<= [911][912][913][914][915][916][917][918][919][920] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
911) Arminius, 20.08.2016, 03:03, 03:21, 03:45, 05:26, 21:05, 21:06, 21:24, 21:31, 21:36, 21:53, 22:08, 22:24, 23:00, 23:13, 23:23, 23:26, 23:33, 23:54 (5061-5078)
James S. Saint wrote:
When I used the term sure enough I meant absoluetly certain.James S. Saint wrote:
Where is the difference between sureness and certainty?James S. Saint wrote:
Where is the difference between sure and certain?
I guess that the main shape of movement in our universe is a spiral.Examples:Arminius wrote:
In my animations the bodies are also curving (circling) due to a center, but - geometrically said - curving (circling) is merely two-dimensional, whereas spiraling is curving (circling) three-dimensionally.At the same time when our Earth orbits our Sun, our Sun orbits the center of our galaxy. According to this facts the movement of the Earth can only be three-dimensional, thus spiral.One can nevertheless call it circling in a three-dimensional way, because it means spiraling.I am talking about a geometrical difference - not about spiraling inward or outward (that would be another issue).
The helical model (part 1): ** **
The helical model (part 2): ** **
In the video is said that our solar system would be a vortex. I do not think so. But: The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct. If you werenot aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths then the education system has seriously failed.
Harbal. Is there no chance to come together again?
As I said: I do not agree with everything he is saying. My intention was to show the spiral/helical model, because I think that he did a good job with his video/animation. But his text is not always agreeable.
Harbal wrote:
I can imagine that.So again: I wish you all the best and good luck. I am pretty sure that you are going to manage it in a good way, your way.
And what about the very bad healthcare system?
Jerkey wrote:
However, Jerkey, it is his way, and I am pretty sure that his way is a good way.
Dan wrote:
There would be nobody for noticing the better Earth, for having the thought oh, what a better Earth this is.Dan wrote:
Yes, that all is bad, but what should the humans do according to you?
Your statement underlines my statement: The United Statess have the worst healthcare system of all so-called first world nations.
Humans can only be humans.
The Sun is only orbiting the galactic center. Did he say something different?
Dan wrote:
I do not understand what you mean by your question, Dan. Humans are not really capable of being dogs (for example).I remind you of my thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**).Will that be a solution?
Dan wrote:
In what way do you want to stretch them? |
912) Arminius, 22.08.2016, 01:00, 01:02, 01:04, 01:06, 01:52, 02:03, 02:18, 02:28, 03:02, 03:40, 05:02, 06:03, 14:52, 18:50, 19:03, 19:09, 19:20, 19:35, 19:50, 20:05, 20:16, 21: 02 (5079-5100)
Dan wrote:
History has shown that all so-called human rights have almost always been hidden rationales and hidden justifications for exploitation everything and everyone the exploiters want to exploit.The more rhetoric laws amd rhetoric rights the humans invent the more human they are. This is meant in a negative and a positive way, but the negative one prevails the positive one the more the more laws or rights are invented. At least, this is the case in modernity. So, if we use your way of morality, we have merely two small chances (it is questionable whether they are chances or not): (1) we stop inventing rhetoric laws and rhetoric rights, (2) we stop modernity.
James S. Saint wrote:
Only the galactic center is causing the orbit of the Sun. The spiraling helix he shows is the orbit of the Earth. The Sun is causing the Earth to orbit the Sun, while the galactic center is causing the Sun (and thus also the Earth) to orbit the galactic center. What he shows is that the Earth (but not the Sun) has two orbits: (1) an orbit caused by the Sun, (2) an orbit caused by the galactic center. The spiraling helix he shows is the visual (optical) result of that two orbits of the Earth (and not of the Sun). He does not show another orbit of the Sun.
One Liner wrote:
Where do you come from? Or/and: Where do you live?
You (**) know nothing. You are not even capable of understanding the simpliest words, T. F. (Trolling Faker).I did not say that he was wrong. I did not use that word or similar words. Just the opposite is true.I said this:
Yes (**). Globalism is the synthesis of techno-creditism (capitalism) and socialism (communism). It is easier and more efficient to enslave the masses by both than by merely one of both.
I was the only one in this thread who referred to longer effects (from the 1950s till 2016) and who gave sources too.
Mithus wrote:
Here are some sources: ** ** ** .
Did we (**)?What about the new gods, for example the scientific gods.
Ah, now I know what you mean (**). I think that he made a mistake there. And by the way: That second animation is not as good as the first one.I could imagine that he tried to show how the Sun spirals beacuse of the fact that the galactic center also moves, but then he made a mistake by showing odd movements. And it is also not clear why he mentioned the stellar wind in that animation (compare: 1:54-1:58).
Either we did not invent gods or we invented false gods (idols).The first gods for a child are the parents of the child. later the child learns what what gods mean or/and what a god means. So that learning of the concept god/gods by children is a part of the ontogenetic development. I think that the learning of the concept god/gods by erstwhile adults, thus a part of the phylogenetic development, is similar to the ontogenetic development. Ancestors had and have been gods for a very, very, very long time.Modernity fights the origin. So theologically said, modernity means inventing false gods (idols). But in other times and always for children gods are not an invention but a part of the development of language-based thought from the concrete to the abstract.
Ukraine and Russia, yes (**), and do not forget the situations in Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, ... (Kurdistan). They all are not very far away from Europe.
Schrödingers Katze:As long as there is no observer who makes a measurement, the cat remains both alive and dead.
One Liner, before 2050 also includes the near future, for example the next hour.
If Europe will continue its self-destructiv politics, then there will be no future for it.
Capitalism will not completely be replaced by anything, at least not in the near future. We have to ask what "capitalism" really means and come to the answer that it is not less but also not more than a "techno-creditism", because credit is needed in order to accumulate capital and to pay the also needed technological inventions and investments. Globalism as the currently dominating system is already a synthesis of capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism). So capitalism is more replaced than it was in the past (from about the last thrird of the 18th till about the end of the first half of the 20th century, when the Keynesianism began), but it also has been increasing. Keynesianistic capitalism means making, contracting debts in an exponentially increasing way.In the long run, capitalism will probably be replaced by something (perhaps a new feudalism) coming after a disaster.Or:John Maynard Keynes wrote: In the long run we are dead.
Change is not always morally good but often morally bad, evil. The problem is that change is happening anyway. So we would have to do the change also in order to prevent change, a different change, or to live according to something like an amor fati as the alternative choice. We are experiencing the change either actively or passively.
James S. Saint wrote:
The one with the most power.
That question reminds me of a similar question as a similar title in a similar thread.
My answer:Arminius wrote:
Hahaha wrote:
Correction of your correction.There are still - for example - modern states (although they are slowly shattering). The technocratic oligarchy neo feudal world is something that probably comes next.
There has never been so much violence (compare alone the current number of wars and warlike events) in the world than today (which roughly means from 1990 till now).
I also think that it is very probable that some galaxies are contracting and some galaxies are expanding.
Please read this:BBC News wrote:
Whatever Duterte's reasons are, the UN is indeed as corrupt as the US and the EU are. |
913) Arminius, 24.08.2016, 01:07, 01:09, 01:10, 01:14, 01:15, 01:16, 01:18, 01:20, 02:30, 02:46, 02:54, 03:06, 03:45, 13:09, 13:43, 13:56, 15:06, 15:16, 17:53 (5101-5119)
Mannequin wrote:
Only at the right time in the right place. Since some preconditions must be fulfilled for being the answer to the world's problems.If such preconditions were not necessary, then the answer to the world's problems would already have been practicing for so long.But such preconditions host some other problems, which have to do with the conditio humana (human condition) itself.So I can guarantee you that being the answer to the world's problems is not an easy job but more a Sisyphean task (which does not mean that it is impossible). If your stone called love is on the top of the hill called The-answer-to-the-world's-problems, then you are successful until your love is going to run down that hill.Love is a life task, a life's work, a mission in life.
What you (**) are describing here can also be said about the Occidental nations, especially the US nation: ... birth control ..., ... effectively causing large scale human right violations ..., ... natural disaster ..., ... end up in Swiss bank accounts belonging to various politicians ..., ... drug lords, rake in huge profits, causing further economic decline, poverty ap, illness and death, ... unemployment ..., ... in the name of good will, human rights , and the insincerity of alleged foreign aid (**).
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were no real communists but most extreme terrorists, totalitarianists, mass murderers (more than 100 million humans were killed) who could stabilize their system only by murdering more and more people. Mao said to Stalin in 1949 that he would donate 100 million dead people, if they were needed for the victory of what they called communism, thus their totalitarian terrorism by killing. If that added wish of Mao had also come true, then the number of the communistic victims would have been more than 200 million killed humans.
One Liner wrote:
I guess, you mean the ecomical and demographical war.
It is said that Adolf Hitler once also said Guten Abend (good evening), so now every Abend (evening) has to be evil.
One Liner wrote:
That is interesting.I hope, you have enough water in that central Australian desert. Maybe you have not enough water to write more than one line.Many belief system founders came from desert regions, spent a relatively long time in the desert.From which region in Eastern Europe do you originally come?
One Liner wrote:
There is causality and there is the will and the spirit with its thinking. So it is not possible that determinists are completely wrong because of the causality, and it is not possible that indeterminists are completely wrong because of the will and the spirit with its thinking. Therefore Kant distinguished the empiric character (cp.: causality, determinism) from the intelligible character (cp. will, indeterminism).
But if there was no big bang, why should there be a cosmic background radiation, what should have caused it?
Imagine, many nations in East, South, North, and Central Asia, some nations in West Asia, many nations in Africa found a second UNO, an Eastern-and-Southern-UNO, a Second-and-Third-World-UNO.
James S. Saint wrote:
Right. That is what I have been saying since my youth (although mostly in another language ).
James S. Saint wrote:
But what caused it to become just the a backgrond radiation, if there was neither a big bang nor an inflation phase of the universe?I guess, I know your answer: Affectance.
UNO 1 and UNO 2:
One Liner wrote:
So you have enough water in that said desert?
James S. Saint wrote:
You mean the radio technicians who could not get rit of the dirt in an antenna in 1964. According to the mainstream physicists this led to the knowledge of the cosmic background radiation (cbr). I know that story.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, I know.James S. Saint wrote:
What I meant was the difference between the fact that the mainstream physicists declared the CBR to be an effect of the big bang and the fact that other physicists declared the big bangto be a farce.
Do you think that our galaxy is a vortex?
If we can take Duterte seriously (in dubio pro re), then we have to face two facts according to the BBC text (see above):Duterte does not want drugs, drug dealres, drug lords, thus drug-related deaths in his country. The current UNO (thus mainly the Western World) wants drugs, thus drug lords, drug dealers, drug-related deaths in all countries of the world.Why is it not possible to seriously talk about this global problems? Drugs are everywhere in this world, are expensive, cause many, many, many death people, thus much death and much money.Economically and politically said, drugs are like wars and terrorism (civil wars). They bring much money resp. power.
@ Maniacal Mongoose.You are in love. That is good. Congratulations.Therefore my question:Why are you still posting so much?
I mean that the said laws and rights are full of rhetoric, elocution, thus: speaking technique (it is more or less the same as faking technique). |
914) Arminius, 27.08.2016, 01:01, 01:03, 01:04, 01:05, 01:06, 01:07, 01:08, 01:09, 01:10, 01:10, 01:20, 01:36, 01:43, 03:36, 03:43, 20:46, 21:01, 21:53, 22:21, 22:25, 22:38, 22:52, 22:53, 23:19, 23:28 (5120-5144)
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. I really can totally agree with that.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Either you do not know what recession means, or you are again using rhetoric here.There is a business cycle. A cycle means that the parts of the cycle are returning parts. You can also speak of waves.Source: ** .What you see is that a positive trend is after a recession. Recession is always a part of the business cycle. So it is correct to say that there is always a positive trend after a recession. We were not talking about when, whether sooner or later, .. and so on.And it is also true that a recession is after an expansion. The boom between them does not change that correct statement. 13 o'clock is after 11 o'clock. 12 o'clock does not change that correct statement.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
You are biased (since 1958 like Faust?), and I guess it is because you are a member of a political party.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
I can give you thousands of examples where just the opposite of what you are telling is true.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
I did not repeat you. You are putting words into my mouth I never said, and I guess it is because you are a member of a political party.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
No. That's just your leftist rhetoric.Again: I can give you thousands of examples where just the opposite of what you are telling is true.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Then you would have to learn that language. My point was that at least one of the conditions for your so-called challenge was not fair. And then you just started to misunderstand me again - you are either not capable of understanding or using rhetoric here again. Actually, it is not difficult to understand what fairness means, but either you don't want to understand or you can't understand it.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Unfortunately, political correctness is never beside the point. How could or should I forbid you your political correctness, and the government wants you to be politically correct. Political correctness is never beside the point. It is always present, if there is someone who wants others to be politically correct and others or only one who is or seems to be politically correct (like you, for example).Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
No. Not currently. And not for you, because you are or seem to be (rhetoric!) politically correct. You are using stereotypes again, then mixing women and men so as if they were the same, but finally playing them off against each other (if not more). In the long run and for almost all humans, it is a negative (if not the most negative) economic indicator that women are doing jobs traditionally done exclusively by men, because woman will be replaced as well and because of the chaos effected by businessmen and politicians (political businessmen).
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
They can but do not have to be, and questions of justice are intrinsically linked with social realities (welfare for example) too and often, if not oftener than with economic realities. I could give you many examples again.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
No. It is true that the overall population of the US rises just because of the immigration (and of the blacks, your former slaves). Obviously, you have absolutely no inkling of demographics. Additionally, it is just politically incorrect, thus a taboo, to talk about demographics in a certain way.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is not true.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is also not true. And your statement about my 2nd language is also not true. because English is not my 2nd but my 3rd language.You are not able to say the tiniest truth, because you suffer from the leftist dictatorship of political correctness.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
You are the one who needs reputable sources.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
You need reputable sources, because you have no single one. You are a left wing populist, a left wing demagogue. Why should I continue this discussion. I am waisting my time with your leftist rhetoric, your leftist political correctness, your leftist propaganda, your leftist populism, your leftist demagoguery. The fact that the leftists seem to represent a majority (at least in Europe) does not automatically mean that they are right (sic!). Leftists are wrong. Left is wrong.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
The word reactionary is - again - a rhetorical word that indicates your membership of a political party for leftists. I could also say that you are simply reactionary. There are always arguments for it, if there are certain words for accusing X of being y. But it is a fact that being left is not being right.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Instead of being rhetorical again - as usual - you could say what left and right mean relative to US politics. You are always prefering rhetorical statements - just like a politician. Why are you not saying what left and right mean according to your American life. By the way: Do you mean a South or a North American life, or is American - again - a rhetorical word for you as a reactionary nationalist?
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Bankers and other businessmen, also politicians, suggest that money can be made out of nothing, regardless whether they know or not know what they suggest. And this suggestion is relevant, especially in societies that economically live according to Keynesian(istic) or Neo-Keynesian(istic) politics: making DEBTS - and nothing else.John Maynard Keynes wrote: In the long run we are dead.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Maybe, but that is not the only aspect of it. Obama depends as much on the money givers as or even more than those politicians of the American right wing. And what is the American right wing, if not a rhetorical word again? Do you mean, for example, the Chilean, Mexican, Canadian, or which one of the so-called American right wing? What is it exactly?
Wikipedia wrote
What do you think about that?
Does the healthcare system need a reform(ation)?
One Liner wrote:
So, first and foremost, it has to come from the I, and then from the we too. **
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
No. I am not saying that.I wrote:
You wrote:
You are wrong. Your statement is false.That is what I am saying.This is or should be a philosophy forum.
Yes (**). That is right. Unfortunately.
One Liner wrote:
Yes. I know.
Ierrellus wrote:
Yes.
Helper wrote:
So according to your theory the macrophysical black hole in the center of a galaxy is similar to the microphysical nucleus of an atom too.Why are you so obviously sure that the analogies of your theory and the theory itself are true?
One Liner wrote:
Are you a protestant?(I am not, as I already said.)
One Liner wrote:
I guess that Helper would answer: half in matter and half in antimatter.
TO ALL.The physicist Harald Lesch said: Unser Universum ist kein buddhistisches Universum, sondern ein protestantisches (translation: Our universe is no Buddhistic universe but a Protestant).What do you think about that statement?
Copied part of a post in another thread.
Copied part of a post in another thread.
He meant it physically, astronomically, cosmologically, but religiously, theologically, philosophically too.
Are you saying that Plato was a troll (**)? |
915) Arminius, 29.08.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:03, 01:18, 01:19, 01:59, 02:07, 02:53, 02:59, 04:32, 04:41, 04:49, 04:58, 15:16, 15:28, 15:43, 16:19, 16:36, 16:53, 16:59, 17:12, 17:17, 17:24, 17:58, 18:12, 18:58, 19:12, 19:30, 19:39, 21:53, 22:16, 23:57 (5145-5177)
One Liner:
Different threads, different posters, different statements (?). Maybe it is not helpful, maybe it is helpful.Does it disturb you, One Liner?It would not disturb me, if you placed the same post in thousand different threads.What do you mean by Terms of Use policy exactly?
James S. Saint wrote:
It is not offensive. But I would nevertheless immediately stop it, if he or somebody else was offended by it.
One Liner wrote:
But for whom is it unhelpful?
Uglypeoplefucking wrote.
The point was that you were talking about what you call Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery (**), and that is no label but your flaw, because you have no single proof or evidence or just a tiny indicator for what you call Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery. Therefore:I wrote:
Then:You wrote:
And that is not true. There is always a positive trend after a recession. And there is always a negative trend after a positive trend ..., ... day after night ..., ... season after season ..., ... and so on. It is not so difficult to understand.But the point to which we referred was your statement about what you call Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery (**). That statemant is false resp. invalid because of the simple fact that you have no proof or evidence or just a tiny hint for it because of the other simple fact that there is always a positive trend after a recession (negative trend).What is said about Obama can be a lie. You at least do not know whether it is a lie or not. You (like many others) can only speculate about whether Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery (**) is a lie or not. Therefore I said to you that here is always a positive trend after a recession, which means in this case that you just have no proof or evidence or just a tiny hint for what you call Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery (**).In other words: You do not know anything about what you call Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery (**). Maybe you will know something about it in the future when historians will perhaps have found it out; but right now you really know nothing about it, because what is said about it can be a lie, and it is very probable that it is a lie, because it is easier for the people of rule, government, media, and other institutions to tell lies than to tell the truth.
Mannequin wrote:
I often ask that too. It is an interesting and - unfortunately - a currently relevant question. But I have to ask back: How much feminisation and/or islamisation do you mean, if you not always and not exclusively mean each of both as a whole (100%)?Feminism is a product of the Occidental culture, whereas islamism is a product of the Arabic/Islamic culture. Although they contradict each other, they can and do, as we can currently experience in Europe, also complement each other (unfortunately).Both are totalitarian, but totalitarianism is a product of the Occidental culture too. So islamism in a reaction to many Occidental phenomena is not only their contradiction but also their antithesis in the meaning of Hegels dialectic. Thus islamism has indeed become a part of the Occidental historical process.And (because of: Cui bono?): Are globalists Hegelians (namely both Left-Hegelians and Right-Hegelians)?
Opposing determinism (**)?
And why not opposing indeterminism?
|
5151 |
5152 |
Existence without memory is not existence! **
5153 |
There is no need for collective or individual memory when we have centrally controlled corporate media platforms to report and archive everything for us via a 24/7 cable broadcast.
We have people to manage our memory for us. **
5154 |
5155 |
5156 |
I like some sports but I find most boring and insignificant. **
5157 |
5158 |
Click on the report post link and you will see a selection that says »duplicate post« meaning the admins and moderators view duplicate posts as unhelpful (or once upon a time did). **
5159 |
There are times when multiple threads are in need of the same comment. Everyone doesn't follow every thread on every forum. When similar subjects are being discussed on different forums, it is more helpful than not to place the needed information in both places. It is unfortunate that such multiple threads pop up so often because such is usually the result of a participant or two refusing to learn anything, but it is what it is. **
5160 |
»Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.« **
»If the vacuum contained enough energy, it ....« **
5161 |
Compatibilism distinguishes »free-will« as being free from opposition, but not free from causation, not freely created, but once created, free from critical opposition. **
5162 |
The post-modern bullshit world, gotta love it Arminius. This environment of micro-management from cradle to the grave. **
5163 |
Anyway, back to the half antimatter topic. **
5164 |
I like boxing, UFC, archery, and long distance rifle shooting championships.
I just find all other sports boring.
People actually make millions of dollars a years bouncing a basketball or kicking a football?
It's so boring and stupid to me. **
5165 |
5166 |
The first Ultimate Fighting Championship event was held on November 12, 1993 at the McNichols Sports Arena in Denver, Colorado.[8] The purpose of the early Ultimate Fighting Championship competitions was to identify the most effective martial art in a fight, with minimal rules, between competitors of different fighting disciplines, including boxing, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Sambo, wrestling, Muay Thai, karate, judo, and other styles. In subsequent competitions, fighters began adopting effective techniques from more than one discipline, which indirectly helped create an entirely separate style of fighting known as present-day mixed martial arts. **
5167 |
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
»Arminius wrote:
Hahaha wrote:
'I like some sports but I find most boring and insignificant.' **
Which of them do you like and which of them do you find most boring and insignificant?
I like almost all sports. ** **
He's like anti-competition. Nobody hates a winner like him. HH, you're the best at that.« **
Me anti competition? No, not at all.
In my world competition would have no laws, regulations, etiquette, or anything. That's genuine authentic competition.
People like you only like competition when it is already rigged in their favor. You like controlled competition.
An environment of controlled and orderly competition.
That's the difference between you and me. **
5168 |
5169 |
Arminius wrote:
»By authentic competition you mean an anarchic competition or something like the survival of the fittest in nature?« ** **
Yes, authentic social Darwinism only within the anarchist sense. **
5170 |
Arminius wrote:
»Which of them do you like and which of them do you find most boring and insignificant?
I like almost all sports.« ** **
I'm with you.... I played most sports and watched them .... I was active until I hurt my back at age 47....Now I am just an armchair warrior .... **
5171 |
5172 |
5173 |
5174 |
5175 |
Arminius wrote:
»FEMINISM and ISLAMISM. Are they compatible?« ** **
Are they compatible???
You're kidding right? **
5176 |
5177 |
As a kid, I played baseball and then in High school, ran cross-country and track, in track I did the sprints, pole vaulting, ran the hurdles and after high school I continued to run, ran a marathon, did rock climbing and backpacking, was a manager of swim school for 20 years and was soccer coach for my daughters Ayso team ..., then in my 40's, I did two separate 80 miles backpacking trip in the Sierra's, one in Yosemite and one in King's Canyon and then I hurt my back.. The only sport I tried and really didn't like was golf .... I was a sprinter in high school, so I had the speed for most sports, just not the size, the day I graduated from High school
I was 5'3 and 117 pounds... Today I am 5'8 and 210, quite a difference ... and mostly from beer.I will watch any sport on the TV and it drives my wife fucking nuts .... **
916) Arminius, 31.08.2016, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, 01:03, 01:08, 01:13, 01:18, 01:23, 01:28, 01:32, 02:00, 02:04, 02:32, 04:33, 04:46, 13:26, 13:39, 14:06, 14:30, 16:44, 16:48, 17:08 (5178-5199)
One Liner wrote:
Why do you believe that?
Amorphos wrote:
These rocks and living beings without memories exist.Living beings need a concept of themselves, thus a self-consciousness, in order to know that they are, that they exist, that they are themselves. But that does not mean that they do not exist before they have their concept of themselves, their self-consciousness, and when they have lost their concept of themselves, their self-consciousness.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
More precisely please: The crusades happened between 1096 and 1270.Note: Jerusalem, which the Christians wanted to reconquer, had been occupying by the Moslems since they conquered huge Christian territories (including the region with Jerusalem - of course) by terrible wars, violence, and other evils.Say what you want, but Islam is a hate-and-war-religion, whereas Christianity is a love-and-peace-religion.
Amorphos wrote:
Why do you not consider the aspect of spoof and the reasons for it?
Only Humean wrote:
There is a philosophical thesis, especially within the words feminism and islamism. I mean the suffix ism in each of both words. But it is not only a linguistic form, because, intellectually said, all isms are based on philosophical systems. So society, government, and economics are merely the addresses of those who invent isms while they use language in a metalinguistic, theoretical, philosophical way.My main reason for opening this thread in the philosophy subforum of a philosophy forum is mainly the question how certain ILP members think about the reasons for inventing isms for feminisation and islamisation. A further reason, based on the main reason (duh), is that a dscussion in the subforum Society, Government, and Economics of the forum Philosophy is normally not as philosophical as in the subforum Philosophy of the forum Philosophy (duh), thus I wanted to prevent a too much political(ly correct) discussion.
Socratus wrote:
Yes. Full agreement.
One Liner wrote:
I think that is in need of an explanation.
The best one can do, if one wants to have power over as much people as possible, is to rule over them as coverly as possible.
Even philosophy has two sides: a theoretical and a practical side. Ethics is the practical side of philosophy. But there is time and thus change too. So if you lived within a Stone Age group, you would know that, for example, killing another human always means that this is either (1.) in the interest of your group or (2.) not in the interest of your group. A third interpretation of it is not possible, because it is either (a) not known or (b) not allowed (it is a taboo). But since about 6000 years this has changed. Many interpretations have become possible and led to various groups (now called societies) with various moralities/ethics, judgements, punishments and whole systems of them (and even the lack of them without being in the Stone Age but in chaotic situations). And provided that it is true that a return to the Stone Age is not possible and that similar situations are merely possible after a chaos, then we will have to continue to experience the further change of morality/ethics or/and to wait for that chaos.
Exclusively (**)?
Are you (**) referring to the Bible, or to RM:AO, or to both?
Yes, but now it is how it is, and that is okay, by the way.
But all this people you (**) are talking about do exist.As I already said: You are arguing subjectively or even solipsistically. Although you are also saying that you are an objectivist, your arguments come along as if they were told by one of those said people. If one has lost any memory, then there may be no existence according to this one (thus: to this subject, philosophically said), but this one does objectively exist. Only an extreme subjectivist or a solipsist denies this.
Living without memory does not mean that it is no life or even no existence. It means that it is no conscious life, as you said, but not no life. It is life. And above all: it is existence. Of course, to the memoryless persons themselves there is no this and no that or only this and that (who knows?), but this does not (at least not objectively) mean that they do not live, not have any affect, not exist.
I have already taken my pick.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
More precisely please: I am not saying that every Moslem is evil (do not put words into my mouth I never said, regardless how politically correct you want to be), but I am saying that Islam is a hate-and-war-religion. Not every Christian is a love-and-peace human - additionally a love-and-peace-religion can be interpreted as being too weak. And not every Muslim is a hate-and-war-human. That is needless to say.
Mannequin wrote:
Interesting.Do you have much contact with Islamic people?
|
5195 |
Worked on Americans. **
5196 |
I've always wondered why statues of Apollo had to have a feminine face (or, at best, a face of a young boy). It seems counter intuitive to me. **
5197 |
Judaism is founded upon hidden, secret, »invisible« manipulations, aka »serpents«. That is accomplished very largely through misinformation: obfuscation, false flags, and blame shifting. Thus peoples get blamed for what others have done and other people are inspired into criminality, immorality, and war by hidden means. Religions get created in an attempt to defend against other religions.
»We shall turn nation against nation.«
Unlike the other Abramic religions, Judaism prefers to be the small elite power above the world of servants. They very, very much prefer that the rest of the world, the gentiles, have no idea of their God and certainly not sharing in their wealth and power. So you are right, they certainly do not proselytize.
The Judaist curse upon Espinoza for the blasphemy of proclaiming that God is for everyone:
The Lords of the maamad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza, have endeavord by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable chachamin, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-andthirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho, with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys, and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.
Judaism is all about curses and fear via secret manipulations of others: Ahdam, »Who told you that you were naked?« **
5198 |
Arminius wrote:
»Do you have much contact with Islamic people?
And especially:
Do you have much contact with Islamic women?« ** **Yes, was born, brought up and still live in a predominately Muslim area. **
Arminius wrote:
»Is the Islam in fact such a minimalistic religion as you described it?« ** **
Of course! Even more so than what i have described. Spirituality, the elevation of man/woman to a plane where the mind is focused on the higher, non-material realities of a godly existence. Not only did Prophet Muhammad pray, but he also use to meditate in mount Hira regularly, up to a few days at a time. Islam ins't new in the sense of a religion, but a clarification of what came before it. Muhammad isn't the founder but rather God is. The message is and has always been the same, that there is only One God and spend your days in worship of God, in a devout manner, do regularly good deeds and maintain a spiritual balance before your return onto God.
Islam, naturally, comprises of all the Prophets in the Abrahamic tradition. Jesus being the most quoted prophet in the Quran. Jesus himself had very little, next to nothing, only having a comb and one cup to which he later gave away, often telling people to sell all their belongings and give the money to the poor..and saying things such as..it easier for camel to go through an eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to get into heaven etc as all the prophets said similar things.
The very core of the worship of God is minimalism. As the world is declared as temporary, and so chasing the world is a vain attempt to gain something that will inevitably be taken away from all. From the Islamic perspective the only things which are counted upon death is actions, words and intentions in the context of good and bad relative to the scriptures.
The modern day muslim women and men just arn't following it correctly to due religious neglect, but rather following their own egos, ignorance, greed and selfishness and then attempting to justify it with religion, as many other so called religious people do. Like millionaire priest in the bible belt of the US etc.. **
5199 |
917) Arminius, 01.09.2016, 01:00, 01:07, 01:14, 01:19, 14:58, 15:39, 15:44, 16:24, 22:53, 23:58 (5200-5209)
Hahaha wrote:
The one who said that seems to make money (thus: to get recognition and power) out of that politically correct text or/and to suffer from the Stockholm syndrome.Another politically correct text with the following question as its title: Why are there high rape crimes in Sweden, Norway and Denmark compared to the rest of the world? **One of the politically incorrect and thus forbidden questions is: Why are Vikings no longer allowed to be Vikings?
All Germanic and Romanic languages have articles - some have three (male, female, neutral), some have two (male, female), and one (English) has merely one.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, and this modern religion of hate and other modern and ancient religions of hate threaten an ancient religion of love (that has more than 2 billion believers [**|**|**|**]) and a whole culture (of about 1 billion people). This threat is part of what Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) predicted and called Farbige Weltrevolution (Colored World Revolution).
Not all people.
One Line wrote:
Is there illogical sense?
One Liner wrote:
Yes. But there is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.
One Liner wrote:
Who knows?
@ All.Do not forget that feminism does not automatically stand for all women. Moreover: not all feminists are women, and not all women are feminists.But what about Islamism? For what does Islamism not automatically stand? Moreover: are not all Islamists Musllims, and are not all Muslims Islamists?In this case we probably have to adjudicate on both islamism and feminism in the same manner.The more globalism - materialism in the sense of both techno-creditism (formerly known as capitalism) and socialism (formerly known as communism) - expands, the more forms of reaction and resistance it gets until the great chaos. Feminism and Islamism are religious ism examples for those forms of reaction and resistance.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
I merely said you should not put words into my mouth I never said, regardless how politically correct you want to be (see above [**|**]).Prismatic 567 wrote:
I know what your point is. You are a progressive human being.Prismatic 567 wrote:
They do not need you as their lawyer. They can defend themselves without your help.Prismatic 567 wrote:
Did you not read my whole post? Here it comes again:I wrote:
One Liner wrote:
What kind of victim are you then? |
918) Arminius, 03.09.2016, 01:03, 01:21, 01:22, 01:24, 02:02, 02:15, 02:20, 02:31, 02:42, 02:59, 03:48, 15:05, 15:12, 15:39, 15:48, 16:44, 17:10, 17:44, 18:50, 20:06, 21:05, 21:24, 22:08, 23:58 (5210-5233)
One Liner wrote:
It is an Anglicism (Englishism).So you are an English victim (**).
Prismatic 567 wrote:
By the way: Globalists are 1% of all humans.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
Nobody is born with an active evil tendency! So you are the one who offends (insults) at least 20% of all Muslims and furthermore at least 20% of all humans of all times.Prismatic 567 wrote:
You have offended (insulted) 20% of all humans of all times. Nobody is born with an active evil tendency!Prismatic 567 wrote:
Terrible evils and violence are committed by Muslims, yes, but you are also saying that 20% of all Muslims are born evil, and that is not only nonsense but also an offense (insult).Prismatic 567 wrote:
You are the only poster of this thread who is offending (insulting) at least 20% of all Muslims and furthermore at least 20% of all humans of all times.Prismatic 567 wrote:
You have offended at least 20% of all humans of all times. Nobody is born with an active evil tendency!
Obviously, judgmental people are just too stupid to see themselves.
Kriswest wrote:
In big cities it is just the other way around. Criminal activities are more and more kept secret by media, politics, police, ... and so on (at last also by most people). More and more people live in bigger and bigger becoming cities. Since 2008 more than 50% of all humans have been living in cities (for comparison only: in 1950 that percentage was 30%; and in 2030 it will estimately be 60%). So, unfortunately, one has to state that human acts of bad or evil have increased. The reason is a simple one, bioecologically and anthropologically said: Humans are not made for cities, for living in such a settlement density, population density; humans are made for a life in a relatively small group.An example: The city Shenzhen in China had 30000 inhabitants in 1979 but 10.5 million inhabitants in 2011.
One Liner wrote:
Anyway:One Liner wrote:
One Liner wrote:
Is there a high crime rate in Australia, One Liner?
The opening post of this thread (**|**) merely suggests a question and the re-voting option.
One Liner wrote:
You wrote: would have. So it has not. Right?
One Liner wrote:
That can be true. I do not know, because the public polls and statistics about the topic and the non-issue for a majority are also full of fakes and rhetorics - as usual.
Okay, here are some links and maps (I did my very best):
|
5221 |
Australia | UK | US | |
Wikipedia (**): | 1.0 | 0.9 | 3.9 |
Quandl (**): | 1.5; 0.9; 0.6; 0.4 | 0.7; -.-; 0.4; 0.3 | 9.4; 5.8; 6.0; 5.2 |
5222 |
5223 |
Islam will self-destruct in time. **
5224 |
I don't think that 14th century mentality will survive in the 21st century modernism. **
5225 |
Time will tell.
....
There are many women who have denounced feminism and apologized to men, and wish to return back to more of a traditional structure, especially during all the rape sprees around the west, heavily motivated by fear and seeking protection. **
5226 |
Pandora wrote:
»I don't know why you're assuming that traditional family structures do not exist, there are still plenty of stay-at-home moms and working fathers.« **
Never said there wasn't..but looking at the increasing divorce and single mother stats it's pretty clear the direction in which it is going. **
Pandora wrote:
»Well, if men cannot or will not stick around to provide for their children (because materialism is bad but fucking around is okay because a man has his needs, dammit) this could be the remaining option.« **
It is a well known fact, that by large men never use to fuck around, that was something that was unheard of in the past, and the further you go back the greater the punishment for such acts was, both on men and women, as a way of securing the family marriage unit and construction of society.
The »fucking around« is a male response to the lack of a secure traditionalism that governed by virtues, moral, principles, vows,law etc. I'm not sure you can have your cake and eat it too. Interestingly enough, when you free the women from the men, you also free the men from the women. **
Pandora wrote:
»In my opinion, people who embrace foreign or exotic traditions likely have some unresolved personal issues. If you want to preserve traditional family structure/lifestyle, why wouldn't you propose that people embrace Christianity instead? It's more in synch with Western traditions.« **
Hmm I would agree with the first part of that.
Christianity is foreign and stems from very similar places Islam and Judaism stem from. **
5227 |
Innovation is not necessarily a good thing nor is technological advancement...sure there's benefits to it, but it is way more destructive if anything. **
Pandora wrote:
»My point was that even without war Islam would be doomed.« **
Well, the visibility of the expansion of Islam is quite clear.
It's well known thing that. **
Pandora wrote:
»Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and is expected to outstrip Christianity by the end of the century.
The number of Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the world's population from now until 2050, the Pew Research Center has said.
While the worlds population is projected to grow 35 per cent before the middle of the century, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 73 per cent from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.8 billion.« **
Pandora wrote:
»The West has evolved and will not be devolving back to Middle Ages. That was my point. Islam will have to catch up/evolve in order to survive, and that could also be its end.« **
Middle ages were awesomeness...at a time of war, I would much rather be in the middle ages than this time period, especially with all the nuclear capability they have now. **
Pandora wrote:
»Islam's attempt to drag Western Values down to its level will be unsuccessful.« **
Down? what are these values you're speaking of? Modernity has turned the west into a fucking shit hole! The only fun thing here is observing the decay and watching it all happen.. that's what keeps me here. **
5228 |
5229 |
I would imagine that these sort of public polls may only statisically apply to about 1 billion people (US and Europe) and not the other 6 billion people (rest of the world). **
Population in the world is currently (2016) growing at a rate of around 1.13% per year. The current average population change is estimated at around 80 million per year.
Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. The rate of increase has therefore almost halved since its peak of 2.19 percent, which was reached in 1963.
The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years. Currently, it is estimated that it will become less than 1% by 2020 and less than 0.5% by 2050.
This means that world population will continue to grow in the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 39 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2038.
....
Population density map of the world ...:
....
World Population by Religion.
According to a recent study (based on the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion) by The Pew Forum, there are:
- 2,173,180,000 Christians (31% of world population), of which 50% are Catholic, 37% Protestant, 12% Orthodox, and 1% other.
- 1,598,510,000 Muslims (23%), of which 87-90% are Sunnis, 10-13% Shia.
- 1,126,500,000 No Religion affiliation (16%): atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. One-in-five people (20%) in the United States are religiously unaffiliated.
- 1,033,080,000 Hindus (15%), the overwhelming majority (94%) of which live in India.
- 487,540,000 Buddhists (7%), of which half live in China.
- 405,120,000 Folk Religionists (6%): faiths that are closely associated with a particular group of people, ethnicity or tribe.
- 58,110,000 Other Religions (1%): Bahai faith, Taoism, Jainism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Tenrikyo, Wicca, Zoroastrianism and many others.
- 13,850,000 Jews (0.2%), four-fifths of which live in two countries: United States (41%) and Israel (41%).....
How many people have ever lived on earth?
It was written during the 1970s that 75% of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment. This was grossly false.
Assuming that we start counting from about 50,000 B.C., the time when modern Homo sapiens appeared on the earth (and not from 700,000 B.C. when the ancestors of Homo sapiens appeared, or several million years ago when hominids were present), taking into account that all population data are a rough estimate, and assuming a constant growth rate applied to each period up to modern times, it has been estimated that a total of approximately 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of the human species, making the population currently alive roughly 6% of all people who have ever lived on planet Earth.
Others have estimated the number of human beings who have ever lived to be anywhere from 45 billion to 125 billion, with most estimates falling into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.
World Population clock: sources and methodology.
The world population counter displayed on Worldometers takes into consideration data from two major sources: the United Nations and the U.S. Census Bureau.
The United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs every two years calculates, updates, and publishes estimates of total population in its World Population Prospects series. These population estimates and projections provide the standard and consistent set of population figures that are used throughout the United Nations system.
The World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision provides the most recent data available (released on July 29, 2015). Estimates and projected world population and country specific populations are given from 1950 through 2100 and are released every two years. The latest revision has revised upwards the world population projections. Worldometers, as it is common practice, utilizes the medium fertility estimates.
Data underlying the population estimates are national and sub national census data and data on births, deaths, and migrants available from national sources and publications, as well as from questionnaires. For all countries, census and registration data are evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted for incompleteness by the Population Division as part of its preparations of the official United Nations population estimates and projections.
The International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division also develops estimates and projections based on analysis of available data (based on census, survey, and administrative information) on population, fertility, mortality, and migration for each country or area of the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, world population reached 7 billion on March 12, 2012.
For most countries adjustment of the data is necessary to correct for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in the data. Finally, since most recent data for a single country is often at least two years old, the current world population figure is necessarily a projection of past data based on assumed trends. As new data become available, assumptions and data are reevaluated and past conclusions and current figures may be modified.
For information about how these estimates and projections are made by the U.S. Census Bureau, see the Population Estimates and Projections Methodology.
Why Worldometers clocks are the most accurate.
The above world population clock is based on the latest estimates released on July 29, 2015 by the United Nations and will show the same number wherever you are in the world and whatever time you set on your PC. Worldometers is the only website to show live counters that are based on U.N. data and that do not follow the user's PC clock.
Visitors around the world visiting a PC clock based counter, see different numbers depending on where they are located, and in the past have seen other world population clocks - such as the one hosted on a United Nations website and on National Geographic - reaching 7 billion whenever their locally set PC clocks reached 4:21:10 AM on October 31, 2011.
Obviously, the UN data is based on estimates and can't be 100% accurate, so in all honesty nobody can possibly say with any degree of certainty on which day world population reached 7 billion (or any other exact number), let alone at what time. But once an estimate is made (based on the best data and analysis available), the world population clock should be showing the same number at any given time anywhere around the world. **
5230 |
As I said, it's a non-issue for a majority of the worlds population. **
5231 |
But just because it's a non-issue for a majority of the worlds population doesn't mean it's an unimportant issue. **
5232 |
14 billion years ago the billions and billions of galaxies were compressed into a hot singular point. It means that the four forces of nature (electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravity) also
were compressed into one »singular point« - into one »singular force«. **
Big bang is scientific fantasy .... **
5233 |
People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive. **
The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family. **
919) Arminius, 07.09.2016, 01:00, 01:02, 01:04, 01:06, 16:46, 18:51, 19:05, 19:13, 19:35, 19:53, 20:44, 21:01, 21:47, 23:02, 23:04, 23:24, 23:36 (5234-5250)
Kriswest wrote:
Humans are are capable of both adaptation and non-adaptation. Humans can dissociate from nature, can fight against nature. The more culture/civilization humans have, the more anti-natural they are.Kriswest wrote:
In the same time, more and more other notorious communites are becoming more and more inhumane.Nobody knows, when and how this is going to stop.
Humans are the only species that really fights against the nature. But when it comes to accusing humans to be responsible for the greenhouse effect, we must also say that there is much money in play. The greenhouse effect is not automatically anthropogenic, because it is a natural effect by definition and caused by the sun and some other cosmic effects. So the question ist whether humans are really capable of causing a greenhouse effect. It is no question that humans are ecological destroyers, that they destroy their natural environment, but it remains a question whether the greenhouse effect is caused by them, in other words: whether the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is a criminal fact or a criminal fake (caused by some certain humans who make much money out of it) or both.Note: The money that is payed as a fine (=> penance) by the polluters (=> sinners) goes to the eco-popes, the banksters.
What the big bank creates the debt takes away.Arminius wrote:
@ Prismatic 567.What you are saying about the Gaußian (Gaussian) distribution, thus the Gauß' bell curve, is true, but this does not automatically mean that it can be applied to everything you want. Nobody is born with an active evil tendency (**). Unborns and children have nothing to do with such categories and concepts of the adult world. We had a similar discussion in another threads where a confused one claimed the nonsense that unborns and newborns were atheists (**|**). That is not true. And your statement that 20% are born with an active evil tendency (**) is also not true.It is not accidental (but very thankful) that it is not allowed to take legal proceedings against children.Thanks to our Occidental culture.
Autsider wrote:
Yes, but people can be forced to think that they were compatible. So from the ruler's point of view they can be compatible, because they shall be compatible.Autsider wrote:
That video must be from 1982-1984.According to Yuri Bezmenov four points are needed: (1) demoralization of the society, especially their students (it takes about 15 to 20 years), because these students are going to be the next powerful generation; (2) destabalize organizations (it takes about 2 to 5 years); (3) crisis (it takes about 6 weeks); (4) "normalization" (people think that they live in peace, although they do not).The United States is in a state of war, an undeclared total war. .... I know Americans don' like to listen to things which are unpleasant. - Yuri Bezmenov.
Pandora wrote:
But modernity itself is a problem too or, at least, more and more people believe that modernity is a problem, and its people, the Occidental people, are responsible for all problems people have been facing since the end of the 18th century. Therefore many people think or shall think that they have the right for any revolution they want to make - with the result of an endless revolution of almost all kinds. Almost! Since these revolutions make no sense except one: they are always happening under control, so that senseful revolutions do not happen. What senseless revolutions achieve is a more and more problematic world. Senseless revolutions are like wars, civil wars, and they are merely senseful for those who are supposed to be the enemy: the rulers, because they become richer and more powerful by these senseless revolutions.Antagonistic isms like feminism and Islamism are in the interest of the rulers and their puppets. The majority is usually not but is ought to be interested in them, because both the puppet minority and the majority are permanently bombarded by those antagonistic isms via mass media and education systems like kindergartens, schools, universities. So at last there will be the following distribution of interests: (1) 1% with interests being self-interests, (2) 99% with interests being no self-interests (because they are the interests of the 1%).
Pandora wrote:
Pandora wrote:
The Islamic Golden Age was not during the 14th century but during the 10th century (peak).
Pandora wrote:
Yes, but it is not said that this will happen before or after the Islamic hordes will have conquered the Occidental culture.
Modernity stands for a modern society / culture. It does not necessarily stand for a ruling system. The current ruling system is not really new, not really modern, it is as old as human history, and merely some of its instruments are modern, which does not mean that the current rulers are modern minded. So modernity does not automatically mean that those who are ruling are really modern. The rulers themselves do not have to be modern, they have to have the control over everything and everyone who is modern and who is not modern. And indeed: The rulers are "merely" interested in controlling, having power, regardless whether those who are controlled are modern or not. And that is a very old one and thus not a typically modern attitude.
If feminism weakens the West for Islamic conquest (Autsider **), we have also to mention that Islamism weakens the West for Islamic conquest, because its terrorism weakens the West, at least currently. There is still no real Western resistance to Islamism. There is more and more Western weakness. And furthermore: there is also much Western conversion to Islam, especially to Islamism.So if both feminism and Islamism weaken the West, then they are strategically compatible for those who benefit from this development, because actually feminism and Islamism are not compatible.
US citizens don't like to listen to things which are unpleasant" (Yuri Bezmenov).I would nevertheless say to most of the US citizens: Come to the Old Europe (Western Europe) and look how fundamentally evilly the Globalists have already changed its countries and societies during the last few decades after the so-called Cold War.It is unpleasant, US citizens!
One Liner wrote:
It is not ludicrous, because all others than those relatively few of the one particular side do not have the possibility to do it to the same extent.In addition: Not all humans on both sides desire to make money and will maintain their lies and deny their truths in order to make money.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
Note: The sign = (equal sign) does not mean a conclusion. The sign for a conclusion is (for example and because it is on your keyboard): =>.Your conclusion is false, because nobody is born with an active evil tendencies.Prismatic 567 wrote:
No, and if you had read my posts carefully, then you would know it.Your wording is false. Morality has to be learned. It is a matter of education. The DNA says nothing about morality but merely about the potential to learn. If a human learns morality in a wrong or an evil way, then it is because of a false learning. Not morality but learning morality is in the DNA.Your premise is false. Unfortunately, it can be used rhetorically.Maybe that it is the same statement for you whether one says it is learning morality or just morality itself, but it is not the same statement. What is said about morality is merely said by adults (at least not by children who have to learn morality). So morality is an adult matter. Children have to learn morality. So if they do not learn it, then they have a tendency to become evil - but not because of their DNA, at least not in the first place, because the genetic code contains the possibility of learning morality but not morality itself. That is also the reason for the need of ethical education and why belief system (religions) occured. Again: Genetically, the learning morality is DNA based, but the morality itself is not.Prismatic 567 wrote:
That is also false. Those posts catched my attention.Prismatic 567 wrote:
Again: Humans are not born with a POTENTIAL to be beastly and evil (**). They are born with a potential to learn what morality means.Note: It is the adult ethic system that interprets this or that as being good or evil. Morality changes. Thus ethic systems change as well. So: Why are you not also saying that all animals are evil? And if you are saying that, then I ask you: Why are you saying that? Why are you interpreting it in that way?
I guess that most galaxies are probably precessing.
Norms, morality, ethics are not based on DNA, but the learning of what norms, morality, ethics mean (note: they change) is based on DNA. Learning, which is mainly based on DNA, is not the same as norms, morality, ethics, which are not based on DNA but on culture, education, learning.
Yes (**) - with pretty odd statements. Read the following thread: **.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, actually, that is true, but currently there is only Western weakness. The Western people do nothing against terrorism. If their rulers speak of terrorism and Islamism they want to frighten and weaken their people. So their war on terror means war against their own people.James S. Saint wrote:
Are you sure?
|
920) Arminius, 07.09.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:03, 01:04, 01:07, 01:24, 02:53, 03:23, 03:32, 03:44, 03:57, 04:08, 04:17, 04:20, 04:22, 04:39, 04:56, 05:29, 06:03, 15:23, 16:45, 17:43, 22:13, 23:53, 23:57 (5250-5276)
James S. Saint wrote:
In the case of our galaxy relative to other galaxies of the Local Group and the Virgo Supercluster, if not to more.
One Liner wrote:
As I said.
Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Do not celebrate just yet.The more elections you have, the worse your situation is.
Europeans find themselves in a dilemma. If they refuse feminism, they (actively or passively) support Islamism; if they refuse Islamism, they (actively or passively) support feminism; and if they refuse both, they are suspected of being both islamophobic racists and misogynistic sexists - regardless of the fact that it is almost always known that they are neither islamophobic racists nor misogynistic sexists. This is how Globalism works, because Globalism is much more socialistic than market based. The Globalistic socialism is an anti-national-socialism resp. inter-national-socialism (as long as nations are needed, because nations shall disappear in the mecdium to long term).
Prismatic wrote:
False!
Prismatic wrote:
False!You are arguing like this guy.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
False!Prismatic 567 wrote:
Nonsense!Prismatic 567 wrote:
You are speaking of adult humans. So this of your statements is FALSE too !
Topic: The future of our Sun, its planets, and our Milky Way.What about the future of our Sun, its planets, and our Milky Way?The following questions are examples (so you may add other questions):Will our Sun become a red giant and later a white
dwarf? If not: What will happen instead of that?
|
5259 |
5260 |
5261 |
5262 |
5263 |
5264 |
5265 |
5266 |
5267 |
They were merely noting the natural propensity for intelligence to discern between what to love and what to hate. All surviving creatures have such instincts born within, else they could not survive as a species (even insects).
Psychologists (just barely on rare occasion fitting into the category of »scientists«) most certainly cannot be trusted to experiment and attempt to analyze complex systems or creatures more intelligent than their own cognitive comprehension skills. Infants fit into that category, as do almost all animals. The cognitive comprehension skills of the average psychologists are embarrassingly low. More to the exact point, none of those psychologists in that video actually understand what »morality« is. That is an issue for philosophers to decide. And no science can be conducted without proper definition. Ask any of them to exactly define »morality« in an unambiguous way. They would probably tell you that such isn't necessary, which is largely why they are (still) not really qualified to be referred to as »scientists«.
Anyone can trump up what superficially appears to be a scientific experiment with all of the buzz word in place: »this was a double blind study«, »81% of the non-control group responded positively«, .... The sad fact is that most people doing such things are very, very sloppy and often have ulterior motives.
Ask what the scientific definition of »morality« is. Without such a precise definition, no measure of it can be scientifically made.
And all of that is not to discount Arminius' point that the very concept of morality, and thus good and evil, does not apply to animal behavior, and that includes human infants. Homosapians aren't all that much different than other animals. What doesn't apply to other animals only might barely apply to homosapians.
Your psychologist references are off mark for the same reason that you are - a complete lack of understanding of what morality and evil actually is and is actually all about. **
5268 |
5269 |
5270 |
5271 |
Your views are very constipated and merely hand waving. **
In contrast note James S. Saint who at least gave some explanations to justify his views [which I do not agree and countered. **
I mentioned;
There has been lots of studies relating to inherent morality within humans via the study of babies which are less than one year old, i.e. to discount the 'Nurture' element. **
Attacking this one example I gave is not effective. **
I suggest you research on this topic and reflect on the conclusions instead of giving these very unhealthy »constipated« views. **
5272 |
5273 |
I don't see how that follows from what I said. How about.....when black people call someone racist, they're usually not talking about someone who is also considered to be left wing. **
When you listen to right wing talk radio, you don't think those guys are racist? **
5274 |
5275 |
5276 |
One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general. Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant's fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. **
==>
|