[SolarCross]

There is now a thread on heinlien's politics which is the right place for discussing it. Let's keep this thread on the topic of this possible alien visit.

[RhetoricThug]

^Beyond this political fantasy, we should recognize our plight for what it is, an information bias. Being present is an information bias (finite mind vs infinite potential). We assign contemporary reason/values to things we simply don't understand. The behavior of an alien species is pure speculation, and I for one will stand behind the notion that war is a primitive feature of evolutionary development. In-fact, binary thought in general is primitive. We're slowly moving away from a binary paradigm, it's difficult though, because the human mind has evolved with it as a perceptional operating system.

The new mode of perception is an interactionist nondual perspective. This follows the evolution of our understanding of matter, space and time. The operating system we use is essentially useful fiction, and dualism is no longer useful fiction. After-all, competition has always been blind cooperation, because dialectical interaction has forced us along a path of technological evolution. Eventually, we will recognize that mindful cooperation is more effective than blind cooperation.

The internet is the beginning of the noosphere (stage of evolutionary development dominated by consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships). The ONE mind we share will be revealed to us, and the binary paradigm will fade away. It's my belief that an interstellar species would be past this stage of evolutionary development. They would most likely be telepathic and so interconnected in a civilized network, war would be unfathomable.

Anyway, run along and talk tar-ship troopers and how the lasers go pew pew.

[Pants-of-dog]

Once again, that is not up to you to decide and you are free to leave the thread if you feel this topic is so beneath you.

That might be a good idea before you embarrass yourself further.

If we are discussing the actual topic, then my vote would be some odd sort of offgassing caused the odd change in trajectory.

Nah. If I wanted to discuss that further, I would have.

Besides, you already stated, on record, that you believe as a consistent leftist that the working class should be armed with military grade weapons contra gun control.

So we are on the same team.

That is not the argument being made in that thread.

I will take this as a concession.

[Victoribus Spolia]

^Beyond this political fantasy, we should recognize our plight for what it is, an information bias. Being present is an information bias (finite mind vs infinite potential). We assign contemporary reason/values to things we simply don't understand. The behavior of an alien species is pure speculation, and I for one will stand behind the notion that war is a primitive feature of evolution. In-fact, binary thought in general is primitive. We're slowly moving away from a binary paradigm, it's difficult though, because the human mind has evolved with it as a perceptional operating system.

The new mode of perception is an interactionist nondual perspective. This follows the evolution of our understanding of matter, space and time. The operating system we use is essentially useful fiction, and dualism is no longer useful fiction. After-all, competition has always been blind cooperation, because dialectical interaction has forced us along a path of technological evolution. Eventually, we will recognize that mindful cooperation is more effective than blind cooperation.

The internet is the beginning of the noosphere (stage of evolutionary development dominated by consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships). The ONE mind we share will be revealed to us, and the binary paradigm will fade away. It's my belief that an interstellar species would be past this stage of evolutionary development. They would most likely be telepathic and so interconnected in a civilized network, war would be unfathomable.

Anyway, run along and talk tar-ship troopers and how the lasers go pew pew.

^ Speaking of an alien visitation.

If we are discussing the actual topic, then my vote would be some odd sort of offgassing caused the odd change in trajectory.

Yeah, we know where all the off-gassing is coming from Pants, and it ain't from space.

That is not the argument being made in that thread.

I'm not discussing that thread. This is a red-herring.

I will take this as a concession.

As long as we agree that you oppose gun control in principle, or at least should if you were consistent.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, we know where all the off-gassing is coming from Pants, and it ain't from space.

Yes, you tend to make these offtopic attacks when you have no argument.

I'm not discussing that thread. This is a red-herring.

As long as we agree that you oppose gun control in principle, or at least should if you were consistent.

And we also agree that you misread a website and actually disproved your own implied argument.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, you tend to make these offtopic attacks when you have no argument.

Actually, you basically conceded your failure on this thread, pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

And we also agree that you misread a website and actually disproved your own implied argument.

So long as we agree you are opposed to gun control and therefore are being inconsistent when engaging in the defense of such a position contra marxism for purposes of expediency and tribalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, you basically conceded your failure on this thread, pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

Sure, believe what you want about opinionsabout a kids book.

So long as we agree you are opposed to gun control and therefore are being inconsistent when engaging in the defense of such a position contra marxism for purposes of expediency and tribalism.

Your incorrect opinion about me does not change the fact that you made mistakes and are now unwilling to discuss the claim you made.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sure, believe what you want about opinionsabout a kids book.

Yes, I will continue to affirm the correct interpretation regarding a work of political fiction that has its place in political theory. In part vindicated from your clear error.

Your incorrect opinion about me does not change the fact that you made mistakes and are now unwilling to discuss the claim you made.

My correct assessment of your own publicly stated position (in spite of your cowardly mid-stream attempts to dodge and evade the argument) does not change the fact that I am not going to engage in your red-herrings about something said in another thread here.

Glad we agree.

[Pants-of-dog]

My correct assessment of your own publicly stated position (in spite of your cowardly mid-stream attempts to dodge and evade the argument) does not change the fact that I am not going to engage in your red-herrings about something said in another thread here.

Glad we agree.

I never asked you to respond here.

You should reply in the thread where you erred.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I never asked you to respond here.

You should reply in the thread where you erred.

You brought up a thread here that is not relevant to any topic being discussed here. Hence, a red-herring.

HERE, your argument was refuted and your childish dismissal has been noted.

HERE, you brought up a red-herring to which I answered the equally valid red-herring of the fact that you have publicly admitted that as a consistent leftist, you believe in the mass arming of the working class with military grade weapons, or whatever approximation as legally possible; contra gun control.

Glad we agree.

[Pants-of-dog]

You brought up a thread here that is not relevant to any topic being discussed here. Hence, a red-herring.

HERE, your argument was refuted and your childish dismissal has been noted.

HERE, you brought up a red-herring to which I answered the equally valid red-herring of the fact that you have publicly admitted that as a consistent leftist, you believe in the mass arming of the working class with military grade weapons, or whatever approximation as legally possible; contra gun control.

Glad we agree.

1. People can have differing opinions about book interpretations. There is no single correct interpretation.

2. Your implied argument in the linked thread was shown to be incorrect.

3. Your incorrect opinion about my stance in gun control is irrelevant.

4. You ignored my only topical claim.

You may now go back to talking about me instead of making an argument.

[RhetoricThug]

0X∞ = Strange loop of potential

Speaking of an alien visitation.

I come in peace, to redirect the pieces of this curious puzzle (tuss-dem-zuzzle). I am consciousness having a human experience. We share this consciousness and that's why forum image RT can visit with you. In 2014, I was granted access to the inner-circulation of this cyclical cipher. In 2022, I'll visit again and shed light on the orthogonal multiplex message.

We're strange loops we said we're strange loops we said (veiled veneration of ONE)... Substantial reality is a relative projection of a simultaneous happening. This kind of meta-cognitive awareness doesn't resonate with forum image Victoribus Spolia because he has unknowingly convinced his higher SELF that he's in-fact a program that is being projected into reality by the mind's circuitry. That's why he's invested so much of his time on Earth to useful fiction and the frictional-fractal-fractures. The tale he chases is an interrelated consummation. The Universe is making LOVE. 1X0, we hang in the balance. I am a strange l∞p I said. I cannot be created or destroyed.

[Rancid]

I lost my virginity to a feminine alien.

[Victoribus Spolia]

1. People can have differing opinions about book interpretations. There is no single correct interpretation.

Under that view, one could argue there is no correct interpretation of any human writing, including things like, lets say, gun statistics?

That is an ad-reductio argument, besides the fact that the author himself was explicit with his views and what he intended to convey in this work.

If you want to argue by an appeal to literary relativism, then Marx was clearly an Anarcho-Capitalist. That is my interpretation after all and its just as valid as yours.

2. Your implied argument in the linked thread was shown to be incorrect.

Your expressed argument in this thread was shown to be incorrect, and we are in this thread after all, not that one.

3. Your incorrect opinion about my stance in gun control is irrelevant.

Correct, not unlike your opinion of what I said in an entirely different thread, which was the point.

4. You ignored my only topical claim.

That is because I was addressing you point about Starship Troopers, and pretty well nothing else.

You may now go back to talking about me instead of making an argument.

I haven't been discussing you, i've been discussing your arguments.

Don't let your delusions of grandeur cloud whats going on here. You presented bad arguments, were refuted, and are trying to deflect with a red-herring distraction about another thread.

Time to pick up your toys and go home pants.

[Pants-of-dog]

Under that view, one could argue there is no correct interpretation of any human writing, including things like, lets say, gun statistics?

That is an ad-reductio argument, besides the fact that the author himself was explicit with his views and what he intended to convey in this work.

If you want to argue by an appeal to literary relativism, then Marx was clearly an Anarcho-Capitalist. That is my interpretation after all and its just as valid as yours.

This only makes sense if we assume all written works are as open to interpretation as works of speculative fiction. Since works of fiction like Starship Troopers or the Bible are not making objective and verifiable claims, it would be stupid to pretend that they should be treated as if they did.

Your expressed argument in this thread was shown to be incorrect, and we are in this thread after all, not that one.

Correct, not unlike your opinion of what I said in an entirely different thread, which was the point.

That is because I was addressing you point about Starship Troopers, and pretty well nothing else.

I haven't been discussing you, i've been discussing your arguments.

Don't let your delusions of grandeur cloud whats going on here. You presented bad arguments, were refuted, and are trying to deflect with a red-herring distraction about another thread.

Time to pick up your toys and go home pants.

So, what does this have to do with the topic?

Do you have an actual argument here?

[Godstud]

No, I do not believe we have discovered aliens. If anyone's going to be doing the alien discovering, it'll be them discovering us.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This only makes sense if we assume all written works are as open to interpretation as works of speculative fiction.

On what basis would you argue that there is such thing as objective criteria of verification? How would the author TELLING you what he meant not count as a verification of his intent?

Likewise, the Bible is verifiable. The Trinitarian God and His Providential Power has been proven by me on this forum. You are free to challenge my proof in the Immaterialism Debate Thread in the Agora where I present the argument.

So, what does this have to do with the topic?

Do you have an actual argument here?

Do you?

This was a direct address to the points you made in your last post.

If you are done, feel free to move on.

[ingliz]

[Pants-of-dog]

On what basis would you argue that there is such thing as objective criteria of verification? How would the author TELLING you what he meant not count as a verification of his intent?

Without getting into a whole irrelevant discussion on whether art happens in the mind of the author or in the relationship between author and reader, I will simply say (again) that fiction cannot be verifed, while a scientific study or news article can.

Likewise, the Bible is verifiable. The Trinitarian God and His Providential Power has been proven by me on this forum. You are free to challenge my proof in the Immaterialism Debate Thread in the Agora where I present the argument.

Ahem.

I will simply say (again) that fiction cannot be verifed, while a scientific study or news article can.

Do you?

This was a direct address to the points you made in your last post.

If you are done, feel free to move on.

Maybe, but it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Without getting into a whole irrelevant discussion on whether art happens in the mind of the author or in the relationship between author and reader, I will simply say (again) that fiction cannot be verifed, while a scientific study or news article can.

I already addressed this.

I will simply say (again) that fiction cannot be verifed, while a scientific study or news article can.

Logic is the basis of verifying propositions. If you are too cowardly to challenge my argument, then so be it.

Your dismissals have been noted.

Maybe, but it has nothing to do with the topic.

Neither were your original arguments. Glad we agree.