Let's try this again: I'm a hyper-capitalist, AMA, or come debate me - Page 8 - 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.
#15012662
The Goldpill wrote:Of the coincidences?... answer the question

As I am not a member of the God-bothering tribe, I don't speak your 'private language'.*

So I will say this more slowly and loudly than usual, with gesticulations (much pointing and shaking of the head)...

"Me no understand gibberish."


:)


* private language

noun

philosophy
a language that is not merely secret or accidentally limited to one user, but that cannot in principle be communicated to another.
#15012687
Truth To Power wrote: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 thing with reality is that there is a one single objective reality. However, not all of us are able to see the objectivity (truth) of reality. Thus the subjective reality presents itself. You called that delusions. Which is true, if my subjective reality does not align with objective reality. So far, my reality is doing far better job than yours. Meaning, I'm less delusional than you are.
We do use words from dictionary to communicate, but what happens when those who wrote meanings for certain words did not do a good job? When their definitions of words are wrong. It would be dishonest to continue using those words is the same manner, if you know that their definitions are false.

Truth To Power wrote:No, it does not.

Yes it does. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

Truth To Power wrote: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.

No I don't. I prefer good and justice, or evil and injustice.
Justice does not commensurate with contributions, but with just actions (the ones which give good results). I prefer those who act justly to be rewarded and who do not act justly to be punished. As far as deprivations being unjust, this is absolute nonsense. The whole state "justice system" is based on deprivation of ones rights as a punishment for their crimes. Contributions and deprivations can only be morally measured by the results of it. It's unjust to contribute to evil and it's just to deprive evil.

Truth To Power wrote:No. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. That is why the evil always lie. Watch:

But, you're doing the exact same thing. You're justifying your own sense of justice with lies.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

If we were to judge people based on their merits, the weak would not need additional protection or more rights. They would receive those rights automatically based on their merits. Why? Because they would fight for it, and thus if they won, they would not be weak.
If you don't make any contributions, you can not be honest and virtuous. The whole point of virtues is that they contribute more than vices.

Truth To Power wrote:Again, that is factually incorrect. See above for the reason you have made that statement.

It is factually correct, because your moral sense is flawed.

Truth To Power wrote: 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 can say that you don't see greed and rapacity as measures of greatness. That's you personal opinion. But, you can't say the same for strength. Strength is the measure of greatness, by definition. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be called strength, but weakness.
Any victim is automatically guilty of being a victim. The victim is someone upon whose some oppression has been expressed. The way that they were the "oppressed", and not the "oppressor" makes them weak. Now, often pretending to be a victim is actually an act of oppression, but that's besides the point.

Truth To Power wrote: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 said the exact same thing, you just made it sound a little bit prettier and innocent. Those "penalties" you're going to enforce, will sometimes come in a form of forcible taking. Which would mean that you also support it.
If a police officer had a gun pointed at their head by some criminal, I think that it would be a just act if that policeman managed to forcible take that gun and restrain the criminal, with or without the use of force.
Like I said, the justness of something can only be measured by its results. To say that forcibly taking something from someone is unjust is beyond ignorant.

Truth To Power wrote:The evil praise evil, claiming it is good. That is one of their favorite lies.

Same goes for you, what might seem as good to you, might be pure evil for me.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

The reason why I insist on that single right is because there was a lot of talk about how the "right to life" is a primary right for every human being and that all rights should be constructed around that single right.
Now, the obvious evidence that this is not true is seen in practice. There are plenty of laws which allow the killing of others. Abortion, execution, self defense, military actions, and so on...
Out of that, I derived a right which no one can take, which you can use till the last atom of your body. The right given to all by God.

Truth To Power wrote:I didn't call you a sociopath. I said your ideas are in practice equivalent to the sociopath's mentality.

I might not call you an idiot, but I might say that your ideas are equivalent to the idiot's mentality. Now, that's not the same thing, is it?
Not only did you call me a sociopath, but you call me that 4, or 5 times more in this post alone.

Truth To Power wrote:Yes, well, like almost all philosophers, Nietzsche never came to terms with Darwin.

I think he did a pretty good as far as discussing morality.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

//calls me, my kind, a sociopath
But, here's where you're wrong. Society actually loves people like me and rewards us greatly, and hates weaklings like you. Our purpose is to protect the society from other predators. And we can't do that if don't understand how survival, war and conflict works. Wolf without its teeth is worse than a sheep. Same goes for an individual, or a society.

Truth To Power wrote:Nope. See above for why you make such false and absurd claims.

I said: "I prefer to live as a human and a human is an animal on steroids."
Nothing you said above disproves my statement.

Truth To Power wrote:To paraphrase Pericles, "Just because you have no interest in denying nature doesn't mean Nature has no interest in denying you."

Very true. That's why nature will never deny me as long as I understand and worship its laws.

Truth To Power wrote:You explicitly stated that you do, and dismissed opposition to such behavior as "weakness":

I explicitly stated that those actions can only be measured after the results of them, but never before.
I said "But, I also don't see those things as evil in themselves, but only judge them according to the results they produce."

Quick note: don't quote messages in that way. I can't quote back at it. Put a single thought is a single quote.

Truth To Power wrote:Yes, of course there is. Rights wouldn't be a universal feature of human society if they did not enhance survival.

Show me a single universal right that people have, apart from the one I already mentioned.

Truth To Power wrote:I stand for liberty, justice, and truth, and hold weakness and power to be irrelevant to those considerations.

The fact that you hold weakness and power as irrelevant proves that you can not stand for liberty, justice and truth. Because liberty, justice and truth can only come from power, and never weakness.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

Power can never be bad, or used for evil. If power could be used for evil, then it would not be power, but weakness. Power is good in itself.
Its quite amusing how you see my ideas as a representation of pure evil, lmao
But, this is only so because you're mind is still weak. Soon, you'll come to a realization of this truth. It might take a week or two. Maybe more, maybe less. That's the power of a goldpill.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

Yes, support the weak and the sick. But, don't make the rights for the weak, make the weak make those right themselves. Teach the man how to fish, don't just feed him.

Truth To Power wrote:You sure talk like it.

//again

Truth To Power wrote:I'll let readers judge that.

That's good. Opinions of other people are not the measure of truth.
If all the people in the world thought that 2 + 2 = 5, it would still be wrong.

Truth To Power wrote:Direct, verbatim, in-context quote? Of course not. See above for why you have to make such false claims.

You don't see power as good, that's enough.

Truth To Power wrote:Define it, then.

Following the rules and the consequences of those rules (or laws). If we said that snitches get stitches, it would be unjust of me not to give a stitch to a snitch.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

Umm, absolutely not.
The whole history of socialism, communism, feminism and multiculturalism is the proof that this is not the case. When the strong ones give off their rights, even the weak ones suffer. In fact, it's the weak ones who suffer the most, since the strong ones are strong enough to run and escape.
The French Revolutions is the example where the weak ones took matters in their hand and made the "strong" ones suffer. They made their own rules. But the strong ones were not strong enough, and that's why they suffered. They got arrogant and ignorant of their power.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

Hah! How foolish...
The government and its laws are the means of control for the people who made that government in the first place express on a certain part of territory. Capitalism aligns with nature, not fully, because it understands that ownership and property of something is based around control and power over it. Nature is the only thing that places land, or anything else in ones hands and it does so though laws and power.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

This system will never fail, because Nature can never fail. The only failures are those systems that deny nature's rules. Systems like socialism and communism (which is just late socialism). That's why all the countries you mentioned there are sheitholes because of marxists teachings. The very thing I'll fight till I die.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

Great people do not need others to secure their rights for them. They fight for their own rights and make others submit to it. As long as one hopes others will fight for their rights, they'll be a slave to them, and never a master.
The weak should never allow for their rights to be abrogated, if they do they'll remain weak. If they don't, they'll become masters of their own life.

Truth To Power wrote:Yes, you have.

I said: "If you are weak, I have no responsibility to protect you."
Haha, haha, Ok, fine! I'll protect you, but only if you agree to call me your Daddy.
Do we have a deal?

Truth To Power wrote:The point of human rights is that we all have them not BECAUSE we are weak but WHETHER OR NOT we are weak.

Not all of us have the same rights. This is impossible and foolish at best. On a Titanik not all can have the same rights, apart from the universal one.
The rights are there to support and advance the power of those who make those rights.

Truth To Power wrote:And you talk about nature??

I was talking about Heaven on Earth.

Truth To Power wrote:Nonsense. There is a difference between producing and taking.

There is. I never said there isn't. I said that there is no difference between creating and accumulating.

Truth To Power wrote:Again with the Voldemort-speak....

//Show some sympathy

Truth To Power wrote:Only in a trivial, near-tautological sense.

In the essential sense, one which seems to fly over your head.
The purpose of a government is not to give equal rights and liberty to everyone, but to advance the power of those who control the government.

Truth To Power wrote:True. Government is an institution that can do good or ill.

Killing other people who stand against certain government is not a evil thing in itself. If another government wanted to kill your people, killing them in an act of self defense would be a good thing. If your people needed more land or resources which other governments have, killing people of the other government would be a good thing to do, as an act of offense.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

Nonsense.
The "would" has no place in a value. Like I've said the market price is determined by a contract, and that contract is calculated by subjective sense of survival power, aka value.


Truth To Power wrote:No. You are talking about something like utility, the capacity to satisfy human desires.

They are very similar. If utility was perceived from a subjective aspects, then they're exactly the same thing. Since use, or usefulness, of something is measured by its survival power.

Truth To Power wrote:I don't see anything about communism in the thread title.

The communism section of this forum.

Truth To Power wrote:And those are quite different processes, so you claim stands refuted.

From the aspect of creation and accumulation, they are the same thing.
And, btw, single thought in a single quote. I can't respond when you butcher the quotes.


Truth To Power wrote:"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk, or any lottery winner...
Yes, crime of living a good life.

Truth To Power wrote:But the honest ones admit they were lucky.

Do you really think that wealth is primarily a consequence of luck?

Truth To Power wrote: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??

If that person prepared and trained as hard as they could and did the best they could, then it was they who performed badly. They can't be blamed for the weakness of their teammates.

Truth To Power wrote:They chose not to be evil.

No, they never knew how to be good in the first place. That's why they're weak, and that's why they suffer.

Truth To Power wrote:I was ready for it, and answered it, before I was out of elementary school.

Scratch that and start again.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

But, how and why was no one able to forcible take it from them? Did they resolved this issue through verbal debates?
People need the land for their protection, not the other way around. The liberty they had over that land was only because of their power to secure that land for them.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

The obtained and held those lands through ruthless force and suffering.

Truth To Power wrote:I am very confident my IQ is quite a bit higher than yours.

Maybe, but even an idiot with rights ideas can beat any genius with false ones.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

Funny you mentioned that. We don't have the liberty to use words at the same time. @Scrooge McDuck got banned because he used certain words. He was not liberated, he was censored and restrained.
The admins of this forum have greater rights than you and I.
Black people are allowed to use the word nigr without any consequences, but white people are not.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

The rights of others to keep what they have does not trump my liberty to take it from them, and rightfully so.
Here's an example for you. A wolf and a sheep can not share the same liberty concepts. Let's say that wolf and a sheep were to make a deal. The sheep says "How about we agree that we don't eat each other. I don't eat you, you don't eat me. Deal?". Now, the wolf thinks and says "Wait a minute. You're a sheep, you can life off grass, that's actually the only thing you eat. I don't eat grass. I'll die. So, here a better deal. How about we make it so that the stronger one wins. I can eat you and you can eat me. Deal"? Now, the sheep has to think. The sheep responds with "Hey, but I don't have a strong jaw and sharp teeth. How am I going to eat you? You'll always win." To which the wolf responds "Well, I don't eat grass, so you'll always win over me." And so, the sheep continues to eat grass, and a wolf continues to eat sheep.

Truth To Power wrote:No, you do not. What happened to, "your liberty ends where mine starts"?

My liberty to have what I want to have.

Truth To Power wrote:And I refuted you.

No, I refuted you.
50 Shades of Land Ownership, if I remember correctly.

Truth To Power wrote:There can be no liberty right to deprive others of their rights.

That's hilarious.
The whole justice system works on removing rights from those who commit crime.

Truth To Power wrote:Your intended victims, who possess rights of their own, and the means to secure them against the depredations of evil, thieving, parasitic sociopaths.

//again
What about my rights. There is no reason for me to allow their rights to trump mine. And you can't even stop me, for if you tried to stop me, you would be enforcing your rights upon me.

Truth To Power wrote:No, that's just brute, animal possession. Google "property" and start reading.

If you had a piece of land property, but you had no control or power over it, then you also don't own that land. Regardless of what you, or anyone else says.

Truth To Power wrote:No, because controlling a woman abrogates her right to liberty, but controlling land abrogates everyone else's rights to liberty.

No one has a right to liberty. Only a right to fight for their liberty.
My liberty trumps your liberty. I have no obligations to respect your wants for liberty is that does not serve my own interest.

Truth To Power wrote:So you admit you were wrong. Power has not only advanced, it has been placed in the service of the powerless.

No. It has been placed in the service of the powerful. I can only sue that guy, and bride the policemen if I have enough money and influence.
If I was to go and directly fight him, I could only fight him if I was strong enough. If I was a poor little weakling, I would suffer even more.
Power, just like wealth, accumulates at those who worship it.

Truth To Power wrote: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.

I prefer capitalism to communism, since it's a more productive and a less destructive system.
Capitalists don't steal the land, they buy it. And if they buy it, they can do (almost) anything they want with it.

Truth To Power wrote:No, it's because it imposes an intolerable risk on others, like drunk driving.

That's what I said.

Truth To Power wrote:It's working well enough to demolish and humiliate you....

Hey, a little bit of masochism can't hurt no one, especially if you're having fun.
#15012688
I'll just post this so everyone can see it:
Here's an example for you. A wolf and a sheep can not share the same liberty concepts. Let's say that wolf and a sheep were to make a deal. The sheep says "How about we agree that we don't eat each other. I don't eat you, you don't eat me. Deal?". Now, the wolf thinks and says "Wait a minute. You're a sheep, you can life off grass, that's actually the only thing you eat. I don't eat grass. I'll die. So, here a better deal. How about we make it so that the stronger one wins. I can eat you and you can eat me. Deal"? Now, the sheep has to think. The sheep responds with "Hey, but I don't have a strong jaw and sharp teeth. How am I going to eat you? You'll always win." To which the wolf responds "Well, I don't eat grass, so you'll always win over me." And so, the sheep continues to eat grass, and a wolf continues to eat sheep.
#15012690
ingliz wrote:As I am not a member of the God-bothering tribe, I don't speak your 'private language'.*

So I will say this more slowly and loudly than usual, with gesticulations (much pointing and shaking of the head)...

"Me no understand gibberish."


:)


* private language

noun

philosophy
a language that is not merely secret or accidentally limited to one user, but that cannot in principle be communicated to another.


Do you belong to a tribe (The tribe of coincidences) because of whom @Scrooge McDuck was banned for?
If you can't figure this out, it means that you're either not smart enough, or are not paying enough attention.
#15012701
The Goldpill wrote:of whom @Scrooge McDuck was banned for?

Am I a member of the moderating staff?

No, I am not.

Addendum: A word of friendly advice for the user formerly known as @Scrooge McDuck. Stop whining. Be thankful moderation are turning a blind eye and letting you post. If it was up to me...
#15012708
ingliz wrote:Am I a member of the moderating staff?

No, I am not.

Addendum: A word of friendly advice for the user formerly known as @Scrooge McDuck. Stop whining. Be thankful moderation are turning a blind eye and letting you post. If it was up to me...


You keep avoiding the question and playing dumb on purpose. You want to bait me. Not gonna happen.
No, I wasn't talking about the mods.
The fact that Scrooge and I have some similar ideas, is just a coincidence. Like all the other coincidences.
#15012739
The Goldpill wrote:So far, my reality is doing far better job than yours.

Wrong. Your taking model is less and less accepted, less and less effective.
Yes it does. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

That proves me right and you wrong.
I prefer good and justice, or evil and injustice.

Confused? You should be.
Justice does not commensurate with contributions,

Yes, it does.
but with just actions (the ones which give good results).

Question begging. A contribution yields good results.
I prefer those who act justly to be rewarded and who do not act justly to be punished.

No, you've stated that anything the powerful can take by force is rightly theirs.
As far as deprivations being unjust, this is absolute nonsense.

It is fact. Depriving others of what they would otherwise have -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor -- without just compensation is the fundamental injustice, abrogation of rights, and evil.
The whole state "justice system" is based on deprivation of ones rights as a punishment for their crimes.

Right, because when you abrogate others' rights, you give up your own. One can't claim rights that one is not willing to respect.
Contributions and deprivations can only be morally measured by the results of it. It's unjust to contribute to evil and it's just to deprive evil.

Rewards commensurate with contributions means evil rewards (punishments) for contributing to evil.
But, you're doing the exact same thing. You're justifying your own sense of justice with lies.

No, I have only stated the truth.
If we were to judge people based on their merits, the weak would not need additional protection or more rights. They would receive those rights automatically based on their merits. Why? Because they would fight for it, and thus if they won, they would not be weak.

That is just might makes right, which is known to be wrong.
If you don't make any contributions, you can not be honest and virtuous.

Sure you can. You may be prevented from contributing by circumstances beyond your control.
The whole point of virtues is that they contribute more than vices.

Now you are baldly contradicting yourself. You said virtue is forcibly taking, not contributing.
It is factually correct, because your moral sense is flawed.

Blatant non sequitur. You are simply claiming consonance with "nature's law" while ignoring the fact that through evolution, nature has given us the capacity to supersede the law of the jungle.
You can say that you don't see greed and rapacity as measures of greatness. That's you personal opinion. But, you can't say the same for strength. Strength is the measure of greatness, by definition.

Nope.
If it wasn't, it wouldn't be called strength, but weakness.

?? Silliness.
Any victim is automatically guilty of being a victim.

Nope. Being victimized does not make one guilty of anything, because guilt requires a choice to commit evil. You simply seek to blame the victim for the evil of his victimizer because you see yourself as one of the latter.
The victim is someone upon whose some oppression has been expressed. The way that they were the "oppressed", and not the "oppressor" makes them weak.

Now you seek not only to blame the victim for his oppressor's crimes, but to exculpate the latter.
Now, often pretending to be a victim is actually an act of oppression, but that's besides the point.

Much more often, it is the oppressor who pretends his victim is to blame for the oppressor's crime: "She was asking for it," "He should have been more careful," "He should have minded his own business," "It was him or me," "She was running her mouth," "It's his fault he was stupid," blah, blah, blah.
You said the exact same thing, you just made it sound a little bit prettier and innocent.

No.
Those "penalties" you're going to enforce, will sometimes come in a form of forcible taking. Which would mean that you also support it.

There is a difference between taking something from those who have a right to it and taking it from those who have only taken it from someone else.
If a police officer had a gun pointed at their head by some criminal, I think that it would be a just act if that policeman managed to forcible take that gun and restrain the criminal, with or without the use of force.

Again, you seek to evade the difference between those who forcibly initiate violation of others' rights and those who forcibly defend against same.
Like I said, the justness of something can only be measured by its results.

Nope. Most obviously, if a doctor does his best to save a patient but the patient dies, that is not equivalent in justice to a doctor who administers poison, and the patient dies. That proves you are just spewing absurd and dishonest nonsense.
To say that forcibly taking something from someone is unjust is beyond ignorant.

It is unjust forcibly to deprive someone of what they would otherwise have, but what is forcibly taken from others is not something they would otherwise have. I.e., the criminal with the gun has forcibly taken the police officer's liberty, which he would otherwise have. Justice requires that crime to be forcibly redressed. You are just trying to pretend that forcibly stealing is the same as forcibly stopping someone from stealing.
The reason why I insist on that single right is because there was a lot of talk about how the "right to life" is a primary right for every human being and that all rights should be constructed around that single right.

I don't subscribe to that view. There is a single right, though: the right not to be deprived by others of what one would otherwise have, mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.
Now, the obvious evidence that this is not true is seen in practice. There are plenty of laws which allow the killing of others.

But only rightfully when they have given up their rights by not respecting others' rights.
Abortion,

A pre-viable fetus cannot live separately from its carrier's body, and is therefore not a separate life.
execution, self defense, military actions, and so on...

All recognized as having given up their rights by abrogating others' rights.
Out of that, I derived a right which no one can take, which you can use till the last atom of your body. The right given to all by God.

But that's not a right at all, just a physical capacity.
I might not call you an idiot, but I might say that your ideas are equivalent to the idiot's mentality. Now, that's not the same thing, is it?

Right. As religion proves, one can believe idiotic things without being an idiot.
Not only did you call me a sociopath, but you call me that 4, or 5 times more in this post alone.

No. I didn't call you one before the previous post, and I only called you one hypothetically in the previous post if you behaved as you proposed.
I think he did a pretty good as far as discussing morality.

One of those examples of a highly intelligent person espousing idiotic beliefs.
//calls me, my kind, a sociopath

If you behave that way.
Society actually loves people like me and rewards us greatly, and hates weaklings like you.

Do not mistake the unjust economic institutions that reward greed for society's love. It is true that sociopaths are over-represented at the highest levels of business, law, and government. But they are much more over-represented in prisons, homeless shelters, and slums. As for me, society has treated me quite well, and afforded me the comfortable living I enjoy.
Our purpose is to protect the society from other predators.

You said it was to BE a predator, forcibly stealing as much as possible from others.
And we can't do that if don't understand how survival, war and conflict works.

Right. Which you don't. Societies that reward the parasitic predator and don't secure the rights of the weak can't compete with societies that provide justice and secure the rights of all because they foment internal conflict between oppressors and victims.
I said: "I prefer to live as a human and a human is an animal on steroids."
Nothing you said above disproves my statement.

A human is no more an animal on steroids than Diogenes's plucked chicken.
That's why nature will never deny me as long as I understand and worship its laws.

Wait for it.
I explicitly stated that those actions can only be measured after the results of them, but never before.

And I proved you wrong, above, by the example of the doctor.
Show me a single universal right that people have, apart from the one I already mentioned.

What you described is just a capacity, not a right.
The fact that you hold weakness and power as irrelevant proves that you can not stand for liberty, justice and truth. Because liberty, justice and truth can only come from power, and never weakness.

Nonsense. Power doesn't decide if it is to be used for good or evil.
Power can never be bad, or used for evil.

It often is. OBVIOUSLY.
If power could be used for evil, then it would not be power, but weakness.

You are again trying to vacate a word of its meaning.
Power is good in itself.

Gordon Gekko was not the good guy.
Its quite amusing how you see my ideas as a representation of pure evil, lmao
But, this is only so because you're mind is still weak. Soon, you'll come to a realization of this truth. It might take a week or two. Maybe more, maybe less. That's the power of a goldpill.

ROTFL! Keep reading, champ. We'll see who comes to a realization of the truth.
Yes, support the weak and the sick.

You claimed society hates and punishes them.
But, don't make the rights for the weak, make the weak make those right themselves.

The strong don't need rights, the weak do. That is very much the point.
Teach the man how to fish, don't just feed him.

Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and feed him for a lifetime; but own the lake, and he feeds you for a lifetime.
Following the rules and the consequences of those rules (or laws).

LOL!! Really? That's it? Where do you incorrectly imagine rules and laws come from, hmmmmm?

You seem to be very far from being qualified to discuss such issues with me.
Umm, absolutely not.

Ignorance is not an argument.
The whole history of socialism, communism, feminism and multiculturalism is the proof that this is not the case.

Wrong again. They are merely modern conceits, and have nothing to do with the effect of securing the rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.
When the strong ones give off their rights, even the weak ones suffer.

Rights are for all, not just the strong or the weak. Remember?
The French Revolutions is the example where the weak ones took matters in their hand and made the "strong" ones suffer. They made their own rules. But the strong ones were not strong enough, and that's why they suffered. They got arrogant and ignorant of their power.

No, it was their use of their power to do evil that provoked the weak to resist.
The government and its laws are the means of control for the people who made that government in the first place express on a certain part of territory. Capitalism aligns with nature, not fully, because it understands that ownership and property of something is based around control and power over it. Nature is the only thing that places land, or anything else in ones hands and it does so though laws and power.

Too confused, ungrammatical and self-contradictory for response.
This system will never fail, because Nature can never fail. The only failures are those systems that deny nature's rules. Systems like socialism and communism (which is just late socialism).

And capitalism.
That's why all the countries you mentioned there are sheitholes because of marxists teachings.

LOL! Some pay lip service to Marx while being run by predators, others have no relation to Marxism at all.
Great people do not need others to secure their rights for them.

Yes, they do, or they will spend all their energies defending themselves. That is the Lesson of Feudalism.
They fight for their own rights and make others submit to it.

Nope. That's Kim Jong Un, who can be called many things, but "great" is not one of them.
As long as one hopes others will fight for their rights, they'll be a slave to them, and never a master.

Slave and master are both unfit roles for human beings.
The weak should never allow for their rights to be abrogated, if they do they'll remain weak. If they don't, they'll become masters of their own life.

Or die trying...?
I'll protect you, but only if you agree to call me your Daddy.
Do we have a deal?

You have no power to protect me.
The rights are there to support and advance the power of those who make those rights.

Those with power don't need rights, which vitiate their power.
I was talking about Heaven on Earth.

But I'm the one who knows how to achieve it, not you.
There is. I never said there isn't. I said that there is no difference between creating and accumulating.

Which is false.
In the essential sense, one which seems to fly over your head.

It's not informative.
The purpose of a government is not to give equal rights and liberty to everyone, but to advance the power of those who control the government.

That is a sub-human reading of political theory.
If your people needed more land or resources which other governments have, killing people of the other government would be a good thing to do, as an act of offense.

Lebensraum? Really?
The "would" has no place in a value.

Wrong.
Like I've said the market price is determined by a contract, and that contract is calculated by subjective sense of survival power, aka value.

Value, price and utility are three different things. You just don't know what they are.
The communism section of this forum.

Yes, that makes no sense.
From the aspect of creation and accumulation, they are the same thing.

Already refuted.
Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk, or any lottery winner...

You seem to like Carnegie.

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, must pay his price." -- Andrew Carnegie
Do you really think that wealth is primarily a consequence of luck?

Luck is indispensable to great wealth, but choices and privilege also play a part.
If that person prepared and trained as hard as they could and did the best they could, then it was they who performed badly. They can't be blamed for the weakness of their teammates.

See? You refuse even to address the burden placed on them of carrying someone else.
No, they never knew how to be good in the first place.

False. They chose to be good because most people (not you) are naturally good.
That's why they're weak, and that's why they suffer.

More blame-the-victim filth.
But, how and why was no one able to forcible take it from them? Did they resolved this issue through verbal debates?

The evil had not yet figured out that by owning the land, they could steal everything from everyone else.
People need the land for their protection, not the other way around.

They need land to survive, so those who take it for their own are just extortionists, like the proprietors of a protection racket.
The liberty they had over that land was only because of their power to secure that land for them.

Wrong again. It was the natural condition they evolved in.
The obtained and held those lands through ruthless force and suffering.

Sometimes. Sometimes just by outcompeting rivals.
We don't have the liberty to use words at the same time.

We self-evidently and indisputably do.
@Scrooge McDuck got banned because he used certain words. He was not liberated, he was censored and restrained.

LOL! What happened to following the rules, hmmmm…?
The admins of this forum have greater rights than you and I.

No, they just have more power.
Black people are allowed to use the word nigr without any consequences, but white people are not.

You really think that is relevant to your liberty to use words?
The rights of others to keep what they have does not trump my liberty to take it from them, and rightfully so.

Yes, actually, it does.
Here's an example for you. A wolf and a sheep can not share the same liberty concepts.

Because they are not members of the same society. People are.
My liberty to have what I want to have.

So, my liberty ends where yours starts, but yours is unlimited...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
No, I refuted you.

No, I demolished and humiliated you.
50 Shades of Land Ownership, if I remember correctly.

Which was laughable.
The whole justice system works on removing rights from those who commit crime.

No, those who abrogate others' rights have already given up their own.
What about my rights.

There can be no right to deprive others of their rights.
There is no reason for me to allow their rights to trump mine.

Oh, but there is: prudence.
And you can't even stop me, for if you tried to stop me, you would be enforcing your rights upon me.

And your point would be....?
If you had a piece of land property, but you had no control or power over it, then you also don't own that land. Regardless of what you, or anyone else says.

Control is one aspect of property. But only one.
No one has a right to liberty. Only a right to fight for their liberty.

You seek to vacate the word, "right" of meaning.
My liberty trumps your liberty.

LOL! And does mine equally trump yours, then....?
I have no obligations to respect your wants for liberty is that does not serve my own interest.

Yes, you do if you want to live in society.
No. It has been placed in the service of the powerful.

Wrong. OBVIOUSLY.
I can only sue that guy, and bride the policemen if I have enough money and influence.

But you don't need money or influence to report a crime and see it prosecuted. You stand refuted.
If I was to go and directly fight him, I could only fight him if I was strong enough. If I was a poor little weakling, I would suffer even more.

Which is why we have rights.
Power, just like wealth, accumulates at those who worship it.

Depends how they use it.
I prefer capitalism to communism, since it's a more productive and a less destructive system.

<sigh> Why is it? Think hard. Even if it hurts.
Capitalists don't steal the land, they buy it. And if they buy it, they can do (almost) anything they want with it.

They could only buy it from someone who rightly owned it, and there is no way for it rightly to be owned in the first place.
Hey, a little bit of masochism can't hurt no one, especially if you're having fun.

Be my guest.
#15012902
The Goldpill wrote:perfection would be the lack of contradiction

Gödel's incompleteness theorems for dummies:

A logical system (a set of axioms) is consistent if there aren’t any contradictions.

The first incompleteness theorem says that if you have a consistent logical system (a set of axioms with no contradictions) in which you can do a certain amount of arithmetic, then there are statements in that system which are unprovable using just that system’s axioms.

The second theorem says that inside of a similar consistent logical system (one without contradictions), the consistency of the system itself is unprovable.

If you’ve proven the statement “there are no contradictions in the system”, your system cannot be consistent because the second incompleteness theorem proved that since your system is complicated enough to include arithmetic, there must be contradictions in the system. Which means–since you’ve proven there are and are not contradictions in the system, your system is inconsistent.

Thus, if you can prove there are no contradictions, your system must have contradictions!


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 20 Jun 2019 10:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15012918
The Goldpill wrote:In the meantime, try to solve the liberty contract problem between a wolf and a sheep I mentioned. Imagine that two of them could talk and make deals, what would be their final solution?

"Liberty contract"? What nonsense. The sheep can live without the wolves, the wolves can't live without the sheep. So if the sheep are smart enough to make contracts, the wolves get exterminated. Simple.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Fucking pofo. We've been exposed to low energy […]

Canadian Federal Election

You're right, Pants of dog, but it's also a time […]

The carbon tax fallacy Recently, a coalition of[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

How could Pence possibly be treated the same as Tr[…]