This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 308309310 311312 ... 502
9271
« on: December 31, 2014, 03:47:20 AM »
Christopher Hitchens was too much like me in that he enjoyed arguing with people, and was impatient.
Julius Caesar ended up alienating the Roman aristocracy and got stabbed by his best mate.
Ben Bernanke pretty much caused the Recession.
Alan Greenspan turned into an idiot after he left the Fed.
FDR's New Deal was pretty shitty, to be honest.
Reagan was just a fucking moron.
9272
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:52:47 PM »
Holy shit he looks like Jeffrey Dahmer.
9273
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:43:59 PM »
Also, Verbatim, if you think it's preferable to just not act without some sort of prior consent as to avoid the possibility of coercion altogether, would you neglect to save an unconscious person on the street or otherwise scorn those who do?
9274
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:42:16 PM »
If you have two groups, Group A with 5,000,000 people and adequate amounts of fresh water, food, etc., and Group B with 5,000,000 people living without the necessary amount of those resources - Group B is going to be considered overpopulated, as there is not enough of a resource to sustain the population.
The point being that this isn't the case taken globally. People who throw the term "overpopulation" around usually have some sort of moralistic baggage attached which tries to necessitate population control and the reduction of our numbers. It's simply not true, however, that the human population is too big and without commensurate resources for its sustenance.
9275
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:35:34 PM »
Well, first and foremost I feel the need to point out that we're not overpopulated by any stretch of the imagination.
With the way our resources are distributed on Earth, certain areas would likely be considered it.
Poor access to resource is not a demographics issue. It'd be like me taking all the water away from people in my town, feeding it to my school and then claiming my town is overpopulated because the water-supply isn't sufficient.
9276
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:34:42 PM »
Well, you're not supposed to question axioms  I realised that as soon as I posted it >.> Suffering is bad because suffering isn't good. I mean... I don't really know how else to say it. I'd have to ask you, do you not consider suffering to be axiomatically bad? Would you not personally rather live in a world with no suffering? If not, why? As somebody who identifies as a Nietzschean, no I don't think all suffering is bad. I think presenting it as a case of suffering being bad and pleasure being good (or, at the very least in your case, not bad) is a false dichotomy. The overcoming of personal suffering and the ability to rise above oneself, in a sense, and better oneself in the face of suffering gives it a sort of value in utility. Sam Harris phrased it in a similar way with his "landscape of morality" conception wherein peaks of "morality" are defined by human flourishing and troughs by human destitution; it might be necessary to descend at least part-way into a trough temporarily in order to then occupy a peak. In saying that, I recognised (and I'm sure you did too) long ago that you and I are coming from two fundamentally different perspectives. I mean, you don't get much further apart than the philosophy's of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. None of my arguments about the value of suffering will carry any weight, because you don't believe it needs to operate in a position of utility or disutility at all - it could just not exist, given a lack of sentient beings. I, on the other hand, embrace ideas like the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy, amor fati and the Will to Power. You see me as pointless, and I see you as Pyrrhonism--the ultimate scepticism.
9277
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:23:11 PM »
How would you go about enforcing anti-natalism? Would you even enforce it? Is it a passive moral stance or an active one? If you enforce it, would it not be an act of aggression to restrict a mother from bearing a child?
From what I've seen Verbatim post, I think he doesn't favour a legislative ban on procreation, but merely wants to use discussion and persuasion.
9278
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:16:23 PM »
Well, first and foremost I feel the need to point out that we're not overpopulated by any stretch of the imagination.
Secondly, it seems that if you ground your argument in a lack of consent then you always and everywhere have to oppose coercion of any sort.
Thirdly, why the assumption that suffering is axiomatically bad?
9279
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:13:38 PM »
It's not circular at all. The State has a right to enforce itself as the State because it has the power backing it. The power of wealth, law and ideology. Rights don't exist, they're just an expression of whatever force is most powerful within a society.
9280
« on: December 30, 2014, 03:14:14 PM »
I don't give a fuck if two people want to get divorced.
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2000/08/divorce-ignoring-the-cost
You should though. Divorce increases the chance of juvenile criminals (later adult criminals) along with increasing poverty numbers. Both of which have a huge toll on society as you're spending more money to lock up these people and spending more money to make sure these people have basic needs
Correlation=/=causation. How do you know the environments which lead to and facilitate divorce don't also induce the other results you're talking about? Even so, what are we going to do? Forcing two people to stay together who don't want to is a fucking stupid idea.
9281
« on: December 30, 2014, 02:52:11 PM »
I don't give a fuck if two people want to get divorced.
9282
« on: December 30, 2014, 02:28:26 PM »
>reddit
Also did you mean to have this in the flood?
Ummm, well originally no but yeah, go ahead and move it actually.
9283
« on: December 30, 2014, 02:15:35 PM »
I mean, I know I'm a bit of a UKIP apologist but this is just disconcerting. I'll post the exchange. (Story about UKIP spokesperson for energy saying climate change is "open for discussion") Me: That's unfortunate. Him: Why? Me: Because it really isn't open to question.
Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it. Him: Because it really isn't open to question. All science is open to question, always.
Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it. This is how the model's predictions stack up next to the real world temperatures.
Me: Yet warming is quite clearly occurring. I'm not saying the scientists are and always will be 100pc right, I'm saying the ideas that warming is currently occurring and humans are the main cause are, at this point, pretty much indisputable.
The extent and speed of this warming is debatable, but the foundations are essentially laid. Him: There has been an 18 year "pause" in the rise of temperatures, despite a significant rise in CO2 levels. Warming is NOT currently occurring. The warming trend ended in 1998. Me: The climate isn't nearly as facile as you're making it out to be. You can't look at one set of aggregate data and think it immediately discredits the still solid idea. You think science should be open to question and inquiry? Of course you do, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and use one piece of data to discredit the whole idea, listen to the scientists and think about how it factors in to climatic dynamics.
And no, there hasn't been a "pause" in warming, there's been a slowdown. Indeed, actually looking at the available evidence too we can see scientists are able to formulate hypotheses, for instance this paper has endeavoured to show how the slowdown correlated with the strengthening of easterly surface winds in the tropics, and how that could impact global temperatures. Secondly, this study shows that had today's models been available in the 1990s, the slowdown in global warming could've been predicted. Him: No, there has been a distinct "pause" in global warming. It has stopped, not slowed down. Me: Okay then, even if that is the case it has no bearing on the assertions made by scientists to explain it.
So when you want to either try or refute them, or admit you probably have some more digging to do then I'll be willing to listen. And virtually any scientist will tell you (plus this paper), it doesn't even begin to discredit the theory. Him: Point is, their predictions have been proven wrong. They did not predict a pause in temperature increase, or that the Antarctic ice caps would grow, not shrink. There were also predictions that the poles would be ice free by 2013, which buoyant did not happen.
A theory is validated, or not, by its predictive value; by that criteria, there is plenty of scope to say that climate change is "open to question", as Roger Helmer has. Me: Point is, their predictions have been proven wrong.
Due to a variable which wasn't accounted for and has now been explained. I've also demonstrated how models back in the 1990s were inefficient and presented you with a paper which shows why this doesn't discredit the theory.
or that the Antarctic ice caps would grow, not shrink.
Except we know that happened because of the decline of CFCs in the atmosphere and the repairing ozone layer.
A theory is validatee, or not, by its predictive value
Right, and the theory still has considerable value--especially given all the evidence I've presented you with. Like I say, if you want to try and refute it in some way, I'm willing to listen.
Him: Okay, get on your real account, not some troll throwaway, and let's have a proper conversation. Me: This is my real account; I disabled my last one.
Since I've presented you with the evidence from climate scientists themselves, and tried to engage you in a proper discussion, it's a bit rich for you to try and call me a troll. I haven't been rude to you at all, and if it seems like I have then I apologise of course, but all it feels like now is that you're refusing to engage the evidence on an ideological ground. And now you're just falling back on ad hominem.
If you want to have a discussion, then great let's have one. But only if you're going to do it properly and not throw your toys out of the pram because you don't like what you hear. Him: Because it really isn't open to question.
Really, you discredited yourself with this statement.
To claim anything scientific "isn't open to question" betrays that your commitment to the idea is no longer rational, and is more of an act of faith.
Me: Now you're just misrepresenting what I said.
Immediately after it I said: "Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it." If you truly thought I had actually discredited myself, you wouldn't still be talking to me.
And you are the one trying to use a single (explained) occurrence to discredit an entire theory. Don't accuse me of taking something on faith and not being rational when I'm the one actually looking at the explanations and studying the science of the matter. Him: When a theory makes one very specific preeiction - that CO2 correlates with temperature, because it is the main driver of "climate change" (previously known as global warming) - and that turns out not to be the case, it absolutely raises questions about the theory.
The fact they produce an explanation after the fact proves nothing - other than how unreliable their understanding of climate is. What else are they going to have to provide an explanation for, after the fact?
Since the entire global warming scare rested in the predictions of those models, and the predictions turned out to be false, that absolutely calls the theory into question, as well as the usefulness of their predictions and models.
If you truly thought I had actually discredited myself, you wouldn't still be talking to me.
No, I'm allowing other readers to see how weak your arguments are by continuing the discussion. Me: When a theory makes one very specific preeiction - that CO2 correlates with temperature, because it is the main driver of "climate change" (previously known as global warming) - and that turns out not to be the case, it absolutely raises questions about the theory.
Except no scientist has ever claimed that this correlation is on a one-for-one basis which isn't affected by other exogenous variables. . .
Since the entire global warming scare rested in the predictions of those models, and the predictions turned out to be false, that absolutely calls the theory into question, as well as the usefulness of their predictions and models.
But the predictions aren't completely discredited because an 18-year slowdown/pause in the warming of the earth is the exception (since the Industrial revolution) and not the rule. Like I said above, no scientist has ever claimed that the relationship is exactly one-for-one, and when you find deviations you need to look for altered variables which account for that.
If there were no altered variables which account for that, then you'd have something in your argument, but you don't because we've identified that variables have shifted. I fucking despair, sometimes.
9284
« on: December 30, 2014, 01:51:23 PM »
So you're looking at society from an obscure, non-logical view and coming to a radical conclusion.
tell me on what grounds the state has a right to force my participation
Ha. Why don't you go and ask the State what right it has to force your participation? You'll find your answer there.
9285
« on: December 30, 2014, 01:46:53 PM »
You once made an alt on Bungie.net called Voluntaryist you lying cunt
And you once threatened to report this forum to the authorities for a paedophile culture. Surely you don't take everything everybody does--especially on a forum--at face value?
9286
« on: December 30, 2014, 01:44:26 PM »
the cool thing is voluntaryism and lefty anarchism can coexist Well, they can't. Because neither of them can or will exist in the first place.
9287
« on: December 30, 2014, 01:43:47 PM »
And where the fuck is everybody commenting on Door's transition from social anarchism to voluntaryism?
You fuckers would've leave me alone when I went from a communist to just a capitalist.
>Meta trying to down play that he was once a voluntaryist
wat
9288
« on: December 30, 2014, 01:38:01 PM »
And where the fuck is everybody commenting on Door's transition from social anarchism to voluntaryism?
You fuckers would've leave me alone when I went from a communist to just a capitalist.
9289
« on: December 30, 2014, 01:32:38 PM »
That's fucking dumb, don't do that.
9290
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:58:45 AM »
They are humans, y'know.
Unfortunately.
9291
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:35:48 AM »
Gender is highly correlated to sex; to say they aren't unrelated is folly.
The gender isn't similar to the concept of the soul, distinct from the brain in some way, and any divergence of gender from sex will be attributable to some sort of physical "malfunction" wherein the gender is divorced from the explicit sex of the individual.
Of course they're related. They aren't commensurate, but they're related.
9292
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:26:42 AM »
Read the edit.
It still looks optimistic, to me. A lot of the time, you simply can't reason with these people. What they really need is a liberal revolution from within, as well as proper political infrastructure to maintain and facilitate education in countries like Indonesia and the Arab States - although given the dire situations of pretty much every single government ruling over a Muslim nation, I don't expect this anytime soon. And clearly, neither liberalism nor education is enough to safeguard the foundations of civilisation. I can think of nothing more than to dig our boots in, take it in our stride and just work our way to the end, it will be, inevitably, a war of attrition. There are more of us than there are of them, we are smarter and their ideology is fundamentally unstable and capricious. We will win, of that I'm sure.
9293
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:21:02 AM »
My idea? My idea is to get Muslim immigrants from Africa, and other countries so that their religion is the focus, and not the social circles and such. Imagine how different people with the same belief would talk to each other; imagine how issues would be handled, and imagine how the new generation would be able to choose not only from the two options that are Moslim or not, but actual Muslim beliefs and POV on issues as there's sure to be many POV. Imagine the option of a good-by-heart Muslim being brought in.
I'd rather not have the Muslims in Africa radicalised, too, looking at the state of the Christians in the CAR. Although, in saying that, it was in response to a Muslim president who wanted to impose Sharia Law, and was effectively in bed with the Saudis.
9294
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:14:00 AM »
Changing your gender is a disorder.
Not true. Transgenderism isn't a disorder of itself, but dysmorphia is. The two are simply highly correlated.
9295
« on: December 30, 2014, 10:49:49 AM »
How would you stop them?
Bombs
The question was for Meta, so don't expect a discussion to be given from me to you.
Bombs
9296
« on: December 30, 2014, 09:46:50 AM »
I just got this remark from somebody on another forum I use: Every time we kill a terrorist or bomb a mosque we are giving extremists propaganda, which they then use against us. Instead we need to help countries effected by extremism form stable governments which help the people of the population. Not invading them, murdering people and then having anti-Muslim press in our own nation. We must appear like monsters to them, and rightly so. I promptly went apeshit:Well, they would do that wouldn't they. If I had some radical insurgency in the name of democracy and liberalism and Westernism in Pakistan at the moment and used dead insurgents as propaganda, would that be qualitatively identical? Australian tourists were murdered in Bali by al-Qaeda a few years ago. . . Do you know why? Because Australia was part of the coalition that stopped East Timor from being annexed and from suffering a genocide at the hands of Indonesia. Are we really to capitulate to these people? These brutes who will use our unwillingness to allow genocide as a matter of hostility and propaganda. You're morally insane if you think so. I'm still waiting for the hundreds of bin Laden's we were promised would rise up to replace him, and even assuming this to be true: let me. We'll kill them all the same. You can't reason or negotiate with these people; faith is one of the best things at cutting off the conversation. We are not the imperialists here, and we are not the ones of an inferior moral position. Using just the wars in Iraq against a psychopathically fascistic and fundamentally Sunni regime we have accomplished the protection of a minority bigger than the Palestinians who have been systematically oppressed in the region, at least until 2011 when we pulled out. We accomplished one of the biggest non-proliferation victories of any American or British administration, traced the AQ Khan network and took a number of weapons of mass destruction and a keystone Arab state out of the hands of Hussein and his criminal family, all despite the unfortunate incompetence of some aspects of the operation. We are not the ones trying to redraw the map and establish some divinely-ordained caliphate. If you really have the audacity to accuse me of being blinded by patriotism, the only thing I can conclude is that you don't understand just how fucking horrendous these people are and how it isn't our fault. If you want to refute my argument, then tell me how we're supposed to negotiate with people who will hate you for not allowing the military adventurism and genocidal actions of Islamic states, who will hate you for protecting the Kurds or the Shi'a -- or in some instances the Sunni -- and how we're supposed to negotiate with organisiation which have no interest in stemming the poverty and destitution of their constituents if it goes against the interests of their holy crusades.
9297
« on: December 30, 2014, 06:02:39 AM »
People do it to Noelle because she, very quickly, would allow it to devolve into a shitstorm.
9298
« on: December 30, 2014, 05:59:15 AM »
No.
You either have it, or you don't. If you don't have it, you need a proper moderating influence on the government.
9299
« on: December 29, 2014, 09:59:32 PM »
1865 marked the beginning of the downfall of out once great nation
I think you mean 1776.
9300
« on: December 29, 2014, 09:27:42 PM »
Well, this conversation has evolved into something entirely different.
This forum embodies the chaos of its leader's soul.
Pages: 1 ... 308309310 311312 ... 502
|
Show Posts
