Let's try this again: I'm a hyper-capitalist, AMA, or come debate me - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15012533
The Goldpill wrote:Why would I ever let a dictionary dictate my reality.

Reality is not yours, it is everyone's. That is the basis of science. What is yours are your delusions. Dictionaries describe how we use words to communicate honestly and effectively about reality, something you seem distinctly averse to.
The concept of justice has been discussed for thousands of years... and you're willing to take a dictionary explanation as a fact? That's low-tier.

No, it's just honest. Dictionaries describe how words are used to communicate.
However, even with the dictionary explanation of justice, it still supports my claims.

No, it does not.
No I don't. I prefer justice, and I prefer good.

No. You prefer injustice and evil to justice and good. That is the actual meaning of your statements. Justice consists in rewards commensurate with contributions and losses commensurate with deprivations. You prefer rewards commensurate with deprivations -- taking -- and losses commensurate with contributions.
You are the unjust and the evil one.

No. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. That is why the evil always lie. Watch:
You seek to give to others according to their needs, and not according to their merits.

See? I have said nothing about people's needs, only their rights. Justice gives to all according to their contributions, not their merits. You can be as honest and virtuous as the day is long, but if you don't make any contribution to production, you haven't earned a share of it.
You seek to break the nature's law.

Again, that is factually incorrect. See above for the reason you have made that statement.
You seek to deny the beauty and strengths of the great ones, in favor of the weak ones.

No. See above. I don't consider the combination of strength, greed, and rapacity to be the measure of greatness, or being a victim of crime to be the measure of weakness.
You give to those who do not deserve, and take from those who do deserve.

No; I have stated that justice consists of rewards and penalties commensurate with what is deserved. By contrast, you have stated explicitly that you regard forcible taking from those who deserve as justice.
You, my friend, are unjust.

See above for the reason you make such claims.
Evil can not be better than good, by definition.

Correct. But the evil believe it to be better than good.
And one can not praise evil, for one can only praise good.

The evil praise evil, claiming it is good. That is one of their favorite lies.
I already explain that I fully believe that people have a right. But not rights (plural). The only right any living organism has, is the right to fight.

But that is not a right; it is only the natural physical capacity that any sub-human animal possesses. Rights are something much more than that: society's undertaking to constrain its members' behavior towards one another.
As far as you calling me a sociopath,

I didn't call you a sociopath. I said your ideas are in practice equivalent to the sociopath's mentality.
I'll just quote this paragraph from wiki:
"According to Nietzsche, masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master morality with their slave morality. Unlike master morality, which is sentiment, slave morality is based on re-sentiment—devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have. As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it VILIFIES its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as "good". "

Yes, well, like almost all philosophers, Nietzsche never came to terms with Darwin.
Jokes on you, we would probably ally with each other and hunt in packs.

Like wolves and other sub-human pack predators. Right.

But the joke is on you: your pack of predatory sociopaths is no match for an entire society that secures the equal individual rights of all its members. History is unanimous on that point: society simply hunts your kind down and rightfully imprisons, exiles, or exterminates them. That is why sociopaths are now just a microscopic fraction of the entire population.
I prefer to live as a human and a human is an animal on steroids.

Nope. See above for why you make such false and absurd claims.
I have no interest in denying my own nature.

To paraphrase Pericles, "Just because you have no interest in denying nature doesn't mean Nature has no interest in denying you."
I don't support robbing, enslaving, torturing and killing of the innocent.

You explicitly stated that you do, and dismissed opposition to such behavior as "weakness":
But, I also don't see those things as evil in themselves, but only judge them according to the results they produce.

See?
No there isn't.

Yes, of course there is. Rights wouldn't be a universal feature of human society if they did not enhance survival.
You shouldn't be standing for that which is weak, but only for that which is powerful.

I stand for liberty, justice, and truth, and hold weakness and power to be irrelevant to those considerations.
If power is good, then weakness is bad.

Power can be used for good or evil, but is neither good nor evil in itself. That much should be obvious. You seem to be unaware that you are close to quoting a fictional representation of ultimate Evil: Voldemort.
And those who support weakness, are bad. Might I even say, evil.

There is a difference between supporting those who are weak and supporting weakness, just as there is a difference between helping the sick and helping sickness. Perhaps one day you will understand such differences.
I'm not a sociopath, nor do I lack moral capacity.

You sure talk like it.
In fact, my moral compass is far superior than yours.

I'll let readers judge that.
You're the only praising weakness.

Direct, verbatim, in-context quote? Of course not. See above for why you have to make such false claims.
I didn't vacate the word just. I fully believe and support justice.

Define it, then.
"the weak having rights is better EVEN FOR THE STRONG." You don't know this. This might or might not be true. We can only know this based on the results of it.

Yes, I do know it. The experiment has been run many times, and the results are in. Societies where the weak have rights reliably outperform, outcompete and out-survive societies where they don't. That is why we have evolved the capacity to recognize others' rights.
I also support hyper capitalism and understand that any system which does not align with nature is designed to fail.

Capitalism does not align with nature because nature does not place land or other natural resources in anyone's private ownership. Only government and law can do that.
So far, your system is destined for failure.

Nope. So far, it is your system that has reliably failed, and is now close to extinct. The remaining examples of places where the strong take and the weak must submit are $#!+-holes like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Somalia, Haiti, Venezuela, Guatemala, etc.
Ummm, I dunno about that.

But I am willing to know facts even if you are not.
Great people build great nations. Weak people build weak nations.

Great people build great nations where the rights of the weak are secure. Weak people build weak nations where the rights of the weak are abrogated.
No it isn't.

Yes it is.
I you are weak, I have no responsibility to protect you.

Yes, you have.
In fact, I might even have higher responsibility of making fun of you, in attempts to expose the weakness. That doesn't mean I don't want to, or won't protect you. If I can, I'll seek to help you overcome your weakness. But, I'll never accept, or support you just for being weak.

The point of human rights is that we all have them not BECAUSE we are weak but WHETHER OR NOT we are weak.
What I advocate for is a Heaven on Earth. And there can be no corruption in Heaven.

And you talk about nature??
And every nation is the world, every business, every man, every woman. Even you. You're just so weak, you can't even see yourself doing it.

Nonsense. There is a difference between producing and taking.
That's what weaklings, like you, think.

Again with the Voldemort-speak....
The purpose of a government is to fulfill the desires of people who make it.

Only in a trivial, near-tautological sense.
Government is also used to kill people who stand against it.

True. Government is an institution that can do good or ill.
Second part is not true, you're talking about the average market price of a product.

No. Price is what a thing traded for. Value is what it WOULD trade for. They are usually close, but they are not the same thing.
Value is, like I've said, a survival power a subject sees in a certain thing.

No. You are talking about something like utility, the capacity to satisfy human desires.
It doesn't have to be you. This is "communism" thread, so it applies to anyone who advocates communism.

I don't see anything about communism in the thread title.
You can accumulate food without taking it from anyone, lmao

<sigh> Or by taking it, which is the point.
For some strange reason, you joined accumulation with taking from others.

The reason was to refute your claim that there is no difference between producing and taking.
But, even if you do accumulate food by taking it for others, you still created food.

No, you did not. See above for the reason you make such false and absurd claims.
But, only for yourself, and not for others. It relives your own scarcity.

You are aware that that is not what "create" means.
You can create, or you can accumulate food for yourself and for others. And you can create, or accumulate food for yourself at the expense of others.

And those are quite different processes, so you claim stands refuted.
I was talking about how "accumulation of wealth" is a noble thing, and how it's very close to the highest ideal one can strive for. So close you could barely fit...

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac
Luck is hard to deal with, since many wealthy people had unlucky things happened to them.

But the honest ones admit they were lucky.
"Their choices", prove they were weak.

But their failures are not due entirely to their choices. Someone may choose not to train for a footrace, and be weak as a result. But if they are then required to carry someone else on their back, their poor performance is not just, or even primarily, a result of their choice not to train.

GET IT??
"Thieving by sociopaths", why didn't they steal from them?

They chose not to be evil.
And why didn't they protect themselves against those sociopaths? Because they were weak.

See? You seek to excuse the evil by blaming their victims.
One day, you might be ready for this question.

I was ready for it, and answered it, before I was out of elementary school.
They most certainly didn't.

They most certainly and indisputably did, just as our pre-human ancestors did.
They survived on that land because they protected it.

Garbage. They survived on it because no one else forcibly stopped them from using it. The land did not need any protection. Only their liberty to use it did.
History of any nation is riddled with wars over territory.

So? That is a function of government, which is by definition the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. Hunter-gatherers and nomadic herders use land non-exclusively simply by exercising their rights to liberty as long as no evil, thieving sociopath stops them.
Get smarter.

<yawn> I am very confident my IQ is quite a bit higher than yours.
Your liberty ends, where my liberty starts.

No, we both have rights to liberty that extend indefinitely as long as neither of us seeks to abrogate the other's rights. For example, we both have liberty rights to use words at the same time.
That is, where my desire starts.

Liberty is not desire and desire is not liberty. Your desire to take from others does not trump their rights to keep what is rightly theirs.
If I want the land you have, I have every right to take it from you.

No, you do not. What happened to, "your liberty ends where mine starts"?
I said "Land and territory is similar to women."

And I refuted you.
But, what about my liberty?

There can be no liberty right to deprive others of their rights.
I want to liberate myself in their land, and liberate myself with their women. Who are they to deprive me of my liberty? 8) :lol:

Your intended victims, who possess rights of their own, and the means to secure them against the depredations of evil, thieving, parasitic sociopaths.
Women know very well that their rights and choices can be taken.

So do men. That's why they seek the safety of society.
Property is anything you are able to have and control.

No, that's just brute, animal possession. Google "property" and start reading.
You can control women and you can control land. They're the same thing, from ownership aspect.

No, because controlling a woman abrogates her right to liberty, but controlling land abrogates everyone else's rights to liberty.
No. Power has only advanced. If someone hits me in the face, I might hit them back. Or I might sue them. Take money from them. Put them in a jail and bribe some policemen to make sure that person gets some prison ass action.

So you admit you were wrong. Power has not only advanced, it has been placed in the service of the powerless.
There is no rightful, or wrongful ownership. You either have control over something, or you don't.

By that "logic," you have no grounds to prefer capitalism to communism. By contrast, I do: when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.
Even, in a capitalist society you don't have the right to own every item you produce. For example, if you started producing nuclear bombs in your backyard, the government will most likely cease it and arrest you. That's because your ownership of that item threatens the power levels of the government (of other people).

No, it's because it imposes an intolerable risk on others, like drunk driving.
Then you need to start reading some good stuff, because they way you think atm is not working.

It's working well enough to demolish and humiliate you....
#15012554
ingliz wrote:This 'God the Creator' obsession of yours cannot be healthy.

Maybe. I guess, only time will tell.

ingliz wrote:Life is just a series of chemical reactions. Everything happening in your body at this moment can be reduced to one molecule attaching to, breaking from, or donating/accepting electrons from another, nothing more.

Life is a little bit more complex than that. Those chemical reactors are based on other laws of nature. Chemical reactions are not "human constructs", just like logic, math and physics is not. Just like chemical reasons have to abide by those rules, so does the life itself.

ingliz wrote:The origins of life...

Chemicals -> Chemical evolution -> Abiogenesis (3.5 billion years ago) -> Evolution -> My parents

Note: No God required.

You're breaking both of those conditions. You are creating something out of nothing and creating life out of non-life.
God -> laws -> the universe -> life

ingliz wrote:No.

It's just pattern recognition. The 'laws' don't actively govern natural processes, they merely describe them.

That's amazing.
Laws are what governs nature. Humans can only observe, describe and act upon those rules. Sometimes correctly, sometimes not.

ingliz wrote:Yes.

Using binary numbers 1 + 1 = 10 because "2" does not exist in this system and "4" (10 + 10) would be 100.

Mathematics is a human construct.

The only reason mathematics is admirably suited to describing the physical world is that we invented it to do just that.

No.
Laws of logic, math and physics existed long before man was created. And so it can not be a human construct.
We invented a scientific discipline called "Mathematics" whose purpose is to discover all the laws of mathematics. But, we didn't invent those laws.
The clear difference between laws of math, and mathematics as a discipline is that the former can never be false, while the latter can.

What coincidences?

Don't act stupid. You know exactly of whom I'm talking about. If you really don't know, then you're not paying attention, or are just stupid.
#15012557
The Goldpill wrote:No.
Laws of logic, math and physics existed long before man was created. And so it can not be a human construct.
We invented a scientific discipline called "Mathematics" whose purpose is to discover all the laws of mathematics. But, we didn't invent those laws.
The clear difference between laws of math, and mathematics as a discipline is that the former can never be false, while the latter can.


I'm going to disagree with you here.

First, Logic, math, and physics should not be lumped together as things that are similar. Further, the scientific community now discourages the use of the word "law" to describe anything.

Anyway, math is most definitely a human construct. It did not always exist. Math was not discovered, it was invented. It is a language we created to help us observe and explain the universe in a consistent manner. Math is a tool. Like a hammer.

Phyiscs did exist long before man was created. Physics encompass what we describe as the Universe. We use our construct of math to try and model the universe. However, we do not always accurately model it with math.

Logic; I'm inclined to say it too is a construct of humans. A language to help us make sense of things in a way that is consistent. It's a lot like math, and in fact related to math, but can also describe things in a way that can be abstracted beyond numbers. It's good at handling areas were the tool of math isn't a good fit.

It's really bizarre to say math was something we discovered. That doesn't make logical sense to me.
#15012558
Rancid wrote:I'm going to disagree with you here.

First, Logic, math, and physics should not be lumped together as things that are similar. Further, the scientific community now discourages the use of the word "law" to describe anything.

Anyway, math is most definitely a human construct. It did not always exist. Math was not discovered, it was invented. It is a language we created to help us observe and explain the universe in a consistent manner. Math is a tool. Like a hammer.

Phyiscs did exist long before man was created. Physics encompass what we describe as the Universe. We use our construct of math to try and model the universe. However, we do not always accurately model it with math.

Logic; I'm inclined to say it too is a construct of humans. A language to help us make sense of things in a way that is consistent. It's a lot like math, and in fact related to math, but can also describe things in a way that can be abstracted beyond numbers. It's good at handling areas were the tool of math isn't a good fit.

It's really bizarre to say math was something we discovered. That doesn't make logical sense to me.


For the purpose I was trying to fulfill, it's right to lump logic, math and physics together, since they all share the common characteristic I was referring to.

I think you misunderstood what I said.
I said that math as scientific discipline was invented by humans. The names and symbols are all invented, and they act as a variable. We could use any other names and symbols as math tools. However, the laws of math are constant. They do not change according to human actions. They stay the same regardless of how we name them. And they stood the same long before humans even made any observations of them.
The same goes with logic, or laws of physics.

I use the word "law" because of its common use. If you have a better word, we can use that.
#15012559
The Goldpill wrote:
For the purpose I was trying to fulfill, it's right to lump logic, math and physics together, since they all share the common characteristic I was referring to.

I think you misunderstood what I said.
I said that math as scientific discipline was invented by humans. The names and symbols are all invented, and they act as a variable. We could use any other names and symbols as math tools. However, the laws of math are constant. They do not change according to human actions. They stay the same regardless of how we name them. And they stood the same long before humans even made any observations of them.
The same goes with logic, or laws of physics.


Oh.....ok


The Goldpill wrote:I use the word "law" because of its common use. If you have a better word, we can use that.

In the science community, the world theory is used instead of law. The problem is, the general public doesn't understand the meaning of the word theory. People think theory means a guess. However, a guess is a hypothesis. A theory is a concept/idea that is very well backup by experimental and observational evidence.

In the science and engineering world, law is now an old timey word to use.
#15012614
The Goldpill wrote:math existed...

It's no surprise that you hold the Platonic view that mathematics is discovered. It is a full-fledged theistic position.

But in doing so you are forced to abandon rationality.

Humans invent mathematical concepts by way of abstracting elements from the world around them--shapes, lines, sets, groups, and so forth--either for some specific purpose or simply for fun. The fact that '1 + 1 = 2' is a consequence of selecting one particular set of rules to define one particular formal system.

Øystein Linnebo (2018) Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics: A metaphysical objection wrote:Natural numbers have no properties other than those they have in virtue of being positions in a ω-sequence. There is nothing more to being the number 3 than having certain intrastructurally defined relational properties, such as succeeding 2, being half of 6, and being prime. No matter how hard we study arithmetic and set theory, we will never know whether 3 is identical with the fourth von Neumann ordinal, or with the corresponding Zermelo ordinal, or perhaps, as Frege suggested, with the class of all three-membered classes (in some system that allows such classes to exist).

Benacerraf now draws the following conclusion:

Therefore, numbers are not objects at all, because in giving the properties …of numbers you merely characterize an abstract structure—and the distinction lies in the fact that the “elements” of the structure have no properties other than those relating them to other “elements” of the same structure.

Benacerraf 1965, p. 291


This would imply that the meanings attached to mathematical symbols are arbitrary. And if that's true, how can mathematics be 'discovered'?


:)
#15012640
ingliz wrote:This would imply that the meanings attached to mathematical symbols are arbitrary. And if that's true, how can mathematics be 'discovered'?
:)


//Still refuses to answer the question...

I already said that names and symbols used in mathematics are all variables. We could use any other names or symbols, BUT they have to make sense.
If we said that 1 + 1 = 2, we can't say that 1 + 1 = 50, or that 2 = ***25***. Why? Because the rules of math do not allow that to happen.

The fact that '1 + 1 = 2' is a consequence of selecting one particular set of rules to define one particular formal system.

We do not choose a set of rules, the set of rules are already there. We choose names and symbols to describe those rules. Those are the variables. The laws are the constants.

Edit: changed from 2 = 50, to 2 = 25
Last edited by The Goldpill on 18 Jun 2019 11:22, edited 1 time in total.
#15012643
The Goldpill wrote:Why? Because the rules of math do not allow that to happen.

Scientists... can search through a vast arsenal of formalisms to find the most appropriate methods.

Not only do scientists cherry-pick solutions, they also tend to select problems that are amenable to mathematical treatment.


Mario Livio, theoretical astrophysicist


:)
#15012645
ingliz wrote:Scientists... can search through a vast arsenal of formalisms to find the most appropriate methods.

Not only do scientists cherry-pick solutions, they also tend to select problems that are amenable to mathematical treatment.


Mario Livio, theoretical astrophysicist


:)


//still refuses to answer the question.

I never said that scientists are perfect. I specifically said "Humans can only observe, describe and act upon those rules. Sometimes correctly, sometimes not."
That does not make the nature's laws not perfect.
#15012652
The Goldpill wrote:perfection would be the lack of contradiction

If that is the criterion you choose to use to judge 'perfection', mathematics is not perfect.

An Example:

Consider a collection of objects. The collection has some size, the number of objects in the collection. Now consider all the ways that these objects could be recombined. For instance, if we are considering the collection {a, b}, then we have four possible recombinations: just a, just b, both a and b, or neither a nor b. In general, if a collection has κ members, it has 2κ recombinations. It is a theorem from the nineteenth century that, even if the collections in question are infinitely large, still κ < 2κ, that is, the number of recombinations is always strictly larger than the number of objects in the original collection.

Now consider the collection of all objects, the universe, V. This collection has some size,|V|, and quite clearly, being by definition the collection of everything, this size is the absolutely largest size any collection can be. (Any collection is contained in the universe by definition, and so is no bigger than the universe.) By Cantor's theorem, though, the number of recombinations of all the objects exceeds the original number of objects. So the size of the recombinations is both larger than, and cannot be larger than, the universe.

This is Cantor's paradox and, if rigorously argued, Cantor's paradox is a theorem.

I can offer more examples, if needed.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 18 Jun 2019 12:30, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Syrian war thread

So every citizen causality is ok. If you don't w[…]

On Lebanon

@Palmyrene Of course you're not. :lol: I[…]

Trump and Russiagate

At the expense of how many other jobs? You're igno[…]

What seems to have escaped you is that the Presid[…]