941) Arminius, 01.11.2016, 00:58, 01:09, 01:12, 01:13, 01:15, 01:17, 01:19, 03:32, 03:35, 03:42, 04:07, 14:22, 14:30, 14:45, 14:53, 15:50, 17:22, 17:37, 22:46, 22:51, 22:56, 23:11, 23:30, 23:57 (5500-5523)

Stoners are already agrressive before they become stoners, and then, consequently, they become more and more aggressive the more they use their drugs. This is logical, and I also know this from my experiences with stoners when I worked as a teacher at a school where many pupils were stoners. I can guarantee you that some of them would not had become stoners, if they had not come in contact with stoners at the school. If you are agressive and commit crimes, then you tend to take drugs too - and vice versa -, and the likelihood of becoming a stoner is very high.

Most people who drink only beer are not aggressive.

Okay, the stupid pubescent racist and palaeoconservative (**) is trolling again.

Same procedure as every time.

You have nothing else to do than trolling and faking. Turd Ferguson is just another name for Troll Fakerson.

If someone is deeply impoverished hillbilly here, then it is you yourself. If your eating behavior is like your writing behavior, then you are a kind of maneater who eats himself. You have eaten Zinnat, Gib, and parts of your alter ego (Fixed Cross) and yourself. And you are even proud of it, I guess.

This thread („Describe What You're Eating“) does not mean „what you usually eat“ but „what you are eating at the moment“. Who of the white people has never eaten noodles?

Hahaha wrote:

„The cheese and onions one looks really good.“ **

Yes. The first one and the last one I posted are pure ones. So you have to flavor or season them and take something thereto, for example cheese, onions, meat, vegetables, or salad.

Yes. But it is not possible to completely avoid corruption. Animals already practice corruption.

Maybe it is this one (**) ....

Hahaha wrote:

„Fifteen to eighteen.“ **

Okay. And what do you pay for those fifteen to eighteen cigarettes?

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Cigarettes have become very expensive. Haven't they?

Would some people be more successful, if they (also) had moustaches (**)?

Hmm ....

**

Maybe ....

Or maybe not ....

Good luck (**).

A Shieldmaiden wrote:

„Albert Einstein had a moustache for over 50 years.“ **

Time is relative.

The logical consequence is either (a) becoming more and more artificial or (b) dying out. At the moment I do not see a solution that can avoid this logical consequence.

You (**) think of SAM, right?

Do you know the prices for cigarettes in the USA?

Yes (**).

You (**) are wrong. The German Idealism is optimistic. You named the German Schopenhauer (pessimistic) and the German Nietzsche (optimistic), okay, but both are no typical idealists.

If you (**) are a fan of Clinton, then please don't worry. I was only referring to facts. I am more a realist than an idealist. You should not always confuse realism with pessimism.

A black tranny has very good prospects for becoming the president of the USA.

For how many cigarettes?

You are not German. You are Troll Fakerson, likely from the Middle East. Almost everything you say is a fake.

René Magritte, „Hegel's Holiday“:

The „Simulation Hypothesis“ is not provable and not disprovable. You can also believe what, for example, Plato already said (something like: You are living in the wrong world, the real world is the ideal world).

Armstrong Economics wrote:

„Iraq warns that it will take military action against Turkey if they do not withdraw their troops from their territory. This would get complicated since Turkey is a member of NATO. So who is on whose side? Is Turkey just abusing its NATO status to attack Russia for seven seconds of violating its air space when it has invaded a neighbor itself?“ **

942) Arminius, 02.11.2016, 00:59, 02:34, 02:41, 03:32, 03:51, 04:16, 13:29, 13:31, 13:54, 14:05, 14:15, 14:19, 14:23, 14:47, 16:53, 17:48, 17:52, 18:10, 18:28, 18:45, 19:01, 19:41, 20:02, 20:40, 20:41, 21:19, 23:27 (5524-5550)

Artyom Lukin.

„Imagining World War III — In 2034.“ **

The text is written too much from the view of a Russian - but not absolutely wrong.

She (**) comes from a communistic country. According to her former communistic leaders the THESIS is capitalism and BEFORE, whereas the ANTITHESIS is the dictatorship of the proletariat and AFTER.

And (**) ...?

I guess you (**) mean the war as a stimulator for the economy. And you have no moral scruple. Right?

Rommel C. Banlaoi wrote:

„Duterte Has a Deliberate Policy of Ambiguity Toward China and the U.S.

By being unpredictable, Duterte puts the two major powers in a »guessing game«.

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s visit to China on October 18-21 raised very serious security concerns in Washington D.C. when the Philippine president announced his intention to »separate« from the U.S. »militarily« and »economically«. Though Duterte clarified that his declaration should not be interpreted as cutting diplomatic ties with its long-time security ally, his many »anti-American« overtures since he assumed office more than three months ago were already making the United States very uncomfortable. ....“ **

Try to read my post again, please, because I did not say anything „about what's right and wrong and who's responsible for the way things are“ (**). I just asked you something.

Yes (**), the Kurdish threat has always been their „argument“, a straw man fallacy.

David Rohde wrote:

„THREATS AND RESPONSES: NORTHERN IRAQ; For Kurds, Big Menace Is an Incursion by Turks.

.... Kurds from ... are planning to form a human chain to block Turkish soldiers from entering Northern Iraq. .... As Turkish military officials pushed for Parliament to reconsider whether to let American soldiersenter for a possible attack on Iraq, Kurdish protests intensified against deploying Turkish forces in a limited area of northern Iraq. ....“ **

5532

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„You said that I had no moral scruple.“ **

Yes, but that does not necessarily imply anything else. Also, it was added by a question. I did not say anything „about what's right and wrong and who's responsible for the way things are“ (**). I just asked you whether it was right that you had no moral scruple.

Source:

Arminius wrote:

„And you have no moral scruple. Right?“ ** **

That is not „about what's right and wrong and who's responsible for the way things are“ (**), because I asked you whether it was right that you had no scruple.

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„How is that not moralizing?“ **

It is a statement - with a question. If I said „you have no car - right?“, would that be moralizing? No. It depends on your answer whether it becomes moralizing or not.

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„I'm saying my view of how the world works doesn't really entail you or I being able to do something like stop war. People have been warring since before we got here and will continue to into the future. I think the best times are probably right after a good war. Gas is cheaper, people have more money etc... Look at the 50s, the 60s, the 70s (and the 80s). Those appear to have been good times.“ **

Yea, but one should add here for whom they „have been good times“.

VW Sharan.

- New Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
- Self-replicating nanobots.
- Self-replicating nanobots.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

No „real real realities“ (**) ...? .... What are you talking about? Are you talking about your subjectivistic idealism again?

If such a war is caused by a nation, then by the USA - as usual.

America is not the US, America is a double continent. It is not a country or even a nation. To say „America is the US“ is an imperialistic, thus an aggressive, attacking, enslaving statement.

And the US bombs you are talking about were and are thrown in the name of the US and not in the name of the GOP.

That is not what reality is, so you should correct your definition, Jerkey.

Jerkey wrote:

„Don't count out North Korea, China, India, Iran, or ISIS, Israel, Russia, and within the next ten to twenty five years who can guess how many more nations will possess these terrible weapons.

The US was the first to use it, but has had nukes for 70+ years ....“ **

„70+ years“, exactly 71 years. But no other nation has tested bombs by throwing it on millions of humans.

Jerkey wrote:

„And hasn't used it ....“ **

Hasn't used it? Huh?

On August 6, the U.S. dropped an uranium gun-type atomic bomb (Little Boy) on Hiroshima. Three days later, on August 9, the U.S. dropped a plutonium implosion-type bomb (Fat Man) on Nagasaki. Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness and malnutrition. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizable military garrison. There are still sickness, illness, and other injuries because of that war crime.

On August 15, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war, Japan announced its surrender to the Allies.

5 - 8 dollars for 20 cigarettes (resp.: 25 - 40 cents for 1 cigarette) - that is quite expensive, especially if one compares that price with the price of the past.

He (**) did not write it like you (**) just did.

Yes.

I attack the inflation by consuming less than I would without inflation.

You (**) are also saying what it is (**), but it is wrong:

What, if the security people are outsiders?

„Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft. // .... Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint! // Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, // ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht; // Drum besser wärs, daß nichts entstünde. // So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde, // Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt, // Mein eigentliches Element.
....
Ich bin ein Teil des Teils, der anfangs alles war, // Ein Teil der Finsternis, die sich das Licht gebar, // Das stolze Licht, das nun der Mutter Nacht // Den alten Rang, den Raum ihr streitig macht. // Und doch gelingt's ihm nicht, da es, so viel es strebt, // Verhaftet an den Körpern klebt.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 64-67. **
Translation:
„I am Part of that Power which would // The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good. // .... I am the Spirit that denies! // And rightly too; for all that doth begin // Should rightly to destruction run; // 'Twere better then that nothing were begun. // Thus everything that you call Sin, // Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent - // That is my own, real element.
....
But I'm part of the Part which at the first was all, // Part of the Darkness that gave birth to Light, // The haughty Light that now with Mother Night // Disputes her ancient rank and space withal, // And yet 'twill not succeed, since, // strive as strive it may, // Fettered to bodies will Light stay.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 64-67. **

Agreed (**).

If she wanted to have the dual Russian/U.S. citizenship, she would get it.

Sometimes (sometimes!) I long for the times of the so called „cold war“. For most of us Westerners it was a pretty good time.

*Sighs*

I can guarantee you that you do not know how I feel, Turd Furguson (Troll Fakerson).

I was talking about facts. You are talking about your envy, resentment, revenge, your stupid hate.

We all know that you are a Germanhater. You are full of envy, resentment, revenge, ... and so on. I do not care. No other one is such a stupid racist like you (except your alter ego).

You think that you are representing the nation that started the most wars ever. Okay. But really you, the faker? Representing? Only because of the fact that you are an „owner“ of the US citizenship?

The next time you will „tell“ me/us the lie that you are „a German“. You, the Germanhater, are talking about Germans like Hitler, the Jewshater, did about Jews or Robespierre and his buddies as well as Lenin, Stalin, and their buddies about all „bourgeois“ humans. You must be very, very frustrated. I am sorry for you, boy.

Go to Iraq again. By the way: Tell me - one more time - how many people you have killed there.

943) Arminius, 03.11.2016, 00:39, 01:55, 03:04, 04:24, 14:21, 14:51, 15:21, 15:23, 15:43, 15:51, 16:15, 16:34, 16:46, 17:42, 19:19, 19:37, 19:52, 21:51, 22:44, 23:41 (5551-5570)

You know what the words „Herkunft“ and „Ursprung“ mean? Both words refer to the origin/s. As far as I remember, Nietzsche said something about the opposite of „Herkunft“ and „Zukunft“, because „Herkunft“ does not only mean „origin“ but also „past“, whereas „Zukunft“ always means „future“.

That needs to be explained.

Pandora wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Pandora wrote:

›By the way, Arminius could be considered to have been a sleeper agent, too.‹ **

That needs to be explained.« ** **

From this:

(Ludwig Heinrich Dyck wrote [published on 19 October 2016 in Ancient.eu]:)

»Arminius and Segimer’s goodwill was but a farce, meant to fool Varus until it was time to throw off the Roman yoke.«“ **

Well done, Pandora.

By the way: I do not see any „yoke“ here, but there seems to be a sleeper agent with a box here.

Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel's dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if it is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history (**|**), also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggles (war) remain.

Turd, I warn you.

Stop lying, faking, trolling, and stalking, you stupid pubescent racist.

Pandora wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.« ** **

I agree with this.“ **

Thanks.

Now, because there is not less but more war (=> history), the conclusion must be either (a) the trial to finish history or (b) the search for other solutions. Ending history is theoretically possible. Maybe the machines, the genetic engineering, and the cyborgization will lead us to the capability of ending history practically in the future. At the moment there is more war than ever before.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

There are different climates, different weathers, different cultures, different languages, different thoughts. So why should there not be differences in thinking systems, philosophies? There are such differences.

Of course.

Copied post in another thread.

T h e   f u l l   v e r b   „ I S “   i s   N O T   a m b i g u o u s .

According to the general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events can never affect an outside observer.

A = A is the principle of identity.

No (**). The „is“ itself can never be wrong, because ist stands for the principle of identity. What can be wrong is the use of the “is“.

Several people use the language in several ways, so some people even use the verb „is“ in a false way.

Normally, poor or incorrect judgement is and should be corrected by teaching the correct judgement. But the next question follows immediately: „What is the correct judgement?“. The only possibility we have is to keep on referring to logic, because all other possibilities can and often do lead to the misuse.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„Exactly.

What happens to a logic built on misused identifiers as well as poor judgement?“ **

It would be a logic that is very much reduced for most of the people. „Less is more“, „black is white“, „male is female“, „left is right“, „right is wrong“, „war is peace“ ... and all the other uncountable examples of the misuse of words would boom (like in Orwell's „1984“, for example). It would be like it almost already is.

All mathematics is logical, but not all logic is mathematical.

Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„Mathematics is an axiomatically complete system of deductive logic. But not all logic is maths and so maths is therefore a subset of logic.“ **

That is what I said before, yes, and in earlier posts too:

Arminius wrote:

„There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.

Mathematics is a subset of logic.

“ ** **

I found them here.

Logic is not a branch of mathematics. It is just the other way around. Mathematics is a branch of logic.

Arminius wrote:

„There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.

Mathematics is a subset of logic.

“ ** **

Why should logic be „gutted of math“?

944) Arminius, 04.11.2016, 00:34, 00:43, 01:00, 02:40, 02:51, 02:56, 03:10, 05:04, 05:26, 05:45, 05:54, 06:04, 06:14, 06:26, 17:48, 18:08, 18:14, 18:32, 18:48, 19:04, 19:17, 19:27, 19:51, 19:56, 20:07, 20:11, 21:16, 22:13, 22:17, 22:54, 23:20, 23:25, 23:44 (5571-5603)

Attano wrote:

„Congrats! you just solved the vexata quaestio of the foundation of mathematics.
I guess anything like a proof would be utterly superfluous.“ **

Thanks.

Let us compare the set „linguistics“ and its subsets with the set „sun“ and its subsets.

1)	Set:	Linguistics		2)	Set:	Sun
1,1)	Subset:	Logic		2,1)	Subset:	Hydrogen
1,1,1)	Subsubset:	Mathematics		2,2)	Subsubset:	Helium
1,1,2)	Subsubset:	Others		2,3)	Subsubset:	Others

Question: What happens if you take the hydrogen away from the sun?
Answer: The sun becomes bigger because of the helium burning.

If there were no mathematics, then logic would use linguistics instead of mathematics (like the logic of children, especially of little children, does).

Jerkey.

Observe your little grandchildren when they try to calculate in a really mathematical way for the first time. You should find out that they use language and a bit later also their fingers in order to come closer and closer to the real mathematics.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„Zero is the problem.“ **

No.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„What is 1,3) Subset: Others _ _ _ _ | | 2,3) Subset: Others _ _ |?“ **

It is negligible, irrelevant for the matter we are talking about here.

Jerkey wrote:

„The point being, that math is a construction through perception, logic developed through a project(ion), the way I do observe my grandchildren, they slowly learn the concept from seeing individual things, then conceive of the singular through a project of comparison. It is not an inherent ability ....“ **

It is, but not only.

Jerkey wrote:

„It is a construction of meaning, where the language comes first, then the logic of language.“ **

Yes and no, because it has two directions.

Philippine president declares separation from the US (**).

What are you talking about?

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„Are you avoiding my issue with zero?“ **

No.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„Zero is the problem for 0 does not exist, we just try to fabricate its' existence to feel in control. Try any »real logic« and it does not reduce to zero.“ **

Zero (null, nil, naught) can be defined. It is a special number. We work with it mathematically - similar to the fact that we work with the nothingness logically.

There is a difference between that which does not exist and humans who do not know whether it exists. But regardless whether it exists or not, in any case it can be linguistically described.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„A lkjfncweopfij3egih exists but are you helped by it in a significant way?“ **

No, unless it had a meaning, and, interestingly, it is possible that it has a meaning.

It is not my hamster wheel, but, maybe, the hamster wheel itself. It exists!

No (**). They are no worthless definitions. At least not to me - but seemingly to you.

By the way: What's the time in Iowa? My guess: 23:14.

Okay, Nonsensical Mungo. It is time for me to go to bed. Does time exist to you?

Howsoever.

Good night.

„Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ - Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1922.
Translation:
„Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.“ - Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1922.

Oh, I have proven my point here - even several times. But (as I have said also several times here): You (**) are obviously not capable of reading.

Do you know what I do, if I find a thread idiotic and claims ridiculous? I ignore that thread. So you are obviously lying here again, because you are always posting in this thread.

Go and look for another thread (as I have said also several times here to you).

Yes (**). Exactly.

And many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point.

Yes (**). At least not really. And if pain has ever been „the compass of morality“, then for rhetorical reasons.

Your statement (**) is merely religious, theological, pantheistical. Stop referring to your god(s). Try to leave your false god Darwin and the 19th century. In addition: Darwin is not the issue in this thread.

Both the Clintons and the Trumps are so much corrupt that, regardless who will be selected in a few days, the wars will go on and become more. But when it comes to more precision one has to say that the Clintons are more corrupt than the Trumps.

Most of the people who live outside from the U.S. usually tend to like the „democratic“ party. But they have very different reason for their tendency than US citizens have.

Pandora wrote:

„I question her (Melania’s) loyalties. At least, Hillary was born and raised American. She may be corrupt but she can't be easily played by a foreign government. Melania is just an opportunistic gold digger who likes to show off, and her true loyalties are unclear. What has she done to show that she actually cares about America, and not just herself? Has she done anything in her life to show that she has the ability to serve American people?

Keep showing off, Melania:

“ **

The man in the car is Donald Trump.

The „eastern/analytic mix“ or, if it exists, a „southern/analytic mix“ is always an „offset„ („offshoot“, „cutting“, „layer“, „scion“) of the western - exactly northwestern (because it is both western and northern) - analytic tradition.

Copied post in another thread.

Show me a real example where pain has been „the compass of morality“ (except for rhetorical reasons).

(Dieser Eintrag wurde gelöscht.)

First this:

Carleas wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Pain has never been the compass of morality.« **

I agree that this should be the case, but Millian utilitarianism is strongly focused on the reduction of suffering.“ **

Then this:

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Pain has never been the compass of morality.‹ **

Yes. At least not really. And if pain has ever been ›the compass of morality‹, then for rhetorical reasons.« ** **

This is pretty clearly overstated.“ **

So something „should be the case“ (Carleas) and, if it is, it is „pretty clearly overstated“ (Carleas) to you. That is odd. You either (a) want that „overstated“ things „should be the case“ or (b) you are contradicting yourself here.

Carleas wrote:

„I don't see anything wrong with (a). It should be the case, but it isn't, and to say that it is as strongly as you have is to overstate things.“ **

But it is not overstated to say that „pain has never been the compass of morality“ (**) and „if pain has ever been »the compass of morality«, then for rhetorical reasons“ (**|**), because it is a fact that it is used rhetorically.

Pain has either (a) never been the compass of morality or (b) if it has been, then as a fake, namely for rhetorical reasons (almost everywhere, especially in the media).

Yes (**). That is how it works - and with an increasing success.

Sorry (**), that was not my intention.

The FBI works for the GOP?

Yes (**). The title of this thread and its opening post smells like conspiracy theory.

So many posts! And all posted by you?

945) Arminius, 05.11.2016, 03:00, 13:14, 14:24, 18:55, 19:21, 19:35, 19:43, 19:48, 20:02, 20:26, 20:42, 20:54, 21:19, 22:00, 22:01, 22:34, 23:07, 23:16, 23:29, 23:59 (5604-5623)

Carleas.

Why have you deleted my post?

I mean the following one which you quoted (**):

Copied post in another thread.

Kriswest wrote:

„There is nothing wrong with dual citizenship. at least her's is legitimate and not made up. And really seriously if a wealthy person goes to places and hangs out with poor and marries a poor ,, well that would be frigging odd and I would question that.
I am more worried about Clinton's connections.“ **

Yes.

Kriswest wrote:

„Trump is just damn clumsy but intelligent.“ **

Trump is clumsy - yes.

But Trump is intelligent too - yes.

Trump has less political experience than the so-called „career politician“ have.

Not only most people outside of the United States but also most people inside of the United States are too dumb or gullible for what you just said. The difference are the different locations, which means that there are different interests in different regions and different influences in different regions. For example: European expectations towards the United States are others than the expaectations of the people of the United States towards the United States.

@ Pandora

Wikipedia wrote:

„Melania Trump (born Melanija Knavs; April 26, 1970; also previously known as Melania Knauss) [Germanized]) is a former model ....“ **

Maybe her current „model-driven“ behavior has just no other reason than her early modeling career. She started it when she was about 17 years old.

Thanks for the information (**). Is this thread merely meant for you, yourself, and your „I“?

Hahaha wrote

„I see future feminists and lesbians all across the planet cheering when reproduction no longer requires a male. When all of this goes on Arminius watch also all the different social or political movements going on.“ **

Yes. But females are also no longer required for the reproduction then. It will become more factual / practical than it is today (technically it is already possible).

You (**) mean that they need to become something like a social clump (=> RM:AO). Right?

Hahaha wrote:

„It has been theorized that artificial intelligence concerning androids would have one huge group collective consciousness. Star Trek with the Borg illustrated this possibility real well I think.

That's what separates humans from A.I. I think. We do not think, act, or behave under one hive mind of collective consciousness.“ **

That is a huge problem, yes. Therefore my suggestion in my last post: The machines have to become more hominid, thus android, and the humans have to become more mechanical, thus cyborgical. An even then, we will not know whether it will be successful or not.

The machines have to become more hominid, thus android, and the humans have to become more mechanical, thus cyborgical.

Wikipedia wrote:

„The simulation hypothesis contends that reality is in fact a simulation (most likely a computer simulation), of which we, the simulants, are totally unaware. Some versions rely on the development of simulated reality, a fictional technology. The hypothesis has been a central plot device of many science fiction stories and films.
....
There is a long philosophical and scientific history to the underlying thesis that reality is an illusion. This skeptical hypothesis can be traced back to antiquity; for example, to the »Butterfly Dream« of Zhuangzi (Zhuang Zhou, Chuang Chou), or the Indian philosophy of Maya.“

- East of Eden (Arbus, Caines, Nicholson, Britton), Jig a Jig, 1971.

I might have known it.

- Can (Schmitt, Liebezeit, Czukay, Karoli, Suzuki), Spoon, 1971.

Are you still dancing?

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, [Abrahams, Bunker, Cornick,] Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Living in the Past, 1972 (1968-1971).

Oh, I am sorry (**).

This thread (**) reminds me a bit of another thread (**).

Okay (**), but I do not know where to begin.

If „the devil is God“, or „Christ is the Antichrist“, or the like, then it just means that the whole world of those who believe in God resp. in Christ has been turned upside down, has been defeated.

Wait.

946) Arminius, 06.11.2016, 00:08, 00:23, 04:15, 04:45, 15:11, 15:48, 15:53, 16:00, 16:13, 16:20, 16:27, 16:37, 17:03, 18:02, 18:16, 18:40, 18:56, 22:45, 23:05, 23:18, 23:37, 23:47, 23:53, 23:57 (5624-5643)

I did not say that he said that God and the Devil were the same.

Because you posted that, I post this:

- Trio (Remmler, Krawinkel, Behrens), Live im Beatclub, 1982.

Like I said:

You (**) are full of envy, resentment, revenge.

It is always the same with you.

You must be very, very frustrated. I am sorry for you, boy.

The man in that picture seems to shout for Carleas: „Please lock this thread!“

I am not old. And when I named you (**) „boy“ I did not mean your real age, because I know how old you are. I meant your developmental age. Your developmental age is an age of a pubescent boy.

I was talking to Jerkey here, not to you (I never start talking to you - but you are not capabable of noticing it), and then you started your attacks against my person (see: page 1).

You are trolling everywhere, thus also in your own thread, as everyone can see. And you are always beginning it by using ad hominems, as everyone can see. It is always the same.

Therefore the name Troll Fakerson is one of the proper names you should request for. I mean this thread, your own thread which you have derailed, is called „Name Change Request“.

Is there anybody in the U.S. who does not want to nuke?

Yes (**), full of envy, resentment, revenge, hate, and megalomania - always trolling and faking.

You think your username name should have somemething to do with me? Am I so important for you?

Then I suggest that you should request for the username Ad Hominem.

There are many ILP members who would support that. But, unfortunately, many of them have already gone - because of your personal attacks against them (one of many examples is Zinnat).

Maybe the username Zinnat has become free now, so that you can request for that username and, by the way, use Zinnat’s avatar too, if it is allowed.

She (**) is a member of a small party, and that makes her interesting. But that does not mean that she does not want to nuke.

Yes (**), that is right. But maybe he could try to start learning a bit.

Do you have any suggestion where I can start (with)?

That (**) seems to be true, unfortunately, or should we hope that it will become untrue?

They started at places like this one (** [Trio im Jugendzentrum Bramsche, 1981]) ....

And they ended at places like this one (** [„Keine Sterne in Athen“, 1986]) ....

They started with a mix of dada and minimalism rock / punk, and ended with pure pop music - unfortunately.

- City (Krahl, Puppel, Gogow, Selmke), Am Fenster, 1978.

Copied post in another thread.

Another Batman and another Robin: **.

There are many Batmans and Robins in the world.

Thanks, Iambiguos (**).

No (**). But is it really true? Think of technique / technics /technology / engineering (maybe that not all four words are the proper words, but I mean the practical side of science, especially medicine, engineering industry, ... and os on).

Okay (**).

Carleas wrote:

„So Singer's inclusion of animals as moral beings on the basis of their ability to feel pain is not really about pain?“ **

This would be a false conclusion. I did not say that it was „not really about pain“. But the point is that you can refer to real pain and - simultaneously - refer to morality without any real connection (but with many ideal resp. rhetorical connections, for example: fallacies on purpose) between the two.

Carleas wrote:

„What's is his real reason?“ **

There are many reasons.

Whom do you mean by the word „he“ here?

The ruler decides via politics, corruption.

That (**) is a very good quote too. I like it very much.

947) Arminius, 07.11.2016, 16:54, 18:00, 18:09, 18:14, 18:18, 18:21, 18:28, 18:44, 18:57, 19:00, 19:10, 19:14, 19:17, 19:22, 20:04, 20:05, 20:21, 20:26, 20:39, 20:43, 21:01, 21:03, 21:15, 21:38, 21:50, 22:00, 22:32, 22:58, 22:59, 23:21, 23:34, 23:43, 23:57 (5647-5679)

You are lying again.

I am not a nationalist. But you are a nationalist, even more: You are a racist.

And Cezar („Historyboy“) is not my „follower“ - if he was, then you would also be my follower, because you have very much in common with him. You are just not able to admit this. Your former username „Contra-Nietzsche“ does also stand for the fact that you are a faker. Allegedly you are a Christian. But that is also a fake, at least a fake of about 80%. You are a palaeoconservative nationalist and racist. If you substract Nietzsche's agitation against Christians, then it should become obvious to you that you are a Nietzschean, although a Nietzschean-who-hates-Nietzscheans. As everyone can verify: I directed all my earliest ILP posts against Cezar’s nonsense and kept doing this till he left.

I had not much to do with Zinnat, some posts here, some posts there. Your ad hominems caused his leaving. And you got a warning for your racist ad hominems. You are obviously looking for your next warning.

And you did post in my threads. Everyone can verify that. I have posted in mereley a few of your threads. Most of your threads are boring - only fakes, lies, ad hominems, provocations, and yellow press „stories“ (and almost always too long - how boring!), and that is what you call „history“ and „philosophy“. It is so boring. I have never started to talk to you here on ILP. You are always the one who starts to talk to me. Obviously for several reasons, but the main reasons have always been ad hominems and the fact that you are a very hateful racist.

You may use as much excuses as you want. You will never be able to change the facts.

The problem you had with Zinnat, for example, was not that he had done something wrong or evil. It was just the other way around. You are the one who has done almost everything wrong and evil, especially by using ad hominems against Zinnat and many others (including me). In addition: You used Zinnat's avatar and many insulting words against him - the conesequence was that you got a warning for that. You obviously think that you are the sheriff of ILP - but you are not. It is only your megalomania that makes you think this.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Abrahams, Bunker, Cornick), This Was, 1968.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Bunker, Cornick, Barre), Stand Up, 1969.

- Led Zeppelin (Plant, Page, Bonham, Jones), Led Zeppelin I, 1969.

- Led Zeppelin (Plant, Page, Bonham, Jones), Led Zeppelin II, 1969.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Bunker, Cornick, Barre), Benefit, 1970.

- Led Zeppelin (Plant, Page, Bonham, Jones), Led Zeppelin III, 1970.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Bunker, Barre, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Aqualung, 1971.

- Led Zeppelin (Plant, Page, Bonham, Jones), Led Zeppelin IV, 1971.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, [Abrahams, Bunker, Cornick,] Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Living in the Past, 1972 (1968-1971).

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Thick as a Brick, 1972.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), A Passion Play, 1973.

- Led Zeppelin (Plant, Page, Bonham, Jones), Houses of the Holy, 1973.

- Richard Strauss, Also sprach Zarathustra, 1896.

Iambiguous wrote:

„An ironist however recognizes the futility of actually resolving a question like this.

Obviously, there are scientists who, in pursuing a particular task, give hardly a second thought to the practical implications of whatever conclusion they might come to. They are simply driven to discover that which either is or is not true regarding a phenomenon they have an interest in.

Still, others scientists, in being employed by a particular corporation or the Defense Department or NASA etc., are all about the practical applications of their research/experiments. Either to make a buck or to sustain what they construe to be in the interest of America's »national security«.“ **

Yes. Scientists need money for their researches. Therefore they become more and more dependent, thus non-scientists.

Iambiguous wrote:

„Which just takes me back to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And yet, again, as an ironist, I would never try to argue that others are obligated to think the same.

Value judgments are in my view [in more or less significant ways] existential fabrications/contraptions.“ **

I can agree with that.

Can you (**) name some purists?

It is possible that he (**) will win the US election in 2020, because it is possible that he will have been thrown out of his country then.

Yes (**), that is right.

I said „he will be“ and not „he is“. But it is also possible that he has alraedy thrown his country out of him. All Russian and Soviet leaders have thrown their country out of them.

Jerkey (**), is that true?

Our leaders of the party „Die Grünen“ („The Greens“) told the same lies during the 1970's and 1980's. And then in the 1990's they have been telling other lies, because they had been becoming the loudest warmongers.

Jerkey wrote:

„I am voting for Hilary because She is the only workable choice.“ **

Then you are voting for the nuclear war, Jerkey.

Let's talk about the question whether the simulation hypothesis resp. the simulationism has much in common with Platon's idealism (Platonism, Neo-Platonism, ... and so on).

I am merely telling you some facts. An example is the war in the former Yugoslavia during almost the whole 1990's.

You can shut all your holes of your body: the truth is that there are too many warmongers.

She is a member of a green party, and the members of all green parties around the world are interconncted with each other. Did you not notice that? Try to leave the 19th century and to arrive in the 21st century. Welcome to the globalistic world!

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„You know, when I tell someone to vote for The Greens, they tell me »No, because they are too pacifist ....«“ **

Yes, and that was also the case in Germany during the 1970's and 1980's.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Now you say »Greens do too much warmongering, aren't pacifist enough.«“ **

Yes. I say that, because it is true. Unfortunately.

At the moment the green party in the U.S. is not strong enough to become a serious competitor. So that party tries to appear more likeable - it has to get more votes from the people. But if it will have votes enough, then you will see that it is a party like the other parties or even worse.

- Deodato, Also sprach Zarathustra, 1973.

Copied post in another thread.

Wikipedia wrote:

„Stein has stated that the Democratic and Republican parties are »two corporate parties« that have converged into one. Concerned by the rise of fascism internationally and the rise of neoliberalism within the Democratic Party, she has said, »The answer to neofascism is stopping neoliberalism«.“ **

I did not say either that there was such a „single case of any war“. Are you not capable of reading? I said something about historical examples, and that, because of the fact that green parties are interconnected, you can expect this for your country too, but not at the moment. At the moment your green party appears likeable. Why are you so slow on the uptake, man?

The two party system in your country prevents that another party can win an election. As long as that happens, the green party has no chance to win an election, so it must - and will - remain pacifistic.

We do not have to talk about lies here, because all politicians lie.

Concernig warmongers I was talking about the Greens in Europe (in Europe!) - not in the U.S.!

Concerning the U.S. Greens, I said something about „likeable“ and „pacifistic“ Greens! Do you remember? But we have the historical example of the Greens in Germany that shows what you will have to expect in the near future, if (and only if) the Green Party in the U.S. will get a chance (and that is currenly not the case).

Yes, this also reminds me of the 1970's and 1980's in Germany when the established parties said the Greens wanted to go back to the Stone Age (cp. „back to nature“ [Rousseau, quoted by Kant]), and the result was always that the Greens had no chance to get power. The experiences the Green Party in the U.S. is currenly making are very similar to those of the Green Party in Germany during the 1970's and 1980's.

Thanks for that example, Jerkey.

948) Arminius, 08.11.2016, 03:30, 03:40, 03:50, 03:57, 04:42, 14:23, 14:39, 15:12, 15:28, 16:00, 16:52, 17:15, 17:16, 17:19, 17:20, 17:21, 17:26, 18:11, 18:23, 19:21 (5680-5699)

Copied post in another thread.

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana, 1937. **

Copied post in another thread.

- Frank Zappa, Jazz-Rock Jamboree (in Budapest), 1991.

By the way: One can try to apply the dialectic process to Hegel’s dialectic itself. If we say that Hegel’s dialectic is anti-analytic and the analytic philosophy anti-dialectic, then there are thesis and antithesis in two ways, but we do not really know which one of them starts at first as thesis. Starting at first is an advantage. So which one is the one with that advantage? If we will never know this, then we will have to state that both remain just opposites, because it would be unfair to say this or that one starts at first. But, in that case, it is also problematic to say what the synthesis is. The first one (thesis) with the advantage will always say that the second one (antithesis) is somehow „false“ or „evil“, so that the first one will always make a major contribution to the synthesis.

Yes, the „electing“ people do not count, because those who should be „elected“ by them are already elected by a few others.

My point is that it is not theoretically decidable who is on first, because, apparently, that decision is given by history (resp. evolution) itself, and that means by powerful people (resp. nature).

Dialectic processes are not nonsense, because they really happen. So they are, philosophically said, ontological, thus not only logical.

Pain belongs to life, yes, but it is also true that life, especially in the case of human beings, tries to reduce or overcome pain, for example by taking drugs, by inventing, implementing, applying medicine.

What do you (**) mean by that symbol? Pi with a tilde under its „head“?

War requires weapons. Either they are part of the body, or they need to be made resp. bought from someone else. So war is a business too. This means that war becomes more and more lucrative and that nobody of the big war business has an interest in giving it up.

Especially in modern times the contradiction between the war business of a very few people and the wish of living in peace and harmony of the most people is very obvious. So the rhetorical lies are on top, since the few people of the war business are powerful, whereas the most people are powerless.

One of the most interesting questions is: What was first: war and disharmony or peace and harmony?

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

You need sunglasses? - No. **

You? In more than seven billion years?

Good luck (**)! **

949) Arminius, 09.11.2016, 00:26, 00:30, 00:30, 02:43, 16:43 (5700-5704)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Neither came first. There was no first.

Is there a difference between Hegel's »dialectic« and »compromise«?“ **

Compromise, yes, and the result of war or of struggle can also be interpreted as compromise.

But it would still be interesting to know the first one ..., if there was one.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The body and all objects are always making decisions (in a metaphorical sense). The bodies would simply atrophy ... deciding on the lack of need.“ **

Absolutely.

This „need-deciding-system“ can also be called „program“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And the reason that heat death can never actually occur is the following eternal, unavoidable process:

“ **

Nice videos. Well done.

You (**) misunderstood me here again.

I am saying that „it is not possible to completely avoid corruption“ (in general!) and you are talking about „mayors“. I was not talking about something in special (e.g. mayors) but about something in general: corruption (in general!). And in that general case, it is relatively irrelevant whether mayors are also corrupt or not, although they sometimes or even often are (it depends on their social environment, its culture, its political structure).

Corruption map:

....

The governments are parts of the big gangs.

Jerkey wrote:

„There is no first , but there is prior, a-Priori, Which signifies the source of thought as deriving from deduction or observation.

Even if observation precedes a deduction, there no method to determine in the sense of temporal succession.

However, the connotative derivation obfuscates this distinction.“ **

But most humans always place something (e.g. „Big Bang“) or someone (e.g. God) at the beginning. So according to most humans this placed one came first. Let us take the following example for a dialectic process in a religious and theological sense: (1) the thesis God came first, (2) the antithesis Devil was the second one who came, (3) the synthesis Man came as the thrid one. If we exchange the first one (thesis God) and and the second one (antithesis Devil) for each other, then we will pretty soon notice that the third one (synthesis Man) would have other properties than in the first example.

So we better should assume that there was neither a first one nor a second one, but both existed already at that time which we want to be the first time or the beginning of time?!?. They were, are, and will be in conflict with each other. And it is up to the third one - the synthesis - (as „the smiling third“?) to make the best of it, e.g. to gain from the polemic, the struggle, the war of the first and the second one?!?. Good for the human rulers ....

950) Arminius, 10.11.2016, 01:39, 01:56, 02:28 (5705-5707)

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„I am supposed to believe a Corruption Map made by the Corrupt? Laugh.

It's obvious the map was made by Hillary Clinton shills who wanted to make Russia look bad.“ **

No.

If you have made the Hegel's dialectic your own and are powerful enough, then you can do with the less powerful people whatever you want. You just play the historical game called „dialectic process“ by using them like chess-men.

The physics of relativity and the quantum physics seem to refer to two different realities. At least, they are not really compatible.

==>