OK, now all we need
-
2 of our trolls have posted and run for cover when asked to discuss their views, today. Illion did so late last night, so I guess we just need a post from Dato and then perhaps we can hope for peace for the rest of the day ? This place has become so ridiculous that Stan's views almost seem semi normal in comparison.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
I still feel the best way to deal with these people (in the context of an essentially anonymous online message board) is to ignore them: if not a single person responded to one of their posts they'd soon get tired and move on to the next set of willing troll-bait. The problem is not that they are woefully ignorant but that people here get suckered into trying to reason with them when, plainly, they cannot be reasoned with. As you rightly point out there are others with whom one can have a really good argument but that does not work with these people as, for them, there is no argument: they are right, you are wrong. End of story.
-
I still feel the best way to deal with these people (in the context of an essentially anonymous online message board) is to ignore them: if not a single person responded to one of their posts they'd soon get tired and move on to the next set of willing troll-bait. The problem is not that they are woefully ignorant but that people here get suckered into trying to reason with them when, plainly, they cannot be reasoned with. As you rightly point out there are others with whom one can have a really good argument but that does not work with these people as, for them, there is no argument: they are right, you are wrong. End of story.
I agree, but, in a world where people insist on engaging these clowns, I feel I may as well join in to remind them that they have almost all been given a chance to defend their views, and have proven they cannot.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Hells Angels? Really? :laugh: That's so awesome! But yeah, really, really sad. Still, I suppose that despite their hardest efforts, despite all the noise that they make, in the end they're completely insignificant. Less amusing than the John Safran DVD I've been watching, sure, but still outrageous enough for a giggle.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
in the end they're completely insignifican
Oh, they are. They exist merely to provide comic relief news items.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
in the end they're completely insignifican
Oh, they are. They exist merely to provide comic relief news items.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Like the time Charles Firth from The Chaser's War on Everything interviewed and began flirting with one of the male members during some roadside sign-flaunting. :laugh:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was not established to provide individuals with welfare or to make life fair or to protect the weak from the strong or the poor from the rich.
So, when life is indeed unfair towards the poor and punishes the weak, you're saying that's part of what makes America great ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, I honestly don't find Illion's points (when he actually makes them) to be any more radical than most of those on the other side of the issues.
I frankly cannot work out what they are a lot of the time, because when I ask, he just calls me names.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, when life is indeed unfair towards the poor and punishes the weak, you're saying that's part of what makes America great ?
You can phrase it as negatively as you like, but, yes, that is the source of our greatness. The role of Jeffersonian government is not to make life fair, it is simple to maximize the oppotunities the individual has to improve their own condition in their own way. The very notion that government should be directly involved in making life fair for the individual, beyond the enforcement of certain basic, well defined and precisely articulated legal principles, is anathema to the Jeffersonian ideal.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I frankly cannot work out what they are a lot of the time, because when I ask, he just calls me names.
I wouldn't worry about them - they're laughable at best. An example of his that I have always treasured which he posited on some other message board is: IF 'materialism' is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN minds (or 'souls' if you prefer that word) cannot exist. BUT minds do exist. THEREFORE, 'materialism' (and 'physicalism,' and 'naturalism,' and 'atheism,' and 'agnosticism') is clearly seen to be false. :laugh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
IF 'materialism' is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN minds (or 'souls' if you prefer that word) cannot exist. BUT minds do exist. THEREFORE, 'materialism' (and 'physicalism,' and 'naturalism,' and 'atheism,' and 'agnosticism') is clearly seen to be false.
So, what is the materialistic cause for the mind?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
IF 'materialism' is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN minds (or 'souls' if you prefer that word) cannot exist. BUT minds do exist. THEREFORE, 'materialism' (and 'physicalism,' and 'naturalism,' and 'atheism,' and 'agnosticism') is clearly seen to be false.
So, what is the materialistic cause for the mind?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, what is the materialistic cause for the mind?
Electrical activity within the brain.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, when life is indeed unfair towards the poor and punishes the weak, you're saying that's part of what makes America great ?
You can phrase it as negatively as you like, but, yes, that is the source of our greatness. The role of Jeffersonian government is not to make life fair, it is simple to maximize the oppotunities the individual has to improve their own condition in their own way. The very notion that government should be directly involved in making life fair for the individual, beyond the enforcement of certain basic, well defined and precisely articulated legal principles, is anathema to the Jeffersonian ideal.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, what is the materialistic cause for the mind?
Electrical activity within the brain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Electrical activity within the brain.
How? My Ipod has electrical activity. Are you suggesting that it therefore has a mind also?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Is this American Dream (of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work) then just a glorified myth that only the rich and powerful can aspire to, yet out of reach of the poor and weak ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Is this American Dream (of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work) then just a glorified myth that only the rich and powerful can aspire to, yet out of reach of the poor and weak ?
It is the most well tested and validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity for the greatest possible number of people. Is it perfect? Nope. But it is the best system we have and has been historically validated to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Electrical activity within the brain.
How? My Ipod has electrical activity. Are you suggesting that it therefore has a mind also?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'. However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Electrical activity within the brain.
How? My Ipod has electrical activity. Are you suggesting that it therefore has a mind also?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Is this American Dream (of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work) then just a glorified myth that only the rich and powerful can aspire to, yet out of reach of the poor and weak ?
It is the most well tested and validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity for the greatest possible number of people. Is it perfect? Nope. But it is the best system we have and has been historically validated to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity
Obviously it isn't perfect. If it were perfect you wouldn't have sheer numbers of peoples who are living in unsafe environments, unsound buildings, and close to real poverty. For a country that is as wealthy as the United States, the benefits that such peoples have is next to nothing having to go cap-in-hand for charity. Sorry, but that is not my idea "of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work", it sounds to me that a dose of social medicine would improve their lot enormously at relatively low costs.
-
Well, thats is indeed very interesting. However, What I am proposing is that our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop that generates the conscious em field as a kind of informational sink. So, feedback loops are all that is necessary for consciousness? The em field itself is conscious? Or is it the matter the field is working on that is conscious? Are all em fields conscious? Or only those associated with ion pumps? Where is the conciousness actually at in this model?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'. However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'.
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
What is so special about electricity one way or another. It is merely a form of energy after all. Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity
Obviously it isn't perfect. If it were perfect you wouldn't have sheer numbers of peoples who are living in unsafe environments, unsound buildings, and close to real poverty. For a country that is as wealthy as the United States, the benefits that such peoples have is next to nothing having to go cap-in-hand for charity. Sorry, but that is not my idea "of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work", it sounds to me that a dose of social medicine would improve their lot enormously at relatively low costs.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Obviously it isn't perfect. If it were perfect you wouldn't have sheer numbers of peoples who are living in unsafe environments, unsound buildings, and close to real poverty. For a country that is as wealthy as the United States, the benefits that such peoples have is next to nothing having to go cap-in-hand for charity. Sorry, but that is not my idea "of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work", it sounds to me that a dose of social medicine would improve their lot enormously at relatively low costs.
Sorry, but your views have been validated to be incorrect. Poverty and economic 'unfairness' are minimized when economic efficiency is maximized. Allowing some sort of bureaucratic centralized management of economic processess ensures a lose of economic efficiency thus ensures an increase in poverty and unfairness.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'.
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
What is so special about electricity one way or another. It is merely a form of energy after all. Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Your view of Jefferson is not that far removed from the way Stalin used the name of Lenin to give weight to his own views.
I'm not the one misusing Jefferson in that way. Using a letter that Jefferson wrote to some church as a means of reinterpreting a constitution which represented the true political principles jefferson et al risked so much to create is far more characteristic of your allegation than is anything I have attributed to him. Jeffersonian government is the diametric oppostie of all forms of socialism. It was not established to provide individuals with welfare or to make life fair or to protect the weak from the strong or the poor from the rich. It was created to give the people the means of doing all of that for theselves. That is a simple fact supportable by every shred of actual historic information available.
Christian Graus wrote:
Nevertheless, like I said, there's other people here who both rob you of the chance to be an extreme point of view, and certainly I would not lump you in with them, in terms of the fact that you discuss and participate here.
My points of view would have been mainstream through out 90 percent or so of this nation's history and to 90 percent or so of its population.
Christian Graus wrote:
don't agree with you, but it's always good to discuss things. What I have against Illion and Adnan is not that I disagree, but that they refuse to defend or discuss their views.
I agree that points of view once made should be defended. However, I honestly don't find Illion's points (when he actually makes them) to be any more radical than most of those on the other side of the issues.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, I honestly don't find Illion's points (when he actually makes them) to be any more radical than most of those on the other side of the issues.
Tweedledee and tweedledummer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.