<= [401][402][403][404][405][406][407][408][409][410] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
401) Arminius, 16.03.2014, 00:34, 00:55, 01:00, 01:54, 02:07, 02:11, 14:26, 14:43, 16:33 (770-778)
Has the internet had its day?Maybe that there will be an »internetian« colosseum - otherwise there is no constructive future for the internet because we've got many comparisons and analogies, for example: every kind of bread-and-games-techniques or (as an occidental not-old-example) telephone, radio, television in their significance for the behaviour of the people (humans) and their relationship to each other. All this shows us the goal.In short: the internet has and will have no harmonious future.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, thats right, but it got spelled differently only to the Romans, not to the English because the English at that time were Germans (at home in the north-west of Germany).You know much about linguistics (especially phonetics). Well done!
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, but what would an honest government be, if the basic for government is only lie?
James S. Saint wrote:
Los Angeles did get its name from the Spanish conquerors. The story of the Angels seems to be a retrospectively constructed old-testament-story.James S. Saint wrote:
Interesting! It fits to the retrospectively constructed old-testament-story (=> Jewish story) because that Angels of Hollywood were / are (mostly) Jews.
James S. Saint wrote:The Aristocracy and Royal Families are merely Apes with secrets.But now:
James S. Saint wrote:
Please some more words, because that's the topic here.
James S. Saint wrote:
The English lived - as Angeln (Angels) and as Sachsen (Saxons) - in the north-west of Germany, namlely in a part, which is called Altsachsen or Niedersachsen (Nether Saxony = Lower Saxony and Netherlands), and in a part, which is called Angeln (a part of Schleswig-Holstein). The land which was called Germania by the Latins was probably the »land of small tribes« from which we got the word »germ«, as you have said, but nevertheless: There was an actual Germany at that time, when this land was called Germania by the Latins, because the Germans referred to themselves as a community of fate, although they often (which also means: not at any time) were at odds with themselves. So the Germans referred to themselves sometimes as Germans and sometimes not - as they still do.
Altsachsen = Old Saxony
Just as the globalist economics, politics, technology, science, art etc. already arrived in dictatorship or will arrive soon, so it is and will be with the internet too. |
402) Arminius, 17.03.2014, 03:08 (779)
Insightfoul wrote:
And she also wants to be a cowboy, a digger, a boxer, and a weightlifter ! |
403) Arminius, 18.03.2014, 00:12, 00:50, 01:13, 01:32, 01:39, 02:09, 04:36, 05:19, 15:57, 16:57, 20:44 (780-790)
Only Humean wrote:
No! It is not useful!Liberalism and egalitarism are antagonists, extreme enemies. Each of both leads to its contrary. Each struggle (against the other and against itself) leads to anarchy, very much anarchy, which can only be stopped temporariliy (!) by another modern totalitarianism, another dictatorship: the synthesis of liberalism and egalitarism. But this another dictatorship leads also to anarchy - merely just later. At last only monarchy is able to end the anarchy, otherwise there is no survival because at last anarchy only means death, and thus leads to death. This shows us the history, especially the history of the Imperium Romanum.James S. Saint wrote:
No!James S. Saint wrote:
Nobody!
Why are the most posts send by cowards?Only Mithus has answered Insightfoul's questions (**), and only James S. Saint has tried to understand Insightfoul's statements (**).Insightfoul wrote:
And for egalitarians as well. Both - liberalism and egalitarism - are fighting each other, and each of them fights itself. That is stupid and hardly to change.Their results are similar because of there contradictions. .... Oxymoron.
James S. Saint wrote:
I do not know your bible, What ist it?
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
Excuse me, but what is a sockpuppet in the language of the Internet? Is it a kind of drug? I really don't know.
James S. Saint wrote:
Thank you very much, James!Now I know what it is, and I think I have probably found a sockpuppet: Mr. Reasonable. Mr. Reasonable knows what all and everyone know and think, because he said: Everyone knows what you're saying they just think it's a little bland and repetitive and it's all based on unfounded assertions. (Mr. Reasonable **). Propably Mr. Reasonable is saying only what they want (James S. Saint), then he ist a sockpuppet of everyone and all, because Mr. Reasonable knows what they know, think, and want. So either Mr. Reasonable is a sockpuppet of everyone and all, or everyone and all are sockpuppets of Mr. Reasonable. Probably not the latter.
James S. Saint wrote:
Are you sure?
Ecclesiastes wrote:
No! That is not right. Wikipedia is not neutral.
James S. Saint wrote:
What do you exactly mean with that story? Which reference does the word that have in your text (or context?) ?
Only Humean wrote:
Okay, but it is also counterproductive, if nobody is answering questions which are asked by the person, who has opened a thread an has asked again and again the questions which belong to this thread.It doesn't primarily matter who the person ist, but here in this thread it is shown that the most posting people always refer merely to the person and not to the topic which is set in the thread. And that behavior of those most posting people here is counterproductive!
Only Humean wrote:
Others are also a logically stable dictatorship, but not in this case! Monarchy has not had a bad run in the last 200 years, and the most governments which called themselves monarchies, were not really monarchies. Is the British monarchy really a monarchy? No!It is a question of time (age, epoch, zeitgeist etc.), space (landscape, region etc.), and people of this time and space, whether anarchies can be replaced by monarchies or not. Anarchy can also be replaced by oligarchy or democracy, but in almost the best case it is replaced by monarchy because anarchy is - as well as chaos - the opposite to order, and after many, many years of chaos the people want order.The best for the actual rulers is to wait until the western world and probably even the whole world will be absolutely delivered to anarchy.Only Humean wrote:
There is no problem with the logic, and many philosophers have written about the forms of government and their historical return, e.g.: Aristoteles, Polybios, Poseidonios, Ibn Chaldun, G. Vico, Karl Friedrich Vollgraff, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald A. G. Spengler, to name only the most important.
Olduvai-Theorie **Have you heard about the Olduvai Theory?You will be transfered back into the Stone Age within a very short time! Then you will probably not ask, whether such a theory is false or not, is a lie or not, is a cheating or not, is a artificially produced crisis or not, is only a profit for the winner of this artificially produced crisis or not, is the hell on earth or not? But already yesterday was the time, and especially now is the time for asking this. |
404) Arminius, 19.03.2014, 00:40, 02:43, 03:24, 03:32, 04:18, 18:19, 20:10, 21:59 (791-798)
James S. Saint wrote:
This is exactly what I have been saying my whole life.James, you have stolen my words! Where did you find my words? Why did you make my text to your text?
Ecclesiastes wrote:
Teachers are not capitalists, but officers or clerks and thus in most cases socialists. If the teacher took this picture for the purpose of horniness, which means in left speech: for the purpose of profit, it would be indicated that teachers and other officers and clerks are capitalists (in left speech) - as well as the whole state, especially the social state is an exploiting system. The more eaglitarism (communism, socialism etc.) grows the more it acts like its antagonist: the liberalism. And the more liberalism grows the more it acts like its antagonist: the egalitarism. For both there will be no way out. They are going to play their game until the end - assuming that there will be no catastrophe, e.g. a natural or economic catastrophe (with war, civil war etc.) - and that means: anarchy.Will mankind be able to survive? That's the question.If human beeings will survive, there would be an new beginning, probably with a monarchal form of government. If human beings will not survive, it would be possible that the most of the other higher living beings will also not survive.Such a future in mind should encourage us.But for this we don't need socialistic or liberalistic rulers, bankers, politicians, scientists, taechers, policemen, therapists etc. because we don't need an exploiting system with more and more corruption.
James S. Saint wrote:
Perhaps it depends on, how old our bibles are, how old our related theories and thoughts are, how old we are?Who and/or what is older?
James S. Saint wrote:
Thats right, James.
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
The problem is merely, that we don't have enough power to decide whether there is enough oil or other sources of energy, and to decide to inform the mass of the people about that.So the problem is more a question of power and less a problem of having enough ernergy for the mass of the people. If the rulers don't want the mass of the people to have enough energy, then the mass of the people doesn't have enough ernergy - and that's it. The power is the first thing and the availability of energy for the mass of the people merely the second or third or ....
James S. Saint wrote:
In this case the term »to wait« includes the term »to stage« because the rulers can stage and wait whatever and whenever they want. They can play God. There is no »better way«, James, isn't it?
Try to think ....
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, of course, that is possible. .... The results are different. |
405) Arminius, 20.03.2014, 00:28, 00:57, 01:28, 02:45, 14:40, 15:04, 15:54, 16:25, 19:45 (799-807)
James S. Saint wrote:
Before you redesign women, you have to influence men and women successfully, and this means, in your words, you have to cause the play to begin.
Anti-racists are more racist than racists.Anti-racists always have to refer to racist, racists, and racism. They wouldn't exist, if there is no racist. Their existence depends on racist, racists, and racism.
James S. Saint wrote:
If that noise doesn't find its way out (the other side), a black hole would have no gravity at all? Has that anything to do with a medium?
Gib wrote:
And who is the very nice young man with the white skin and the white or light blonde hair (see: your avatar) ?
@ (Non-)Historyboy ** ** **As you said:You have a personal, an absolutely personal problem with the northern, north-western and central Europeans - just like your idols, your false gods had, especially your main idol, your main false god Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.I have read Vollgraff too and come to the conclusion, that he can be interpreted in a completely different way than you always interpret (more: construe) him.P.S.: Your drugs are your idols, your false gods, and your main drug is your main idol, your main false god.Other drugs were not meant (as approximately 99% of the readers here know).And please, boy, stop crying for your motherator at every opportunity.
James S. Saint wrote:
It is for instance that what Pythagoras said in the 6th and 5th century B.C..
You are a Pythagorean, James!
Gib wrote:
And Ed agreed?
I hope too. Maybe I am Ed. .... No, I am not Ed.
(Non-)Historyboy wrote:
You know nothing about races and nothing about the Germans.Europeans are a race, also known as the white race. Race is a genetical / biological term.Germans are not mixed.Like I said: It's not an objective, but a subjective problem, because it's your own, your personal problem. You don't want X to be be Y because you want X to be Z. You want that! You! Nobody else, except your false gods, especially your main false god.Mixed people are the French, Italians, Spanish (Spaniards), Portuguese because of the German conquerors in ancient and early medieval times, and also most of the South-East-Europeans and some North-Africans and also because of the German conquerors in ancient and early medieval times, besides the East-Europeans as well because of the German conquerors in medieval times.That is history, my Non-historyboy.Today Europe in its northern, west-northern, western, central, west-southern, southern parts is mixed by the immigrant population; and this immigrant population is comparable to the recent immigrant population (Hispanics) in the USA.
|
406) Arminius, 21.03.2014, 00:12, 01:05, 01:17, 03:04, 15:08, 15:21, 16:08, 20:21, 21:09 (808-816)
James S. Saint wrote:
Ok, the theory of aether isn't up to date, I know, but maybe it will be as it was until Einstein's theory of relativity.What do you think about the theory of strings? The theory of strings is again more like the Pythagorean theory.Which natural force is the most basic one? By the current state of physics the gravity is the most basic force of nature, but there is much evidence that it isn't the gravity, but the electromagnetism.
(Non-)Historyboy wrote:
What nonsense!Are you a child? |
810 |
This is me (more than 2000 years ago): |
This is me too (later): |
811 |
812 |
813 |
If you could say a single truth you would do it by now. Obviously your registration on this forum is very subjective.
I don't discuss with unknown people. It is too creepy. **
I see ... moderator .... **
Minimally 75% of all people are decadents(all women and men at least until the age of 20 and from 60 on). **
Cezar? He's back! **
Cezar .... I suppose its akin to that lady of the petite-nobility who adopted you as a pet and taught you the ways of your nobility. **
Stupid Americans are collapsing the entire fucking world. **
Interesting, CN, ..., but if historyboy is Cezar then why does he act like he doesn't know you? **
I think ..., not discussing anything is also a right that shall be sanctioned by the moderators **
Unless I'm not under another name, this is my only identity .... **
Maybe I'll request a Christian username on this forum .... **
What about Christian Overman, wouldn't that be a fun name ...? **
I'll let his use Christian Overman, it was a scam used to toy with the Nietzscheans, especially Taz.
He pretends like he doesn't know me because he's had his butt handed to me several times in the past, if he deals with me head on he faces more lost of face.
Historyboy was a persona on Nietzscheforum I forgot all about. It's definitely Cezar, just he can't log into his old account. He hasn't done anything wrong in making a new account if the administer of the site is reluctant to help him get back into it for privacy reasons.
However, this is definitely Cezar.
I've been thinking of dedicating a small video to Nietzsche's thought on YouTube to Cezar ... with a cat walking on its legs beneath it.
I missed you Cezar .... **
Cezar, culture depreciates on the flip of a coin, nothing depreciates faster without massive overlaying of ritual. Ritual is tactical thought with a strategic mindset forced into the unconscious.
Technical thought dominates currently. The capacity to infinitely reorient to new art, ideas, landmarks, philosophies is instant and perishable. **
814 |
Arminius wrote:
»The theory of strings is again more like the Pythagorean theory.« **
How so? **
815 |
816 |
Ro(me) + (Ger)man = Roman. |
407) Arminius, 22.03.2014, 03:19, 05:00, 05:43, 16:33, 20:50, 21:22, 22:33, 22:50 (817-824)
Uccisore wrote:
If the premise is that women are more peaceful than men, the conclusion will be that female leaders would lead us to a better world. But be careful! If the premise is false, the conclusion will be false too. The premise that women are more peaceful than men is false, and the conclusion that female leaders would lead us to a better world is false too. The premise has not been proved (and besides: the antithetic one has not been disproved). And the Stone-Age-Society is no example for a propf, (even more one for a disproof). Jail stats (**) are also no example for proof. So female leaders would not lead us to a better world - quite contrary to. There will be merely one more kind of war which never has been seen: gender war (sexes war, sexistic war). The worst case!Mithus wrote:
Yes, that's right. And the president of the United States is also a puppet on a string. Anyway: Politicians are not the most powerful human beeings. The most powerful human beeings are others, and they are male leaders, and they are extremely paternalistic (patriarchal). They are not against female politicians, but they are against female leaders.
Like I said: In many cases Vollgraff is wrong, some of his assumptions are false. **There are many German words in the French language - of course. You don't know anything about linguistics / philology.There are three kinds of linguistic contact:1.)
Superstratum (in German: Superstrat), |
819 |
You are a liar. **
Unless I'm not under another name, this is my only identity .... **
Maybe I'll request a Christian username on this forum .... **
What about Christian Overman, wouldn't that be a fun name ...? **
I'll let his use Christian Overman, it was a scam used to toy with the Nietzscheans, especially Taz.
He pretends like he doesn't know me because he's had his butt handed to me several times in the past, if he deals with me head on he faces more lost of face.
Historyboy was a persona on Nietzscheforum I forgot all about. It's definitely Cezar, just he can't log into his old account. He hasn't done anything wrong in making a new account if the administer of the site is reluctant to help him get back into it for privacy reasons.
However, this is definitely Cezar.
I've been thinking of dedicating a small video to Nietzsche's thought on YouTube to Cezar ... with a cat walking on its legs beneath it.
I missed you Cezar .... **
820 |
Yes, you have read Vollgraff .... **
If you know German at all, then write in German. **
Why do you bother, Arminius? He is therapy-resistent. **
821 |
Interestingly, the strongest force in the universe is called »The Electroweak Force« or just »The Weak Force« by Science. And one of the two weakest forces in the universe is called »The Strong Force« by Science (the other being »Valance«). **
822 |
I think that perhaps you are talking about »the most important« or »the most relevant« force. **
But the fact remains that gravity cannot exist at all without electric potential but electric potential can exist without gravity. Thus electric potential is »more fundamental« **
Thus electric potential is »more fundamental«. **
Arminius wrote:
»Yes, but the electroweak force, which is the electromagnetic force and the weak force as unit (notice: both as unit!), are no longer a unit because the temperature in the universe is too low (the universe is too cold therefor).« **
I don't understand what you are saying. **
Gravity => Strong Force => Electroweak Force (=> Weak Force and => Electromagnetism) ! |
823 |
To me »relevance« or »importance« is subjective whereas »fundamental« refers to the construct. Gravity is constructed out of electric potential, as is the weak force. The strong force is constructed out of gravity. **
And don't confuse the electromagnetic force with the »weak force«. Electromagnetic forces are what causes the attraction and repulsion of charged particles (in physics terminology). The weak force is what prevents an electron from falling into a proton despite the electromagnetic attraction involved. The weak force must counter the electromagnetic force or electric potential. **
Gravity => Strong Force => Weak Force => Electromagnetism (the latter both were formerly Electroweak Force) ! |
Electromagnetic forces are what causes the attraction and repulsion of charged particles (in physics terminology). The weak force is what prevents an electron from falling into a proton despite the electromagnetic attraction involved. The weak force must counter the electromagnetic force or electric potential. **
824 |
Okay, I just wanted to make sure that the words were not confusing the understanding. **
408) Arminius, 23.03.2014, 00:20, 04:11, 05:57 (825-827)
James S. Saint wrote:
@ Gib or someone else.Would you mind responding James post?
Gib wrote:
Then take this:If 3 x 3 = 10, then the earth is a planet. **....Thank you!Regards!
Gib wrote:
The statement of a logical implication is false then and ONLY then, if the first part of the statement is true and the second part of the statement is false. |
409) Arminius, 24.03.2014, 03:35 (828)
Mad Man P. wrote:
So you are saying: Logic is nonsense. Why? Because James post is referring to logic and nothing else.Logic isn't nonsense, but: Your statement is nonsense. It has nothing to do with logic, nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with life, nothing to do with anything because it is absolutely absurd, it is just false.Maybe you didn't or couldn't read James' post. In that case I forgive you, but your statement is stupid. Your statement is mad too, Mad Man P., and laughable, but also dangerous because it is a subjective one which indicates that you are merely a hater.Try to read James' post: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185298#p2456603If you can not understand logic, why are you posting here: the most important discipline of philosophy is logic.I love philosophy, especially logic._____________Exercise example:
|
p | q | p -- q |
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
410) Arminius, 25.03.2014, 00:18, 00:51, 12:14, 13:11 (829-832)
James S. Saint wrote:
Would you go so far to say that the electrostatic is the unmoved mover, the phenomenon which caused at first and thus caused the universe?James S. Saint wrote:
Would you go so far to say that the electromagnetic ist the fundamental force?
Dear Fixed Cross, what's athetits? Is that only an orthographic error? **You mean atheists, I think (). Correct?
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, I thought so, therefore I put in the wink-smiley:
Insightfoul wrote:
Liberals say that everyone should decide what to be, and egalitarians (the enemies of the liberals) say, all human beings (and at last even all beings) are equal. The consequnce is, that liberals and egalitarians, although they are extreme enemies, meet and come to an agreement. At last many liberals are more egaltarian than the egalitarians and many egalitarians are more liberal than the liberals. While more and more people don't know what they are. They become by and by more stupid and poorer and less (at last they even don't know what to do with children). That ist very fateful.Liberalists and egalitarians - both are totalitarians - become the third kind of totalitarians: fraternalitarians, today known as globalists. |
==>
|