text:
911) Arminius, 20.08.2016, 03:03, 03:21, 03:45, 05:26, 21:05, 21:06, 21:24, 21:31, 21:36, 21:53, 22:08, 22:24, 23:00, 23:13, 23:23, 23:26, 23:33, 23:54 (5061-5078)
"One can be »sure enough«, although one can never be absolutely certain." **
When I used the term "sure enough" I meant "absoluetly certain".
"Certainty can only be obtained of principles, not current physical situations (in the midst of their changes)." **
Where is the difference between "sureness" and "certainty"?
"The issue in life and mind is to be certain ENOUGH to obtain MIJOT." **
Where is the difference between "sure" and "certain"?
I guess that the main shape of movement in our universe is a spiral.
»My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.
The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.« ** **
In my animations the bodies are also curving (circling) due to a center, but - geometrically said - curving (circling) is merely two-dimensional, whereas spiraling is curving (circling) three-dimensionally.
At the same time when our Earth orbits our Sun, our Sun orbits the center of our galaxy. According to this facts the movement of the Earth can only be three-dimensional, thus spiral.
One can nevertheless call it "circling in a three-dimensional way", because it means "spiraling".
I am talking about a geometrical difference - not about spiraling inward or outward (that would be another issue).
The helical model (part 1): ** **
In the video is said that our solar system would be a vortex. I do not think so. But: The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct. If you werenot aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy — which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths — then the education system has seriously failed.
Harbal. Is there no chance to come together again?
As I said: I do not agree with everything he is saying. My intention was to show the spiral/helical model, because I think that he did a good job with his video/animation. But his text is not always agreeable.
Harbal wrote:
»Harbal. Is there no chance to come together again?« ** **
I hope not, it would be the worse possible thing for both of us. I think too much has happened, too much bitterness." **
I can imagine that.
So again: I wish you all the best and good luck. I am pretty sure that you are going to manage it in a good way, your way.
And what about the very bad healthcare system?
Jerkey wrote:
"Yes there is. Until there is a will, there is always a way!" **
However, Jerkey, it is his way, and I am pretty sure that his way is a good way.
Dan wrote:
"Long before technology, the best idea a wise man could have would be to retire from the world. He would realize imposing human will on reality and the planet earth interferes with its perfection. Earth without humans would be better not worse." **
There would be nobody for noticing the "better Earth", for having the thought "oh, what a better Earth this is".
"Today people are the opposite, AND they have technology, which changes everything." **
Yes, that all is bad, but what should the humans do according to you?
Your statement underlines my statement: The United Statess have the worst healthcare system of all so-called "first world" nations.
Humans can only be humans.
The Sun is only orbiting the galactic center. Did he say something different?
"And how does that effect everything?" **
I do not understand what you mean by your question, Dan. Humans are not really capable of being dogs (for example).
I remind you of my thread: "Will machines completely replace all human beings?" (**|**).
Will that be a solution?
"If we can't change, then there is no use trying to change.
Human limits can be stretched." **
In what way do you want to stretch them?
912) Arminius, 22.08.2016, 01:00, 01:02, 01:04, 01:06, 01:52, 02:03, 02:18, 02:28, 03:02, 03:40, 05:02, 06:03, 14:52, 18:50, 19:03, 19:09, 19:20, 19:35, 19:50, 20:05, 20:16, 21: 02 (5079-5100)
»In what way do you want to stretch them?« ** **
Mostly in the field of morality and medicine." **
History has shown that all so-called "human rights" have almost always been hidden rationales and hidden justifications for exploitation everything and everyone the exploiters want to exploit.
The more rhetoric laws amd rhetoric rights the humans invent the more human they are. This is meant in a negative and a positive way, but the negative one prevails the positive one the more the more laws or rights are invented. At least, this is the case in modernity. So, if we use your way of morality, we have merely two small "chances" (it is questionable whether they are chances or not): (1) we stop inventing rhetoric laws and rhetoric rights, (2) we stop modernity.
"He shows the Sun traveling in a spiraling helix. A helix travel requires a center line/curve to be traveling around. The Sun is shown orbiting that center line (in the same way as the planets are orbiting the Sun) as it travels around the galactic center. What is causing the Sun to orbit like that while also orbiting the galactic center?" **
Only the galactic center is causing the orbit of the Sun. The spiraling helix he shows is the orbit of the Earth. The Sun is causing the Earth to orbit the Sun, while the galactic center is causing the Sun (and thus also the Earth) to orbit the galactic center. What he shows is that the Earth (but not the Sun) has two orbits: (1) an orbit caused by the Sun, (2) an orbit caused by the galactic center. The spiraling helix he shows is the visual (optical) result of that two orbits of the Earth (and not of the Sun). He does not show another orbit of the Sun.
One Liner wrote:
"I have heard their health system is bad but I wouldn't know (as I am fortunate enough to not live in the US) and I generally don't consider Americans as being that important." **
Where do you come from? Or/and: Where do you live?
You (**) know nothing. You are not even capable of understanding the simpliest words, T. F. (Trolling Faker).
I did not say that he was "wrong". I did not use that word or similar words. Just the opposite is true.
I said this:
"I wish you all the best and good luck. I am pretty sure that you are going to manage it in a good way, your way." ** **
"So again: I wish you all the best and good luck. I am pretty sure that you are going to manage it in a good way, your way." ** **
"However, ... it is his way, and I am pretty sure that his way is a good way." ** **
Yes (**). Globalism is the synthesis of techno-creditism (capitalism) and socialism (communism). It is easier and more efficient to enslave the masses by both than by merely one of both.
I was the only one in this thread who referred to longer effects (from the 1950s till 2016) and who gave sources too.
Mithus wrote:
"The German government called upon the population today to store up food and water for at least two weeks in case of a possible armed aggression and oncoming catastrophe." **
Here are some sources: ** ** ** .
Did we (**)?
What about the new gods, for example the "scientific" gods.
Ah, now I know what you mean (**). I think that he made a mistake there. And by the way: That second animation is not as good as the first one.
I could imagine that he tried to show how the Sun spirals because of the fact that the galactic center also moves, but then he made a mistake by showing odd movements. And it is also not clear why he mentioned the stellar wind in that animation (compare: 1:54-1:58).
Either we did not invent gods or we invented false gods (idols).
The first "gods" for a child are the parents of the child. Later the child learns what "gods" mean or/and what a "god" means. So that learning of the concept "god/gods" by children is a part of the ontogenetic development. I think that the learning of the concept "god/gods" by erstwhile adults, thus a part of the phylogenetic development, is similar to the ontogenetic development. Ancestors had and have been gods for a very, very, very long time.
Modernity fights the origin. So theologically said, modernity means inventing false gods (idols). But in other times and always for children gods are not an invention but a part of the development of language-based thought from the concrete to the abstract.
Ukraine and Russia, yes (**), and do not forget the situations in Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, ... (Kurdistan). They all are not very far away from Europe.
Schrödingers Katze:
As long as there is no observer who makes a measurement, the cat remains both alive and dead.
One Liner, "before 2050" also includes the near future, for example the next hour.
If Europe will continue its self-destructiv politics, then there will be no future for it.
Capitalism will not completely be replaced by anything, at least not in the near future. We have to ask what "capitalism" really means and come to the answer that it is not less but also not more than a "techno-creditism", because credit is needed in order to accumulate capital and to pay the also needed technological inventions and investments. Globalism as the currently dominating system is already a synthesis of capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism). So capitalism is more replaced than it was in the past (from about the last thrird of the 18th till about the end of the first half of the 20th century, when the Keynesianism began), but it also has been increasing. Keynesianistic capitalism means making, contracting debts in an exponentially increasing way.
In the long run, capitalism will probably be replaced by something (perhaps a new feudalism) coming after a disaster.
John Maynard Keynes wrote: "In the long run we are dead."
Change is not always morally good but often morally bad, evil. The problem is that change is happening anyway. So we would have to do the change also in order to prevent change, a different change, or to live according to something like an amor fati as the alternative choice. We are experiencing the change either actively or passively.
As long as there is no observer who makes a measurement, the cat remains both alive and dead.« ** **
Kind of makes you wonder ..., what if 1000 people glanced into the box at the same time? Which one determined whether the cat lived?" **
The one with the most power.
"Is Socialism really that bad?" **
That question reminds me of a similar question as a similar title in a similar thread.
"What will replace capitalism?" **
"Capitalism will not completely be replaced by anything, at least not in the near future. We have to ask what "capitalism" really means and come to the answer that it is not less but also not more than a "techno-creditism", because credit is needed in order to accumulate capital and to pay the also needed technological inventions and investments. Globalism as the currently dominating system is already a synthesis of capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism). So capitalism is more replaced than it was in the past (from about the last thrird of the 18th till about the end of the first half of the 20th century, when the Keynesianism began), but it also has been increasing. Keynesianistic capitalism means making, contracting debts in an exponentially increasing way.
John Maynard Keynes wrote: »In the long run we are all dead.«" ** **
Hahaha wrote:
"Correction, we are already living under neo feudalism. It's a technocratic oligarchy neo feudal world." **
Correction of your "correction".
There are still - for example - modern states (although they are slowly shattering). The "technocratic oligarchy neo feudal world" is something that probably comes next.
There has never been so much violence (compare alone the current number of wars and warlike events) in the world than today (which roughly means from 1990 till now).
I also think that it is very probable that some galaxies are contracting and some galaxies are expanding.
Please read this:
BBC News wrote:
"Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte threatens to leave UN
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has threatened to »separate« from the UN after it criticised his war on drugs as a crime under international law.
Mr Duterte said he might ask China and African nations to form another body. He also accused the UN of failing on terrorism, hunger and ending conflicts.
Mr Duterte, elected in May, has sanctioned the killing of traffickers to try to wipe out the drugs trade.
The UN has repeatedly condemned the drive as a violation of human rights. ( !!! )
Some 900 suspected drug traffickers have been killed since Mr Duterte was elected on 9 May.
Duterte: »Punisher« to president.
Last week, two UN human rights experts said Mr Duterte's directive for police and the public to kill suspected drug traffickers amounted to »incitement to violence and killing, a crime under international law«.
In an expletives-laden tirade against the UN on Sunday, Mr Duterte branded the experts »stupid«, saying they should count the number of innocent lives lost to drugs.
»I do not want to insult you. But maybe we'll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations«, he said.
»If you are that rude, we might just as well leave«, he said.
»So take us out of your organisation. You have done nothing. Where were you here the last time? Never. Except to criticise«, he said.
Mr Duterte said the UN should refund its contribution »so we can go out«.
Mr Duterte said the UN had been unable to combat hunger and terrorism and had failed to end the killing of civilians in Iraq and Syria.
»You now, United Nations, if you can say one bad thing about me, I can give 10 [about you]. I tell you, you are [useless]. Because if you are really true to your mandate, you could have stopped all these wars and killings.«
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have both condemned Mr Duterte's »apparent endorsement of extrajudicial killings, which is illegal and a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms«.
Mr Duterte was sworn in as president in June, after winning a landslide election victory.
He had previously been mayor of the country's third biggest city, Davao, for 22 years where his tough approach and controversial comments earned him the nickname »The Punisher«." **
Whatever Duterte's reasons are, the UN is indeed as corrupt as the US and the EU are.
913) Arminius, 24.08.2016, 01:07, 01:09, 01:10, 01:14, 01:15, 01:16, 01:18, 01:20, 02:30, 02:46, 02:54, 03:06, 03:45, 13:09, 13:43, 13:56, 15:06, 15:16, 17:53 (5101-5119)
Mannequin wrote:
"Is love the answer to the world's problems?" **
Only at the right time in the right place. Since some preconditions must be fulfilled for being "the answer to the world's problems".
If such preconditions were not necessary, then "the answer to the world's problems" would already have been practicing for so long.
But such preconditions host some other problems, which have to do with the conditio humana (human condition) itself.
So I can guarantee you that being "the answer to the world's problems" is not an easy job but more a Sisyphean task (which does not mean that it is impossible). If your "stone" called "love" is on the "top of the hill" called "The-answer-to-the-world's-problems", then you are successful until your love is going to run down that hill.
Love is a life task, a life's work, a mission in life.
What you (**) are describing here can also be said about the Occidental nations, especially the US nation: "... birth control ..., ... effectively causing large scale human right violations ..., ... natural disaster ..., ... end up in Swiss bank accounts belonging to various politicians ..., ... drug lords, rake in huge profits, causing further economic decline, poverty ap, illness and death, ... unemployment ..., ... in the name of good will, human rights , and the insincerity of alleged foreign aid" (**).
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were no real communists but most extreme terrorists, totalitarianists, mass murderers (more than 100 million humans were killed) who could stabilize their system only by murdering more and more people. Mao said to Stalin in 1949 that he would donate 100 million dead people, if they were needed for the victory of what they called "communism", thus their totalitarian terrorism by killing. If that added wish of Mao had also come true, then the number of the "communistic" victims would have been more than 200 million killed humans.
"My official position on this matter is that there is already a war in Europe (it's just a different type of war) and it's a war that will get a lot worse as time progresses." **
I guess, you mean the ecomical and demographical war.
It is said that Adolf Hitler once also said "Guten Abend" ("good evening"), so now every "Abend" ("evening") has to be "evil".
"I live in the central Australian desert, in an Aboriginal community, with a population of 200 people but I originally come from Eastern Europe." **
That is interesting.
I hope, you have enough water in that central Australian desert. Maybe you have not enough water to write more than one line.
Many belief system founders came from desert regions, spent a relatively long time in the desert.
From which region in Eastern Europe do you originally come?
"Determinists are people who have a different logic but they still emotionally respond to the world according to illogical processes (they are not robots)." **
There is causality and there is the will and the spirit with its thinking. So it is not possible that determinists are completely wrong because of the causality, and it is not possible that indeterminists are completely wrong because of the will and the spirit with its thinking. Therefore Kant distinguished the empiric character (cp.: causality, determinism) from the intelligible character (cp. will, indeterminism).
But if there was no "big bang", why should there be a "cosmic background radiation", what should have caused it?
Imagine, many nations in East, South, North, and Central Asia, some nations in West Asia, many nations in Africa found a second UNO, an Eastern-and-Southern-UNO, a Second-and-Third-World-UNO.
"Logic is merely keeping your words straight. Illogic is not keeping them straight. So yeah, quite often people do not keep their words straight (else there wouldn't be all of this confusion keeping everyone blind from what is really going on behind their backs and under their radar." **
Right. That is what I have been saying since my youth (although mostly in another language ).
"The CBR is the natural harmonic resonance of the universe. It is created by everything moving and being affected by everything else moving. Extremely distant light photons eventually fade into becoming merely a part of the ocean of subtle motion.
It is impossible for the universe to not have a resonance and it is impossible for photons to stay in form forever. With every electron and proton spinning, orbiting and vibrating, each being affected by the others, a subtle resonance must form. If the CBR isn't that resonance, then what is?" **
But what caused it to become just the a backgrond radiation, if there was neither a "big bang" nor an "inflation phase" of the universe?
I guess, I know your answer: Affectance.
UNO 1 and UNO 2:
"I will eventually be out here for a total of 7 years (sometimes people only last a day before they quit)." **
So you have enough water in that said desert?
I guess, I know your answer: Affectance.« ** **
I see. You are thinking that the CBR is coming FROM a background somewhere, right? It isn't. They noticed that no matter what direction they aim their antenna, they get the same subtle microwave frequency." **
You mean the radio technicians who could not get rit of the dirt in an antenna in 1964. According to the mainstream physicists this led to the knowledge of the cosmic background radiation (cbr). I know that story.
"The signal is EVERYWHERE. It isn't coming FROM anywhere in particular." **
Yes, I know.
"It is formed and sustained by the affects and counter affects of subatomic particles in motion. It is impossible to form a steady state condition of affectance in space. There must always be harmonic »vibrations« (the CBR) happening throughout all space all of the time. The precise frequency should vary a little from region to region and as large events take place such as collisions or explosions.
The affectance field really does »connect« literally everything through its microwave level vibrations. If one can listen carefully enough to the changes in that vibration, one can detect an amazing number of things thought to be impossible to know." **
What I meant was the difference between the fact that the mainstream physicists declared the "CBR" to be an effect of the "big bang" and the fact that other physicists declared the "big bang"to be a farce.
Do you think that our galaxy is a "vortex"?
If we can take Duterte seriously (in dubio pro re), then we have to face two facts according to the BBC text (see above):
Duterte does not want drugs, drug dealres, drug lords, thus drug-related deaths in his country. The current UNO (thus mainly the "Western World") wants drugs, thus drug lords, drug dealers, drug-related deaths in all countries of the world.
Why is it not possible to seriously talk about this global problems? Drugs are everywhere in this world, are expensive, cause many, many, many dying people, thus much death and much money.
Economically and politically said, drugs are like wars and terrorism (civil wars). They bring much money resp. power.
@ Maniacal Mongoose.
You are in love. That is good. Congratulations.
Therefore my question:
Why are you still posting so much?
I mean that the said laws and rights are full of rhetoric, elocution, thus: speaking technique (it is more or less the same as faking technique).
914) Arminius, 27.08.2016, 01:01, 01:03, 01:04, 01:05, 01:06, 01:07, 01:08, 01:09, 01:10, 01:10, 01:20, 01:36, 01:43, 03:36, 03:43, 20:46, 21:01, 21:53, 22:21, 22:25, 22:38, 22:52, 22:53, 23:19, 23:28 (5120-5144)
"I use the word »vortex« a little differently than that. Technically the galaxies are vortices, but when I say »ortex«, I always mean a spiral that is elongated along a center line in the third dimension.
If the galaxy center is traveling faster than and orthogonal to its plane of rotation, then it would be a vortex. I don't know that the center is traveling any faster or slower than the rest of the galaxy. And if it isn't, I would refer to it only as a »spiral«. **
Yes. I really can totally agree with that.
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
"There is not always a positive trend after a recession. The Great Depression in the 1930's is an example." **
Either you do not know what "recession" means, or you are again using rhetoric here.
There is a business cycle. A cycle means that the parts of the cycle are returning parts. You can also speak of "waves".
Source: ** .
What you see is that a positive trend is after a recession. Recession is always a part of the business cycle. So it is correct to say that there is always a positive trend after a recession. We were not talking about when, whether sooner or later, .. and so on.
And it is also true that a recession is after an expansion. The boom between them does not change that correct statement. 13 o'clock is after 11 o'clock. 12 o'clock does not change that correct statement.
"In 2008, the US was able to avoid depression, which most economists (at least, the ones not in the pocket of the GOP and FOX News - the apologists for the right wing policies that caused the recession in the first place) knew that depression was a very real threat. Had we elected a Republican in 2008 and had further tax cuts for the rich alongside a further escalation of the pointless, losing wars we are fighting, depression would almost certainly have proven inevitable.
But regardless, the point is not simply that there has been a positive trend, but rather that America's recovery from the recession (which started in the US but became global in short order) was demonstrably stronger than the recovery of any other advanced nation in the world. That indicates that the recovery as it happened was not just a matter of course, but a matter of policy decisions. The US recovery almost certainly could have been even stronger than it has been, but obviously partisan politics put severe restraints on what can and cannot be done in response to economic calamities such as we saw starting around 06-07. Nonetheless, the federal government's response with Obama at the helm has been very different than it would have been with a Republican at the helm." **
You are biased (since 1958 like Faust?), and I guess it is because you are a member of a political party.
"More people working means more people getting laid off or quitting. Just like more people driving means more people getting speeding tickets and getting in accidents." **
I can give you thousands of examples where just the opposite of what you are telling is true.
"You just told me i was off topic and then repeated me. In any case, i'm glad we can agree on this, at least." **
I did not repeat you. You are putting words into my mouth I never said, and I guess it is because you are a member of a political party.
"Nonetheless, a rise in the number of immigrant workers does not mean fewer jobs for natives (though, in the US, i'm not sure how you even draw a line between immigrants and natives after a generation in the workforce), not when the native population is increasing alongside the immigrant population, as it has been throughout the time period covered by your example. Indeed, as it has been throughout US history. That's just arithmetic." **
No. That's just your leftist rhetoric.
Again: I can give you thousands of examples where just the opposite of what you are telling is true.
"But, i don't speak your first language at all, while you do speak mine. What good would it be for you to start speaking to me in your first language, as i wouldn't understand what you've said?" **
Then you would have to learn that language. My point was that at least one of the conditions for your so-called "challenge" was not fair. And then you just started to misunderstand me again - you are either not capable of understanding or using rhetoric here again. Actually, it is not difficult to understand what fairness means, but either you don't want to understand or you can't understand it.
"Political correctness is beside the point ...." **
Unfortunately, political correctness is never beside the point. How could or should I forbid you your political correctness, and the government wants you to be politically correct. Political correctness is never beside the point. It is always present, if there is someone who wants others to be politically correct and others or only one who is or seems to be politically correct (like you, for example).
"The economic reality is that women, when they are afforded the opportunity to work, contribute as much, if not more, to the economy as men, so it is not a negative economic indicator that more women are doing jobs traditionally done exclusively by men.
By the way, the belief that any given job should be done by men rather than women is also a form of political correctness." **
No. Not currently. And not for you, because you are or seem to be (rhetoric!) politically correct. You are using stereotypes again, then mixing women and men so as if they were the same, but finally playing them off against each other ("if not more"). In the long run and for almost all humans, it is a negative (if not the most negative) economic indicator that women are doing jobs traditionally done exclusively by men, because woman will be replaced as well and because of the chaos effected by businessmen and politicians (political businessmen).
"Questions of justice are intrinsically linked with economic realities." **
They can but do not have to be, and questions of justice are intrinsically linked with social realities (welfare for example) too and often, if not oftener than with economic realities. I could give you many examples again.
"It is demonstrably untrue that »the overall population of the US rises just because of the immigration« (**|**)." **
No. It is true that the overall population of the US rises just because of the immigration (and of the blacks, your former slaves). Obviously, you have absolutely no inkling of demographics. Additionally, it is just politically incorrect, thus a taboo, to talk about demographics in a certain way.
"In fact, that is about as blatant a falsehood as i have seen on ILP in a good long while. i am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that your inability to provide honest counterarguments ...." **
That is not true.
"And your inability to comprehend how the statements i make pertain to the discussion at hand, are a product of the fact that English is your 2nd language, but when you say things like that, i begin to wonder." **
That is also not true. And your statement about my 2nd language is also not true. because English is not my 2nd but my 3rd language.
You are not able to say the tiniest truth, because you suffer from the leftist dictatorship of political correctness.
"You need reputable sources." **
You are the one who needs reputable sources.
"Mine come from the US bureau of employment statistics, and from mainstream press throughout Europe and the US (as opposed to ILP threads and obscure sensationalist internet articles by unapologetic right wing demagogues.)." **
You need reputable sources, because you have no single one. You are a left wing populist, a left wing demagogue. Why should I continue this discussion. I am waisting my time with your leftist rhetoric, your leftist political correctness, your leftist propaganda, your leftist populism, your leftist demagoguery. The fact that the leftists seem to represent a majority (at least in Europe) does not automatically mean that they are right (sic!). Leftists are wrong. Left is wrong.
"In any case, the statement »you are not right, because you are left« (**|**), demonstrates that you are simply being reactionary - that is, not concerned with the truth, but merely with protecting and espousing a particular (flawed and anachronistic) ideology." **
The word "reactionary" is - again - a rhetorical word that indicates your membership of a political party for leftists. I could also say that you are simply reactionary. There are always arguments for it, if there are certain words for accusing X of being y. But it is a fact that being left is not being right.
"You don't seem to understand what left and right mean relative to US politics. Perhaps this was not the best discussion to have with someone who knows American life only from far distance."
Instead of being rhetorical again - as usual - you could say "what left and right mean relative to US politics". You are always prefering rhetorical statements - just like a politician. Why are you not saying what "left" and "right" mean according to your American life. By the way: Do you mean a South or a North American life, or is "American" - again - a rhetorical word for you as a reactionary nationalist?
"You don't make money out of nothing, you make money by providing goods and services." **
Bankers and other businessmen, also politicians, suggest that "money can be made out of nothing", regardless whether they know or not know what they suggest. And this suggestion is relevant, especially in societies that economically live according to Keynesian(istic) or Neo-Keynesian(istic) politics: making DEBTS - and nothing else.
"That is why the economic policy of the American right wing, which rests on the pillar of cutting taxes for the wealthy, thus incentivizing speculation (gambling) and rent-seeking, and disincentivizing the production of goods and provision of services (i.e. - actually working for a living) has been so incredibly destructive to the US economy in particular and by extension to the global economy.
And, while that is decidedly NOT the »end of story«, it is the root of our current economic woes." **
Maybe, but that is not the only aspect of it. Obama depends as much on the money givers as or even more than those politicians of the "American right wing". And what is the "American right wing", if not a rhetorical word again? Do you mean, for example, the Chilean, Mexican, Canadian, or which one of the so-called "American right wing"? What is it exactly?
Wikipedia wrote
"Proxima Centauri b (also called Proxima b) is an exoplanet orbiting within the habitable zone of the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the Sun. It is located about 4.2 light-years (1.3 parsecs, 40 trillion km, or 25 trillion miles) from Earth in the constellation of Centaurus. It is the closest known exoplanet to the Solar System and the closest potentially habitable exoplanet known.
In August 2016, the European Southern Observatory announced the discovery of the planet. Shortly after the discovery, researchers investigating the habitable potential of Proxima b suggested that the exoplanet may be the nearest possible location for life beyond our solar system. Researchers think that its proximity to Earth offers an opportunity for robotic exploration of the planet in the future.
The planet was found using the radial velocity method, where periodic Doppler shifts of spectral lines of the host star suggest an orbiting object. From these readings, the component of its velocity relative to the Earth is about 5 km/h (3 mph). ....
This artist's impression shows a view of the surface of the planet Proxima b orbiting the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the Solar System. The double star Alpha Centauri AB also appears in the image to the upper-right of Proxima itself. Proxima b is a little more massive than the Earth and orbits in the habitable zone around Proxima Centauri, where the temperature is suitable for liquid water to exist on its surface.
Artist's conception of Proxima Centauri b along with the Alpha Centauri binary system.
.... Proxima Centauri b orbits its host star every 11.186 days at a semi-major axis distance of approximately 0.05 astronomical units (7,000,000 km; 5,000,000 mi), which is 5% of 1 AU (thus, Earth is 20 times farther away from its own host star, the Sun). Comparatively, Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun, has a semi-major axis distance of 0.39 AU. Proxima Centauri b receives from its host star about 65% of the amount of solar flux that the Earth receives from the Sun. However, Proxima Centauri b receives about 400 times more X-ray flux than the Earth receives.
The habitability of Proxima Centauri b has not been established. The exoplanet was announced as orbiting within the habitable zone of Proxima Centauri, the region where, with the correct conditions and atmospheric properties, liquid water may exist on the surface of the planet. Its host star is a red dwarf, with about an eighth of the mass of the Sun. Low-mass stars like Proxima Centauri burn for about 4 trillion years, ~330 times longer than the Sun will.
Proxima Centauri b is close enough to its star that it might be tidally locked, a state in which, over the course of an orbit, no net transfer of angular momentum occurs between a planet and its host star. If the planet's orbital eccentricity is 0, this could result in synchronous rotation, with one blazing hot side permanently facing towards the star, while the opposite side is permanently dark and freezing cold.
Proxima Centauri b's orbital eccentricity is not known with certainty, only that it is below 0.35 – potentially high enough for it to have a significant chance of being captured into a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance similar to that of Mercury. The European Southern Observatory predicts that a far more clement environment would result from such a configuration, with average temperatures similar to those on Earth. A large portion of the planet may be habitable if it supports a thick enough atmosphere to transfer heat to the side facing away from the star. Calculations reveal that the planet could have lost about 1 ocean's worth of water due to the early irradiation in the first 100–200 million years after formation. Liquid water may be present only in the sunniest regions of the planet's surface." **
What do you think about that?
Does the healthcare system need a reform(ation)?
"Love can only be the remedy for our own hearts but love-in-action (grace) has the power to be the remedy for the hearts of others.
So, first and foremost, it has to come from the "I", and then from the "we" too." **
"Ok, the world keeps turning and the seasons keep changing . . . so what is your overall point? Are you saying that government policy has no impact on the behavior of the economy?" **
No. I am not saying that.
"After a recession there is always a positive trend. Duh." ** **
"There is not always a positive trend after a recession." **
You are wrong. Your statement is false.
This is or should be a philosophy forum.
Yes (**). That is right. Unfortunately.
"It doesn't in Australia (and other parts of the world) but for some reason some politicians admire the shit that comes out of the US." **
»So, first and foremost, it has to come from the ›I‹, and then from the ›we‹ too.« ** **
Agree. What would the Golden Rule amount to without its emphasis on You." **
Helper wrote:
"Galaxies and atoms are the same structure; a rotating/precessing disc. The »up« electron has opposite spin to the »down« electron in the same way that neighbouring and opposite galactic arms are matter/antimatter. Galaxies are atoms. Atoms are galaxies." **
So according to your theory the macrophysical black hole in the center of a galaxy is similar to the microphysical nucleus of an atom too.
Why are you so obviously sure that the analogies of your theory and the theory itself are true?
"Good old Protestant values are hard to divorce from." **
Are you a protestant?
(I am not, as I already said.)
"Are we living in matter or in antimatter?" **
I guess that Helper would answer: "half in matter and half in antimatter".
TO ALL.
The physicist Harald Lesch said: "Unser Universum ist kein buddhistisches Universum, sondern ein protestantisches" (translation: "Our universe is no Buddhistic universe but a Protestant").
What do you think about that statement?
Copied part of a post in another thread.
He meant it physically, astronomically, cosmologically, but religiously, theologically, philosophically too.
Are you saying that Plato was a troll (**)?
915) Arminius, 29.08.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:03, 01:18, 01:19, 01:59, 02:07, 02:53, 02:59, 04:32, 04:41, 04:49, 04:58, 15:16, 15:28, 15:43, 16:19, 16:36, 16:53, 16:59, 17:12, 17:17, 17:24, 17:58, 18:12, 18:58, 19:12, 19:30, 19:39, 21:53, 22:16, 23:57 (5145-5177)
One Liner:
"Arminius, it is not helpful when you place the same post in two different threads and it's generally against the Terms of Use policy." **
Different threads, different posters, different statements (?). Maybe it is not helpful, maybe it is helpful.
Does it disturb you, One Liner?
It would not disturb me, if you placed the same post in thousand different threads."
What do you mean by "Terms of Use policy" exactly?
Unfortunately, due to the state of affairs, such posting isn't offensive." **
It is not offensive. But I would nevertheless immediately stop it, if he or somebody else was offended by it.
"I am not offended, it's just unhelpful to post the same comments in two different threads." **
But for whom is it unhelpful?
Uglypeoplefucking wrote.
»These are just labels but what I think he meant was »immediately« after a recession (which can be a depression) then eventually followed by a positive trend.« **
Yes, thank you." **
The point was that you were talking about what you call "Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery" (**), and that is no "label" but your flaw, because you have no single proof or evidence or just a tiny indicator for what you call "Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery". Therefore:
"There is not always a positive trend after a recession."
And that is not true. There is always a positive trend after a recession. And there is always a negative trend after a positive trend ..., ... day after night ..., ... season after season ..., ... and so on. It is not so difficult to understand.
But the point to which we referred was your statement about what you call "Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery" (**). That statemant is false resp. invalid because of the simple fact that you have no proof or evidence or just a tiny hint for it because of the other simple fact that there is always a positive trend after a recession (negative trend).
What is said about Obama can be a lie. You at least do not know whether it is a lie or not. You (like many others) can only speculate about whether "Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery" (**) is a lie or not. Therefore I said to you that here is always a positive trend after a recession, which means in this case that you just have no proof or evidence or just a tiny hint for what you call "Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery" (**).
In other words: You do not know anything about what you call "Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery" (**). Maybe you will know something about it in the future when historians will perhaps have found it out; but right now you really know nothing about it, because what is said about it can be a lie, and it is very probable that it is a lie, because it is easier for the people of rule, government, media, and other institutions to tell lies than to tell the truth.
"Would you rather live under a female dominated society where feminism rules, where men are emasculated and are pretty much cuckslaves to women or under an islamic society ruled by the sharia where people are slaves to one god - one or the other ... and why?" **
I often ask that too. It is an interesting and - unfortunately - a currently relevant question. But I have to ask back: How much feminisation and/or islamisation do you mean, if you not always and not exclusively mean each of both as a whole (100%)?
Feminism is a product of the Occidental culture, whereas islamism is a product of the Arabic/Islamic culture. Although they contradict each other, they can and do, as we can currently experience in Europe, also complement each other (unfortunately).
Both are totalitarian, but totalitarianism is a product of the Occidental culture too. So islamism in a reaction to many Occidental phenomena is not only their contradiction but also their antithesis in the meaning of Hegel's dialectic. Thus islamism has indeed become a part of the Occidental historical process.
And (because of: Cui bono?): Are globalists Hegelians (namely both Left-Hegelians and Right-Hegelians)?
Opposing determinism (**)? And why not opposing indeterminism?
Kant distinguished the empiric character (cp.: causality, determinism) from the intelligible character (cp. free will, indeterminism).
Compatibilism means that indeterminism and determinism are compatible, and that it is possible to believe or think both without being logically inconsistent.
Arthur Schopenhauer: "Der Mensch kann tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will." Translation: "Man can do what he wills (wants to), but cannot will (want) what he wills (wants to)."
"Existence without memory is not existence!" **
Existence without memory is also existence!
Are you a subjectivist or even an extreme subjectivist, a solipsist, Amorphos?
"There is no need for collective or individual memory when we have centrally controlled corporate media platforms to report and archive everything for us via a 24/7 cable broadcast.
We have people to manage our memory for us." **
It is not true what certain physicists say: "the vacuum is nothing, and nothing is not nothing, so that something can be created out of nothing, the vacuum". It is not true, because it is impossible - by definition.
All what physicists may get in that case is a linguistic change, thus a new meaning of the word "nothing" which leads to a new meaning of physics and other science sectors, to a new belief, a new religion, a new theology, a new philosophy. That is what they want, because they want what their rulers want them to want. Physicists and other scientists depend on politico-economic rulers because of the research funds, thus: money.
So at last science will completely lose its meaning.
"I like some sports but I find most boring and insignificant." **
Which of them do you like and which of them do you find most boring and insignificant?
I like almost all sports.
Why do you think that Plato was a troll?
"Click on the report post link and you will see a selection that says »duplicate post« meaning the admins and moderators view duplicate posts as unhelpful (or once upon a time did)." **
When I place the same post in more than one thread, then it can be very helpful - even for you, because you get different threads, different posters, different statements.
"There are times when multiple threads are in need of the same comment. Everyone doesn't follow every thread on every forum. When similar subjects are being discussed on different forums, it is more helpful than not to place the needed information in both places. It is unfortunate that such multiple threads pop up so often because such is usually the result of a participant or two refusing to learn anything, but it is what it is." **
You are right, James.
Socratus wrote:
"»Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.«" **
Then it would not be nothing.
"»If the vacuum contained enough energy, it ....«" **
It would not be nothing.
"Compatibilism distinguishes »free-will« as being free from opposition, but not free from causation, not freely created, but once created, free from critical opposition." **
Yes, that is right. The "free will" is merely a relatively free will, because it is not free from causation.
"The post-modern bullshit world, gotta love it Arminius. This environment of micro-management from cradle to the grave. " **
Okay, I will do my very best and try to "love" it.
"Anyway, back to the half antimatter topic." **
What do you think about the assertion the title of this thread is making?
Is the universe half antimatter?
"I like boxing, UFC, archery, and long distance rifle shooting championships.
I just find all other sports boring.
People actually make millions of dollars a years bouncing a basketball or kicking a football?
It's so boring and stupid to me." **
Is the "UFC" ("Ultimate Fighting Championship") really "the largest mixed martial arts promotion company in the world featuring most of the top-ranked fighters in the sport"?
I admit that I just googled it. In Europe there is no UFC.
"The first Ultimate Fighting Championship event was held on November 12, 1993 at the McNichols Sports Arena in Denver, Colorado.[8] The purpose of the early Ultimate Fighting Championship competitions was to identify the most effective martial art in a fight, with minimal rules, between competitors of different fighting disciplines, including boxing, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Sambo, wrestling, Muay Thai, karate, judo, and other styles. In subsequent competitions, fighters began adopting effective techniques from more than one discipline, which indirectly helped create an entirely separate style of fighting known as present-day mixed martial arts." **
›Hahaha wrote:
'I like some sports but I find most boring and insignificant.' **
I like almost all sports.‹ ** **
He's like anti-competition. Nobody hates a winner like him. HH, you're the best at that.« **
Me anti competition? No, not at all.
In my world competition would have no laws, regulations, etiquette, or anything. That's genuine authentic competition.
People like you only like competition when it is already rigged in their favor. You like controlled competition.
An environment of controlled and orderly competition.
That's the difference between you and me." **
By "authentic competition" you mean an "anarchic competition" or something like the "survival of the fittest" in nature?
There are fighting sports in Europe, but - as I said - there is no UFC in Europe.
Your UFC started in 1993, maybe the European UFC will start 30 years later or so.
»By ›authentic competition‹ you mean an ›anarchic competition‹ or something like the ›survival of the fittest‹ in nature?« ** **
Yes, authentic social Darwinism only within the anarchist sense." **
I might have known it.
Peter Kropotkin wrote:
I like almost all sports.« ** **
I'm with you.... I played most sports and watched them .... I was active until I hurt my back at age 47....Now I am just an armchair warrior ...." **
I played football (soccer), table tennis, volleyball - not always but often as a club member.
Topic: FEMINISM and ISLAMISM. Are they compatible?
Are feminism and islamism compatible?
Topic: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?
Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?
Concerning the poll: Re-voting is allowed.
You are allowed to give both an answer and the definitions.
Everyone is allowed to give both an answer and the definitions.
»FEMINISM and ISLAMISM. Are they compatible?« ** **
Are they compatible???
You're kidding right?" **
I just want to know how the ILP posters (including the stupid ones) think about it.
The one who opens a thread must be a little bit more than a poster, not only because it is his thread, but also because he must be the moderator of his thread.
"As a kid, I played baseball and then in High school, ran cross-country and track, in track I did the sprints, pole vaulting, ran the hurdles and after high school I continued to run, ran a marathon, did rock climbing and backpacking, was a manager of swim school for 20 years and was soccer coach for my daughters Ayso team ..., then in my 40's, I did two separate 80 miles backpacking trip in the Sierra's, one in Yosemite and one in King's Canyon and then I hurt my back.. The only sport I tried and really didn't like was golf .... I was a sprinter in high school, so I had the speed for most sports, just not the size, the day I graduated from High school
I was 5'3 and 117 pounds... Today I am 5'8 and 210, quite a difference ... and mostly from beer.
I will watch any sport on the TV and it drives my wife fucking nuts ...." **
Interesting. I had both the speed and the size for most sports, but I was not always motivated, because sometimes there were other, more intersting things too.
5'3 - I guess, you mean feet -, thus: 161.54 cm.
117 pounds, thus: 53.07 kg.
You grew 0'5 feet (thus: 15.24 cm) after you "graduated from High school"? How old were you when you "graduated from High school"?
916) Arminius, 31.08.2016, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, 01:03, 01:08, 01:13, 01:18, 01:23, 01:28, 01:32, 02:00, 02:04, 02:32, 04:33, 04:46, 13:26, 13:39, 14:06, 14:30, 16:44, 16:48, 17:08 (5178-5199)
"I voted yes but even if it is not due to human activities I believe it is a beneficial belief to hold." **
Why do you believe that?
»Existence without memory is also existence!« ** **
Hmm come to think of it, in meditations one can I assume, exist without memory for sure. I say that, because when I focus purely upon my breathing, there's still a whole science fiction film going by lol ... however ....
The specific context I meant it in, was that if we have no memory of self before we were born or existed at all, then there is no inner boy or girl [objectively], and we are all just differently weighted individuals which are essentially all the same – just people! Brains are brains, they don't particularly have masculinity or femininity, except as concerns their practical utility.
I'm an objectivist contemporary stoic, or something like that. I see it all like rocks ..., where rocks in fast enough motion are like rivers, just look at the patina upon jade mine stone faces." **
These rocks and living beings without memories exist.
Living beings need a concept of themselves, thus a self-consciousness, in order to know that they are, that they exist, that they are themselves. But that does not mean that they do not exist before they have their concept of themselves, their self-consciousness, and that they do not exist after they have lost their concept of themselves, their self-consciousness.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
"Note the NT abrogated the OT for Christians. Where in the New Testaments did Jesus exhort Christians to fight non-believers?
It is the Crusaders as human beings who were fighting in the crusades but not as Christians within Christianity the ideology of Jesus.
I am quite sure the Crusaders would have been rebuked by God on their Judgment Day,
God to the Crusaders: WTF, Jesus exhorted you to love your enemies, who gave you permission to fight your enemies! Now sit in that hot corner of Hell till you hear of my reprieve.
Btw, there are loads of thousands of evil laden verses in various degrees [without specific restraints] in the Quran that combined together to influence and inspire SOME [not all] evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence.
Why the deflection to the Crusades that was not directly inspired by Christianity [verses in the NT] and it is 500+ years ago from the current critical evils and violence from Islam [in part]?
I am aware Christianity [and other religions] has its negative baggage that hinder humanity's progress but we should compare this with the very serious threat to humanity from the terrible evils and violence from Islam [in part].
Given the doctrine of Islam where Muslims love death more than life on Earth and are heavily rewarded for martyrdom in the cause of Allah, there is a potential threat they could exterminate the human species when they get access to cheap WMDs with their oil money or financial support from rich rogue Muslim nations.
Even without the above serious threats evil prone Muslims [SOME] are already doing much terror and damage to humanity at the present. It is pointless to make comparison on this with the crusades that happened 500++ years ago." **
More precisely please: The crusades happened between 1096 and 1270.
Note: Jerusalem, which the Christians wanted to reconquer, had been occupying by the Moslems since they conquered huge Christian territories (including the region with Jerusalem - of course) by terrible wars, violence, and other evils.
Say what you want, but Islam is a hate-and-war-religion, whereas Christianity is a love-and-peace-religion.
"A measured and sympathetic attitude towards this and other planets, will yield a living philosophy which can endure.
Doing things to planets that don't usually occur, are probably not what they are built to handle. Although the weather seams to reduce carbons over time.
Ethically we cannot really travel to other planets and rape their resources, because if they have life they may one day have intelligent life. Naturally they wont be able to move into an industrial or metal age even, if we eat up their resources. If we consider that for our civilisation to survive, it is going to come close to the limits [of use/resources] before reaching a permanent solution. I mean that we will use most of what the earth has, before we have technology which takes us into 100% re-use.
So that is our only known example, to be what it takes for an intelligent species to survive.
We have to find the 100% re-use solutions, or we will fail. There is nothing else going to happen here?" **
Why do you not consider the aspect of spoof and the reasons for it?
Only Humean wrote:
"Moved to SGE: In the absence of any philosophical thesis, this appears to be a more relevant forum." **
There is a philosophical thesis, especially within the words "feminism" and "islamism". I mean the suffix "ism" in each of both words. But it is not only a linguistic form, because, intellectually said, all "isms" are based on philosophical systems. So society, government, and economics are merely the addresses of those who invent "isms" while they use language in a metalinguistic, theoretical, philosophical way.
My main reason for opening this thread in the philosophy subforum of a philosophy forum is mainly the question how certain ILP members think about the reasons for inventing "isms" for feminisation and islamisation. A further reason, based on the main reason (duh), is that a dscussion in the subforum "Society, Government, and Economics" of the forum "Philosophy" is normally not as philosophical as in the subforum "Philosophy" of the forum "Philosophy" (duh), thus I wanted to prevent a too much political(ly correct) discussion.
"»Too often in science we operate under the principle that ›to name it is to tame it‹, or so we think. One of the easiest mistakes, even among working scientists, is to believe that labeling something has somehow or other added to an explanation or understanding of it. Worse than that, we use it all the time when we're teaching, leading students to believe that a phenomenon named is a phenomenon known, and that to know the name is to know the phenomenon.« / Page 62. /
»Even words that, like ›gravity‹, seem well settled may lend more of an aura to an idea than it deserves. .... And still, today, physicists do not have a clear understanding of what gravity is or where it comes from, even though its effect can be described quite accurately.« / Page 64. /" **
Yes. Full agreement.
"I would definitely prefer to live in a world where everyone believes in the human cause rather than a »natural« cause, irrespective how ludicrous the evidence is as this false believe would have other consequences (for better and for worse)." **
I think that is in need of an explanation.
The best one can do, if one wants to have power over as much people as possible, is to rule over them as covertly as possible.
Even philosophy has two sides: a theoretical and a practical side. Ethics is the practical side of philosophy. But there is time and thus change too. So if you lived within a Stone Age group, you would know that, for example, killing another human always means that this is either (1.) in the interest of your group or (2.) not in the interest of your group. A third interpretation of it is not possible, because it is either (a) not known or (b) not allowed (it is a taboo). But since about 6000 years this has changed. Many interpretations have become possible and led to various groups (now called "societies") with various moralities/ethics, judgements, punishments and whole systems of them (and even the lack of them without being in the Stone Age but in chaotic situations). And provided that it is true that a return to the Stone Age is not possible and that similar situations are merely possible after a chaos, then we will have to continue to experience the further change of morality/ethics or/and to wait for that chaos.
Exclusively (**)?
Are you (**) referring to the Bible, or to RM:AO, or to both?
Yes, but now it is how it is, and that is okay, by the way.
But all this people you (**) are talking about do exist.
As I already said: You are arguing subjectively or even solipsistically. Although you are also saying that you are an objectivist, your arguments come along as if they were told by one of those said people. If one has lost any memory, then there may be no existence according to this one (thus: to this subject, philosophically said), but this one does objectively exist. Only an extreme subjectivist or a solipsist denies this.
"Living without memory" does not mean that it is "no life" or even "no existence". It means that it is no conscious life, as you said, but not "no life". It is life. And above all: it is existence. Of course, to the memoryless persons themselves there is no this and no that or only this and that (who knows?), but this does not (at least not objectively) mean that they do not live, not have any affect, not exist.
I have already taken my pick.
"More precisely please;
It is Islam [in part, not wholly] that influence and inspire hate-and-war in SOME evil prone Muslims." **
More precisely please: I am not saying that every Moslem is evil (do not put words into my mouth I never said, regardless how politically correct you want to be), but I am saying that Islam is a hate-and-war-religion. Not every Christian is a love-and-peace human - additionally a love-and-peace-religion can be interpreted as "being too weak". And not every Muslim is a hate-and-war-human. That is needless to say.
"The feminists will attempt to modify Islam to make themselves compatible with it, in order to replace the patriarchy foundation with a matriarchy one. Ironically, not only is this forbidden in Islam, it is also predicted and seen as a sign of the end time, as in the hour is drawing closer. Muhammad already mentioned that they will try to reverse the roles, men will look and act like women and vice versa etc He also said there would be movements that corrupt the women. Which is safe to say that is feminism and the like. Women are on a massive power trip at the moment with world domination in their eyes, it seems... Some say feminism is a natural expression of women, but I am not sure about that anymore. Some even say that is it a massive shit test and ultimately they just want to be dominated and put back in their place, and i'm not even sure about that anymore either..because from my experience and expanding understanding, they seem super serious and determined. I can only imagine this being some sort of system agenda in an attempt to create a new world whereby they put women as the overall authority relative to how the system controls them.
I think Hitler once said, if you control the women and kids, the men will follow .... This is what appears to be happening, or at least increasingly so, with a backlash too where men are dropping out as response to what is happening.
I see the way Feminist Muslim women are attempting to manipulate Islamic scripture and law to their own selfish ends, almost even to lay down a foundation of female worship. For example, under the Sharia, because of the nuclear family set up, where the man goes to work and the women stay home raising and taking care of the children, rightfully, it is only fair that the man pay his way in providing for his wife and kids, deemed necessary by the sharia law.
A years ago, i read an article about the Muslim} women in the UK and how they are refusing to get married. So a reporter went in to find out the reasons, he approached numerous Muslim women and all of them responding with the exact same answer. They said the Muslim men are not making enough money! You can see the arrogance and hate on their faces when saying it, they explained how they wanted this and that etc and then brought up how the man is suppose to pay for it!
What they don't realize is that Islam is a minimalistic religion, is against accumulating wealth. Muhammad once said, my poverty is my pride. The prophets never had anything because they gave everything away, and that is used as an example to mimick as a path way to religious devotion. This is a well known thing.
Now you have narcissistic materialistic women who are obsessed, and it is an obsession, with stuff. Now they are attempting to manipulate the Muslim men using the sharia law in providing and satisfying their greedy selfish needs, as if the men have to satisfy their wimps on demand, When really it has only ever applied to the basic requirements of food, water, shelter to the most minimal level in order to maintain religious devotion and not get taken away by the material world.
It's funny, because I thought this only existed in non religious societies, but it doesn't..You can go to any Muslim community in the UK and the Muslim men generally dislike their women because of this, divorce is also rampant, and something very importantly i noticed, the more religious the man is, the more he follows the religion of Islam in the way Muhammad and all other prophets did, devoutly, they end up alone, single and by themselves often living a life of isolation and seclusion because of being generally rejected by women because he doesn't reach the materialistic standard that modern women maintain." **
Do you have much contact with Islamic people?
And especially:
Do you have much contact with Islamic women?
Is the Islam in fact such a minimalistic religion as you described it?
Worked on Americans." **
That picture was taken in the USA? Really? By a Non-Islamic human? Really? If yes: Is that human still alive?
Pandora wrote:
"I've always wondered why statues of Apollo had to have a feminine face (or, at best, a face of a young boy). It seems counter intuitive to me." **
The Apollinic culture was pretty much attached to homsexuality and especially to pederasty.
"Judaism is founded upon hidden, secret, »invisible« manipulations, aka »serpents«. That is accomplished very largely through misinformation: obfuscation, false flags, and blame shifting. Thus peoples get blamed for what others have done and other people are inspired into criminality, immorality, and war by hidden means. Religions get created in an attempt to defend against other religions.
»We shall turn nation against nation.«
Unlike the other Abramic religions, Judaism prefers to be the small elite power above the world of servants. They very, very much prefer that the rest of the world, the gentiles, have no idea of their God and certainly not sharing in their wealth and power. So you are right, they certainly do not proselytize.
The Judaist curse upon Espinoza for the blasphemy of proclaiming that God is for everyone:
"The Lords of the ma'amad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza, have endeavord by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable chachamin, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-andthirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho, with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys, and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him."
Judaism is all about curses and fear via secret manipulations of others: Ahdam, »Who told you that you were naked?«" **
Is the text you quoted the original text?
Do you have much contact with Islamic women?« ** **
Yes, was born, brought up and still live in a predominately Muslim area." **
But you are not a Muslim. Right?
»Is the Islam in fact such a minimalistic religion as you described it?« ** **
Of course! Even more so than what i have described. Spirituality, the elevation of man/woman to a plane where the mind is focused on the higher, non-material realities of a godly existence. Not only did Prophet Muhammad pray, but he also use to meditate in mount Hira regularly, up to a few days at a time. Islam ins't new in the sense of a religion, but a clarification of what came before it. Muhammad isn't the founder but rather God is. The message is and has always been the same, that there is only One God and spend your days in worship of God, in a devout manner, do regularly good deeds and maintain a spiritual balance before your return onto God.
Islam, naturally, comprises of all the Prophets in the Abrahamic tradition. Jesus being the most quoted prophet in the Quran. Jesus himself had very little, next to nothing, only having a comb and one cup to which he later gave away, often telling people to sell all their belongings and give the money to the poor..and saying things such as..it easier for camel to go through an eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to get into heaven etc as all the prophets said similar things.
The very core of the worship of God is minimalism. As the world is declared as temporary, and so chasing the world is a vain attempt to gain something that will inevitably be taken away from all. From the Islamic perspective the only things which are counted upon death is actions, words and intentions in the context of good and bad relative to the scriptures.
The modern day muslim women and men just arn't following it correctly to due religious neglect, but rather following their own egos, ignorance, greed and selfishness and then attempting to justify it with religion, as many other so called religious people do. Like millionaire priest in the bible belt of the US etc.." **
They probably have a guilty conscience - according to the saying: "A guilty conscience needs no accuser".
Interestingly, Christianity originated from a desert of the Arabian Peninsula where later the Islam also orginated from, but the former conquered the Europeans (their souls and their climate), whereas the latter did not. I think that is the main difference between the both, because the Europeans as an intelligent and industrial populace conquered the whole world, became wealthy and powerful, got a guilty conscience and the Islamic immigrants (economic refugees and conquerers). And this Islamic immigrants - accompanied by other immigrants and the European feminists - shall stop the said European development. That is the idea behind feminisation, immigration, islamisation. The Europeans become more and more feminine/feministic and then - via immigration - more and more islamic/islamistic too - and the result will be the greatest chaos of the last 6000 years or even of all times.
Thanks (**).
The following text seems to be the original text:
"»In Sweden at first I was appalled by all the rapes of us Swedish women especially as a feminist but later I discovered that these rapes are justified in that it makes up for the white guilt of us Swedes where possibly it might be morally justified on the part of Muslim men. Now I've converted to Islam and wear a Hijab everyday. Everyday is a real struggle reconciling my western feminist beliefs with Islam but slowly I am being able to. Down with the sexist white Christian Swedish patriarchy! Allah Akbar!«" **
The one who said that seems to make money (thus: to get recognition and power) out of that politically correct text or/and to suffer from the Stockholm syndrome.
Another politically correct text with the following question as its title: "Why are there high rape crimes in Sweden, Norway and Denmark compared to the rest of the world?" **
One of the politically incorrect and thus forbidden questions is: "Why are Vikings no longer allowed to be Vikings?"
All Germanic and Romanic languages have articles - some have three (male, female, neutral), some have two (male, female), and one (English) has merely one.
"Feminism is another religion of hate." **
Yes, and this modern religion of hate and other modern and ancient religions of hate threaten an ancient religion of love (that has more than 2 billion believers [**|**|**|**]) and a whole culture (of about 1 billion people). This threat is part of what Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) predicted and called "Farbige Weltrevolution" ("Colored World Revolution").
Not all people.
One Line wrote:
"The OP makes no logical sense to me whatsoever." **
Is there "illogical sense"?
"A vocal minority is far more powerful than the silent majority." **
Yes. But there is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.
With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.
"Gib wrote:
›... and one (English) has merely one.‹ ** **
That's 'cause we're a bunch of homos. « **
I am not English." **
@ All.
Do not forget that feminism does not automatically stand for all women. Moreover: not all feminists are women, and not all women are feminists.
But what about Islamism? For what does Islamism not automatically stand? Moreover: are not all Islamists Musllims, and are not all Muslims Islamists?
In this case we probably have to adjudicate on both islamism and feminism in the same manner.
The more globalism - materialism in the sense of both techno-creditism (formerly known as capitalism) and socialism (formerly known as communism) - expands, the more forms of reaction and resistance it gets until the great chaos. Feminism and Islamism are religious "ism" examples for those forms of reaction and resistance.
"I did not say »you said every Muslim is evil«." **
I merely said you should "not put words into my mouth I never said, regardless how politically correct you want to be" (see above [**|**]).
"My point is ...." **
I know what your point is. You are a "progressive human being".
"... to be more precise you must qualify 'Islam' when attributing any thing negative to it. Because religion is such a possessive and sensitive matter your statement 'Islam is a hate-and-war-religion' will definitely offend Muslims especially the moderates." **
They do not need you as their "lawyer". They can defend themselves without your "help".
"Thus to be more precise and less offensive it would be better to state 'Islam [in part, not wholly] is a hate-and-war-religion.'
If Muslims are mentioned it would be more precise and wiser to state SOME [not all] Muslims.
I understand generally most people do not mean All of Islam or All Muslims when they do not qualify these two very sensitive terms. But the reality is when moderate Muslims read them without the qualifications they will instinctively feel offended." **
Did you not read my whole post? Here it comes again:
"More precisely please: I am not saying that every Moslem is evil (do not put words into my mouth I never said, regardless how politically correct you want to be), but I am saying that Islam is a hate-and-war-religion. Not every Christian is a love-and-peace human - additionally a love-and-peace-religion can be interpreted as "being too weak". And not every Muslim is a hate-and-war-human. That is needless to say." ** **
"But thankfully I am not an English victim." **
What kind of victim are you then?
918) Arminius, 03.09.2016, 01:03, 01:21, 01:22, 01:24, 02:02, 02:15, 02:20, 02:31, 02:42, 02:59, 03:48, 15:05, 15:12, 15:39, 15:48, 16:44, 17:10, 17:44, 18:50, 20:06, 21:05, 21:24, 22:08, 23:58 (5210-5233)
"Must be an Australianism that I take for granted." **
It is an Anglicism (Englishism).
So you are an English victim (**).
"It is often stated 1% of human has psychopathic tendencies which is potentially evil. That's 70 million people around the world." **
By the way: Globalists are 1% of all humans.
"I have defined evil earlier which extend from low level evil, e.g. stealing, lying [5/100] to very evil, e.g. genocide [99/100].
From the above I estimated conservatively 20% of humans has an active tendency to commit evils within the above range.
Therefore the following;
»1. 20% [say] of Muslims [as with all humans] are born with an active evil tendency.« **
Nobody is "born with an active evil tendency"! So you are the one who offends (insults) at least 20% of all Muslims and furthermore at least 20% of all humans of all times.
"I have demonstrated above why 20% are born with an active evil tendency." **
You have offended (insulted) 20% of all humans of all times. Nobody is "born with an active evil tendency"!
"The point it is Islam itself that promote a culture of pedopholia, where their exemplar of Islam, i.e. 50+ years old Muhammad married a 6 years old girl. Whatever the excuses when taken into context of human nature, it has more to do with his sexual lust and pedopholic proclivities. Therefore it has something to do with Islam itself.
In this case is the combination of the following'
1. 20% of evil prone Muslims
2. Pedophilic elements [evil] within Islam
that combine to promote a culture of pedophilia within the ethos of the Islamic community.
Btw, the evils elements of Islam is not confined to pedophilia acts of their exemplar prophet Muhammad but they involved a wide range of human activities, e.g. religion-inspired killings of non-Muslims, cultural genocides, the arts and humanities, education, social and cultural matters.
20% of evil prone Muslims meant a pool of 300 millions evil prone Muslims around the world who are terrified of Hell and threaten by the Allah and are every ready to obey the commands of Allah of Islam any time. When these evil prone Muslims are at Allah's mercy to grant them eternal life in paradise and avoid Hell, they will do any thing to obey and please God including acting out whatever is the commands of God in the Quran which include the evil laden elements [amongst the good].
In such a case, one cannot ignore the set of Islamic [in part] evil elements as a very critical root cause to all the terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims." **
Terrible evils and violence are committed by Muslims, yes, but you are also saying that 20% of all Muslims are born evil, and that is not only nonsense but also an offense (insult).
"Because ... your statement ... will definitely offend Muslims especially the moderates." **
You are the only poster of this thread who is offending (insulting) at least 20% of all Muslims and furthermore at least 20% of all humans of all times.
"I have stated, it is not easy at present to resolve the mental issue of the 20% evil prone humans." **
You have offended at least 20% of all humans of all times. Nobody is "born with an active evil tendency"!
Obviously, judgmental people are just too stupid to see themselves.
"Human acts of bad or evil have not increased. Actions are just broadcasted more. Something horrible occuring in a little town would not have made national news fifty years ago unless a well known person was involved." **
In big cities it is just the other way around. Criminal activities are more and more kept secret by media, politics, police, ... and so on (at last also by most people). More and more people live in bigger and bigger becoming cities. Since 2008 more than 50% of all humans have been living in cities (for comparison only: in 1950 that percentage was 30%; and in 2030 it will estimately be 60%). So, unfortunately, one has to state that human acts of bad or evil have increased. The reason is a simple one, bioecologically and anthropologically said: Humans are not made for cities, for living in such a settlement density, population density; humans are made for a life in a relatively small group.
An example: The city Shenzhen in China had 30000 inhabitants in 1979 but 10.5 million inhabitants in 2011.
"I am not English, but I am indeed a victim of their pathetic Language." **
"People die everywhere and get murdered everywhere (nothing to do with Aboriginal communities or the type of work I do)." **
Is there a high crime rate in Australia, One Liner?
The opening post of this thread (**|**) merely suggests a question and the re-voting option.
"Australia would have significantly lower crimes rates compared to the US and UK and possibly a homicide rate 4 times lower than the US homicide rate." **
You wrote: "would have". So it has not. Right?
"I think the entire topic (for or against [**|**]) is a non-issue for a majority of the worlds population." **
That can be true. I do not know, because the public polls and statistics about the topic and the non-issue for a majority are also full of fakes and rhetorics - as usual.
Okay, here are some links and maps (I did my very best):
- ** .
Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 (#### 0-1, #### 1-2, #### 2-5, #### 5-10, #### 10-20, #### >20):
According to Wikipedia (**) and Quandl (**), Australia is much safer than the US but not safer than the UK.
Australia UK US
Wikipedia (**): 1.0 0.9 3.9
Quandl (**): 1.5; 0.9; 0.6; 0.4 0.7; -.-; 0.4; 0.3 9.4; 5.8; 6.0; 5.2
"I can agree with all that but still in a normal human way of living , it has not changed. Cities like that are abnormal... Oh there are just a few smartass things running through my head about people and cities, I better not..." **
Cities like that are abnormal, but they exist. They are architectural facts of human history.
As I said: Humans are not made for big cities or cities at all but for thorps, villages; because they are living beings of relatively small groups (like packs, prides, flocks, herds).
"Islam will self-destruct in time." **
Copied post in another thread. **
"I don't think that 14th century mentality will survive in the 21st century modernism." **
It is not 14th but 7th century.
There are many women who have denounced feminism and apologized to men, and wish to return back to more of a traditional structure, especially during all the rape sprees around the west, heavily motivated by fear and seeking protection." **
Time will tell, yes.
»I don't know why you're assuming that traditional family structures do not exist, there are still plenty of stay-at-home moms and working fathers.« **
Never said there wasn't..but looking at the increasing divorce and single mother stats it's pretty clear the direction in which it is going." **
Yes. There is always coincidence too in history, but currently the tendency is pretty clear. This tendency is a great chaos.
»Well, if men cannot or will not stick around to provide for their children (because materialism is bad but fucking around is okay because a man has his needs, dammit) this could be the remaining option.« **
It is a well known fact, that by large men never use to fuck around, that was something that was unheard of in the past, and the further you go back the greater the punishment for such acts was, both on men and women, as a way of securing the family marriage unit and construction of society.
The »fucking around« is a male response to the lack of a secure traditionalism that governed by virtues, moral, principles, vows,law etc. I'm not sure you can have your cake and eat it too. Interestingly enough, when you free the women from the men, you also free the men from the women." **
»In my opinion, people who embrace foreign or exotic traditions likely have some unresolved personal issues. If you want to preserve traditional family structure/lifestyle, why wouldn't you propose that people embrace Christianity instead? It's more in synch with Western traditions.« **
Hmm I would agree with the first part of that.
Christianity is foreign and stems from very similar places Islam and Judaism stem from." **
Exactly. They stem from very similar places, if not from the exact same geographical place. In any case it is the desert of the Arabian Peninsula.
But Christianity is nevertheless very much different from Islam and Judaism.
But religiously, as a belief system, and especially ethically, Christianity is nevertheless very much different from Islam and Judaism. In this sense Christianity is very much more like Buddhism.
"Innovation is not necessarily a good thing nor is technological advancement...sure there's benefits to it, but it is way more destructive if anything." **
As almost all phenomena, innovation has two sides: a good one and a bad / evil one.
»My point was that even without war Islam would be doomed.« **
Well, the visibility of the expansion of Islam is quite clear.
It's well known thing that." **
Yes, but in the case of a great war like a world war, Islam has currently no chance.
»Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and is expected to outstrip Christianity by the end of the century.
The number of Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the world's population from now until 2050, the Pew Research Center has said.
While the world's population is projected to grow 35 per cent before the middle of the century, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 73 per cent – from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.8 billion.« **
How will it be doomed?" **
»The West has evolved and will not be devolving back to Middle Ages. That was my point. Islam will have to catch up/evolve in order to survive, and that could also be its end.« **
Middle ages were awesomeness...at a time of war, I would much rather be in the middle ages than this time period, especially with all the nuclear capability they have now." **
»Islam's attempt to drag Western Values down to its level will be unsuccessful.« **
Down? what are these values you're speaking of? Modernity has turned the west into a fucking shit hole! The only fun thing here is observing the decay and watching it all happen.. that's what keeps me here." **
Are they not compatible, not even temporarily, according to you?
Oh, oh.
It is my hope for him that he has a very good lawyer.
"I would imagine that these sort of public polls may only statisically apply to about 1 billion people (US and Europe) and not the other 6 billion people (rest of the world)." **
Maybe. That would mean about 20% of 7 biliion people. The current number of the world population is 7,447,916,555. So we currently have 1,495,833,110 humans as the 20% of the current world population. I think this is probably a realistic number of those you mean. And 20% are enough for those who are managing "it".
"Population in the world is currently (2016) growing at a rate of around 1.13% per year. The current average population change is estimated at around 80 million per year.
Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. The rate of increase has therefore almost halved since its peak of 2.19 percent, which was reached in 1963.
The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years. Currently, it is estimated that it will become less than 1% by 2020 and less than 0.5% by 2050.
This means that world population will continue to grow in the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 39 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2038.
Population density map of the world ...:
World Population by Religion.
According to a recent study (based on the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion) by The Pew Forum, there are:
- 2,173,180,000 Christians (31% of world population), of which 50% are Catholic, 37% Protestant, 12% Orthodox, and 1% other.
- 1,598,510,000 Muslims (23%), of which 87-90% are Sunnis, 10-13% Shia.
- 1,126,500,000 No Religion affiliation (16%): atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. One-in-five people (20%) in the United States are religiously unaffiliated.
- 1,033,080,000 Hindus (15%), the overwhelming majority (94%) of which live in India.
- 487,540,000 Buddhists (7%), of which half live in China.
- 405,120,000 Folk Religionists (6%): faiths that are closely associated with a particular group of people, ethnicity or tribe.
- 58,110,000 Other Religions (1%): Baha'i faith, Taoism, Jainism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Tenrikyo, Wicca, Zoroastrianism and many others.
- 13,850,000 Jews (0.2%), four-fifths of which live in two countries: United States (41%) and Israel (41%).
How many people have ever lived on earth?
It was written during the 1970s that 75% of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment. This was grossly false.
Assuming that we start counting from about 50,000 B.C., the time when modern Homo sapiens appeared on the earth (and not from 700,000 B.C. when the ancestors of Homo sapiens appeared, or several million years ago when hominids were present), taking into account that all population data are a rough estimate, and assuming a constant growth rate applied to each period up to modern times, it has been estimated that a total of approximately 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of the human species, making the population currently alive roughly 6% of all people who have ever lived on planet Earth.
Others have estimated the number of human beings who have ever lived to be anywhere from 45 billion to 125 billion, with most estimates falling into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.
World Population clock: sources and methodology.
The world population counter displayed on Worldometers takes into consideration data from two major sources: the United Nations and the U.S. Census Bureau.
The United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs every two years calculates, updates, and publishes estimates of total population in its World Population Prospects series. These population estimates and projections provide the standard and consistent set of population figures that are used throughout the United Nations system.
The World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision provides the most recent data available (released on July 29, 2015). Estimates and projected world population and country specific populations are given from 1950 through 2100 and are released every two years. The latest revision has revised upwards the world population projections. Worldometers, as it is common practice, utilizes the medium fertility estimates.
Data underlying the population estimates are national and sub national census data and data on births, deaths, and migrants available from national sources and publications, as well as from questionnaires. For all countries, census and registration data are evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted for incompleteness by the Population Division as part of its preparations of the official United Nations population estimates and projections.
The International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division also develops estimates and projections based on analysis of available data (based on census, survey, and administrative information) on population, fertility, mortality, and migration for each country or area of the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, world population reached 7 billion on March 12, 2012.
For most countries adjustment of the data is necessary to correct for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in the data. Finally, since most recent data for a single country is often at least two years old, the current world population figure is necessarily a projection of past data based on assumed trends. As new data become available, assumptions and data are reevaluated and past conclusions and current figures may be modified.
For information about how these estimates and projections are made by the U.S. Census Bureau, see the Population Estimates and Projections Methodology.
Why Worldometers clocks are the most accurate.
The above world population clock is based on the latest estimates released on July 29, 2015 by the United Nations and will show the same number wherever you are in the world and whatever time you set on your PC. Worldometers is the only website to show live counters that are based on U.N. data and that do not follow the user's PC clock.
Visitors around the world visiting a PC clock based counter, see different numbers depending on where they are located, and in the past have seen other world population clocks - such as the one hosted on a United Nations website and on National Geographic - reaching 7 billion whenever their locally set PC clocks reached 4:21:10 AM on October 31, 2011.
Obviously, the UN data is based on estimates and can't be 100% accurate, so in all honesty nobody can possibly say with any degree of certainty on which day world population reached 7 billion (or any other exact number), let alone at what time. But once an estimate is made (based on the best data and analysis available), the world population clock should be showing the same number at any given time anywhere around the world." **
"As I said, it's a non-issue for a majority of the worlds population." **
As I said: Maybe. The humans of the Occidental culture and merely some others are probabaly the only humans (probably in fact about 20%) who are interested in the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
"But just because it's a non-issue for a majority of the worlds population doesn't mean it's an unimportant issue." **
Yes. It does not mean that, but it does not have to mean that either.
"14 billion years ago the billions and billions of galaxies were compressed into a "hot singular point". It means that the four forces of nature (electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravity) also
were compressed into one »singular point« - into one »singular force«." **
So they led to a "big bang", but:
"Big bang is scientific fantasy ...." **
So they did not lead to a "big bang".
The following picture was posted by you in your "Big Bang and Black Hole" thread.
So are you saying that they led to a "black hole" and then to a "quantum foam"?
I would like to know what you think about the following videos and texts:
- "»Feminism was Created to Destabilize Society, Tax Women and Set Up the NWO.« - Aaron Russo." ** (Full interview: **)
- "»Feminism is a Terrorist Organization.« - Erin Pizzey." **
Henry Makow wrote:
"People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive." **
"The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family." **
919) Arminius, 07.09.2016, 01:00, 01:02, 01:04, 01:06, 16:46, 18:51, 19:05, 19:13, 19:35, 19:53, 20:44, 21:01, 21:47, 23:02, 23:04, 23:24, 23:36 (5234-5250)
"Humans are made for adapting." **
Humans are capable of both adaptation and non-adaptation. Humans can dissociate from nature, can fight against nature. The more culture/civilization humans have, the more anti-natural they are.
"Though we can reallllllllly fight it. As humans adapt to large communities self preservation kicked in, you ceased to see faces and identifiers. Ever live in a huge city? I spent most of my life in large cities. You really just float through life not thinking about the humanity surrounding you, they in essence become objects. Yet I see change /adaptation beginning . The most notorious community, Harlem, is changing becoming more humane." **
In the same time, more and more other notorious communites are becoming more and more inhumane.
Nobody knows, when and how this is going to stop.
Humans are the only species that really fights against the nature. But when it comes to accusing humans to be responsible for the greenhouse effect, we must also say that there is much money in play. The greenhouse effect is not automatically anthropogenic, because it is a natural effect by definition and caused by the sun and some other cosmic effects. So the question ist whether humans are really capable of causing a greenhouse effect. It is no question that humans are ecological destroyers, that they destroy their natural environment, but it remains a question whether the greenhouse effect is caused by them, in other words: whether the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is a criminal fact or a criminal fake (caused by some certain humans who make much money out of it) or both.
Note: The money that is payed as a fine (=> penance) by the polluters (=> sinners) goes to the "eco-popes", the banksters.
What the big bank creates the debt takes away.
"It is certainly no coincidence that two similar beliefs occured and became dogmas at the same time: (1) the belief that the big bank can create the money out of nothing; (2) the bielef that the big bang can create the universe out of nothing. " ** **
@ Prismatic 567.
What you are saying about the Gaußian (Gaussian) distribution, thus the Gauß' bell curve, is true, but this does not automatically mean that it can be applied to everything you want. Nobody is "born with an active evil tendency" (**). Unborns and children have nothing to do with such categories and concepts of the adult "world". We had a similar discussion in another threads where a confused one claimed the nonsense that "unborns and newborns were "atheists" (**|**). That is not true. And your statement that "20% are born with an active evil tendency" (**) is also not true.
It is not accidental (but very thankful) that it is not allowed to take legal proceedings against children.
Thanks to our Occidental culture.
Autsider wrote:
"Islam's ultimate goal is the memetic propagation of Islam. The men and women are mere means to that goal, and their needs, wants, feelings are thus subordinate to it.
Feminism's ultimate goal is short-term happiness for women, I say short-term because feminists don't have any deeper insights about anything and so they don't realize how certain things can backfire in the long-term.
So no, they are not compatible." **
Yes, but people can be forced to think that they were "compatible". So from the ruler's point of view they can be compatible, because they shall be compatible.
"Feminism, Marxism, liberalism, humanism, and similar ideologies are the kind of ideologies you want your enemies to have, because it makes them soft and weak, vulnerable to conquest. This is the only sense in which Islamism is compatible with feminism - feminism weakens the West for Islamic conquest. Watch the video ...: **." **
That video must be from 1982-1984.
According to Yuri Bezmenov four points are needed: (1) demoralization of the society, especially their students (it takes about 15 to 20 years), because these students are going to be the next powerful generation; (2) destabalize organizations (it takes about 2 to 5 years); (3) crisis (it takes about 6 weeks); (4) "normalization" (people think that they live in peace, although they do not).
"The United States is in a state of war, an undeclared total war. .... I know Americans don' like to listen to things which are unpleasant." - Yuri Bezmenov.
"No matter how much pride the Islam inoculates into its children, they will not withstand the seduction of modernity." **
But modernity itself is a problem too or, at least, more and more people believe that modernity is a problem, and its people, the Occidental people, are responsible for all problems people have been facing since the end of the 18th century. Therefore many people think or shall think that they have the right for any "revolution" they want to make - with the result of an endless "revolution" of almost all kinds. Almost! Since these "revolutions" make no sense except one: they are always happening under control, so that senseful revolutions do not happen. What senseless "revolutions" achieve is a more and more problematic world. Senseless revolutions are like wars, civil wars, and they are merely senseful for those who are supposed to be the enemy: the rulers, because they become richer and more powerful by these senseless "revolutions".
Antagonistic isms like feminism and Islamism are in the interest of the rulers and their puppets. The majority is usually not but is ought to be interested in them, because both the puppet minority and the majority are permanently bombarded by those antagonistic isms via mass media and education systems like kindergartens, schools, universities. So at last there will be the following distribution of interests: (1) 1% with interests being self-interests, (2) 99% with interests being no self-interests (because they are the interests of the 1%).
"I had Islamic Golden Age in mind." **
The Islamic "Golden Age" was not during the 14th century but during the 10th century (peak).
"It's too behind times for the modern world. It will become corrupted and destroyed, or morphed beyond recognition, and it will happen from inside." **
Yes, but it is not said that this will happen before or after the Islamic hordes will have conquered the Occidental culture.
Modernity stands for a modern society / culture. It does not necessarily stand for a ruling system. The current ruling system is not really new, not really modern, it is as old as human history, and merely some of its instruments are modern, which does not mean that the current rulers are modern minded. So modernity does not automatically mean that those who are ruling are really modern. The rulers themselves do not have to be modern, they have to have the control over everything and everyone who is modern and who is not modern. And indeed: The rulers are "merely" interested in controlling, having power, regardless whether those who are controlled are modern or not. And that is a very old one and thus not a typically modern attitude.
If "feminism weakens the West for Islamic conquest" (Autsider **), we have also to mention that Islamism weakens the West for Islamic conquest, because its terrorism weakens the West, at least currently. There is still no real Western resistance to Islamism. There is more and more Western weakness. And furthermore: there is also much Western conversion to Islam, especially to Islamism.
So if both feminism and Islamism weaken the West, then they are strategically compatible for those who benefit from this development, because actually feminism and Islamism are not compatible.
US citizens "don't like to listen to things which are unpleasant" (Yuri Bezmenov).
I would nevertheless say to most of the US citizens: Come to the Old Europe (Western Europe) and look how fundamentally evilly the Globalists have already changed its countries and societies during the last few decades after the so-called "Cold War".
It is unpleasant, US citizens!
"Humans on both sides desire to make money and will maintain their lies and deny their truths in order to make money, and it is ludicrous to suggest that only one particular side has this motivation." **
It is not ludicrous, because all others than those relatively few of the one particular side do not have the possibility to do it to the same extent.
In addition: Not all "humans on both sides desire to make money and will maintain their lies and deny their truths in order to make money".
"I did not state the Bell Curve is true in all conditions.
The Bell Curve is NOT a universal, it is merely abstracted model of patterns from observed and empirical evidences which is applicable in many instances involving variables of human nature. As such if can be a useful tool to aid one in gathering knowledge in problem solving.
At present we are faced with real evidence of terrible evils and violence [e.g. below is one set of example] committed by SOME people who claimed to be Muslims.
Now if you are a concerned citizen of humanity, what are you going to do in view of the above figures.
Any concerned citizen of the world will make an attempt to apply effective problem solving techniques to trace the root causes of the problem above and find solutions to eliminate or prevent the recurrence of the problem of evil as above.
In the course of applying problem solving techniques one effective tool to narrow the problem is the use of the principles of the Bell Curve.
Note I did not jump to the conclusion, Bell Curve = 20% of Muslims are born with an active evil tendencies." **
Note: The sign "=" (equal sign) does not mean a "conclusion". The sign for a conclusion is (for example and because it is on your keyboard): "=>".
Your conclusion is false, because nobody is "born with an active evil tendencies".
"There is quite a lot of work to do to arrive at the above hypothesis.
I have presented them in my earlier posting and I don't think you understood them.
Btw, my first premise is;
DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be beastly and evil.
Note the term 'POTENTIAL' which mean all human has the ready made neural circuits in their brain to become evil but it is not active in all humans.
Do you agree with this first premise?" **
No, and if you had read my posts carefully, then you would know it.
Your wording is false. Morality has to be learned. It is a matter of education. The DNA says nothing about morality but merely about the potential to learn. If a human learns morality in a wrong or an evil way, then it is because of a false learning. Not morality but learning morality is in the DNA.
Your premise is false. Unfortunately, it can be used rhetorically.
Maybe that it is the same statement for you whether one says it is learning morality or just morality itself, but it is not the same statement. What is said about morality is "merely" said by adults (at least not by children who have to learn morality). So morality is an adult matter. Children have to learn morality. So if they do not learn it, then they have a tendency to become evil - but not because of their DNA, at least not in the first place, because the genetic code contains the possibility of learning morality but not morality itself. That is also the reason for the need of ethical education and why belief system (religions) occured. Again: Genetically, the learning morality is DNA based, but the morality itself is not.
If you agree, then the next point is to demonstrate why 20% of all humans are born with an activated potential to be beastly and evil tendency.
Again I have explained this in my earlier posts, but they did not catch your attention." **
That is also false. Those posts catched my attention.
This involve understanding your own physical brain and neuroscience.
So do you agree with this premise?
Note this thread;
DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be beastly and evil (**)." **
Again: Humans are not "born with a POTENTIAL to be beastly and evil" (**). They are born with a potential to learn what morality means.
Note: It is the adult ethic system that interprets this or that as being good or evil. Morality changes. Thus ethic systems change as well. So: Why are you not also saying that "all animals are evil"? And if you are saying that, then I ask you: Why are you saying that? Why are you interpreting it in that way?
I guess that most galaxies are probably precessing.
Norms, morality, ethics are not based on DNA, but the learning of what norms, morality, ethics mean (note: they change) is based on DNA. Learning, which is mainly based on DNA, is not the same as norms, morality, ethics, which are not based on DNA but on culture, education, learning.
Yes (**) - with pretty odd statements. Read the following thread: **.
»Terrorism weakens the West ...." ** **
Actually terrorism is the »common cause« that strengthens the West, but only IF they unite into a globalist regime." **
Yes, actually, that is true, but currently there is only Western weakness. The Western people do nothing against terrorism. If their rulers speak of "terrorism" and "Islamism" they want to frighten and weaken their people. So their "war on terror" means "war against their own people".
»So if both feminism and Islamism weaken the West, then they are strategically compatible for those who benefit from this development, because actually feminism and Islamism are not compatible." ** **
Islam will displace Feminism." **
920) Arminius, 07.09.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:03, 01:04, 01:07, 01:24, 02:53, 03:23, 03:32, 03:44, 03:57, 04:08, 04:17, 04:20, 04:22, 04:39, 04:56, 05:29, 06:03, 15:23, 16:45, 17:43, 22:13, 23:53, 23:57 (5250-5276)
"Precessing relative to what?" **
In the case of our galaxy relative to other galaxies of the Local Group and the Virgo Supercluster, if not to more.
"Not all humans need to, only those who desire to maintain their wealth and those who desire for a greater wealth." **
As I said.
"Roughly two months to the election." **
Do not celebrate just yet.
The more elections you have, the worse your situation is.
Europeans find themselves in a dilemma. If they refuse feminism, they (actively or passively) support Islamism; if they refuse Islamism, they (actively or passively) support feminism; and if they refuse both, they are suspected of being both islamophobic racists and misogynistic sexists - regardless of the fact that it is almost always known that they are neither islamophobic racists nor misogynistic sexists. This is how Globalism works, because Globalism is much more socialistic than market based. The Globalistic socialism is an anti-national-socialism resp. inter-national-socialism (as long as nations are needed, because nations shall disappear in the medium to long term).
"There is a 'Nature' and 'Nurture' aspect to Morality [What is Good and What is Evil].
DNA wise, all humans are born with the POTENTIAL with basic morality." **
False!
There has been lots of studies relating to inherent morality within humans via the study of babies which are less than one year old, i.e. to discount the 'Nurture' element.
Here is one article from Scientific American to lend greater credibility of my point (**)." **
You are "arguing" like this guy.
"If one is highly perceptive one would have noted this fact from observations within humanity." **
The Nurture factors [learning, improving, etc.] merely enhanced the Morality that is innate [Nature] within humans.." **
Nonsense!
Animals follow their instincts to kill, fight, injure and they do not has any strong potential for morality like humans and high level of self-consciousness to contrast what is good against what is evil from the moral perspective." **
You are speaking of adult humans. So this of your statements is FALSE too !
Topic: The future of our Sun, its planets, and our Milky Way.
What about the future of our Sun, its planets, and our Milky Way?
The following questions are examples (so you may add other questions):
Will our Sun become a "red giant" and later a "white dwarf"? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the planets Mercury, Venus, and probably also our planet, the Earth, be "eaten" by our Sun (having become a "red giant")? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will our planet be "kicked out" of our solar system? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way become a bigger galaxy (by eating other galaxies)? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way be "eaten" by the "black hole" which is in its center? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way be "eaten" by a bigger galaxy? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Topic: Life Philosophy.
What do you think about life philosophy?
Are there any life philosophers you prefer?
This thread can be interpreted as the supplement to my thread called: "The Meaning of Life" (**|**).
Merely great in being more chaotic again.
A definer defines.
Does "right wing" really mean "to hate black people"?
If yes, then "left wing" would mean "to love black people". Right?
If one has no chance of getting out of the feminism/islamism dilemma, then this means, at least to those who control this dilemma, that feminism and islamism are compatible, at least temporarily.
They are not black but something between white and black.
An observer observes.
So what does a philosopher do?
"They were merely noting the natural propensity for intelligence to discern between what to love and what to hate. All surviving creatures have such instincts born within, else they could not survive as a species (even insects).
Psychologists (just barely on rare occasion fitting into the category of »scientists«) most certainly cannot be trusted to experiment and attempt to analyze complex systems or creatures more intelligent than their own cognitive comprehension skills. Infants fit into that category, as do almost all animals. The cognitive comprehension skills of the average psychologists are embarrassingly low. More to the exact point, none of those psychologists in that video actually understand what »morality« is. That is an issue for philosophers to decide. And no science can be conducted without proper definition. Ask any of them to exactly define »morality« in an unambiguous way. They would probably tell you that such isn't necessary, which is largely why they are (still) not really qualified to be referred to as »scientists«.
Anyone can trump up what superficially appears to be a scientific experiment with all of the buzz word in place: »this was a double blind study«, »81% of the non-control group responded positively«, .... The sad fact is that most people doing such things are very, very sloppy and often have ulterior motives.
Ask what the scientific definition of »morality« is. Without such a precise definition, no measure of it can be scientifically made.
And all of that is not to discount Arminius' point that the very concept of morality, and thus good and evil, does not apply to animal behavior, and that includes human infants. Homosapians aren't all that much different than other animals. What doesn't apply to other animals only might barely apply to homosapians.
Your psychologist references are off mark for the same reason that you are - a complete lack of understanding of what morality and evil actually is and is actually all about." **
Absolutely right.
The video is absolutely ridiculous, ragged, full of errors.
"Philosophy is Friendship" is similar to Heidegger's "Denken ist Danken" ("thinking is thanking").
I mean the philosophy of life. Sometimes it is also called "vitalism", but I would not say that "philosophy of life" is just "vitalism", because it is a bit more than that (at least to me). Therefore I prefer the term "life philosophy".
Yes (**). Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a Jew. He was not the first and not the most significant life philosopher. Bergson was influenced by former life philosophers, mainly by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) who were also influenced by former life philosophers, mainly by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).
"Your views are very constipated and merely hand waving." **
You are the one who has constipated and merely hand waving views. You have absolutely no idea. You can and you will never give any proof or eviddence for you stupid "statements", because they are completely false. There is no gene for morality, for ethics, for philosophy. All what humans can do when it comes to good or evil is to learn what it means, and that is also the reason why it is absolutely useless to educate little children before they have reached the age of the acquisition of the adult language. Language (I mean the adult language - not the "baby talk") is required for e.g. the learning what good or evil means.
Your alledged "tendency" does not exist. It seems that you have never learned what morality means - as if you have never been young. If a human who has reached the child/adult border, thus an adolescent age of about 14 years or some years more (it depends on each case), and does not knwo what morality in the sense of a good-and-evil-system means, then this human will probably never leran what it means. That is the point.
"In contrast note James S. Saint who at least gave some explanations to justify his views [which I do not agree and countered." **
You are trying to drive a wedge between me and him. I gave given explanations too. It seems that you do even not know what explanations are.
Again: You are the one who has not given any explanation. All what you are telling here about this subject is mere nonsense. What you are telling here is similar to the nonsensical statement that "babies" would be "atheists". That is false. There is no gene for religion, for theology, for ethics, for philosophy. Your "statements" are completely false.
"I mentioned;
There has been lots of studies relating to inherent morality within humans via the study of babies which are less than one year old, i.e. to discount the 'Nurture' element." **
That are no studies but mere nonsense !
Is it possible that your developmental age is less than one year? You just do not know what "good" and "evil" mean.
I suggest you start learning your first language again before you judge about things you have absoluetly no idea of.
"Attacking this one example I gave is not effective." **
It is most effective.
"I suggest you research on this topic and reflect on the conclusions instead of giving these very unhealthy »constipated« views." **
Again and again: You are the one who has unhealthy constipated views. You have absolutely no idea of morality, ehtics, logic, definitions, ... and so on and so forth.
You have no arguments, and so (of course) you start insulting all those who counter your false "statements". That is typical for you, the "progressed human" (so your self-evaluation is false too).
That is exactly the reason why I did not want to call this thread "philosophy of life" but rather "life philosophy". The term "philosophy of life" is almost always connected with the term "vitalism". But many life philosophers are not just vitalists. Louis Dumas, Henri Bergson, Johannes Reinke, Hans Driesch, Jakob von Uexküll, Erich Becher, and some others were vitalists, some (thus not all) of them also life philosophers.
"I don't see how that follows from what I said. How about.....when black people call someone racist, they're usually not talking about someone who is also considered to be left wing." **
You probably have not understand my post. I suggest you read it again.
"When you listen to right wing talk radio, you don't think those guys are racist?" **
Sorry, but there is no "right wing talk radio" in almost all countries of the EU (exceptions are merely the former communistic countries like Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, ... and some others).
You can deduce it from the term "life philosophy". It is a philosophy not only of or about but also within life, thus also a practical or empirical philosophy (more or less also including existential philosophy and cultural philosophy, for example), which is not like but merely close to empirical science.
To me, the best example for a literary form of a philosophy of life, existence, and culture is Goethe's "Faust" and Faust the best literary character of a life philosophy. Goethe was not mainly a philosopher, but all what he did can also be used as a philosophy, especially his knowledge about morphology (cp. for example his "Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen"), his novels, for example "Die Leiden des jungen Werthers" or "Wilhelm Meister ...", his tragedy "Faust I and II" (as I alraedy mentioned) or his books "Aus meinem Leben - Dichtung und Wahrheit", "Maximen und Reflexionen" and others.
Maybe. But note: I restrictively said "to those who control this dilemma", and by "those" I did not mean feminists or islamists but Globalists.
"One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general. Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant's fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics." **
You are merely misusing Kant's philosophy.
You "statements" in this and another thread referring to the same subject indicate that you know almost nothing about moral and ethics, not much about Kant's philosophy, and, moreover, nothing at all about genetics, learning, children, education.
I have helped, thus supported you in some other threads where you said some true words about Kant. But in this and another thread referring to the same subject you are really talking illogical, incoherent nonsense about things you know almost nothing about, in some cases even nothing at all.