Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:I edited a bunch of times, lol.

No problem man. I usually give it a good while before I even look lol. I was thinking that maybe we should make separate threads for each main point of disagreement. Like the discussion on Jared Diamond's idea, UBI, and whatever the other thing was. Crap, what was the other thing? Religion? Yeah, is religion the cause of evil. Each of those are pretty heavy on their own.

What haven't we been discussing?
There must be at least a dozen topics.
I'm fine with keeping it all in one place.
This's a holistic discussion, everything ties together.
There's too much to subdivide, and I might lose my groove if we attempt to reorganize and compartmentalize everything now.
Yea, heavy discussion, somehow whenever you and I talk it ends up being about, everything.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Well then use that method to make mulattos smarter.

Giving stronger people with more potential more resources is social selection.

I think it's more likely that the strong simply take it; it's not given.

But to perform social engineering requires defining what strong means.

Social selection is part of how we evolve, along with sexual and natural selection.
Without selection, we de-evolve.

What does it mean to devolve? We've lost our ability to hunt because of grocery stores, so are we weaker now? Should we abandon grocery stores in order to preserve righteous hunting skills?

This appeal to de-evolution frustrates me because: 1) advance and regress as a society really has no meaning; whether we desire to get smarter or dumber or whatever, it just doesn't matter. There is no law written in stone saying we have to continually improve. In fact, I'd be happier if things never changed. When we go camping, do we drag our shit in, set up tents, start the fire, and then sit down to enjoy the fruits of our labors or do we keep working all night to justify our existence? The work has been done; it's time to sit down and relax and enjoy what has been done. 2) Everything that improves us, also weakens us. That's pretty much the definition of "comfort". So, whoever holds this "de-evolution" philosophy would have to be in opposition of technology itself, which goes alllllll the way back to fire itself: the original technology! That's just plum retarded!

In order to advocate the "oh, we might get weak" argument, one would have to be antipodal to technology.

Obviously everyone likes technology and no one is worried about getting weak, so what's this about then? Hate, fear, amygdala, etc. What else could it be?

Every organism is confident in its abilities. Overconfidence, or confidence in ability you don't have, is different.

There is such a thing as over, and underestimating oneself.

There is such a thing as unwarranted guilt.

The pendulum probably swings both ways.

I think it has more to do with the food than the challenges. Challenges can always be found, but abundant food cannot.

Lack of food is a challenge.
Challenges should be proportionate with reality, or the work society has to do survive(yes, despite advances in automation and energy production, society still has to work to survive, and billions, or at least hundreds of millions have to work full time for society to survive).
everyone who can work, should share in that work,

I might agree with that if the amount of work being done were the same as the amount of work that needed to be done, but you're arguing for "improvements" and "advancements", so I don't feel obligated to join forces in performance of work for the sake of work. I will not be conscripted nor advocate for the involuntary conscription of others into this fantasy requiring servitude.

In the 1800s they would have figured by 2019 that we'd have such an abundance of time that we might not have to work at all, but we're busier than ever, so busy that we don't have time to raise our kids. That right there tells me that most of the work done in the world is frivolous. So why should people be compelled, against their will, into doing work that doesn't need to be done?

everyone who can't work can be treated humanely, which includes incarcerating and forcibly sterilizing them should they decide to unlawfully procreate.
Neither artificial scarcity, nor artificial abundance, should be imposed on people.
The former leads to artificial, excess/unnecessary evolution and socioeconomic growth, the latter leads to lack of necessary evolution or devolution and socioeconomic decay.

Man that's just all amygdala lol

Yeah but people who contribute nothing shouldn't get nothing or else being born is conscription into servitude in order to exist. You may have made a case for the necessity of that 100 years ago, but today the rich are just way too rich and the machines are doing way too much to justify compulsion into the labor force because the justification for suffering is letting the rich keep their money. IOW, I grew up poor so that some rich asshole could keep a few extra bucks that he wasn't using anyway.

The contributors shouldn't be conscripted to take care of the non-contributors, which includes both the idle rich, and the idle poor.

You're advocating child labor now? Actually I think I started working at 14, but not enough to make a difference. Mom worked 2 jobs, dad sent child support and we still weren't middle class. Years later I discover that the reason for that extra struggling, that didn't have to be, was so the rich could keep more of what they weren't using anyway... and too many republicans were terrified I might get something for nothing. The joke is on them since the community is reaping precisely what it sowed.

Genetics is an accident. Nobody guided genetics. And if agency exists, it exists by accident as well. Did you cause yourself and create yourself?

If I buy fruit trees and discover half of them bear lots of fruit and the other little, I take better care of the more fruitful half, and if I have limited land, time and energy, I mainly or only use the fruitful half for planting seed.
If farmers adopted your methods, well, there wouldn't be any farmers, we'd've all starved long ago.

Sure, I agree, so who was the geneticist? Who killed the humans who didn't bear fruit and fed the ones that did? Who guided this process? If you cut down trees or throw out apples, then you get the credit, so who threw out the bad humans over the 100's of 1000s of years in order to select for the white ones? Nobody. It just worked out that way.

Then you have to show it wasn't luck; that is was guided.

I already did, I proved whites are more intelligent, which you agreed with, which's at least in part why we're more prosperous.

You're not acting white, lol, because I didn't say "prove whites are more intelligent", I said "prove their evolution was guided."

If I breed a big tomato plant, then I get the credit for guiding the development of the genetics and not the tomato plant. The tomato plant didn't select for itself.

If X guided the development of the white race, then X gets the credit and not the white race. The white race could not have selected itself into existence anymore than the tomato plant could.

The way you're painting this is like a hominid saying "Listen up! In 20,000 years, the next time the earth precesses, we're leaving half these negros in africa and heading north to the good soil, where we'll turn a lovely shade of white and grow big brains." No, the earth precessed and they just meandered that general direction, then were cut off from returning for 1000s of years. The whole thing was chance.

Who's claiming that?

I've heard many liberals fallaciously claim whites invented racism, slavery, genocide...

Doesn't seem like any reasonable person would believe that.

It's illegal to discriminate against race.

On the contrary, some employers are forced to racially and sexually diversify their staff or prefer minorities and women over whites and men, even at the expense of productivity.

Because an all-white workforce is evidence of discrimination. I mean, it may not be, but that's how they see it. They want to force different races together to acclimate them so that eventually no one gives a hoot.

How are you a victim?

Sometimes incompetent blacks are hired and kept and so the quality of goods and services plummets.

Name some way this personally affects you.

Sure liberals kill the most because they hit first. Conservatives cannot hit first because it's impossible to circumvent their programming (dogma).

So religious dogma is good sometimes.

Every advantage has a disadvantages. The good thing about conservatives is you can trust them like you trust a machine.

I've never had much admiration for that alphabet soup psychology. The bottomline is conservatives could be replaced by machines and not much would change.

Conservatives are more rigid than liberals overall, especially/particularly when it comes to much of their morality, but they can be flexible about other things, which's not to say liberals are amoral as you suggested either.
Actually these days, I'd say liberals are far more intolerant and strict than conservatives.

Outlawing disease is not intolerance. They'll support your right to do what you want, unless what you want is to tell others what to do.

This is like the argument against the atheists: "Why won't you leave us alone to practice our religion? Why are you on crusade against religion?" Well the genital mutilation community, the suicide bomber community, the wars and atrocities all share religion, so one has a moral obligation from a humanist standpoint to exterminate religion. The left has the same obligation to exterminate conservatism while conservatives appeal to their right to oppress others (homos, nonwhites, poor people, women, druggies, etc) under the protection of religion, politics, and tradition.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

I don't see the mechanism of keeping others down to lift ourselves up. Either shoot them or feed them, but allowing them exist in a diseased state is just shitting up your own environment.

If unemployed people have kids, they should be incarcerated and sterilized.

Then you'll have to make more prisons because the more you do that, the more you'll need to. The more consumers you lock up, the less need for employees, so you have new consumers to lock up and then more and more and more until there is no one left.

However, maybe it's enough they live in poverty, have a lower standard of living than the working class.

Sure, every society ought to have a class of brain-damaged people running loose making decisions. Why, how else could the republican party exist? LOL

These days hardly anyone has more than a kid or two, rich and poor, 1st and 3rd world alike.

Yankee women don't have many kids, but in the south they have a full litter before graduation. If you have only 1 or 2 kids by drinking age, they wonder what is wrong with you lol

In any case, prohibiting this wouldn't be like prohibiting alcohol, because most people want to drink, whereas only something like 5% of the population is unemployed, and of those 5%, many or most would probably agree to not having kids in exchange for welfare.

There are more poor people than unemployed people. 1/3 of tax returns (50 million) are under $20,000. The pop is 330 million, so 180 million with zero income and 50 million with poverty-level income. One exception. Asians are shorter, but what about that basketball guy? Most millennials are not on your side, but the boomers and silents are. And you're not complaining because you've been personally discriminated against, but are overdramatizing something I've never even seen or heard credible instance of. "The sky is falling... quick, run in circles while screaming!" The property manager at the apartment my friend lives in is terrible. She's rude, and allows thugs who break rules, and laws to live there. Otherwise it's a nice apartment in a nice neighborhood. Lots of people have complained about her, but it's difficult to have her removed because she's a protected class (mulatto). Probably because the mulatto was the only one who volunteered to manage the apartments for the peanuts offered. My cousin owns some rentals and I can assure you that penny-pincher hires the cheapest managers he can find. The nasty jews with their sexual immorality Not to mention their corrupt banking practices and dissemination of anti-white propaganda. Yeah that too. And it didn't help that the jews declared war first with their boycotts and whatnot. And the whole premise of his rise to power was that the people had forsaken religion! Hitler was plainly anti-Christian, and an atheist or nearly. He wasn't serious about Christianity, he was using it until the German people were ready to relinquish it. Was his own book bullshit? Mein Kampf (1925-1926) Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65) This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. (p. 152) Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. A fight for freedom had begun mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses that this time not the fate of Serbia or Austria was involved, but whether the German nation was to be or not to be. (p. 161) And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p. 174) His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In retum, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties — and this against their own nation. (p. 307) Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (p. 383) It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world. (p. 403) The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. (p. 562) As far as this variety of ‘folkish’ warriors, are concerned, I can only wish the National Socialist movement and the German people with all my heart: "Lord, preserve us from such friends, and then we can easily deal with our enemies." (p. 565) Since Germany never defends herself, except by a few flaming protests on the part of our parliamentary elite, and the rest of the world has no reason for fighting in our defense, and as a matter of principle God does not make cowardly nations free... (p. 622) For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’ (pp. 632-633) We are a people of different religions, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people. Speech in Passau 27 October 1928 Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf; from Richard Steigmann-Gall (2003). Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 60-61. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious ... olf_Hitler There is no way to throw jews in ovens unless you think you're doing god's work. Why? Why can't you throw them in ovens just because you think they're inferior and/or a threat to your people? Well, it would require some righteous goal and if the goal were innocently to help the race, then that goal would be the "god" in that case, but I have a hard time seeing a nonreligious person being that motivated and most remarkable of all: convincing 1000s of others to go along with the plan. This is a funny video You cannot guide it. We can't help but guide it, thinkingly or unthinkingly, we discriminate against the weak in favor of the strong. Sometimes we do the opposite. If you do, then evolution will then be working against you. Evolution cannot work unless there is a force opposing it and hitler became that force. I become that force every time I pull a weed from my garden. I become the obstacle that evolution learns to overcome by making stronger weeds. All hitler accomplished was making smarter jews who now rule his "superior" aryans. Hitler was almost as dumb as trump.... blunder after blunder after blunder. What you propose is the very antithesis of evolution. You're saying by fighting your enemies, you make them stronger, so you should just give up, but if we surrender, we perish. We do what we can, eliminate our enemies if we can, or at least keep them at bay. Fighting your enemies weakens them in the short term, but can strengthen, or weaken them in the long run. It's best to pull weeds by the root, but sometimes you can't, but you still have to pull them, keep them at bay so you and yours can survive, and thrive a little. You're thinking small and short-term. Hitler killed millions of the dumbest jews which selected for smarter jews and look what happened. He made them stronger. Alan Watts said something like "whatever you attack with violence will reoccur." I forgot the specific reasoning he used. I'm overrun by violets. I've dug them up millions of times, but leaving even one bit of root is like a seed. After years of fighting, I give up. Now my plan is to let them become so dense that something decides to eat them... as if I had a choice. Russians were orthodox christians The communist government and its military were atheist, and they massacred millions of religious, and irreligious. The people were theists (orthodox christians), but the state became god (or tried to). In N Korea, Kim is god and the people worship him. All those dictatorial governments use religion and none ever were atheist. Never was there a time where an atheist government governed an atheist people, probably because atheists were never allowed to live very long before being burned at a cross or something. and you may have an example with the chinese because even the buddhists are atheist. There you go, the atheist Chinese massacred millions. Fundamentally people kill people, not religions. Altho some religions may be more militarizing/pacifying than others, governments and militaries don't need religion to massacre millions. Yeah, well, Christopher Hitchens changed my mind on that. Yes it does. The primary reason governments and their militaries go to war is greed, they will distort religious teachings and kill pacifist religious leaders to justify their lust for power. No, Germany desiring to retake its land was a greed war, but the response was a "holy war" crusading for a righteous cause and dehumanize the Germans operating merely on simian greed like animals, not divine beings like us. Vietnam was a holy war against communism. Same with Korea. Saddam greedily wanted Kuwait's oil, so we went on a righteous war against terrorism. Really, the only war sterilized of religious principles was the Revolutionary War: the king greedily wanted american resources and the american people simply wanted freedom. Nobody was righteous. That is what Lao Tzu meant when he said the goodie goodies are the thieves of virtue. Well that's nice... so religion makes good people do evil and evil people do good. So why have it then? Religion has good and bad, like just about any activity, I mentioned some of its other virtues earlier, I say leave it up to the individual to decide how much value it has to them. So if genital mutilation, terrorism, etc are some of the disadvantages of religion, what are some similar disadvantages of atheism? I can't think of any. We could blow the planet out of the solar system and still not stamp out life, but probably wind up with a smarter breed of it as a consequence. More unsubstantiated and irrational optimism. Yeah probably lol. But no, life is perfectly indestructible. That's probably the most sensible solution, but then the bank is state-run. And the state is a democracy, preferably of thinking men and women. Well hell it's like you're reading my mind lol. Yes the treasury should simply issue the money and publish the books so the public could have some kind of say in monetary policy. Milton Friedman said the whole thing could be computerized... and that was in the 70s. The 2nd-best solution is what we have now. We still need redistribution or else the created money just funnels up to the rich until the rich are rich enough to topple government. Government can print money and purchase the education and healthcare industries. Yeah, but that would be one heck of a cash injection. It would be cheaper to just seize them. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who threatened to seize an industry if they didn't concede to the demands of the union strikers and pay higher wages. 3 people have more wealth than 50% of the people and 2 of them (Buffett and Gates) have been on crusade to raise their own taxes for decades and the 3rd (Bezos) is probably cool with it. The rich want to fix the problem, but the poor stupid ones won't let them. If the rich really wanted to fix the problem, there wouldn't be the rich, or at least not the obscenely wealthy. The rich want to tax small businesses nearly as much as themselves, and force them to pay the same minimum wage. This hurts the middle class more than themselves, because the rich can afford to pay the taxes and the minum wage, often the middle class can't, and because the rich can afford to bribe the courts, hire the best lawyers to find tax loopholes and so on. Buffett and Gates aren't for that. But the poor stupid white old boomers are the ones advocating a flat tax and perpetually harping on "fairness". A flat tax is the worst. The reason the founding fathers didn't like income tax was that only common people had income; the rich didn't work. So, the way to redistribute was to tax the rich by tariffs since only the rich imported goods. Nowadays is opposite: the poor import goods from china and the rich have all the income. Right, people get nicer as scarcity is reduced. When ferraris are free, there is nothing left to fight over. That's the marxist end-stage communism. It isn't instituted by force, but arises of its own. The problem comes in when dictators try to implement it as a government when the technology can't support it. Meanness has merely grown more sophisticated, that is it, in the main. The murder rate may be 10 or 100 times less, but disparities are 100 or 1000 times more. The powerful have found ways to monopolize wealth without having to shed so much blood. And what we do to our livestock and nature is atrocious. Democratic force will always be necessary to bring justice about. Well, sufficient scraps has fallen from the table such that the poor are pacified enough in spite of the disparity. The left has no absolute morality. Yes officer, I was wearing my seatbelt. Sorry officer, I cannot tell a lie. While liberals are sexually looser in many ways, you'll still hear them say: 'there's nothing wrong with adultery or promiscuity so long as it's open/honest'. They still think you shouldn't cheat. Do unto others I guess. The difference is it's ok to lie to achieve a greater virtue, but the conservative cannot transgress. Should we kill the little old lady to save new york? Take from the rich and give to the poor. Stealing is wrong. Yes but they justify stealing or as they like to say: 'appropriation, reallocation, redistribution', they say: 'it's for the greater good', not my good or no good, or they say: 'the rich cheated us'. Their ethics are based more on consequences than actions. Some of them also have alternative notions of property, like property is defined by continual occupation/use, or all property is public, a privilege democracy may temporarily bestow you, not a right. No one on the left thinks it's right for the rich to steal from the poor, whereas some people further right do i.e. corporatists, fascists. Some examples of people may vary, but I think I nailed the principle philosophical difference. The ends (consequences) justify the means (action) with liberals while only the action matters to the conservative. Kill the fetus so the woman has a better life Murder is wrong. I've never heard a liberal say rape is okay, or murder for the sheer thrill of it is okay. Does anyone say that? I'm looking at the differences between them. It's been said conservatives care most about your life before you're born or suffering with a terminal illness, as they won't abort or euthanize, whereas liberals care most about your life in between, as they want to make sure you have access to education, healthcare and nutrition, altho they're not necessarily more charitable, they're just more willing to lower someone else's standard of living to raise yours, which, I am in favor of too, to an extent. That's about right. Hitler was sure willing to abort a lot of unborn, and born for his greater good. He banned abortion if you wanted one, but forced one on you if you didn't lol I want to marry my boyfriend. Homosexuality is wrong. 'I only want to befriend and be surrounded by people with the same race and customs as me'. 'Racist, xenophobe, Hitlerite'! And conservative. The liberal has no moral foundation because everything is relative. The conservative cannot bend at all, ever, under any circumstances. Every conservative could be replaced by a robot and nothing would change. Liberals are every bit as predictable as conservatives. The foundation for their ethics is on the pages of various writers from the enlightenment to the postmodern era, just as conservative ethics are, in part. Liberal ethos can be written down, but the liberals themselves couldn't be replaced by machines. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2180 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Boycott Google Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper I don't know how likely that is since for goods to be bid up requires a population with enough money to do it. If the price of toilet paper is high, it's because lots of people are willing to pay higher prices for toilet paper. Corps cannot just raise prices to squeeze more out of the consumer. The reason why billionaires are billionaires at all, is because they can afford to dramatically lower their prices and raise wages, but won't. Instead of charging and paying what's arguably fair, so we don't have to work as much, they spend their enormous profits on extravagances, save and reinvest them in increasingly meaningless work we have to do especially for them. Such're the origins of our consumerist society, increasingly we produce far more junk than we need to, largely so we can eat, and they splurge, taking a tremendous tole on both the health of the environment, and our own health. They use both purist, and crony capitalism to exploit us, every tool in the toolbox. This is why prices and wages ought to be fixed low and high respectively for big business, but either not fixed at all for small business, or fixed higher and lower respectively for small than big, either that or more extreme measures. Government could print money and forcibly buy much, most or all essential mass production, sell their wares cheap, and pay workers well. And that makes you a capitalist minion who is conscripting people into the workforce specifically to enrich the capitalists. I'm for finding the right balance of capitalism and socialism, and in my estimation, neither the left, nor the right have it, they're both controlled opposition. That is sensible enough not to merit a challenge Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2180 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Boycott Google Karpel Tunnel wrote: Serendipper wrote:Who Will Guard Us From The Guardians? YouTube "Protects" Users By Hiding "Conspiracy Theories" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... y-theories hiding such content from users as if they were not cognitively thinking adults capable of making rational decisions. Well, they're not. Almost no one is equipped to make a rational decision on climate change, 9/11, JFK assassination, et al and any decision made cannot be cognitive, but emotional. The crime committed is taking advantage of the ignorance of people to advance bullshit no different than a mechanic telling a woman her car needs a new johnson rod. Fine. So what you're saying is allow the people with the most power to decide what ideas people should not be exposed to. IOW there bs will continue to be sacred. And by the way, the official report on 9/11 is a joke. I mean, apart from the whistleblowers, Building 7 is a laugh. I mean, it boggles the mind how educated people talk themselves out of the obvious on that one. I remember dad trying to talk me into voting. My position was that I didn't know anything about the issues and didn't feel right voting on something I knew nothing about. He pointed out the mentally disabled daughter of a woman he knew and said the solution to my moral dilemma was simply to cancel her vote. It seemed sensible, so I did. I don't know why it doesn't naturally occur to people not to have opinions on what they know nothing about. Then I suppose after about 10-15 years I woke up one day and asked "hasn't this climate debate been settled by now?" I accepted the mainstream position by virtue of longevity and harbored that position until I signed up on a physics board inquiring about the exact reason co2 acts as a high-pass filter because I never seen one in nature before (other than a capacitor). I discovered that it does indeed function as a high-pass filter, but in the process of learning I discovered how insignificant is it. For instance ozone absorbs light that is 48x more energetic, so a lack of ozone is 48x more significant. Water vapor is a stronger insulator. And then the solar and galactic rays are many orders of magnitude more significant than co2. So I changed my mind and realized that almost no one is prepared properly to even have an opinion. And I don't know how I could make up my mind about 9/11 because all info I could receive will be "trust me, it's true!" Could buildings fall because of jet fuel? Hell, I don't know. I don't even know how I can find out. Is the government competent enough to orchestrate such an event? Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2180 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Boycott Google Serendipper wrote:And I don't know how I could make up my mind about 9/11 because all info I could receive will be "trust me, it's true!" Could buildings fall because of jet fuel? Hell, I don't know. I don't even know how I can find out. Is the government competent enough to orchestrate such an event? I won't go into 911 here any more, but I will say this last comment. Check out the films of building 7 going down. Check out what can be seen of the fires in the building. Watch how fast it goes down. There was no jet fuel in building 7, none. It caught some side effects of the two towers. Try to imagine how burning desks and papers in asymmetical fires could take down a steel based structure. Perfectly. Asymetrical minor damage caused by fires brings down the entire building perfectly. Even demolition experts fuck up buildings and they make sure the destruction is simultaneous at the core of the building and symmetrical. Karpel Tunnel Philosopher Posts: 3625 Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm ### Re: Boycott Google @Serendipper Then you'll have to make more prisons because the more you do that, the more you'll need to. The more consumers you lock up, the less need for employees, so you have new consumers to lock up and then more and more and more until there is no one left. If employers couldn't find new things for people to do, capitalism would've collapsed long ago. Sure, every society ought to have a class of brain-damaged people running loose making decisions. Why, how else could the republican party exist? LOL I'm not sure if they'll reproduce more or less on the street than on welfare, but at least they'll be malnourished and their fertility will plummet. Many or most of them may get jobs if the street is the only alternative. There are more poor people than unemployed people. 1/3 of tax returns (50 million) are under$20,000. The pop is 330 million, so 180 million with zero income and 50 million with poverty-level income.

I'm in favor of raising the standard of living for the working poor.

Was his own book bullshit?

Hitler and his regime publicly feigned to be Christians, while in private they were atheists, pagans, social Darwinists and Nietzscheans, much's our leaders publicly feign to be Christians, liberals and conservatives, while in private they're, well, atheists, pagans, social Darwinists and Nietzscheans, but at least the Nazis were more honest.

Hitler, wrote Speer, viewed Christianity as the wrong religion for the "Germanic temperament":[54] Speer wrote that Hitler would say: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[57] Speer also wrote of observing in Hitler "quite a few examples", and that he held a negative view toward Himmler and Rosenberg's mystical notions.[58][59]

Sometimes we do the opposite.

I'm in favor of helping those who genuinely need it.

The people were theists (orthodox christians), but the state became god (or tried to).

Lenin and Stalin never claimed to be Gods.

You can use religion to justify the removal of tyrants too, like your founding fathers did.

Atheists need to stop blaming religion for what tyrants do with it.

All those dictatorial governments use religion and none ever were atheist.

The Kremlin persecuted theists.

No, Germany desiring to retake its land was a greed war, but the response was a "holy war" crusading for a righteous cause and dehumanize the Germans operating merely on simian greed like animals, not divine beings like us.
Vietnam was a holy war against communism. Same with Korea.
Saddam greedily wanted Kuwait's oil, so we went on a righteous war against terrorism.
Really, the only war sterilized of religious principles was the Revolutionary War: the king greedily wanted american resources and the american people simply wanted freedom. Nobody was righteous.

That is what Lao Tzu meant when he said the goodie goodies are the thieves of virtue.

Religion played a very small part in attempting to justify those wars.

They weren't crusades, we weren't trying to convert the heathen.

On the surface they were mainly about ideology and keeping us and our allies safe, beneath the surface they were about empire.

So if genital mutilation, terrorism, etc are some of the disadvantages of religion, what are some similar disadvantages of atheism? I can't think of any.

Atheists are starting to mutilate their children's genitals for different reasons, and feed them hormone blockers, steroids...

Atheist anarchists, communists and fascists commit terrorism.

Yeah, but that would be one heck of a cash injection. It would be cheaper to just seize them.

Agreed.

I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who threatened to seize an industry if they didn't concede to the demands of the union strikers and pay higher wages.

Sounds good to me.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

@Serendipper

What does it mean to devolve? We've lost our ability to hunt because of grocery stores, so are we weaker now? Should we abandon grocery stores in order to preserve righteous hunting skills?

It's okay if some things atrophy if they're no longer needed.

I might agree with that if the amount of work being done were the same as the amount of work that needed to be done, but you're arguing for "improvements" and "advancements",

I'm not arguing for improvements and advancements i.e. the destruction of the environment, I'm arguing government should increase wages and reduce prices for necessities rather than going to the other extreme and giving necessities (e.g. food, clothing, shelter) away for free.
If only 50, 20 or whatever % of the population has to work full time to ensure everyone's needs are taken care of, than reduce the work week proportionally to ensure near 100% employment.
After that, improvements and advancements will be optional, and we'll think twice before doing something that jeopardises our health/the health of the environment for the sake of something no one needs or even really wants.
In the main, we should only economically, scientifically and technologically progress, if we can do so without seriously compromising our health/the environment's.

Children are helpless, and most of them will grow up to be contributors, lazy people aren't and won't.

Sure, I agree, so who was the geneticist? Who killed the humans who didn't bear fruit and fed the ones that did? Who guided this process? If you cut down trees or throw out apples, then you get the credit, so who threw out the bad humans over the 100's of 1000s of years in order to select for the white ones? Nobody. It just worked out that way.

It doesn't matter if social, natural selection, free will insofar as it exists, Jesus, the Buddha or all of the above guided our evolution, those who're more able and willing to contribute to society should get more out of it.

If I breed a big tomato plant, then I get the credit for guiding the development of the genetics and not the tomato plant. The tomato plant didn't select for itself.

The big, juicy, nutritious tomato plant gets credit just for being itself, regardless of what external, and internal (it's always a combo) factors lead to its development, it gets credit because you're tending to it more than its fellows.

I've heard many liberals fallaciously claim whites invented racism, slavery, genocide...

Doesn't seem like any reasonable person would believe that.

It should go without saying, but liberals can be every bit as unreasonable as conservatives.

Because an all-white workforce is evidence of discrimination. I mean, it may not be, but that's how they see it. They want to force different races together to acclimate them so that eventually no one gives a hoot.

Right, we should force people who do their job well to work with people who do their job poorly, because people who do their job well shouldn't care if they share the same position and wage with people who do their job poorly.

They'll support your right to do what you want, unless what you want is to tell others what to do.

No it's not just about not being told what to do, they don't want individuals, families and communities to have religious or moral values.

Well the genital mutilation community, the suicide bomber community

Liberals want to remove all criticism of Islam, even tho in the 21st century, it's by far and away the most militant religion.

the wars and atrocities all share religion

The worst atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheists.

The left has the same obligation to exterminate conservatism while conservatives appeal to their right to oppress others (homos, nonwhites, poor people, women, druggies, etc) under the protection of religion, politics, and tradition.

And liberals are the enemy of whites, the middle class and men.
Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:54 am, edited 4 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:And I don't know how I could make up my mind about 9/11 because all info I could receive will be "trust me, it's true!" Could buildings fall because of jet fuel? Hell, I don't know. I don't even know how I can find out. Is the government competent enough to orchestrate such an event?
I won't go into 911 here any more, but I will say this last comment. Check out the films of building 7 going down. Check out what can be seen of the fires in the building. Watch how fast it goes down. There was no jet fuel in building 7, none. It caught some side effects of the two towers. Try to imagine how burning desks and papers in asymmetical fires could take down a steel based structure. Perfectly. Asymetrical minor damage caused by fires brings down the entire building perfectly. Even demolition experts fuck up buildings and they make sure the destruction is simultaneous at the core of the building and symmetrical.

You could be right, I don't know. I remember Sylva Browne said if Bush won the election against Gore, that something really bad would happen. I voted for Bush anyway (dad's fault lol). I often wonder if there was any possible way she could have perceived the future. There was also some talk about some randomness-monitoring eggs placed around the world that suddenly stop detecting randomness right before the planes crashed. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ We can go pretty deep in the rabbit hole lol
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Then you'll have to make more prisons because the more you do that, the more you'll need to. The more consumers you lock up, the less need for employees, so you have new consumers to lock up and then more and more and more until there is no one left.

If employers couldn't find new things for people to do, capitalism would've collapsed long ago.

But we need customers to buy the products

Sure, every society ought to have a class of brain-damaged people running loose making decisions. Why, how else could the republican party exist? LOL

I'm not sure if they'll reproduce more or less on the street than on welfare, but at least they'll be malnourished and their fertility will plummet.

Many or most of them may get jobs if the street is the only alternative.

I think we should test your theory by chucking you onto the street with all the mullatos. Like the guy who presented that brazen bull to the king and the king roasted him alive inside the thing. With what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged! https://allthatsinteresting.com/brazen-bull It's YOUR idea, so we test it on YOU!

There are more poor people than unemployed people. 1/3 of tax returns (50 million) are under \$20,000. The pop is 330 million, so 180 million with zero income and 50 million with poverty-level income.

I'm in favor of raising the standard of living for the working poor.

Only to support the slave system. You're no different than any conservative. Worse perhaps because your evil is less obvious... like the angel of light christ warned about.

Conservatives are like 4 headed beasts that anyone with a brain knows to avoid, but you've taken on a new facade with the more virtuous connotations of the libertarian label that veils your true intentions.

"You can go lick boots or go starve in the streets, but I am however willing to raise the minimum wage for bootlicking because we must take care of our poor bootlickers." <-- that's not virtuous.

The ONLY way to be virtuous is to end conscription into bootlicking and support the freedom of people to decide if they want to lick boots or not. If you wear the libertarian label, you're a hypocrite.

Then you'll say "But who will lick all the boots if not compelled by starvation?" Yes exactly my point. You ain't no libertarian.

"But how will the work get done?" Most doesn't need to be done. Let them who want to do it, do it. Let the compulsion be money and not starvation.

"But some work needs to be done!" Yes and machines do most of it and what isn't mechanized can be attended to by the swarm of people who just like having something to do. Hell, I'm not getting paid to talk to you, but I'm working my ass off anyway. KT wouldn't go to the extents I do. Some people will do things that we ourselves cannot imagine doing and the "scarcity of volunteers" idea is just silly. And forcing people to do work that doesn't need to be done is evil because it increases suffering of the many to enable over-opulence of the few. That idea is lizard-brained, pure n simple.

Was his own book bullshit?

Hitler and his regime publicly feigned to be Christians, while in private they were atheists, pagans, social Darwinists and Nietzscheans, much's our leaders publicly feign to be Christians, liberals and conservatives, while in private they're, well, atheists, pagans, social Darwinists and Nietzscheans, but at least the Nazis were more honest.

More sticking your head in the sand fearing contradiction of your worldview. Hitler wrote a book where he said he was christian and doing god's work. Most of his speeches appealed to god. Nazi belt buckles said "God on our side". They were all members of the catholic church, except Goebbels who was excommunicated for marrying a protestant. Heck, you may as well claim the pope is atheist too in private. Maybe there is no such thing as a theist... it's just a big show and everyone is atheist at home in private. Conspiracy theory much?

It doesn't matter if they were christians or had to use christianity to rally the people. The point remains that religion was required to do evil. You didn't even watch the video.

Hitler, wrote Speer, viewed Christianity as the wrong religion for the "Germanic temperament":[54] Speer wrote that Hitler would say: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[57] Speer also wrote of observing in Hitler "quite a few examples", and that he held a negative view toward Himmler and Rosenberg's mystical notions.[58][59]

So he lamented the fact that jesus was a pascifist. He's still a theist.

Sometimes we do the opposite.

I'm in favor of helping those who genuinely need it.

I don't believe that for a second. You're for the continuation of servitude. A robotic minion incapable of deviating from the same old retorts as if serving plutocratic masters.

The people were theists (orthodox christians), but the state became god (or tried to).

Lenin and Stalin never claimed to be Gods.

You can use religion to justify the removal of tyrants too, like your founding fathers did.

Atheists need to stop blaming religion for what tyrants do with it.

I intend to start a thread devoted to this topic because I'm only burying information to be robotically ignored and that only the AI bots will ever see.

Of these three characters, Stalin was the only confirmed atheist, yet Hitchens thoroughly dealt with the religious nature of Stalin’s dictatorship in a manner that has left religious apologists without sufficient reply. Notwithstanding the fact that Stalin was raised as a Christian under the religious influence of his mother, who enrolled him in seminary school, and that Stalin later took it upon himself to study for the priesthood, as Hitchens and others have pointed out, Stalin merely stepped into a ready-made religious tyranny, constructed by the Russian Orthodox Church and paved with the teachings of St. Paul.

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism.
https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress ... -hitchens/
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

What does it mean to devolve? We've lost our ability to hunt because of grocery stores, so are we weaker now? Should we abandon grocery stores in order to preserve righteous hunting skills?

It's okay if some things atrophy if they're no longer needed.

I might agree with that if the amount of work being done were the same as the amount of work that needed to be done, but you're arguing for "improvements" and "advancements",

I'm not arguing for improvements and advancements i.e. the destruction of the environment, I'm arguing government should increase wages and reduce prices for necessities rather than going to the other extreme and giving necessities (e.g. food, clothing, shelter) away for free.
If only 50, 20 or whatever % of the population has to work full time to ensure everyone's needs are taken care of, than reduce the work week proportionally to ensure near 100% employment.
After that, improvements and advancements will be optional, and we'll think twice before doing something that jeopardises our health/the health of the environment for the sake of something no one needs or even really wants.
In the main, we should only economically, scientifically and technologically progress, if we can do so without seriously compromising our health/the environment's.

More conscription into servitude. Reduce everyone's work to be sure everyone gets a chance to lick boots or starve.

Children are helpless, and most of them will grow up to be contributors, lazy people aren't and won't.

Only 4% of people move from one quintile to another. Where you are born is where you stay. They write books on rags to riches stories. So, no, most will not grow up to be contributors, but engage in crime, drugs, and violence.

You are advocating to shit-up your own environment, and mine, all because you despise some people. You want to smear shit on my walls just to see that someone else doesn't get anything that you don't think he deserves.

"I want to introduce poverty, crime, under-education into your neighborhood because I just can't stomach the idea that some lazy bum might get something for nothing. We will all suffer because I hate some people." <-- That's it right there!

Sure, I agree, so who was the geneticist? Who killed the humans who didn't bear fruit and fed the ones that did? Who guided this process? If you cut down trees or throw out apples, then you get the credit, so who threw out the bad humans over the 100's of 1000s of years in order to select for the white ones? Nobody. It just worked out that way.

It doesn't matter if social, natural selection, free will insofar as it exists, Jesus, the Buddha or all of the above guided our evolution, those who're more able and willing to contribute to society should get more out of it.

Well, if you've accomplished nothing else, I'm now totally cool that my former school is about 100% mexican. These arrogant white mofos have got to go! I'm not sure what we're getting into, but I'm definitely going to relish the descent of the braggadocio... like watching that cocky tatted-up irish prick getting his ass kicked both by a muslim and a black man LOL

Remember when the irish were considered nonwhite? https://history.howstuffworks.com/histo ... -white.htm

More than 1.5 million people left Ireland for the United States between 1845 and 1855, the survivors of a potato famine that had wiped out more than 1 million people in their homeland. They arrived poor, hungry and sick, and then crowded into cramped tenements in Boston, New York and other Northeastern cities to start anew under difficult conditions.

The struggles of Irish immigrants were compounded by the poor treatment they received from the white, primarily Anglo-Saxon and Protestant establishment. America's existing unskilled workers worried they would be replaced by immigrants willing to work for less than the going rate. And business owners worried that Irish immigrants and African-Americans would band together to demand increased wages.

Not only were Irish immigrants viewed as interlopers by many white Americans (an irony, considering the historical treatment of Native Americans), but these immigrants were Catholics in a primarily Protestant land. It was a religious difference that widened the divide, as did the fact that many Irish immigrants didn't speak English. As strange as may it may sound today, Irish immigrants were not considered "white" and were sometimes referred to "negroes turned inside out."

Negroes turned inside out

If I breed a big tomato plant, then I get the credit for guiding the development of the genetics and not the tomato plant. The tomato plant didn't select for itself.

The big, juicy, nutritious tomato plant gets credit just for being itself, regardless of what external, and internal (it's always a combo) factors lead to its development, it gets credit because you're tending to it more than its fellows.

No, the tomato plant wouldn't exist without me. Actually, tomatoes were berries that humans bred into tomatoes.

I've heard many liberals fallaciously claim whites invented racism, slavery, genocide...

Doesn't seem like any reasonable person would believe that.

It should go without saying, but liberals can be every bit as unreasonable as conservatives.

Then they're conservative in liberal clothing.

Because an all-white workforce is evidence of discrimination. I mean, it may not be, but that's how they see it. They want to force different races together to acclimate them so that eventually no one gives a hoot.

Right, we should force people who do their job well to work with people who do their job poorly, because people who do their job well shouldn't care if they share the same position and wage with people who do their job poorly.

A black man delivers my ups packages and he seems to do a fine job. No clue what you're on about.

I sometimes wonder if Neil DeGrasse Tyson got some special favors for being black because he's not all that sharp, but he's not stupid either. I don't see a big deal. Michio Kaku is taking up the slack.

They'll support your right to do what you want, unless what you want is to tell others what to do.

No it's not just about not being told what to do, they don't want individuals, families and communities to have religious or moral values imposed.

FIFY. In blue.

Well the genital mutilation community, the suicide bomber community

Liberals want to remove all criticism of Islam, even tho in the 21st century, it's by far and away the most militant religion.

I disagree here. It's the right that's protecting islam.

the wars and atrocities all share religion

The worst atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheists who used religion as a vehicle to commit atrocities.

FIFY. In blue.

The left has the same obligation to exterminate conservatism while conservatives appeal to their right to oppress others (homos, nonwhites, poor people, women, druggies, etc) under the protection of religion, politics, and tradition.

And liberals are the enemy of whites, the middle class and men.

Just the arrogant ones.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

@Serendipper

But we need customers to buy the products.

We can always reduce the workweek to ensure near 100% employment, should the underclass decline in numbers, or should consumption/production decrease when people are no longer compelled to consume/produce so much, for we've raised wages and reduced prices for (essential) goods and services.

I think we should test your theory by chucking you onto the street with all the mullatos.

Since you like bums so much, you and your ilk should be conscripted to wipe their asses for them because they're too lazy to do it themselves.

Only to support the slave system. You're no different than any conservative. Worse perhaps because your evil is less obvious... like the angel of light christ warned about.

Conservatives are like 4 headed beasts that anyone with a brain knows to avoid, but you've taken on a new facade with the more virtuous connotations of the libertarian label that veils your true intentions.

"You can go lick boots or go starve in the streets, but I am however willing to raise the minimum wage for bootlicking because we must take care of our poor bootlickers." <-- that's not virtuous.

The ONLY way to be virtuous is to end conscription into bootlicking and support the freedom of people to decide if they want to lick boots or not. If you wear the libertarian label, you're a hypocrite.

Then you'll say "But who will lick all the boots if not compelled by starvation?" Yes exactly my point. You ain't no libertarian.

"But how will the work get done?" Most doesn't need to be done. Let them who want to do it, do it. Let the compulsion be money and not starvation.

"But some work needs to be done!" Yes and machines do most of it and what isn't mechanized can be attended to by the swarm of people who just like having something to do. Hell, I'm not getting paid to talk to you, but I'm working my ass off anyway. KT wouldn't go to the extents I do. Some people will do things that we ourselves cannot imagine doing and the "scarcity of volunteers" idea is just silly. And forcing people to do work that doesn't need to be done is evil because it increases suffering of the many to enable over-opulence of the few. That idea is lizard-brained, pure n simple.

Working people shouldn't be held at gun point and forced to work harder than they'd have to if both the underclass, and the overclass pulled their weight.
It's people who're able and willing to do the work that still needs to be done to take care of society who're ultimately going to help society progress, not the unable, nor the unwilling, they'll just hold us back.

Furthermore, if the unable/unwilling happen to procreate more than working people, or more and more join their ranks, we'll have to work harder and harder to support them.
eventually we may have to work much harder than we have to today, and because we're overburden, we won't be able to handle a sociopolitical, economic or environmental crisis should one happen to occur, and sooner than later, one will.

Disabled people should be treated humanely, we could all wind up disabled someday, but I have no sympathy for those who'd rather make other peoples lives harder than work.
They're not entitled to anything, and if they commit serious crimes, felonies, they should be given lengthier prison sentences, and again, possibly sterilizations, depending, if necessary.
Given that choice, I suspect many or most of them will work.
The ones who refuse have no excuse, particularly since wages and prices will be much fairer.

More sticking your head in the sand fearing contradiction of your worldview. Hitler wrote a book where he said he was christian and doing god's work.

We've already established Hitler pretended to be Christian for political gain, so it's not that much of a stretch to say he may've pretended to be a theist as well.

And it wasn't just him:

There was some diversity of personal views among the Nazi leadership as to the future of religion in Germany. Anti-Church radicals included Hitler's Personal Secretary Martin Bormann, Minister for Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, paganist Nazi Philosopher Alfred Rosenberg, and paganist occultist Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Contrary to what the anti-Christian left would have us believe, Nazism was in all likelihood a synthesis of occult pagan, social Darwinian and Nietzschean thought.

Heck, you may as well claim the pope is atheist too in private. Maybe there is no such thing as a theist... it's just a big show and everyone is atheist at home in private. Conspiracy theory much?

Why's it so difficult for the left to believe in conspiracy?
Sure, if the Nazis pretended to be Christians, and the communists pretended to be, well, communists, maybe the people at the very top of the Catholic pyramid, the popes, bishops and cardinals are atheists, or Satanists, I mean it would make sense considering they're obscenely rich and don't practice a thing Christ preached.
As far as I'm concerned they're all a bunch of sociopaths, same goes for democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives.
They're all plutocrats pretending to be for the people.

So he lamented the fact that jesus was a pascifist. He's still a theist.

It was just because he was a pacifist, Jesus stood for nearly everything Hitler stood against, Jesus said the meek shall inherit the kingdom, Hitler wanted to crush the weak.

I don't believe that for a second. You're for the continuation of servitude. A robotic minion incapable of deviating from the same old retorts as if serving plutocratic masters.

Pffft, you're the robot, you can't even think outside the left/right/libertarian paradigm they've fed you.
I have took what I consider to be the best from all three and synthesized them into a new political philosophy.

I intend to start a thread devoted to this topic because I'm only burying information to be robotically ignored and that only the AI bots will ever see.

Whether one believes in God or not says next to nothing about their character, or willingness to obey tyrants.

Religion can be a force for good in this world.
Look at all the charities founded by religions.
Religion can bring communities together and strengthen them.

Death to tyrants is obedience to God.

Benjamin Franklin

Most enlightenment philosophers and revolutionaries from John Locke, Montesquieu, to Thomas Jefferson were Christians or irreligious theists, the founders of liberal democracy.
Direct and representative Democracy was founded by the Greeks and Romans respectively, who were heavily steeped in religion.

Atheists are like haughty children who shit all over their parents, saying we'll do a better job than you once we're in charge of the world, subsequently blaming their parents for all their mistakes.
Yea right, that's what the monotheists said about polytheists and animists.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

@Serendipper

Only 4% of people move from one quintile to another. Where you are born is where you stay.

Once we improve healthcare, education, wages and working conditions, that figure may increase for the underclass, but if it doesn't, they shouldn't have kids.

No, the tomato plant wouldn't exist without me. Actually, tomatoes were berries that humans bred into tomatoes.

And you wouldn't exist without fruit and veg plants, so you taker better care of the superior ones.

Then they're conservative in liberal clothing.

Old conservativism subordinated women and minorities to men and the majority, whereas new liberalism does the reverse.
The two are similar in that they're both hierarchical, but different in who's dominant.
Old liberals and new conservatives are the ones who truly want to end discrimination.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Now again, I want to raise wages and reduce the prices of goods, especially essential ones, so we're not compelled to labor so the overclass can live extravagantly.
However, we shouldn't be forced to look after people who're perfectly capable of looking after themselves either.

If we give people welfare, no questions asked, in all likelihood unemployment will jump from 5 to 10, maybe even 15 or 20%, which means working people will have to work much, much harder than they should have to.

But if we improve working conditions, raise wages, reduce prices and universalize post-secondary education and healthcare, while simultaneously making it harder to collect welfare, so only those who genuinely need it, get it, can't find work or are disabled, in all likelihood unemployment will lower from 5 to 2 or 1%, which means working people won't have to work any harder than they should have to.

What does it matter if it's 100s of thousands of parasitical rich, or 10s of millions of parasitical poor we're supporting?
Both are enemies of working people.
And if the homeless cause us serious problems by committing felonies, we can just get proportionally tougher on crime in response, a threat which'll reduce unemployment even further.

Now as far as population control goes, we only need to worry about that if the unemployed birthrate exceeds the employed birthrate.
If it exceeds it than it needs to be deal with, because the more there is of them, the more difficult it will be to take care of them.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:And I don't know how I could make up my mind about 9/11 because all info I could receive will be "trust me, it's true!" Could buildings fall because of jet fuel? Hell, I don't know. I don't even know how I can find out. Is the government competent enough to orchestrate such an event?
I won't go into 911 here any more, but I will say this last comment. Check out the films of building 7 going down. Check out what can be seen of the fires in the building. Watch how fast it goes down. There was no jet fuel in building 7, none. It caught some side effects of the two towers. Try to imagine how burning desks and papers in asymmetical fires could take down a steel based structure. Perfectly. Asymetrical minor damage caused by fires brings down the entire building perfectly. Even demolition experts fuck up buildings and they make sure the destruction is simultaneous at the core of the building and symmetrical.

You could be right, I don't know. I remember Sylva Browne said if Bush won the election against Gore, that something really bad would happen. I voted for Bush anyway (dad's fault lol). I often wonder if there was any possible way she could have perceived the future. There was also some talk about some randomness-monitoring eggs placed around the world that suddenly stop detecting randomness right before the planes crashed. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ We can go pretty deep in the rabbit hole lol
Not matter what is happening - I now mean at a metaphysical level - existence is really weird and counterintuitive. We are down a rabbit hole. Maybe the Western Science based, there are democracies, conspiracies don't happen much, everything is matter -whatever that means - worldview is correct. But that is a fucking weird worldview. We can't really evaluate truth in terms of absurdity. Whatever is going on is very strange - if you can pull back from enough from your own culture to see all of its assumptions and then look at others.

I remember as a kid being told that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, no one has absolute power, but some people have incredible amounts of power.

But if you raise the possibility that they are abusing it you get Bill Clinton screaming 'shame on you' at you.

The utter inabililty of organizations to even consider and investigate certain things is ridicualous. There is free speech in a certain sense - though anyone with some power (a journalist, an ambassador, a professor at a prodigous university, anyone high up in the private sector but not at the top) should they go outside the consensus they are puting their careers in severe jeopardy and risking massive social ostracism and damning that will affect one's family.

People with less power will simply be marginalized. And are.

Someone criticizing the official conspiracy theory, say of 9/11, will be called a traitor, nutjob, put their job in jeopardy, be called a racist, and anti-seminte, told they are helping Putin, using hate speech and more.

With that enormous pressure on people actually looking at and considering things, we have a problem.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

I'd like to see the faux-communists try to do to the US what they did to Russia.
The Americans wouldn't have it, and Christian, gun-toting, rural Americans would put up the fiercest resistance.
America's Protestantism is a totally different beast than Russia's orthodox Christianity, I mean it's in the name even: protest, orthodox.

Now you can say America's religious worldview makes it possible for men like Trump to come to power and exploit the people, but so what?
Germany's brand of secular worldview makes it possible for women like Angela Merkel to come to power and exploit the people, as if liberals were any better than American conservatives, they're by and large just different forms of soft-tyranny.

Most Chinese are either irreligious or Buddhist, and like you said, Buddhism, at least at its core, is atheist, agnostic or perhaps apatheist religion, yet the faux-communists were still able to takeover in China, whereas they weren't in Shinto Japan.
While the Japanese experimented with their own form of tyranny in the mid 20th century, today they are democratic.
You can't blame everything, if anything on religion, some races with their histories, traditions apart from religion are more susceptible to tyranny than others.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Now let's take a look at progressive Finland.

Here's their income tax burden:

The total Finnish income tax includes the tax dependent on net salary along with employee and employer unemployment payments.[2] [3] The tax rate is highly progressive. Taxation increases rapidly from the base bracket of 25% of annual income at €13,000, up to 67% of annual income at €83,000 a year. This percentage decreases marginally to 65% of annual income at €127,000 a year. Calculating tax rates is complicated by the fact that some sources, such as the Veronmaksajat, do not include the employer unemployment payment in their calculations.

€13,000
25%
€33,000
57%
€47,000
60%
€83,000
67%
€94,000
66%
€127,000
65%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Finland

Now unless I'm missing something, see how the progressives screw the middle, and even working class nearly as much as the rich?
The middle and working classes should hardly pay any tax at all.
But the rich can take it, like Jesus said, the poor man who donates a penny gives more than the rich man who donates half his savings, and the rich often find ways around taxes.

And these days progressives especially want to censor your speech, take your guns, bring in millions of legal immigrants, most of whom take a hell of a lot more jobs than they create, so the working class has to compete with them, millions of illegals and refugees, make excuses for Islam, discriminate against all, not just some, their policies target all men and whites, progressive Hollywood promotes drugs and thuggery, progressive education tells kids it's cool to cut off your Johnson and take hormone blockers...

Now I'm not saying conservatives are any better, they're not, and they both have infinitely more in common than not.
We live in a two party dictatorship, and it's going to take some real, outside the box thinking, and action to change anything.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3322
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Gloominary wrote:
I think we should test your theory by chucking you onto the street with all the mullatos.

Since you like bums so much, you and your ilk should be conscripted to wipe their asses for them because they're too lazy to do it themselves.

No that's the Kock Brothers' job.

Matthew 23
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Working people shouldn't be held at gun point and forced to work harder than they'd have to if both the underclass, and the overclass pulled their weight.

I shouldn't be conscripted into pulling weight that I don't want to pull nor is there any reason that I should have to pull such weight EXCEPT to make some over-indulgled, out of touch asshat richer. If you want to pull his weight, then go pull it, but don't rope me into your fetish.

It's people who're able and willing to do the work that still needs to be done to take care of society who're ultimately going to help society progress, not the unable, nor the unwilling, they'll just hold us back.

You trying to drive us forward is holding us back.

Furthermore, if the unable/unwilling happen to procreate more than working people, or more and more join their ranks, we'll have to work harder and harder to support them.
eventually we may have to work much harder than we have to today, and because we're overburden, we won't be able to handle a sociopolitical, economic or environmental crisis should one happen to occur, and sooner than later, one will.

Nonsense.

Disabled people should be treated humanely, we could all wind up disabled someday, but I have no sympathy for those who'd rather make other peoples lives harder than work.

Then you have no sympathy for yourself. You are the one forcing people to work harder than they have to. I'm advocating all work be voluntary. You are advocating slavery.

More sticking your head in the sand fearing contradiction of your worldview. Hitler wrote a book where he said he was christian and doing god's work.

We've already established Hitler pretended to be Christian for political gain, so it's not that much of a stretch to say he may've pretended to be a theist as well.

We've established that you're under the delusion that Hitler pretended to be christian when he wrote his book, gave his speeches, mandated prayer and all oaths to be taken in the name of god. As I said, you may as well claim the pope is an atheist too.

And it wasn't just him:

There was some diversity of personal views among the Nazi leadership as to the future of religion in Germany. Anti-Church radicals included Hitler's Personal Secretary Martin Bormann, Minister for Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, paganist Nazi Philosopher Alfred Rosenberg, and paganist occultist Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Contrary to what the anti-Christian left would have us believe, Nazism was in all likelihood a synthesis of occult pagan, social Darwinian and Nietzschean thought.

You're struggling, grasping and groping to find anything to save your position. Why? Why is it so important to you that Hitler be an atheist that you're willing to be dishonest in painting it so? Quite the crusade you've undertaken.

Heck, you may as well claim the pope is atheist too in private. Maybe there is no such thing as a theist... it's just a big show and everyone is atheist at home in private. Conspiracy theory much?

Why's it so difficult for the left to believe in conspiracy?

Lack of the necessary brain damage?

Sure, if the Nazis pretended to be Christians, and the communists pretended to be, well, communists, maybe the people at the very top of the Catholic pyramid, the popes, bishops and cardinals are atheists, or Satanists, I mean it would make sense considering they're obscenely rich and don't practice a thing Christ preached.
As far as I'm concerned they're all a bunch of sociopaths, same goes for democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives.
They're all plutocrats pretending to be for the people.

I live in a town with nothing but christians, yet I've never met a christian. It's an impossible religion.

And Watts said nobody really believes in god because if they did, they'd be screaming in the streets. The Jehovah's Witnesses is the closest we have to a group like that. So in that light, sure, there are only atheists, but to the extent that people consider themselves christian and profess to be such, that's how I'm defining them and Hitler falls into the same category as the pope.

So he lamented the fact that jesus was a pascifist. He's still a theist.

It was just because he was a pacifist, Jesus stood for nearly everything Hitler stood against, Jesus said the meek shall inherit the kingdom, Hitler wanted to crush the weak.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Who was the first to throw jews into ovens? ^^^

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p. 174 Mein Kampf)

I don't believe that for a second. You're for the continuation of servitude. A robotic minion incapable of deviating from the same old retorts as if serving plutocratic masters.

Pffft, you're the robot, you can't even think outside the left/right/libertarian paradigm they've fed you.
I have took what I consider to be the best from all three and synthesized them into a new political philosophy.

Looks to me you've torn off the "conservative" label and painted on "libertarian". What novel aspect are you bringing to the table?

I intend to start a thread devoted to this topic because I'm only burying information to be robotically ignored and that only the AI bots will ever see.

Whether one believes in God or not says next to nothing about their character, or willingness to obey tyrants.

Obeying tyrants is conditional to religion. It's definitional LOL!

Propensity to disobey tyrants makes one prone to atheism.

Religion can be a force for good in this world.

The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh.

Look at all the charities founded by religions.

The Red Cross is secular. I haven't looked into whether there are more religious charities than secular, but I suspect there isn't a big difference.

Religion can bring communities together and strengthen them.

By dividing them. Friends need a common enemy lest they fight among themselves.

Death to tyrants is obedience to God.

Benjamin Franklin

Yes the bible says to obey all laws. You should never fight and always obey.

Most enlightenment philosophers and revolutionaries from John Locke, Montesquieu, to Thomas Jefferson were Christians or irreligious theists, the founders of liberal democracy.

No respect for Locke, don't know the other fella, and Hitchens describes Jefferson as secular, but I don't know for sure because I haven't cared to look yet.

Direct and representative Democracy was founded by the Greeks and Romans respectively, who were heavily steeped in religion.

I don't know enough to opine.

Atheists are like haughty children who shit all over their parents, saying we'll do a better job than you once we're in charge of the world, subsequently blaming their parents for all their mistakes.

Parents are the worst thing that could happen to a child.

Yea right, that's what the monotheists said about polytheists and animists.

That doesn't indicate anything. Theists are theists.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Only 4% of people move from one quintile to another. Where you are born is where you stay.

Once we improve healthcare, education, wages and working conditions, that figure may increase for the underclass, but if it doesn't, they shouldn't have kids.

Well, you'll never usher in another final solution so you may as well forget it and move on.

No, the tomato plant wouldn't exist without me. Actually, tomatoes were berries that humans bred into tomatoes.

And you wouldn't exist without fruit and veg plants, so you taker better care of the superior ones.

Yes but my point was that no one bred humans to be white or smart or anything else. No one guided the process and therefore no one gets the credit.

Then they're conservative in liberal clothing.

Old conservativism subordinated women and minorities to men and the majority, whereas new liberalism does the reverse.
The two are similar in that they're both hierarchical, but different in who's dominant.
Old liberals and new conservatives are the ones who truly want to end discrimination.

People can swap labels all they want, but it's a conservative/rightwing thing to divide people into groups.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Heck, you may as well claim the pope is atheist too in private. Maybe there is no such thing as a theist... it's just a big show and everyone is atheist at home in private. Conspiracy theory much?

Why's it so difficult for the left to believe in conspiracy?

[quote]Lack of the necessary brain damage? [quote]What, you think 9/11 was due to pilot error? You have a choice between conspiracies on that day. You just decided that people with less power committed the conspiracy. It's weird that people don't believe in conspiracies, since there are so many laws on the books related to 'conspiracy to...' and we know that governments and corporations and groups throughout history have committed conspiracies. If you point this out, people say, yeah, but it's not these neat little groups controlling the world, as if the simplest all encompassing conspiracy theory is the only one.

If we evaluated the theory of evolution by the standard of most believers in it, it would seem stupid. Because most people have no sense of graduated equilibria, or epigenetics, or the statistics of traits or how the fossil record relates to spandrels.

But when something is not in the mainstream consensus, suddenly only a moron could believe in it, because many of the people who believe in it are not so smart or have oversimplified versions they believe in. We could toss out much of science on those grounds.

You don't know the best versions by the best researchers, so it's facile to talk about damaged brains. Which simply comes off dumb given, say, engineers and architects, that organization and what they say about 9/11, for example. Does having smart people believing in something mean it is correct? No. And obviously you agree since many smart people believe in global warming.

And your disbelief in global warming makes your insulting him, and, well, me and a lot of others, really odd. I mean, that's a common conspiracy theory. That the people pushing for this idea of global warming being caused by humans, etc. are a conspiracy. You must have too few brain cells.

And if you think I was arguing that evolutionary theory is wrong, you need to reread this. My argument includes my belief that it is correct.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Gloominary wrote:Now again, I want to raise wages and reduce the prices of goods, especially essential ones, so we're not compelled to labor so the overclass can live extravagantly.

Jacque Fresco, Alan Watts and others insisted it was technically possible to eliminate servitude in the 70s, so there is absolutely no way anyone should be compelled into the workforce in 2019!

The ONLY thing stopping it is the existence of hateful people who just can't stand the thought that someone might get something for nothing. There is no other reason. That was true in the 70s and is true today, but luckily we're about to witness the extinction of a large swath of them.

However, we shouldn't be forced to look after people who're perfectly capable of looking after themselves either.

The job of the machine is to make drudgery unnecessary.

If we give people welfare, no questions asked, in all likelihood unemployment will jump from 5 to 10, maybe even 15 or 20%, which means working people will have to work much, much harder than they should have to.

Not true. Unemployment is determined by measuring the number of people looking for work. People not looking for work are not considered unemployed. Unemployment would be 50% right now if we didn't measure it that way.

But if we improve working conditions, raise wages,

That can only come by providing welfare (or rich parents) so that workers do not have to take the peanuts offered which will force companies to offer higher wages to motivate people to work.

reduce prices and universalize post-secondary education and healthcare, while simultaneously making it harder to collect welfare, so only those who genuinely need it, get it, can't find work or are disabled, in all likelihood unemployment will lower from 5 to 2 or 1%, which means working people won't have to work any harder than they should have to.

You're trying to force communism through authoritarian dictation. It can't be done. Communism arises of its own accord. If you eliminate welfare, wages will plummet, prices will plummet from lack of demand, and very few will have jobs. You'll have to force companies to hire (at gunpoint), you'll have to set prices and wages, and you'll be simply repeating what all other communist dictators tried to do.

What does it matter if it's 100s of thousands of parasitical rich, or 10s of millions of parasitical poor we're supporting?
Both are enemies of working people.

Working people are suckers who won't stand up for themselves. They're enamored with prostitution it seems.

And if the homeless cause us serious problems by committing felonies, we can just get proportionally tougher on crime in response, a threat which'll reduce unemployment even further.

Ok Stalin. Or is it Reagan?

Now as far as population control goes, we only need to worry about that if the unemployed birthrate exceeds the employed birthrate.
If it exceeds it than it needs to be deal with, because the more there is of them, the more difficult it will be to take care of them.

The best thing to do is throw money at them. Not only will the poor instantly disappear, but they'll stop having kids too. No prisons, no laws, no crime, no expense, no trouble, ah but also no fun. You need someone to torture afterall, right? That's the point of all this rightwing communism you're spouting because what fun is it to go to heaven if not for looking over the edge at the damned?
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Someone criticizing the official conspiracy theory, say of 9/11, will be called a traitor, nutjob, put their job in jeopardy, be called a racist, and anti-seminte, told they are helping Putin, using hate speech and more.

With that enormous pressure on people actually looking at and considering things, we have a problem.

But we have to decide if we are advocating for a government to protect us or are we demonizing government in effort to escape its control?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

If we're advocating for a government, maybe it's not such a great idea to attack the idea of it.

Pearl Harbor was an inside job too right? FDR and Churchill colluded somehow or another in effort to get the US into the war. I guess that cause was more noble than 9/11, but still.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:I'd like to see the faux-communists try to do to the US what they did to Russia.
The Americans wouldn't have it,

Well the atheists wouldn't.

and Christian, gun-toting, rural Americans would put up the fiercest resistance.

No, they would welcome it with open arms! Hillbillies relish good ole fashioned authoritarianism. Being told what to do, telling people want to do, and having an authority to worship is right up their alley... just so long as you don't expect them to think.

America's Protestantism is a totally different beast than Russia's orthodox Christianity, I mean it's in the name even: protest, orthodox.

They think the pope is the antichrist; that's about the only difference.

Now you can say America's religious worldview makes it possible for men like Trump to come to power and exploit the people, but so what?
Germany's brand of secular worldview makes it possible for women like Angela Merkel to come to power and exploit the people, as if liberals were any better than American conservatives, they're by and large just different forms of soft-tyranny.

Is there evidence that Merkel is a liberal? She advocates rightwing taxation.

Angela Dorothea Merkel (/ˈmɜːrkəl/; German: [aŋˈɡeːla ˈmɛʁkl̩];[a] née Kasner, born 17 July 1954) is a German politician serving as Chancellor of Germany since 2005. She served as the leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from 2000 to 2018.

Oh my, another nazi LOL!

Merkel was born in Hamburg in then-West Germany and moved to East Germany as an infant when her father, a Lutheran clergyman, received a pastorate in Perleberg.

Well well...

In October 2010, Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam that attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany had "utterly failed",[75] stating that: "The concept that we are now living side by side and are happy about it" does not work[76] and "we feel attached to the Christian concept of mankind, that is what defines us. Anyone who doesn't accept that is in the wrong place here."

Hitler said the same thing.

We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious ... olf_Hitler

Most Chinese are either irreligious or Buddhist, and like you said, Buddhism, at least at its core, is atheist, agnostic or perhaps apatheist religion, yet the faux-communists were still able to takeover in China, whereas they weren't in Shinto Japan.
While the Japanese experimented with their own form of tyranny in the mid 20th century, today they are democratic.
You can't blame everything, if anything on religion, some races with their histories, traditions apart from religion are more susceptible to tyranny than others.

Yeah but they've still made a religion from it and some buddhists believe in souls, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc. Just like christians are not anything like christ, buddhists are nothing like the buddha.

Atheists are quite different: they don't do anything religiously, they don't go to temples, they aren't concerned with afterlives, and they can't believe in objective truth.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:Now let's take a look at progressive Finland.

You have to stop paying attention to labels. That's rightwing and not progressivism.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:What, you think 9/11 was due to pilot error? You have a choice between conspiracies on that day. You just decided that people with less power committed the conspiracy.

LOL that's funny! I suppose the terrorists conspired to pilot the planes into the towers, but what I meant by conspiracy is that the government orchestrated it or was in on it.

It's weird that people don't believe in conspiracies, since there are so many laws on the books related to 'conspiracy to...' and we know that governments and corporations and groups throughout history have committed conspiracies. If you point this out, people say, yeah, but it's not these neat little groups controlling the world, as if the simplest all encompassing conspiracy theory is the only one.

It's not about believing in conspiracies, but being prone to believe in them or tending to think too many things are conspiracies. Just like any other hallucination.

If we evaluated the theory of evolution by the standard of most believers in it, it would seem stupid. Because most people have no sense of graduated equilibria, or epigenetics, or the statistics of traits or how the fossil record relates to spandrels.

It's hard for me to relate here because evolution seems "common sense" to me, and by that I mean "readily apparent to even the dumbest person". What makes no sense is that some fictional sky fairy poofed all species into existence from nothing.

I can look at a cat skeleton and see eons of honing and refinements that went into making it perfectly adapted for its purpose and in no way does it appear "made".

Apologists appeal to the "fine-tuning argument" to support creation, but to me the fine-tuning is a result of iterations (evolution). Nothing in nature is a round number; it's always some oddball number that doesn't indicate design in any way. 365.25 days in a year. God couldn't get it perfect? Or did he try to make it look non-designed?

But when something is not in the mainstream consensus, suddenly only a moron could believe in it, because many of the people who believe in it are not so smart or have oversimplified versions they believe in. We could toss out much of science on those grounds.

Idk what you're driving at here. Are you saying morons have a window to the world that smart people don't have?

You don't know the best versions by the best researchers, so it's facile to talk about damaged brains. Which simply comes off dumb given, say, engineers and architects, that organization and what they say about 9/11, for example. Does having smart people believing in something mean it is correct? No. And obviously you agree since many smart people believe in global warming.

All I'm saying is that any group of smart people assembled will always have a higher proportion of liberals than conservatives. Does it mean liberalism is correct? No, but it means conservatives are stupid. Dummies aren't necessarily conservative, but conservatives are necessarily dumb (ignorant anyway). And I was conservative most of my life (I was raised in it). Indeed, I was ignorant. The internet fixed that since I could perform my own research.

And regarding 9/11, I just don't know and it's not anything that I could know and for that reason I've always avoided trying to know. I didn't need it to dislike Bush since the Patriot Act was sufficient. 9/11 wouldn't surprise me if it was an inside job and it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't.

The architects and engineers say jet fuel is not enough to melt steel. I've seen videos showing that it's not enough. But even that evidence is not enough for me to be sure because maybe there is some variable I'm overlooking. I know from experience that heating steel and letting it cool is sufficient to weaken it. I discovered that as a kid playing with candles. Put steel in a candle flame and it's pretty much worthless after and there's no way to fix it (except recarbonating it and quenching).

And if they placed bombs in the buildings, how did they know where to put them? Or how did the pilots know where to fly the planes into the buildings to coincide with the placement of the bombs to make it all look natural? Nobody could have predicted where the planes would hit and no pilot willing to sacrifice himself would be able to hit the right bullseye. And if the government is so inept that it can't run a post office or amtrak, then how could it pull off something like that?

And your disbelief in global warming makes your insulting him, and, well, me and a lot of others, really odd.

Who? Gloom? He's who they were talking about here:

Furthermore, compared with liberals, individuals who
endorse right-wing ideologies are more fearful and anxious that
out-groups will cause the disintegration of societal moral standards
and traditions (Altemeyer, 1996; Jost et al., 2003; Sibley
& Duckitt, 2008).

https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-conten ... 421206.pdf

He should recognize he has that propensity and work to correct it or at least moderate it. Much of what he's freaking out about is either nothing or inevitable.

And I could be wrong about global warming. My opinion is that I am not, but I've been wrong about it before (or maybe I wasn't and I'm wrong now, idk). The fact that so many agree with global warming makes me wonder if I am missing something. The problem is I don't know what I don't know... and that's what I need to know in order to know.

2 years ago I was a theist. You may even find some early posts of mine on here that contradict what I say now. I change my mind a lot. When the evidence changes, my opinion changes.

I mean, that's a common conspiracy theory. That the people pushing for this idea of global warming being caused by humans, etc. are a conspiracy. You must have too few brain cells.

I don't think it's a matter of missing brain cells, but what part of the brain is exercised. Have you seen those guys with great big arms and chicken legs? Nursing conspiracy theories probably better-equips one to continue nursing conspiracy theories along with other fear-based ideas which probably leads to asymmetric neural growth analogous to the chicken-legged guy at the gym.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext