Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
The Goldpill wrote:Why would I ever let a dictionary dictate my reality.
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.
However, even with the dictionary explanation of justice, it still supports my claims.
No I don't. I prefer justice, and I prefer good.
You are the unjust and the evil one.
You seek to give to others according to their needs, and not according to their merits.
You seek to break the nature's law.
You seek to deny the beauty and strengths of the great ones, in favor of the weak ones.
You give to those who do not deserve, and take from those who do deserve.
You, my friend, are unjust.
Evil can not be better than good, by definition.
And one can not praise evil, for one can only praise good.
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.
As far as you calling me a sociopath,
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". "
Jokes on you, we would probably ally with each other and hunt in packs.
I prefer to live as a human and a human is an animal on steroids.
I have no interest in denying my own nature.
I don't support robbing, enslaving, torturing and killing of the innocent.
But, I also don't see those things as evil in themselves, but only judge them according to the results they produce.
No there isn't.
You shouldn't be standing for that which is weak, but only for that which is powerful.
If power is good, then weakness is bad.
And those who support weakness, are bad. Might I even say, evil.
I'm not a sociopath, nor do I lack moral capacity.
In fact, my moral compass is far superior than yours.
You're the only praising weakness.
I didn't vacate the word just. I fully believe and support justice.
"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.
I also support hyper capitalism and understand that any system which does not align with nature is designed to fail.
So far, your system is destined for failure.
Ummm, I dunno about that.
Great people build great nations. Weak people build weak nations.
No it isn't.
I you are weak, I have no responsibility to protect you.
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.
What I advocate for is a Heaven on Earth. And there can be no corruption in Heaven.
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.
That's what weaklings, like you, think.
The purpose of a government is to fulfill the desires of people who make it.
Government is also used to kill people who stand against it.
Second part is not true, you're talking about the average market price of a product.
Value is, like I've said, a survival power a subject sees in a certain thing.
It doesn't have to be you. This is "communism" thread, so it applies to anyone who advocates communism.
You can accumulate food without taking it from anyone, lmao
For some strange reason, you joined accumulation with taking from others.
But, even if you do accumulate food by taking it for others, you still created food.
But, only for yourself, and not for others. It relives your own scarcity.
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.
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...
Luck is hard to deal with, since many wealthy people had unlucky things happened to them.
"Their choices", prove they were weak.
"Thieving by sociopaths", why didn't they steal from them?
And why didn't they protect themselves against those sociopaths? Because they were weak.
One day, you might be ready for this question.
They most certainly didn't.
They survived on that land because they protected it.
History of any nation is riddled with wars over territory.
Your liberty ends, where my liberty starts.
That is, where my desire starts.
If I want the land you have, I have every right to take it from you.
I said "Land and territory is similar to women."
But, what about my liberty?
I want to liberate myself in their land, and liberate myself with their women. Who are they to deprive me of my liberty?
Women know very well that their rights and choices can be taken.
Property is anything you are able to have and control.
You can control women and you can control land. They're the same thing, from ownership aspect.
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.
There is no rightful, or wrongful ownership. You either have control over something, or you don't.
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).
Then you need to start reading some good stuff, because they way you think atm is not working.
ingliz wrote:This 'God the Creator' obsession of yours cannot be healthy.
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.
ingliz wrote:The origins of life...
Chemicals -> Chemical evolution -> Abiogenesis (3.5 billion years ago) -> Evolution -> My parents
Note: No God required.
It's just pattern recognition. The 'laws' don't actively govern natural processes, they merely describe them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Goldpill wrote:I use the word "law" because of its common use. If you have a better word, we can use that.
The Goldpill wrote:math existed...
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
ingliz wrote:This would imply that the meanings attached to mathematical symbols are arbitrary. And if that's true, how can mathematics be 'discovered'?
The fact that '1 + 1 = 2' is a consequence of selecting one particular set of rules to define one particular formal system.
we can't say that 1 + 1 = 50, or that 2 = 50.
ingliz wrote:Of course, you can.
You just choose a different formalism.
The Goldpill wrote:Why? Because the rules of math do not allow that to happen.
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
The Goldpill wrote:That does not make the nature's laws not perfect.
ingliz wrote:More theistic claptrap.
The Goldpill wrote:perfection would be the lack of contradiction
Something I haven't noticed much commenting on. […]
True enough. But If I could choose (I can't), I'd[…]
And if you think ex-British-Empire Hong Kongers a[…]
@Pants-of-dog tax evaders already need to restit[…]