By fearing the result of men too secure in thier beliefs we have come to believe insecurity is desirable.
By fearing the result of too much intolerance we have come to believe blind tolerance is necissary.
By fearing the the result of too much national pride we think national shame is warranted.
I'd think the lesson of those fears would be moderation, but when every showing of those sentiments, no matter how small, is reacted to with such a knee jerk reaction we become abstinent, which is itself detrimental.
I am quite tired of being told to supress something that is intrinsic to my nature as a human being and I will no longer take it lying down when someone uses the example of one extreme to shame me into the opposite extreme.
Which is what you did when you pulled a godwin over a 22 year old's arrogant outburst.
You want this to end, so be it. Dont respond and let the thread die.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-01-2015 at 14:09.
Ah, throwing my words back in my face.
Not bad.
But just as I did when I said it, you avoid the subject and prove yourself no better.
I suspect you dont like being shamed by the name hitler any more than I do. To have your pride, a feeling you were born with, that god or evolution made you with, condemned by everyone for the actions of other men that you had no control over.
How is that justice?
Again, you want this to end, so be it. Dont respond and let the thread die.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-01-2015 at 14:14.
Last edited by Fragony; 05-01-2015 at 14:14.
What I said is more on topic than you seem to realize. Where is the moderation in discarding my explanations based on the prejudices you formed based on the first video I posted? That video made you so secure in your belief about my ideas that you just couldn't see the actual point I was trying to make anymore. Then I tried to explain it to you, quoting myself several times, and you discard it as a silly excuse again. This is why being so secure in your beliefs is unhealthy and counter productive.
It is your secutrity in your beliefs that makes me tire of debating with you because you seem to have watched this one video and it made you not believe anything I say anymore anyway. Therefore a further debate with you about the subject seems pointless to me unless you begin to show a willingness to get down from that pedestal where you think you caught me in being a hypocrite or idiot that you are apparently unwilling to let go of.
My original point was all about moderation in food choice but you put me into an extremist corner based on a misinterpreted joke and are too extremist in that view to let go of it, yet claim to champion moderation -> hypocrite!
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Champion? I claimed I was trying, I never said I mastered it.
I admit it, I have been, and for a long time will continue to be, a hypocryte. The biggest hypocryte in the forum, save for all you others.
I admit I should not have been prejudiced, I should have looked into the milk stuff first and only presented my opinion on the videos after. Alas I judged first and researched second and now any evidence I have come to find is now tainted in your eyes by the idea of prejudice.
I still dont think milk is anywhere near detrimental as to stop drinking the damn stuff, I still eat chocolate after all, and I think Kristina is a vapid idiot, and that Dr. Hyman is a lazy bastard who wont't source himself, and that food babe is a conn artist, and that using predestination to excuse her was a dumb move even in jest.
Finally I think you have been browbeaten into thinking nation, conviction, identity and free will is worthless despite your instincts by those who have become so scared of the merest hint of fascism they have mindlessly run right into the arms of neo-communism, regardless of the fact that they are just as authoritarian as the nazis, and every time you start to doubt you are reminded by your those you agree with of the horrors of the far right and how good you should think the far left is.
I dont think you will believe a word I say because you have already mentally labled me as other. And I fear that I will do the same to you.
So, you have anything to say about your reaction to the Sargon video? Or are you going to say it was in jest too.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-01-2015 at 16:37.
This is getting worse than the Ukraine thread. Please stop, you guys.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sorry, Dr Oppenheimer, but you exposed us to the possibility actual scientific predestination. We are now on course to mutually assured contratdiction.
You am become division, destroyer of threads.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-01-2015 at 16:22.
Very well.
No, when did I say that? I mean technically yes, but that wasn't my point.
I agree about the milk, I posted an article that kinda arrived at this conclusion, that was my point. The points about Kristina and Hyman just sound so very (needlessly) angry though.
So angry still.
And you forget that the same theory would also "excuse" your reaction, since it was inevitable that you would react this way based on the things I posted.
See? A very positive theory that says we should all just get along and stop creating conflict.
I have no idea where that one is coming from or is it share your unfounded prejudices day?
I believe you the second sentence.
It was a completely justified reaction and I already explained that his internet videos are fundamentally different from a well-developed theory that I am actually unsure about but seems to have quite a lot of merit.
And Monty, the Ukraine thread has a lot more pages, you can't be serious.
Last edited by Husar; 05-01-2015 at 16:47.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Is that a threat?!And Monty, the Ukraine thread has a lot more pages, you can't be serious.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Pah, the closest thing it tells us is our peace and wars, our sucess and failures, our rights and wrongs, our pleasures and pains, are all not down to anyone's will but to a sequence of unalterable cause and effect. We as a person aren't real, we're a delusion of a walking automaton and all our actions are merely reaction. all the good we do is worthless and all the bad we do is guiltless because they were going to happen anyway without this sense of awarness we call souls.
Call me crazy but thet's a bit depressing, nothing matters is almost 'tips the scales to suicide' depressing. And that's only the first problem, I see it becoming mathamatic's equivilent of objectivism; yet another theory that might have merit yet is overshdowed by the potential for people to use it to excuse thier wrongdoing. "It's not my fault if everything I do is down to my surroundings." is no more a good argument for being a dick than "Altruism is morally wrong" but people will use it anyway.
Even if it's true, no especially if it's true, the widespread prolifigation of it wll do nothing but worsen humanity's problems with depression and antisocial behavior.
And yet because I dont want to be a mindless authoritarian all I am willing to do is dispute it with words and hope to persuade against it; the freedom to say, write, draw or program whatever harmless thing you want without having your life ruined by overzealous moral guardians of either end of the political spectrum being more important a principle than the desire to use force to do what thet think is good.
It comes from my own experiences, first I saw the crazies in the right and how they do things and was scared to the left, then with gamergate I saw the crazies on the left and how they do things, it was the same as the right. I took those things I learned about how the extremes work, the shunning, the encouraging, the deflecting and looked for them in the things I identified with.I have no idea where that one is coming from or is it share your unfounded prejudices day?
Remember when I asked on steam what the difference between a religion and a cult was? I think it's the same as between a moderate and a extremist ideology; the degree that Groupthink is enforced. While the far right denounces anyone who doubts christianity is being opressed the far left does the same with those who doubts rape culture. It's the same logic, the same amount of evidence, or lack thereof, but when I started looking at it with the same eye I could only realize the only thing that made me think one was right and one was wrong was my previous opinion of the people saying it. Including you.
Thus I find myself re-evaluating my positions based not on other's opinions but my own feelings of right and wrong, you can see what a difference it makes.
Rubish, you wanted me to read the entire thread. You refused to hear the man's words over the format choice of language, and his association with another person. It's no less shortsighted than when I said I dismissed another man's words because he has no understanding of brevity and starts babbling about a song half way down the first page:It was a completely justified reaction and I already explained that his internet videos are fundamentally different from a well-developed theory that I am actually unsure about but seems to have quite a lot of merit.
My reasons were no more petty than yours and yes I actually paid attention, to the point where neither you or him have yet to feel the need to correct any misconception after 90+ posts.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-01-2015 at 18:55.
Sorry, I haven't really been thoroughly reading the posts in this spat. What's the issue here, and what does my thread have to do with it?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It's not a loaded question, I didn't put a question mark. It's a statement about you Greyblades. I'm not arguing any point with you, I'm not part of this discussion, I only chimed in because you have repeatedly said some worrying things, so just drop the pseudo-intellectualism and just tell me to fuck off, so we can be done with this.
ACIN, I am trying (and failing) to learn how not to dismiss someone because I dont agree with them.
On the other hand if Mr "I expect you to read the first third of an essay that is as long as taft's final resteraunt bill" is not going to read his own thread...
Oh and I remembered another reason:
You're a communistic looney who wants to give up control of society to computers created by the same people you dont trust running the place. I would be surprised if there wasn't any of that going on.I have no idea where that one is coming from or is it share your unfounded prejudices day?
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-01-2015 at 19:10.
OK, I've skimmed the posts and it seemed it turned into some discussion of responsibility or culpability with some unclear reference to my thread.You however, mr "I expect you to read the first third of an essay that is as long as taft's resteraunt bill" can either get reading of fuck off.
This would be a more relevant post. It needs updating and extension, but that's not on my agenda for the near-future. Get reading.
But here's a hotfix:
Reductionistic causality is flat and non-hierarchical. Consequently, all past causes collapse into a single indiscrete point of etiology, meaning the causal history of some event or state at a given point cannot be distinguished from the causal history of any other state or event at that point. Thus, "responsibility" becomes totally trivial.
One way to look at it is that "only the future is real".
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I do not have the prerequisite knowledge for the words reductionist and causality to make sense when combined nor do I see how you could come to that conclusion.
Look at the first 4 paragraphs in #162 and tell me if and why my assessment is wrong plus if/why husar's use of it in #87 is correct.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-01-2015 at 19:24.
I think what you're getting at is the argument of morality as "useful fiction".
Here's a thought-experiment:I don't know what etiology means nor do I have the prerequisite knowledge for the words reductionist and causality to make sense when combined.
There are two particles introduced in a vacuum - call them A and B (pA, pB). The system was technically open at that point, but let's say we can effectively "close" it such that pA and pB are the only matter-energy in the entire system.
So, the particles come to exert some forces on each other such that the properties of both are changed (e.g. spin, momentum, whatever). Ignoring for now the fact that the particles may continue to exert various forces on each other beyond this instant, we call this "encounter" Event A (eA). The changed particles are now pA' and pB'.
What "was responsible" for Event A? More specifically, what was responsible for the property changes evident in pA and pB, such that they became pA' and pB'?
If we look only from the time following their introduction to the vacuum (i.e. 2-particle closed system):
eA is "responsible", meaning that pA and pB are both equally responsible for pA' as well as for pB'.
In other words, responsibility within this 2-unit system is completely intertwined.
But let's recall that the particles will continue to impinge upon each other beyond eA. So let's call the next instant of interaction eB. With eB, there are some more property changes for both pA' and pB' - they become pA'' and pB''.
What the status of responsibility in this system now?
Well, it's just the same sort of thing. eB is responsible for pA'' and pB'', meaning that pA' and pB' are both equally responsible for pA'' as well as for pB''.
Responsibility is still indistributable.
We see it taking shape now - this one "point" of collapsed etiology (i.e. "causal history"). Responsibility is "flat" because no entity in the set of past causes (of all causes) is any more responsible for some difference outside (i.e. "after") it than any other entity.
I'm going to take a break, but a little later I will extend this experiment to a 3-particle/unit closed system. After that, I will "unclose" both the 2-particle system and the 3-particle system by exposing them to the history of our Universe to the very Big Bang.
What I am trying to demonstrate is that all these systems, including the ones that are essentially just our own system, must ultimately have such "flat" responsibility.
Probably the most important underlying assumption is of monism/physicalism.
TLDR: You have no "more or less" responsibility in causing me to post this reply than Gilgamesh the Great.
Last edited by Montmorency; 05-01-2015 at 19:57.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Montmorency I have likely killed 3 friendships over a hyperparaniod rant, I have a certain need to know whether or not it was actually Warranted. Put the theoretical physics book down and please follow my request: Look at the first paragraph in #162 and tell me if and why my assessment is wrong. Then tell me if/why husar's use of it in #87 is correct
Man, you start to be having discussion with yourself. Why then do we need this forum, after all? It is an ultimate (existential) threat to it. Moderators should ban anyone having discussion with himself.
You evidently haven't watched "Matrix".
Bookmarks