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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.