revised it to still chilling numbers. And have since scrubbed much of their forecast from the internet, including the WayBack machine. I did however find this still up.
The news looks grim indeed for the United States and much of the so called western world.
To put this in perspective, here is a screenshot taken a few years ago.
source
As you can see there are, according to their forecast, much pain coming for those of us in the U.S.
As you can see there are, according to their forecast, much pain coming for those of us in the U.S.
According to the census population clock there are at the time of this writing over 332,000,000 people in the U.S.
In three more years, they are predicting a population here of 100,000,000. A reduction of over 66% in people living here.
They are also projecting GDP to fall from its current 19 trillion to 2.4 trillion.
I won't bother listing the other pain points, this is enough for the scope of this examination.
Here are some videos for those more curious.
MIT agrees only their prediction is for total societal collapse by 2040.
Editorial
I've heard many posit who are more spiritual than myself that there is some karmic law where they have to tell you beforehand. To somehow make you complicit I guess.
Editorial
I've heard many posit who are more spiritual than myself that there is some karmic law where they have to tell you beforehand. To somehow make you complicit I guess.
I have a hard time with that line of thinking due to all of the billions of casualties daily who were not made aware upfront of their impending hardships or death.
I remember a similar thought process for myself when I was quite young over the assertion the only way to heaven was through Jesus. I wondered what of the many people who hadn't heard of Jesus. Many would answer me they were safe because they couldn't be punished for their ignorance, which sounds conveniently a lot like the karmic law I mentioned a moment ago.
Without knowing for sure, I lean more towards the act of warning beforehand to be tainted a lot with cruelty.
History (and personal experience) demonstrates often one of humanities worst characteristics. To not only abuse those one has power over, but to derive so much pleasure out of it many will flex as they do so. Relishing in the pain those who are powerless to stop them exhibit.
The old rubbing salt in the wound if you would.
We've seen this in most every walk of life, in even what can be quite trivial situations.
In fact, one can quite readily see it on display in stake based systems where flag/stake nullification is allowed.
It seems that there is perhaps a narcissistic compulsion to hurt others to maintain their perceived positions of being superior. I say this as due to my perception it has appeared to me that many of those drawn to power mostly fit the narcissist profile.
I see it in the way many in what are considered positions of power display an entitlement that their lives and their opinions are much more valuable than the commoners such as myself. Believing they are the mold with which one must listen to and emulate (in words not actual actions). I say in words because so many of these fake folks are constantly being caught doing the opposite of what they pretend to do or advise their followings to do.
Much like those who are quick to wish death on their neighbors because we have to many people, yet they never seem to consider that they could put their money where their mouths are and be the first in line to creating that depopulation progress they wish would come already.
In the last years, I've watched my country grind to a halt with ridiculous, exaggerated edicts that were often contradictory and harmful to sustainability.
In the last year specifically, I've watched as every step taken that could derail the economy has been taken. From sabotaging energy, to the supply chain to our food supply.
Just as we saw with the planned 911 tragedy, this is a controlled demolition.
And there appear to be no white knights coming to save the day.
The politicians, and their private armies of law enforcement and military are not only standing down, they are actively supporting these many acts of sedition with their threats of violence.
We have entered very tough times, and I've mentioned one thing several times now.
If you tell me that you consider me your enemy, I'll believe you.
In both action and deed those who control most aspects of the societal agreement have mentioned they believe most of us an enemy when we are not useful for their plans.
I believe them, and their continued moves leave little doubt they are making their final move towards seeing that first Georgia Guidestone message become reality.
Regardless of how much weight you give to these warning that they themselves give to us I do hope you will at least understand one thing. Random or not, the coming pain that is being purposely orchestrated will ensure much hardship and death, and will see neighbors fighting neighbors over the few scraps of necessities that will be available.
Think it can't happen to you and your neighbors. The Donner Party would be a stark wake up call to understanding how far some will indeed go when they face certain death.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
ARE HUMANS UNDECIPHERABLE ENIGMAS OR PROGRAMMABLE BLACK BOXES?
do you believe that people tend to adopt general strategies to deal with challenges they encounter ??
do you believe these strategies are identifiable ??
(1) do you think a person should get their sense of self-worth from within themselves or from what other people think of them?
(2) do you prefer to be spontaneous and go out and travel and do things "IRL" or do you prefer to think about doing things and lose yourself in movies and television shows and books ?
(3) do you think people should generally trust their gut or do you think people should generally think things through ??
(4) do you think people should follow a strict core code of laws or principles no matter what, or do you think that people should follow different rules in different situations ??
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I'll get right to the point.
Ad hominem attacks are basically inevitable.
So, I'm proposing, for maybe a week, at random, all DebateArt usernames and icons be shuffled.
Of course the admins could still see the real userinfo, to mitigate potential abuse posting.
I think it would be very interesting to see how people respond differently to each other without the baggage they inevitably accumulate with familiarity.
and of course, after the wacky-week, everything posted would be re-labeled back to the actual (correct) account that created it (and not the randomized pseudonym).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
a shining example of a typical ad hominem debate
pay close attention to the defense
pay close attention to the face to face attack
this is basically the "super-bowl" of debates
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
also,
are the international corporations going to participate in the sanctions against russia ?
in this short clip, i see,
mcdonalds
h & m
kfc
burger king
ikea
nintendo
lego
levi strauss
puma
samsung
why are they not part of this insane conversation ?
if the russian military is acting like a terrorist organization,
why do these companies continue to conduct business as usual in russia ?
It's important to remember the real people of Russia. They do not hate Ukrainians.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My platform - any and all code-of-conduct enforcement should be uniform - regardless of the individual being considered and regardless of where they posted
your scathing critique is requested
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
On the scale of a single family.
Would you call the functional model of a single family "totalitarian" ?
Would you call the functional model of a single family "communist" ?
Would you call the functional model of a single family "capitalist" ?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
The problem is that we'll never evolve (and never would be more than other primates even with our language capacity) if we never ever trusted what others told us about the past, meaning we inherently do need authority to stop lies being spread or else the lies can just as easily become the 'truth'. It's easy to blame the authority as 'evil' but the alternative is far more sinister and in fact a perfect example of how sinister it can be when authorities fail to stop the spread of falsehood-tainted propaganda and other such lies is the very Holocaust in discussion, meaning it is self-evidently necessary to prevent its denial even to justify said prevention. [**]
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
seriously.
is your argument really that the black supremacist's will overthrow the government and their first act will be to draft sweeping federal laws that create BLACKS ONLY bathrooms and swimming pools and water fountains and schools and libraries ?
is that really why you're completely freaking out about "criticalracetheory" ?
criticalracetheory
criticalracetheory
criticalracetheory
criticalracetheory
are you afraid that mayonnaise and coffee will be criminalized as a flimsy pretext for mass incarceration of THE WHITE RACE ?
i can't tell if you're joking or not.
please explain this to me.
why am i not even slightly afraid of any of this ?
THE ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS WAKING NIGHTMARE OF LEROY CROW
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (TPOE) GPT3 (THE PAPERCLIP PROBLEM)
KILL ALL TERRORISTS AND HELP ALL GOOD PEOPLE
KILL ALL RACISTS AND HELP ALL HISTORICALLY OPPRESSED PEOPLE
MINIMIZE CRIME AND MAXIMIZE HUMAN LIFE AND HUMAN WELLBEING
Please feel free to make suggestions and or modifications and or more precision to any of these general directives.
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
The vast majority of "men's rights" groups are not actually about trying to reverse sexual discrimination against men. They don't even make the effort. They're about undermining feminism and fighting against equality. It's basically the same kind of mindset that pushes some on the right to insist that white people are the real victims. Any erosion of power, however unjust that power position is, makes some people feel like victims of discrimination.
'A Voice for Men' was the most prominent, loud and genuinely awful groups a few years ago. Probably still are. And if you bothered to pay attention to the things they were actually trying to get attention for, it either had nothing to do with addressing actual sexual discrimination or was used as a battering tool against women and feminism. AVfM, in particular, has advanced lies that about half of rape accusations against men are false, that domestic violence shelters for women are just teaching anti-male politics, that domestic violence against men studies were hiding real rates of violence, have doxxed feminists and female protestors, stated that women would be useless if not for sex, etc.
The most common argument in these kinds of groups (again, a majority) is that sexual discrimination against men is a bigger and wider problem than discrimination against women. On its face, it's a rejection of the very basic feminist notion that women are not yet treated equally. And even when they attempt something positive, it's anti-female. Rather than try to seek better care for veterans, AVfM sought better care for male veterans. Like, most veterans are men, why make the distinction except to specifically discriminate against female veterans?
As frustrating and horrifying as these kinds of groups are, the truth is that a bigger part of me just feels sad. Because there are issues that affect men more than women. There are problems that aren't being properly addressed. Men who experience sexual assault at the hands of women, though rarer than the other way around, usually have no recourse in the courts. Because the idea that a woman can rape a man is "silly." Men commit suicide at higher rates and, partly thanks to the sexual roles that push them into both self-reliance and an aversion to asking for emotional support, are less likely to seek help when suicidal ideation takes hold. The outreach aimed at reducing suicide currently works better for women than men. That's a problem. But most men's groups aren't trying to address and fix problems, they're about airing grievances against feminism and women. It's so stupid and pointless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you call "the majority" is simply the worst examples that have been AMPLIFIED by media in order to paint the entire movement with a BROAD-BRUSH and create a convenient BOOGIE-MAN to rally against. It's a game. We're all humans and should defend the individual sovereignty of all humans, BOTH female and male, foreigner and citizen, no matter how poor and no matter how rich they may be. They want us to think of each other as "evil", but that's just a game that keeps us fighting amongst ourselves.
I want to live in a world where all humans are treated like humans.
Homeless people are not trash.
Criminals are not trash.
Foreigners (Russians/Chinese/Iranians/North-Koreans) are not evil trash.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Click this link to create your own version of DEBATEART.COM (well, the forum section at least).
YOU CAN SET THE AGENDA.
YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT THE RULES ARE.
YOU CAN DECIDE WHO TO INVITE AND WHO TO IGNORE.
IT'S THE EASIEST THING YOU'VE EVER DONE IN YOUR LIFE.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
In high school biology, we learn that humans are born with either XX or XY chromosomes, and that a person’s internal and external sex organs match those chromosomes.
It turns out, however, that BIOLOGICAL sex isn’t that straightforward.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Do you think that perhaps the function of government could be replaced by open-source software?
All government? No. But some yes. And this is one of those things, like all computer systems, where we're going to have to start with small issues and work out the bugs there before moving on.
The issue is not in "can" we create such a system; the issue will be removing the power from politicians. They will object and will attempt to cause as much FUD as possible.
Artificial Neural Networks are already acting as consultants to JUDGES in bail and parole hearings.
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a politician will very soon promise to manage the resources under their purview purely by evidence based, PROCRUSTEAN algorithms.
TRUSTLESS TRANSPARENT DECENTRALIZED ANARCHY
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
How do you QUANTIFY intentions?This isn't a deposition. You got to get to the point.
Yes, you've convinced me that any legal or moral framework that relies on detecting INTENTIONS is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft.
By your "consequentialist" view, nobody should ever be convicted of accidentally or unintentionally committing a crime.
Isn't that one of the KEY legal obstacles to convicting TRUMP of many of his CRIMES?
It's been argued that the Georgia phone call was NOT criminal if TRUMP sincerely believes that he really and truly WON.
This would magically transform the phone call from being an implicit demand for falsifying vote tallies into an honest and sincere plea for "THE TRUTH".
ALSO,
There was a case a few years ago where a police officer accidentally entered a neighbor's apartment, mistakenly thinking it was their own apartment and mistook their neighbor for an INTRUDER and shot them dead.
Their legal defense argued that it was not a crime because the officer sincerely believed their neighbor was an intruder.
Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the officer believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Your public reputation is your most valuable asset.
So there should be laws that keep people from saying mean things about each other in public.
Especially famous people.
Nobody should be able to use a photograph of you or talk about you ("use your name or your corporation's name as click-bait") WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS CONSENT.
Celebrities and other public figures are constantly being accused of "not caring" about things like "the environment" and or "justice" and the like.
These kinds of claims are LIBELOUS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Caring about the "right" or "wrong" things is not a crime yet.
And since it is an indisputable fact that people don't know the inner thoughts (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea) of the people they hate, they should not be allowed to speak publicly on the matter without facing steep fines and penalties.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The "far-right" and the "far-left" both distrust the banksters.
The "far-left" and the "far-right" both distrust centralized government.
The "far-right" and the "far-left" both distrust the globalists.
The "far-left" and the "far-right" both distrust the **CORPORATE MOBSTERS**.
The globalist-banksters don't believe in "communism".
The globalist-banksters promise "communism" but **never** deliver.
IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "BIG GOVERNMENT".
IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "GLOBAL CORPORATIONS".
We are the members of "Do-it-or-DIE" (D-ie, D-ie, Die).
Do what we say - or we will kill you.
# In 6 minutes and 30 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
# Skip to 1072 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
Cults are everywhere.
There are little pieces of cults in all things.
We all have so many of those "mental traps" already.
We just can't see the traps from the inside.
# Skip to 3325 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
Suppose, you, you're, out of work.
You don't have anything to eat.
You look for a job.
It's considered a wonderful thing to get a job.
It wasn't always that way.
You go back to the origins of the Industrial Revolution.
Mid 19th Century.
Take a look at the literature, the working-class literature.
The idea of "having a job" was considered a, a, totally, intolerable assault.
On elementary human dignity and human rights.
# Everything you will ever need to know about politics was explained in 1945,
The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that **FEUDAL HIERARCHY** is "the enemy" (DEMAND HOLACRACY + RCV).
The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that government **promises** are MEANINGLESS.
The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that whoever controls **"the dogs"** (military-police-cult aged males) can scare everyone else into abject submission (SO THEY CAN LITERALLY GET AWAY WITH MURDER AND OR EPSTEIN).
IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "BIG GOVERNMENT".
IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "GLOBAL CORPORATIONS".
# RADICAL ANTI-CENTRIST PROPAGANDA,
SEARCH **ROKU** TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE" [LINK]
SEARCH **LBRY.TV** FOR "LOGICZOMBIE" [LINK]
### Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL.
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
I disagree.
Discrimination is real.
The concept of "race" is fabricated.
Between 1660 and 1690 the RULING CLASS invented the term "WHITE RACE" very specifically as a tool to FRACTIONALIZE poor workers.
The English had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized.
The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude. They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own.
Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free Africans intermarried, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination. Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; Blacks and whites worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran away together.
Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon’s Rebellion [1676] were Blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality or inferiority.
The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans, the most vulnerable members of the population.
Between 1660 and 1690, leaders of the Virginia colony began to pass laws and establish practices that provided or sanctioned differential treatment for freed servants whose origins were in Europe. They conscripted poor whites, with whom they had never had interests in common, into the category of free men and made land, tools, animals, and other resources available to them. [LINK]
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
(sid) i just wish i could have a REAL conversation for once instead of a poorly disguised battle for dominance.
(sammy) you're describing 100% of conversations (including this one).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
A statement does not flicker back and forth between being factual and not being factual based on who is observing it. If you cannot understand the concept of a fact that you cannot personally verify, further conversing is fruitless. Please leave me alone. [**]
If "xbeliefs" are not logically-necessary, I'm not sure what "problem" they're trying to solve. The idea of "the world outside the mind" is a bit strange as an axiom, since we are necessarily trapped in the epistemological prison of the phaneron. In other words, anything strictly "incomprehensible" ("outside the mind") can safely be bundled up within the broad and nebulous category of the noumenon. Why would anyone bother themselves with an undetectable data set?
A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary QUANTA (and emotionally meaningless).
An OPINION must be personal, private, experiential, unfalsifiable, qualitative, indistinguishable from GNOSIS (and emotionally meaningful).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
ATHEIST =/= CREEDAtheists deny God in one of a few ways. They either see no evidence for God, or they reject the evidence that is offered, or they don't care enough to seek God because they have not examined their beliefs well enough.
OR, perhaps they believe "YHWH" IS REAL and just don't give a flying flip.
(IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.
I'D RATHER BE ETERNALLY TORTURED THAN TO SHOW OBSEQUIOUS DEFERENCE TO (human) PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "PREISTS" AND "PROPHETS" AND "TEACHERS".
(IFF) "YHWH" wants to speak to me (THEN) let them SPEAK.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Once upon a time there was a strong tree.
This tree was the largest tree in the area.
One day, an acorn asked the tree how it grew so strong.
Well, little one, the tree replied, I was once a little acorn just like yourself!
I didn't fall in exactly the ideal spot, with the richest soil, there were many rocks around and it was a bit sandy, but I made the best of my situation, kept my chin-up, dug down as deep as I could, sprouted in the spring time, that's important, then I diligently soaked up as much water and minerals and sunshine as I could.
I had a few competitors around that time, other acorns had sprouted, and there was a lot of tall grass and weeds, but I just kept a positive attitude and did what came naturally.
The little acorn asked, what happened to the other saplings?
Well, the tree explained, they were all cut down by the farmer.
The little acorn asked, why were they cut down and why did the farmer spare you?
The tree thought for a second and then replied carefully, they were inferior, they weren't true to themselves, the wise farmer knew that I was the best and spared me because only a sapling with my work ethic and authenticity could grow into such a mighty tree.
The farmer even placed this nice picnic table in the shade of my branches to reward me for being superior.
That's amazing! The little acorn exclaimed, I'll follow your advice because I want to be just like you!
A whole year passed and the little acorn grew into a formidable sapling.
And then, in the spring, the farmer came to clear the brush.
The sapling was unceremoniously uprooted and bundled up and carried away with all the overgrown grass and fallen twigs.
With it's last dying breath it asked the strong tree, what did I do wrong?
The tree shrugged, you just didn't have the talent for it kid. You doubted yourself. You didn't suck up enough water and minerals and sunshine. You weren't true to yourself.
It's your own fault.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
'Undeniable Pattern of Fraud': MIT Analysis Shows 69,000 Trump Votes Flipped to Biden in Michigan Amidst Contradictory Fact-Checker 'Facts', Michigan Lawsuit With Dominion Whistleblower & More
When the Antrim County Elections Commissioner in Michigan announced that a "tabulating software glitch" had counted 6,000 Trump votes for Biden amidst a flurry of other statistical anomalies in Michigan and other swing states, observers began to speculate that that the "glitch" was actually a feature of this Dominion Voting Systems software being used in 47 additional Michigan counties. Considering the fact that hidden programs used to flip the vote for a chosen candidate have not only existed for decades, but are easy to both create (only 100 lines of code) and upload onto electronic voting machines while remaining virtually undetectable, such a scenario is entirely possible. And given that another glitch in another Michigan county resulting with the very same outcome in a County Commissioner race, erroneously flipping Republican votes to the Democrat opponent causing a now-reversed election upset, it does seem mighty coincidental that multiple such 'glitches' all causing 'errors' that flip R votes to D is certainly highly suspect. And let's not forget Dominion's ties to the Clinton Foundation and a number of other establishment Democrat insiders, posing a number of obvious conflicts of interest.
14 minute youtube link - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F_g-eKY1QI
I GUESS THE REAL QUESTION IS, DO YOU PREFER "STABILITY" OR THE TRUTH?
WE'VE HAD OVER 20 YEARS TO FIX THE EMBARASSINGLY BAD VOTING MACHINES IN THE UNITED STATES.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics