[Forge]

define "fight"

if penises (penes ?) are involved, sign me up

[Hank]

^ if you did not get a joke, defining it is futile, because it is not funny to those who did not get it, or the guy who thought it is funny is not funny

[Forge]

[Radar]

The problem with anarchy is that anyone who dares suggest implementing government or corporatism must be killed. Otherwise you will just end up with government or corporatism.

[Hank]

The problem with anarchy(ist) is, it is a label that means different things to different people.

Sample: Hank is sort of an Anarcho-Capitalist. Which clashes head on with a Social-Anarchist. Then take the right wing media who classify rioters as anarchist. Anarchy simply wont become reality. Because on this planet, most people want to be told what to do and would not want to take responsibility of self. Or, they prey for a deliverer from the heaven and/or cheer for the new President/Governor/Prime Minister and so on. – Yes, argumentative.

[Danukem]

 Hank, on 19 August 2020 - 11:31 AM, said:

The problem with anarchy(ist) is, it is a label that means different things to different people.

Sounds like socialism.

[Aristotle Gumball]

We need more Satanic AIDS-faggots on this forum, and communists.

[Danukem]

We already have our token provocateur who can stand in for those roles as needed.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

 Danukem, on 19 August 2020 - 12:26 PM, said:

We already have our token provocateur who can stand in for those roles as needed.

but like I don't have aids

and IDK he doesn't seem very satanic

Spoiler

blackharted3?

cultureshock?

Free robman?

My memory is remembering things I didn't want to
that being cultureshock

[Radar]

Question for anarchists:

Let's say "true anarchy" is one day tried and implemented. What if within that anarchist society, a town of about 100,000 people banded together and decided to implement a small government?


I'm thinking only 1 of the following can be true:

1. It was born out of anarchy, so it is still true anarchy
2. It is not anarchy, and statists must be eliminated to maintain true anarchy
3. It is not anarchy, but they are free to create a state if they so choose


Which one is true? Or is it none of them?

[Danukem]

Everyone talking about anarchy should read Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick (or at least be familiar with it). It's a great and classic philosophical work. Must-reading alongside Rawls' A Theory of Justice for people who give a fuck: https://en.wikipedia...ate,_and_Utopia

[Radar]

People who write non-fiction need to learn how to condense their point into 100 pages or less. Nobody has 300 pages worth of valuable things to say. Unless you're God and it's the Bible.

[Aristotle Gumball]

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 01:52 PM, said:

People who write non-fiction need to learn how to condense their point into 100 pages or less. Nobody has 300 pages worth of valuable things to say.

I kinda agree, as a person who reads books. We retain only a small percentage of what we read anyway, so I'd rather not waste time with extraneous BS unless I was earning a degree and absolutely needed all the nuance.

Well, I'm glad 500 page non-fiction exists for those that want it, so perhaps a better point would be: don't expect people to read 500 pages of an argument you're too lazy to type out.

Especially don't expect people who argue on gaming forums about philosophy and politics to bother with "classic philosophical works".

[Danukem]

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 01:52 PM, said:

People who write non-fiction need to learn how to condense their point into 100 pages or less. Nobody has 300 pages worth of valuable things to say. Unless you're God and it's the Bible.

It's funny to complain about reading 300 pages of well-thought-out and argued for philosophy, when over the years you will happy read through many thousands of pages of trash on social media and places like this. It's especially funny to me when I see people re-inventing the wheel over and over again with philosophical insights that were old-news a thousand years ago. Except that typically the re-invented wheels aren't even round and they fall off the vehicle after a few bumps.

Imagine if math were treated this way. Don't bother reading a book by a math expert, sit around and talk about math with your buddies until someone thinks of something smart. "Hey dude, I just noticed something! There's like, numbers that you can only divide by themslves and one! Maybe they are important for something." I'm not saying you have to agree with any philosophers or accept expert opinion, but it's actually a time saver to know what's out there.

In a philosophical work of 300 pages, typically more than half of that will be devoted to carefully considering and responding to various objections, and updating the proposed theory as needed. If someone just said "here's a summary of what I think" they could do it in a few pages, but it would be met with the response of "that's just your opinion man". EDIT: Anyway, I linked to a wikipedia page, which could be ready pretty quickly.

[Radar]

I picked up a great deal of philosophy throughout the years because I typically stick to cliff-note versions of non-fiction works. I own an assortment of non-fiction works and while I try to be more "well-read", I discovered that most non-fictions works basically summarize the main point at the beginning of the chapter and the rest of it is just supporting arguments. Also, if it contains 200 pages or more, you can safely put it down once you're 80% through. Just my experience.

[Danukem]

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

I picked up a great deal of philosophy throughout the years because I typically stick to cliff-note versions of non-fiction works. I own an assortment of non-fiction works and while I try to be more "well-read", I discovered that most non-fictions works basically summarize the main point at the beginning of the chapter and the rest of it is just supporting arguments. Also, if it contains 200 pages or more, you can safely put it down once you're 80% through. Just my experience.

Climbing down from my elitist rant a bit: yes, you are largely right. I don't advocate picking up a dense, 300 page tome and reading it cover to cover. But I advocate looking carefully at expert source material. As you say, start with the beginning of the chapters, and then take deep-dives when necessary. But be prepared to take deep-dives from time-to-time.

[Aristotle Gumball]

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

I picked up a great deal of philosophy throughout the years because I typically stick to cliff-note versions of non-fiction works.

Russell Brand does the same. He'd be snorting coke while going through summaries of classic literature and would memorize everything, so he could sound smart in conversations. I mean, he gets what he's talking about, so it's not exactly fraudulent. Just being efficient with his time, really.

As for why the same topics keep coming up after they've been thoroughly dealt with in the past; I think it's to do with our biological proclivities. Left and right is to a large degree genetic and history has shown that biology is very hard to defeat. Order vs chaos and its various philosophical manifestations are rooted in flesh and blood.

Dan: I do sympathize, but I accept that humanity is probably doomed because people do not read, and when they do, they often don't comprehend. At some point we went from low population size-high intelligence (ancient Greece) to large population-average intelligence and IQs are now dropping in the West (not just due to migration, but even in the same families).

Brace yourselves for the fall.

[Danukem]

The ability to have children who llive to adulthood and have more children is not correlated with above-average intelligence in advanced societies, because we don't require much intelligence to survive when our basic needs are provided for by the state, or just living in a very wealthy society where we have enough to eat. Also, many intelligent people opt-out of procreation because they plan ahead and calculate that it's more trouble than it is worth. It's not surprising that these facts would lead to a decline in average intelligence. I wonder if the advent of brain-chips will ultimately make this trend more pronounced.

[Aristotle Gumball]

 Danukem, on 19 August 2020 - 02:55 PM, said:

The ability to have children who llive to adulthood and have more children is not correlated with above-average intelligence in advanced societies, because we don't require much intelligence to survive when our basic needs are provided for by the state, or just living in a very wealthy society where we have enough to eat. Also, many intelligent people opt-out of procreation because they plan ahead and calculate that it's more trouble than it is worth. It's not surprising that these facts would lead to a decline in average intelligence. I wonder if the advent of brain-chips will ultimately make this trend more pronounced.

Intelligent people tend to be more neurotic in general and have various fitness-reducing traits. It's a controversial subject, but one could say they are more "group selected". They might come up with some invention or advancement that benefits their ethnic group (and the broader society) at the cost of personal fitness by having less/no children. Although at some point all the genes for high intelligence will be gone. I suspect we will either come up with a solution before that point or our societies will simply collapse.

I don't know about brain-chips, but I think the fact that 15% of the US population is doomed to low-income work due to poor intelligence is a tragedy. No one really cares. The left thinks it's all about the environment/"the system" and the right thinks people aren't trying hard enough. Well, this isn't just an issue affecting the US, but I don't have the percentages for other countries.

More money should go to people like Haier and others engaged in this line of research:



Just think... no more dumb internet arguments. Everyone is well-read, logical and of sound mind (or at least has the potential to be). Marxists believe everyone can be trained and re-educated to be whoever they want, or what the state wants. I go way darker and think we should mess with the genome.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

 Danukem, on 19 August 2020 - 02:23 PM, said:

I don't advocate picking up a dense, 300 page tome and reading it cover to cover. But I advocate looking carefully at expert source material.

I do,
the portable Nietzsche changed my life

yes it's a selection of works
but Nietzsches' philosophy is fairly consistent from what I can remember

The will to power
although some of it was nietzches work
and I sometimes cite the parts that are most likely his
it was corrupted by his sister
and does not count imo and isn't in that collection afaik

I also suggest hobbes leviathan
I never got through it as it was a difficult read
as things were starting to worsen with me
but I suggest it if you want to learn about justification
of the opposition to most of your guyses political opinions
it's by far the most well defined justification of such that I know of.

 Cartaphallus, on 19 August 2020 - 02:06 PM, said:

Especially don't expect people who argue on gaming forums about philosophy and politics to bother with "classic philosophical works".

Ah, a man of great culture

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

I picked up a great deal of philosophy throughout the years because I typically stick to cliff-note versions of non-fiction works.

I agree with that being that it's alot more work for me to read a 20 paged short story then it is for most,
you can pick up alot of info from summarizations, especially summarizations that are trying to be unbiased,
delve into the background of the people that make the cliff notes, or whatever equivalent
and you can definitely still learn.

However you miss alot of the nuances,
and with per se leviathan which deals with alot of definitions in the beginning to justify his philosophy
there's alot of stuff that is semi important that you'll miss in the cliff notes.

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

Also, if it contains 200 pages or more, you can safely put it down once you're 80% through. Just my experience.

I mean you can safely put it down the moment you grasp the understanding of the writers philosophical standpoint,
doesn't matter how many pages it is,
the rest of it is just support.

 Cartaphallus, on 19 August 2020 - 02:36 PM, said:

Dan: I do sympathize, but I accept that humanity is probably doomed because people do not read, and when they do, they often don't comprehend. At some point we went from low population size-high intelligence (ancient Greece) to large population-average intelligence and IQs are now dropping in the West (not just due to migration, but even in the same families).

The point of human advancement is that eventually we will be required to do nothing for food, water, and shelter.
What will be taught in schools will no longer be math equations, science, chemistry
it will be philosophy, psychiatry, history, political science, acting, the arts

The rich are scared of robots and mechanization because it will mean that their normal forms of extortion will mean little to nothing
and they'll be on the same ground as the plebeians,
as social hierarchy will still exist but it won't mean anything anymore.

Robots will be our slaves,
and we won't need the same intelligence that we required
in our past.

[Radar]

Brain chips are the mark of the beast. Humanity is hellbound at that point.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 03:31 PM, said:

Brain chips are the mark of the beast. Humanity is hellbound at that point.

Humanity has been hellbound since people allowed varying interpretations of biblical scripture.
The bible wasn't made to be taken apart and suited towards peoples personal preferences,
doing so is blasphemy

Spoiler

If god thinks that I need to ask for forgiveness from someone who thought mass genocide was necessary
he's got the wrong person

[Jimmy]

 Danukem, on 19 August 2020 - 12:26 PM, said:

We already have our token provocateur who can stand in for those roles as needed.

I was asked to stop doing that so now I'm just a [REDACTED].

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

Question for anarchists:

Let's say "true anarchy" is one day tried and implemented. What if within that anarchist society, a town of about 100,000 people banded together and decided to implement a small government?

As long as the small government is voluntary it's permissible.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

 Jimmy, on 19 August 2020 - 04:10 PM, said:

I was asked to stop doing that so now I'm just a [REDACTED].

I mean as a sadomasochist you can pm me insults and categorizations anytime



also newish info by liberal media take it the way you want to take it
https://www.cnn.com/...rump/index.html

[Radar]

 The Overman, on 19 August 2020 - 03:55 PM, said:

Humanity has been hellbound since people allowed varying interpretations of biblical scripture.
The bible wasn't made to be taken apart and suited towards peoples personal preferences,
doing so is blasphemy

Spoiler

If god thinks that I need to ask for forgiveness from someone who thought mass genocide was necessary
he's got the wrong person

You don't even believe in the Bible. You're not the judge of what is or isn't blasphemy or the wrong interpretation.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

 R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 08:07 PM, said:

You don't even believe in the Bible. You're not the judge of what is or isn't blasphemy or the wrong interpretation.

When did I say I don't believe in the bible?
You're very mistaken

The idea that I have a delusion that is religion and faith based
I have hallucinations that are religion and faith based
would mean that yes
I do believe in god and the bible

I wouldn't say everyone deserves hell if I didn't

and no I'm not the judge
the judge will be there after your death

and if I'm right
after I die
I'll still be here

Spoiler

Let's take my lil' boy Nietzche for instance
Do you think that he would be happy and proud that his idea for the overman when he himself said

"The word Übermensch [designates] a type of supreme achievement"

these are summarizations I would do so myself if things weren't the way they are
" Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism"
"the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative "

was turned into being evidence for eugenics
because of mostly the name

eugenics has little to do with man achieving greatness
or man creating new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism
and the values of eugenics are nowhere near life-affirming or creative

that it would be a foundation for the nazis ideals for the aryan race
which totally oppose most of his ideals

His sister twisted his writings to fit her own doctrine
the doctrine that nazism was founded upon

Do you think that Nietzsche would be happy about that?

This is totally unrelated to the bible
but you have to take this into consideration

if his work has been totally twisted and construed over a little over 100 years
The bible has passed through many hands besides that of one Nazi woman
could the most popular interpretations of the bible have been twisted over more then 2 millennia

I really do suggest people read the bible themselves
and believe the words in the book
not the ideas that come into their head

[Radar]

No matter the word salad you concoct, it's inarguable that the central message of the Bible is the Gospel. There are theologians all the way back from the 1st century whose writings have survived. There is a clear timeline documented of the evolution of Christian thought. Not to mention, the text itself has been preserved near perfectly. Yes, the message has been corrupted at certain points throughout history, most notably under Catholic authoritarianism, but it is always restored eventually.

If you believe that God is a crazy person that you don't need to ask forgiveness from, then you don't believe in the Bible. And that's fine. You don't have to. But don't perform mental gymnastics to get around that.

[Forge]

in a nutshell:
catholic: confess your belief and your shortcomings to a witness (priest in a confession booth).
protestant: confess your belief openly, ask forgiveness from Christ in your heart, for only the Lord knows your heart.

which is correct? depends on which scripture you reference and your interpretation of it

[Radar]

A priest cannot forgive sins. Also, Catholics add a bunch of non-Biblical stuff like praying to Mary and dead saints. There's literally no scriptural support for praying to dead people, let alone that they could forgive sins. It's doctrinal corruption.

[MusicallyInspired]

"My Word shall never pass away."
Textus Receptus forever.