Philosophy Now Forum

I think that Age has misapprehended the meaning of 'execute' .

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:53 pm TimeSeeker, do you mean that poetry is a better communication medium than elaborated code?

I would argue it is equal, as any mathematician views code as aesthetically pleasing and hence a form of poetry. I would also argue that is a better median as we are not all mathematicians unless one wants to view poetry as a form of reasoning...which it is, considering all poetry is rational.

Poetry is a better medium because it is a qualitative equation from the origin of what a person really knows, the heart. A quality is merely an infinity composed of various other infinities that expresses a complex degree of relations mathematics cannot do on its own terms.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:54 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:53 pm TimeSeeker, do you mean that poetry is a better communication medium than elaborated code?

Depends on your success criteria and context.

If you just want to express yourself for its own sake - poetry is great.

If human lives depended on it, you don’t want ANY interpretation/ambiguity. You want clarity, conciseness and precision! So, don’t use poetry

For example, soldiers use the word “EXECUTE” instead of the word “GO!” When they commence action. The reason is because “GO” is phonetically similar to “NO” and causes confusion and people die...

I agree with you that intuitionist logic is "where it is at", but poetry rejuventates the spirit and hence saves lives equally. The world would die without poetry and math for both are just extensions of the other...that and poetry is strictly qualitative equations where all quantity is dead without quality.

Poetry and math saves live equally, while simultaneously killing them if taken out of context. Beauty is its own life force as all beauty is truth veiled within boundless order.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:59 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:52 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:37 pm

And doctors? Do we NOT need those also?

Doctors are NEEDED. In order to heal ALL those injured human beings. caused from all the warring that you human beings seem to love to do continually.

But there hasn’t been a major war in Europe or USA for a long time. So what are a those doctors for then?

WHAT and WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion?

Are you just TRYING TO get to a point WHERE you can then go, and say, "See I am RIGHT and you are WRONG?"

Or, are you just proving that 'Logical thinking really does require Intuition'? and you are using the actual words that you write here as the physical evidence for this fact?

How narrow a view do you have? Are you really that self-centered a human being that you can not see out past your own tiny little world?

What does 'long time' mean to you? Was what is generally known as 911 a part of a war? Would not any war be seen as a major war if it was your body that was injured? Are there not doctors still healing people injured from world war 2 and 1, and in fact even the after affects on those who are children of people in earlier wars still suffering in some way that needs healing from those who are called "doctors"? In other words does the psychological effects of human beings who have gone to war not just affect them but also their children and families, and then also have some effect on the children of those children and their families, and so on, which all could be better helped with love and care from not just "doctors" but also others?

Your attempts to always TRYING TO fit things into your tiny little perspective of things, and then so desperately wanting to show and tell others that they are WRONG and that you are RIGHT is frustratingly boring.

This started out by you saying;
Soldiers use particular words so that confusion is not caused because if there is confusion then people die...

Now, OBVIOUSLY confusion is NOT wanted on either particular "side" of a war because then more "people', on that "confused side" will die.

But my point WAS and still IS the very fact that some people cause war IS to kill people. War, by definition, is TO KILL what is being opposed. So, no matter if there is confusion or not the intention of war between people is TO KILL PEOPLE, any way.

In fact some people are so confused about life and living that they forget what war IS all about.

The very reason 'soldiers'' exist is because, when "others" cause and create wars, 'soldiers' are necessary and USED so that "people" WILL die.

No matter what word is used or not, whey action is commenced, "people" DIE. The very reason for wars is so that "people" will kill "people" DEAD.

"People" NEED to EXECUTE "other people" otherwise it would not be war. It would instead just be a fight.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:59 pm I think that Age has misapprehended the meaning of 'execute' .

I do NOT think I misapprehended the meaning of 'execute' at all.

I just saw the humorous irony or coincidence that the word 'execute' can mean 'commence action', as that was what I saw "timeseeker" was using that word for, in relation to the commencement of warring, just happened be a word that coincidentally is used for KILLING PEOPLE, ALSO.

I even attempted to make it clear that I was aware that the word 'execute' was used to begin, commence, or to 'GO' warring. I used to the words; 'No matter WHAT WORD IS USED or not, when action is commenced', in an attempt to show that I KNEW this. But obviously to no success, to some.

Or, just maybe I have even misapprehended the meaning of 'execute' again, because that word was being used to mean some thing else altogether?

If some one would like to clear it up for me now, then that would be great?

War against nations/peoples IS CREATED to KILL people. So, no matter what word is used, and how much confusion is caused, people WILL still be KILLED. I just find it funny that in order for some human beings to begin to start killing each other that they have thought up the word 'execute' and use it so that they then can commence to KILL of each other.

Language, the definitions and the meanings of words, and the way they are all used together, to me anyway, is showing me everyday just how much more intrinsic all this is for human beings to actually ending up understanding things.

Within human beings the actual correct usage, definition, meanings, and language of EVERYTHING exists. Once put together correctly then 'THAT' WILL show very easily, simply, and logically HOW by just the putting of it ALL together correctly shows HOW IT ALL does actually fit together perfectly to describe and SHOW thee TRUTH of ALL things. Through the learning of HOW to put it all together perfectly shows HOW to look at and see things properly and correctly.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:30 am WHAT and WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion?

Are you just TRYING TO get to a point WHERE you can then go, and say, "See I am RIGHT and you are WRONG?"

I am asking you what we NEED doctors for if we don't have wars.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:02 am I just saw the humorous irony or coincidence that the word 'execute' can mean 'commence action', as that was what I saw "timeseeker" was using that word for, in relation to the commencement of warring, just happened be a word that coincidentally is used for KILLING PEOPLE, ALSO.

What's wrong with killing people? I think you are conflating many terms here.

Killing is amoral. It is not value-laden.

Murder is killing, but murder is immoral.
Self-defence can also be killing, but killing in self-defence is NOT immoral.

To claim that killing in self-defence is immoral is the kind of stupid notion ideologues cling to and like to promulgate. Killing has its rare uses...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:37 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:30 am WHAT and WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion?

Are you just TRYING TO get to a point WHERE you can then go, and say, "See I am RIGHT and you are WRONG?"

I am asking you what we NEED doctors for if we don't have wars.

What do you think?

Surely you can work that out all by your own lonesome.

Again WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion now?

WHY are you TRYING TO digress away from your remarks regarding soldiers, which is what I replied to?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:22 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:37 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:30 am WHAT and WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion?

Are you just TRYING TO get to a point WHERE you can then go, and say, "See I am RIGHT and you are WRONG?"

I am asking you what we NEED doctors for if we don't have wars.

What do you think?

Surely you can work that out all by your own lonesome.

Again WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion now?

WHY are you TRYING TO digress away from your remarks regarding soldiers, which is what I replied to?

Soldiers AND doctors AND policemen AND firemen perform functions NEEDED by society.

I am not digressing, you don’t understand the context.

When foreign invasions are no longer a thing, when sickness is no longer a thing, when crime is no longer a thing and when fires are no longer a thing THEN we won’t need any of those jobs.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:02 am I just saw the humorous irony or coincidence that the word 'execute' can mean 'commence action', as that was what I saw "timeseeker" was using that word for, in relation to the commencement of warring, just happened be a word that coincidentally is used for KILLING PEOPLE, ALSO.

What's wrong with killing people?

I NEVER even suggested KILLING PEOPLE is WRONG, did I?

I just suggested that it was funny sitting back and watching HOW some human beings are used to KILL each other, while the ones that created the wars themselves in the first place and using the others, just sit back on their pedestals laughing to themselves at those of you who are injured and killed.

Sitting here watching ALL of this play out and watching ALL of you human beings being led by your own selves to the slaughter like farmed animals is more funny every time i look at it, actually.

Even the ones who are on the pedestals have no idea what is happening nor WILL happen.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:39 amI think you are conflating many terms here.

Maybe I was, let us now see if you show any evidence of this by exposing your perceived many conflated terms, or you will now just disregard that statement and move onto some thing else entirely different.

Let us now see if you TRY TO make up some sort of what you perceive to be an argument, and then actually come to a conclusion, which is against what you your self actually wrote down?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:39 amKilling is amoral. It is not value-laden.

Murder is killing, but murder is immoral.
Self-defence can also be killing, but killing in self-defence is NOT immoral.

To claim that killing in self-defence is immoral is the kind of stupid notion ideologues cling to and like to promulgate. Killing has its rare uses...

So, you are the ONE who wrote, "but killing in self-defense is NOT immoral", and, also wrote "To claim that killing in self-defense is immoral is ..."

NO one besides you has even discussed the issue of self-defense, let alone claimed that it was immoral. For what you reason you have done this I can NOT see, as of yet, except to "argue" against your own self. Of which I have NO reason WHY you would do such a thing.

Maybe you could explain WHY you have just done this?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:22 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:37 am
I am asking you what we NEED doctors for if we don't have wars.

What do you think?

Surely you can work that out all by your own lonesome.

Again WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion now?

WHY are you TRYING TO digress away from your remarks regarding soldiers, which is what I replied to?

Soldiers AND doctors AND policemen AND firemen perform functions NEEDED by society.

I am not digressing, you don’t understand the context.

When foreign invasions are no longer a thing, when sickness is no longer a thing, when crime is no longer a thing and when fires are no longer a thing THEN we won’t need any of those jobs.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I have been talking about.

ALL just an imagined assumption, based on your past experiences, that you your self have made up, which was based on yet another BELIEF of yours.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:50 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:22 am

What do you think?

Surely you can work that out all by your own lonesome.

Again WHERE are you TRYING TO take this discussion now?

WHY are you TRYING TO digress away from your remarks regarding soldiers, which is what I replied to?

Soldiers AND doctors AND policemen AND firemen perform functions NEEDED by society.

I am not digressing, you don’t understand the context.

When foreign invasions are no longer a thing, when sickness is no longer a thing, when crime is no longer a thing and when fires are no longer a thing THEN we won’t need any of those jobs.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I have been talking about.

ALL just an imagined assumption, based on your past experiences, that you your self have made up, which was based on yet another BELIEF of yours.

Well, you did say that “war is made to kill people”.

So if killing people is not wrong then war is not wrong?

Cool

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:50 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:30 am
Soldiers AND doctors AND policemen AND firemen perform functions NEEDED by society.

I am not digressing, you don’t understand the context.

When foreign invasions are no longer a thing, when sickness is no longer a thing, when crime is no longer a thing and when fires are no longer a thing THEN we won’t need any of those jobs.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I have been talking about.

ALL just an imagined assumption, based on your past experiences, that you your self have made up, which was based on yet another BELIEF of yours.

Well, you did say that “war is made to kill people”.

So if killing people is not wrong then war is not wrong?

Cool

But WHO says killing people is not wrong?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:59 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:50 am

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I have been talking about.

ALL just an imagined assumption, based on your past experiences, that you your self have made up, which was based on yet another BELIEF of yours.

Well, you did say that “war is made to kill people”.

So if killing people is not wrong then war is not wrong?

Cool

But WHO says killing people is not wrong?

Me.

It is not right either. Killing is amoral.
Which also means that war is neither right nor wrong.

War is sometimes and unfortunately necessary. Like when assholes like Hitler invade your country...

Of course - you could AVOID war and just surrender.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:59 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:52 am

Well, you did say that “war is made to kill people”.

So if killing people is not wrong then war is not wrong?

Cool

But WHO says killing people is not wrong?

Me.

It is not right either. Killing is amoral.
Which also means that war is neither right nor wrong.

War is sometimes and unfortunately necessary. Like when assholes like Hitler invade your country...

If you say so, and, if that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

But as you just so clearly pointed out to us here; If a person, like a hitler, starts a war and invades "your" (lol) country, then to 'you' that also means that war is neither right nor wrong.

That BELIEF that "war is sometimes and unfortunately necessary" can be the exact same obviously stupid attempt to TRY TO "justify" the war that they have just started when they are about to invade another country.

That DISTORTED BELIEF, which in hindsight is about as stupid and as foolish as can be, to even attempt to TRY TO "justify" one's actions when they commence war on other human beings in other countries is still used in the year they call 2018.

"War is sometimes and unfortunately unnecessary" is said by the human beings of christian faith when they are about to and do in fact INVADE other countries. The absolute ridiculousness of that BELIEF becomes more obvious the more times it is looked INTO, properly. But to some human beings the more they look at it, into it, and say it, then the MORE they BELIEVE it is true, and that THEY actually do have a RIGHT to invade other countries.

Such is the human being.

(I KNOW this really is incomprehensible NOW, but the human beings of this day and age ACTUALLY BELIEVED that it was ALL RIGHT to kill other, innocent, human beings solely BECAUSE of their own personal BELIEFS, which were/are OBVIOUSLY distorted, nearly beyond BELIEF.)