Science

[Satyr]

I think bichon frises are probably the result of artificial human breeding.
What I said was perfectly true. Think about it. I wasn't making a judgement call.

Are you a simpleton?

Think about what I said.

Bicho Frise's are a product of human nurturing and artificial breeding, meaning a process where man intervenes.
And what is modern man a product of?

A test for your tiny mind:
If you place a bichon frise, the "survivor" outside manmade environments (sheltering, protected, dominated and controlled, abundant in food) what would happen to it?

Now place modern man outside the manmade structures he exists within, including morality, etiquette, health care, police forces, mass training (brainwashing)...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I think bichon frises are probably the result of artificial human breeding.
What I said was perfectly true. Think about it. I wasn't making a judgement call.

Are you a simpleton?

Think about what I said.

Bicho Frise's are a product of human nurturing and artificial breeding, meaning a process where man intervenes.
And what is modern man a product of?

A test for your tiny mind:
If you place a bichon frise, the "survivor" outside manmade environments (sheltering, protected, dominated and controlled, abundant in food) what would happen to it?

Now place modern man outside the manmade structures he exists within, including morality, etiquette, health care, police forces, mass training (brainwashing)...

You clearly didn't understand my original comment. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

[Satyr]

You said...

Every human alive today is the end result of a continuous unbroken line of organisms, stretching back billions of years, that survived to pass on their genes. We are all survivors.

It's pretty hard to misunderstand that statement, don't you think?

But you are backtracking now, realizing that you've made a terrible mistake.
At this point I am always accused of "misreading" or not understanding. It's a way of covering your shit by throwing dust all over the other's eyes.

I gave you the example of the bichon frise and the wolf, both of which, according to your judgment, are survivors....one because it adapts or dies and the other because it was bred to be docile, toyish, domesticated, humble, un-egotistical, controllable, and cute. It too survives by taking easily to training or its master's rehabilitating corrections.

Is a bichon frise a survivor though? Can it survive outside human interventions?

Since both are alive both are survivors, right?
Therefore you can continue being proud of being a human version of the bichon frise or the chihuahua or the toy poodle and I, being more primitive, base and vulgar than you, will choose to admire the wolf even if I cannot tame it or use it as my emotional bucket or train it to be my slave...because I do not value things only because they are useful to me or they suit me and my pathetic needs.

I said that it was a perfect analogy, since a wolf survives outside human constructs and was around before man created civilizations, whereas the other canine breeds, particularly those belonging to the toy category, exist only because man has created a nice, friendly, comfortable, abundant, safe, human artificial reality.

Artificial here simply indicates an environment produced willfully by a mind which affects the organism, via its collateral effects, more than the one that preexisted it and it replaces or covers up.
A beaver imposes its will over a river by damming it up, but it does not impose its will to the extent where the natural world affects it less than the world it produced with its own actions.

Baudrillard calls this artificial reality a "simulation of a simulacrum".

Now, if you truly think that because the bichon frise, the modern version of a dog - just as the Ideal Man, as the Judeo-Christian, liberal, define it, is the modern version of a human - is a "survivor on equal footing with a wolf or a fox or a wild dog...then you are a coward trying to comfort yourself.
Thanks for trying to sustain equality and progressiveness and modernity and exposing its methods.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You said...

Every human alive today is the end result of a continuous unbroken line of organisms, stretching back billions of years, that survived to pass on their genes. We are all survivors.

It's pretty hard to misunderstand that statement, don't you think?

But you are backtracking now, realizing that you've made a terrible mistake.
At this point I am always accused of "misreading" or not understanding. It's a way of covering your shit by throwing dust all over the other's eyes.

I gave you the example of the bichon frise and the wolf, both of which, according to your judgment, are survivors....one because it adapts or dies and the other because it was bred to be docile, toyish, domesticated, humble, un-egotistical, controllable, and cute. It too survives by taking easily to training or its master's rehabilitating corrections.

Is a bichon frise a survivor though? Can it survive outside human interventions?

Since both are alive both are survivors, right?
Therefore you can continue being proud of being a human version of the bichon frise or the chihuahua or the toy poodle and I, being more primitive, base and vulgar than you, will choose to admire the wolf even if I cannot tame it or use it as my emotional bucket or train it to be my slave...because I do not value things only because they are useful to me or they suit me and my pathetic needs.

I said that it was a perfect analogy, since a wolf survives outside human constructs and was around before man created civilizations, whereas the other canine breeds, particularly those belonging to the toy category, exist only because man has created a nice, friendly, comfortable, abundant, safe, human artificial reality.

Artificial here simply indicates an environment produced willfully by a mind which affects the organism, via its collateral effects, more than the one that preexisted it and it replaces or covers up.
A beaver imposes its will over a river by damming it up, but it does not impose its will to the extent where the natural world affects it less than the world it produced with its own actions.

Baudrillard calls this artificial reality a "simulation of a simulacrum".

Now, if you truly think that because the bichon frise, the modern version of a dog - just as the Ideal Man, as the Judeo-Christian, liberal, define it, is the modern version of a human - is a "survivor on equal footing with a wolf or a fox or a wild dog...then you are a coward trying to comfort yourself.
Thanks for trying to sustain equality and progressiveness and modernity and exposing its methods.

I have no idea what you are on about.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr

“See how I knew you were one of those.”

No, one of what?

“You thought I was making up this "scientific method" didn't you boy?”

A lot of people talk about the ‘scientific method’ without any idea what it means, you are one of them, Carroll Quigley was another. Thanks for the tip, I looked him up; that you quote a conspiracy theorist on “scientific method” is laughable.

I asked if you would care to debate:

“I would, but that would have to mean that I would waste more time on you. Since you so brilliantly engaged me, first, in personal assault...I think I'll save my time and read a book.”

I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, I promise not to be gratuitous.

“But I will give you a hint:
There's a reason why Plato and certain aspects of Greek thought were integrated into Christianity.
For instance the notion of "first there was the word" rather than "first there was the phenomenon, the activity, and then there was the word to describe and define it" goes back to this.
Plato's ideal world is also related: the more real reality.”

This is not a hint, it is gibberish. “First there was the word” might be construed as Heraclitus; "first there was the phenomenon,” as Parmenides, but what is this ‘this’ they go back to? You write such nonsense because you need to disguise the fact that you have only the lightest grasp of the subject matter.

“There were some schools of thought amongst the Greeks which thought that the senses were unreliable and that man could reason his way to the real.”

Name them.

“This goes contrary to the scientific method.
The scientific method, imbecile, is empiricism, which is tested and retested.”

So you believe that the scientific method is a synonym for empiricism. Very well, what do you understand by empiricism? One thing it is not, however, is tested and retested.

[Satyr]

You are correct...he was a "conspiracy theorist"...so fuck'im.
An immoral douche-bag, I say, wot.
Never read a word he writes.

I prefer the ones who know that men never conspire, nothing occurs behind closed doors, those in high places never bend the rules or circumvent them altogether, and everything is as the official narrative claims it is.
The system always works exactly as it is supposed to, and when it does not it self-corrects. Men are inherently good and the system corrupts them...and not that the systems men create are reflections of the men who invent them and then maintain them. In short, culture preceded the emergence of man and history is not full of examples where men or groups of men conspired.

Oh, and if I need to explain what the "scientific method" is to someone with an internet connection and a rudimentary capacity to read and to comprehend language, then we're off to a too low for me, start...and I will not be able to proceed further.
I would have to climb down to the foothills from where, as a young lad, I first saw the lofty peaks, then take you by your tiny hands and make the same trek again.
I have a son who will be 5 in November. I think I'll save that repeat trip for him.

You, are not only an imbecile but also one of inferior stock....Find another daddy.

And true, science is not about testing, experimenting....it's about emoting, feeling, reasoning with words.


As for Parmenides and Heraclitus, retard...let's say you are confusing the abstraction in your tiny brain, symbolized with a form, which becomes communal (language, including math), for the phenomenon itself.
The phenomenon is dynamic, fluid, changing....the symbol representing it is static. Reality is about increasing entropy the symbol is about constructing order within it.
The discrepant creates paradoxes.

For example, moron, when I paint a picture of a tree, the painting is not a tree; if I attempt to capture the dynamic nature of the phenomenon I call "a" tree, the "a" being a synonym for "one" I must do so by using artistry - in other words I must convey the dynamism of the phenomenon I experience in static symbolic form.

If I confuse my painting of a tree for the actual tree itself then not only am I a moron but whatever utility my painting will serve in understanding that which I depicted will result in contradictions when I study my painting closely and find that it is made up of nothing more than tiny specks of color on my canvas resting on an easel.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr

“You are correct...he was a "conspiracy theorist"...so fuck'im.
An immoral douche-bag, I say, wot.
Never read a word he writes.”

Let’s not ‘fuck’im’, it’s enough to disagree and I do, but I don’t believe that he was therefore an ‘immoral douche-bag’.

“I prefer the ones who know that men never conspire, nothing occurs behind closed doors, those in high places never bend the rules or circumvent them altogether, and everything is as the official narrative claims it is.”

Only a complete idiot would hold such a view. The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.

“The system always works exactly as it is supposed to, and when it does not it self-corrects.”

I don’t believe so.

“Men are inherently good and the system corrupts them...”

I don’t believe so.

“and not that the systems men create are reflections of the men who invent them and then maintain them. In short, culture preceded the emergence of man and history is not full of examples where men or groups of men conspired.”

History clearly is full of such examples and that’s the point, you can read about them, you don’t have to make them up. If you believe in such conspiracies, isn’t it the ones you haven’t heard of that should concern you?
Machiavelli’s The Prince is still a pretty good guide to how some, perhaps most, leaders behave.


“Oh, and if I need to explain what the "scientific method" is to someone with an internet connection and a rudimentary capacity to read and to comprehend language, then we're off to a too low for me, start...and I will not be able to proceed further.”

Any department of History and Philosophy of Science would bite your hand off if you could offer an incontestable summary of the scientific method. You will not explain because you cannot.

“I would have to climb down to the foothills from where, as a young lad, I first saw the lofty peaks, then take you by your tiny hands and make the same trek again.
I have a son who will be 5 in November. I think I'll save that repeat trip for him.”

I wish your son well.

“You, are not only an imbecile but also one of inferior stock....Find another daddy.”

That’s quite an insult from someone prepared to present themselves as part goat.

“And true, science is not about testing, experimenting....it's about emoting, feeling, reasoning with words.”

I was responding to your post of Aug 31, 2012 9:38 pm you, in which you say: “The scientific method, imbecile, is empiricism, which is tested and retested.” Empiricism has not been tested and retested; it is, in part, the assumption that doing so will be efficacious.


“As for Parmenides and Heraclitus, retard...let's say you are confusing the abstraction in your tiny brain, symbolized with a form, which becomes communal (language, including math), for the phenomenon itself.”

No, let’s say I know what I’m talking about.

“The phenomenon is dynamic, fluid, changing....”

as Heraclitus says,

“the symbol representing it is static.”

Symbols change as language develops and individuals understanding of language develops; your statement is false. Even if it were true, it does not follow that any individual’s perception or understanding is static.

“Reality is about increasing entropy the symbol is about constructing order within it.”

Entropy is certainly heading that way, but do you really believe reality is ‘about’ that? In order to communicate, we are constrained by symbols, they are flawed and our understanding of others necessarily so.

“The discrepant creates paradoxes.

For example, moron, when I paint a picture of a tree, the painting is not a tree; if I attempt to capture the dynamic nature of the phenomenon I call "a" tree, the "a" being a synonym for "one" I must do so by using artistry - in other words I must convey the dynamism of the phenomenon I experience in static symbolic form.

If I confuse my painting of a tree for the actual tree itself then not only am I a moron but whatever utility my painting will serve in understanding that which I depicted will result in contradictions when I study my painting closely and find that it is made up of nothing more than tiny specks of color on my canvas resting on an easel.”

That a painting of a tree is not a tree is not paradoxical.


To summarise:
You ascribe beliefs to people that they do not hold. You then attack them for those beliefs, which to repeat, they do not hold.
You credit yourself with knowledge you do not possess.
You ignore questions you are incapable of answering.

[Satyr]

I think Quigley was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and so you dismissed his views.
Then you admit that conspiracy do occur, therefore we must dismiss your views based on your own reasoning.

Imbecile...I can see you have trouble reading, so let me help you:
Scientific Method
I would offer Quigley's but "she's" a conspiracy theorist and so should be dismissed, along with Kant, Nietzsche, Spengler, Schopenhauer, Baudrillard, Freud, Marx, Jung, Evola, Heidegger and many, many others...without even considering what they are saying and why.

Heraclitus claimed that war was an integral part of existing:

We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.

What an immoral, cruel, bastard!!!
One more for the book pyre.
Your ilk scares me. Stupidity in large numbers is frightening.
Like stampeding buffalo.

Who said empiricism was being tested, you imbecile?
I said testing (experimentation) was part of the scientific method, along with sensual perception (empiricism), peer reviews (debate)....and even then science never concludes with a certainty or an absolute fact but only deals in probabilities and ever-changing, adapting to newer perceptions, theories.
Science deals in generalizations, simplifications and approximations...you nit-wit.
The products of scientific insight are imperfect, ephemeral, and require constant reparations, and adjustments, and maintenance...because science does not deal in absolutes.
Because there aren't any.

Who said that the painting of a tree not being a tree was the paradox, you moron?
I said the confusion of the painting for the tree, by simpletons like you, is what leads to paradoxes.
Zeno offered the most famous demonstrations of this.
In other words, you retard, when some of you confuse the words attempting to describe the world for the world itself, you are falling into mental paradoxes leading to self-contradictions.

-You can't claim to be an empiricist and scientifically minded, on the one hand, and then claim that appearances, color in particular, is irrelevant and superficial...or an illusion.
-You can't say all deserve love and that beauty is more than about the "outside" and then refuse to give sex to a bum or to any passerby if they ask you for it.
-You can't claim to be against violence and for the good of mankind when you pillage other countries, living off their bounty, kill millions of animals daily to eat and find excuses to invade oil rich areas to run your SUV's with - you can't pretend to be a christian, and a humanitarian and then act in antithetical ways; you can't claim to be moral, and be immoral in regards to your own moral codes.
At least have the balls to apply your reasoning consistently and to admit what you are: Know Thyself....instead of finding double-standards applying one when ti suits you and another, a contradictory one, when it suits you.
-You can't accuse those you fear of being over-generalizing or over-simplifying when your own values depend on greater generalizations and simplifications.
If anything, right or wrong, racists and sexists, as you like to refer to them, use lower forms of generalizations and simplifications; they actually try to be more particular than your broad strokes of "HUMANITY" this and "MANKIND" that!!!
Which reminds me...add Goethe to the immoral conspiratorial camp. One more douche-bag who had the immoral audacity to say this:

• In the beginning there was the action.

• Deeply earnest and thoughtful people stand on shaky footing with the public.

• Human failings are only described by an unloving person; that is why, in order to realize them one has to become unloving oneself, but not more than is strictly the purpose.

• The history of philosophy, of the sciences, of religion, all show that opinions are spread abroad on a quantitative scale and that the leading position always goes to what is easier to grasp, that is, to whatever is easier and more comfortable for the human spirit. Indeed, the man who has fully educated and developed himself in a higher sense can always reckon to have the majority against him.

• Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and always be, men and only men.

To the fire with him!!!
Fucking morons the lot of you.

Retard, of course symbols (languages) also evolve, trying to maintain contact with a changing world, but they always remain consistent with their methodology: they use static symbols refering to static mental abstractions (generalizations, simplifications).
Turd, the language of math is based on the binary dualistic code of 1/0...show me a one outside your tiny brain; show me a singularity, an absolute, a god, call it whatever you like.
Show me a void, an absolute nil.

Is English your first language?
Retard, how many monikers have you created to escape your earlier stupidities?

Retard, if I do not address you directly all the time it is because you are boring. You have an obvious and predictable agenda; one I've faced many, many times.
Even your backtracking and using multiple monikers is old.
I use you to respond to others of your kind, and not always you per se.
You are all one of a kind.
You may believe in slightly different versions of the same stupidities but you all share that herd psychology of the eternal, cowardly, vindictive, effete, victims.

You are a dullard and an imbecile looking for a weak spot to avenge yourself and to lift yourself from the mud genetic fate has placed you in.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr

As I said:
1. You ascribe beliefs to people that they do not hold. You then attack them for those beliefs, which to repeat, they do not hold.
2. You credit yourself with knowledge you do not possess.
3. You ignore questions you are incapable of answering.

“I think Quigley was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and so you dismissed his views.

Then you admit that conspiracy do occur, therefore we must dismiss your views based on your own reasoning.”

This is an example of 1. I did not dismiss his views, I disagree with them. With regard to your second point I said “The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.”

“Imbecile...I can see you have trouble reading, so let me help you:
Scientific Method
I would offer Quigley's but "she's" a conspiracy theorist and so should be dismissed, along with Kant, Nietzsche, Spengler, Schopenhauer, Baudrillard, Freud, Marx, Jung, Evola, Heidegger and many, many others...without even considering what they are saying and why.”

This is an example of 3. To remind you, you asked "Are you asking me to describe to you the scientific method?" to which I answered “Yes please.” To be clear, it is your version of the scientific method I wish to hear.

“Heraclitus claimed that war was an integral part of existing:
Heralcitus wrote:
We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.”

Yes I know.

“What an immoral, cruel, bastard!!!”

Says who? Are ascribing that sentiment to me? In Which case 1.

“One more for the book pyre.
Your ilk scares me. Stupidity in large numbers is frightening.
Like stampeding buffalo.”

“Who said empiricism was being tested, you imbecile?
I said testing (experimentation) was part of the scientific method, along with sensual perception (empiricism), peer reviews (debate)....and even then science never concludes with a certainty or an absolute fact but only deals in probabilities and ever-changing, adapting to newer perceptions, theories.”

I couldn’t find the above quote, perhaps you are referring to this exchange:

"Fag, determining what is real and what are the delusions of a moron, of your kind, is what all debate is about."

Splendid, let's have a debate then.

"The scientific method is one way of determining what is more and what is less plausible - in other words what is more or what is less real.
Since no absolute can ever be detected or has ever been detected...we are dealing with probabilities."

Agreed. So an absolute statement about one race being superior is not true.

“Science deals in generalizations, simplifications and approximations...you nit-wit.
The products of scientific insight are imperfect, ephemeral, and require constant reparations, and adjustments, and maintenance...because science does not deal in absolutes.
Because there aren't any.”

I have already agreed with you on this point.

“Who said that the painting of a tree not being a tree was the paradox, you moron?
I said the confusion of the painting for the tree, by simpletons like you, is what leads to paradoxes.”

So symbols, either words or pictures, should not be mistaken for the things they represent. Do you have any examples of me doing that?

“Zeno offered the most famous demonstrations of this.”

You need to substantiate this claim. Zeno’s paradoxes are all related to the indivisibility of time and space, how do you think they are related to your claim?

“In other words, you retard, when some of you confuse the words attempting to describe the world for the world itself, you are falling into mental paradoxes leading to self-contradictions.

-You can't claim to be an empiricist and scientifically minded, on the one hand, and then claim that appearances, color in particular, is irrelevant and superficial...or an illusion.”

I have never said this.

“-You can't say all deserve love and that beauty is more than about the "outside" and then refuse to give sex to a bum or to any passerby if they ask you for it.”

I have never said this.

“-You can't claim to be against violence and for the good of mankind when you pillage other countries, living off their bounty, kill millions of animals daily to eat and find excuses to invade oil rich areas to run your SUV's with - you can't pretend to be a christian, and a humanitarian and then act in antithetical ways; you can't claim to be moral, and be immoral in regards to your own moral codes.”

None of this applies to me.

“At least have the balls to apply your reasoning consistently and to admit what you are: Know Thyself....instead of finding double-standards applying one when ti suits you and another, a contradictory one, when it suits you.”

Nor does this.

“-You can't accuse those you fear of being over-generalizing or over-simplifying when your own values depend on greater generalizations and simplifications.”

Who is it that you think I fear?

“If anything, right or wrong, racists and sexists, as you like to refer to them, use lower forms of generalizations and simplifications; they actually try to be more particular than your broad strokes of "HUMANITY" this and "MANKIND" that!!!”

As I remember, I have not used the terms racist, sexist, humanity or mankind in any communication with you, or anyone else on this forum.

“Which reminds me...add Goethe to the immoral conspiratorial camp. One more douche-bag who had the immoral audacity to say this:
Goethe wrote:
• In the beginning there was the action.

• Deeply earnest and thoughtful people stand on shaky footing with the public.

• Human failings are only described by an unloving person; that is why, in order to realize them one has to become unloving oneself, but not more than is strictly the purpose.

• The history of philosophy, of the sciences, of religion, all show that opinions are spread abroad on a quantitative scale and that the leading position always goes to what is easier to grasp, that is, to whatever is easier and more comfortable for the human spirit. Indeed, the man who has fully educated and developed himself in a higher sense can always reckon to have the majority against him.

• Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and always be, men and only men.”

What has this got to do with anything that I have said?

“To the fire with him!!!
Fucking morons the lot of you.

Retard, of course symbols (languages) also evolve, trying to maintain contact with a changing world, but they always remain consistent with their methodology: they use static symbols refering to static mental abstractions (generalizations, simplifications).”

Are you sure about the logic of this statement? If symbols evolve, they are not static.

“Turd, the language of math is based on the binary dualistic code of 1/0...show me a one outside your tiny brain; show me a singularity, an absolute, a god, call it whatever you like.
Show me a void, an absolute nil.”

What has this got to do with anything that I have said?

“Is English your first language?”

Yes.

“Retard, how many monikers have you created to escape your earlier stupidities?”

One; uwot, I have no need to escape earlier stupidities. Is that what you do?

“Retard, if I do not address you directly all the time it is because you are boring. You have an obvious and predictable agenda; one I've faced many, many times.
Even your backtracking and using multiple monikers is old.
I use you to respond to others of your kind, and not always you per se.
You are all one of a kind.
You may believe in slightly different versions of the same stupidities but you all share that herd psychology of the eternal, cowardly, vindictive, effete, victims.”

And here I think we see the source of your madness. You cannot deal with complexity. You create simplistic situations that you find easier to deal with. Tarring everyone with the same brush means that you do not have to engage individuals, you are always fighting your own fantasy. You are tilting at windmills. You are mad.

“You are a dullard and an imbecile looking for a weak spot to avenge yourself and to lift yourself from the mud genetic fate has placed you in.”

And you pretend to be Satyr.

[Satyr]

Hi Satyr

“I think Quigley was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and so you dismissed his views.

Then you admit that conspiracy do occur, therefore we must dismiss your views based on your own reasoning.”

This is an example of 1. I did not dismiss his views, I disagree with them. With regard to your second point I said “The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.”

No, retard...you mentioned his "conspiracy" theorizing as a way of dismissing him.
That you declare yourself in disagreement says nothing, you moron....it's a declaration with no content.

Using your own methods you are dismissed based on the fact that you admit that conspiracies do occur and nothing works as it is supposed to when it comes to human social systems.
I therefore do not have to give you any other reason.

Debate you on what, retard?
You say nothing.
All you do is insinuate and allude to my "errors".

You ask for a definition which is readily available, thinking to yourself that you've found a weakness....that's how stupid you are.
I offer you a quote from a well-known historian...
You reject this intellectual, dealing with history, which you've never heard of before, then dismissing him, after a short google search, no doubt, as a conspiracy theorist...that's how stupid you are.
You then admit that conspiracies are common and it would be naive if anyone thought that systems or humans in power behaved in accordance with the rules, laws, morals, they set up to control others....effectively contradicting yourself or painting yourself as dismissible on those grounds alone.

This is where you give yourself away:

Agreed. So an absolute statement about one race being superior is not true.

Yes...and neither can species be claimed to be absolute....nor breeds....nor any scientific categories for that matter.

And, by the way, if you wish for an excuse to remain obtuse then also use this as a way of maintaining your belief in God, if you have one.
So, given that nothing can be said about anything absolutely, as the absolute is non-existent...God is also credible.

Probabilities, moron, not absolutes. Truth is not an absolute it is a perspective.
True is what humans call a perspective they consider more probable than not, or superior to another perspective.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr

“I think Quigley was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and so you dismissed his views.

Then you admit that conspiracy do occur, therefore we must dismiss your views based on your own reasoning.”

This is an example of 1. I did not dismiss his views, I disagree with them. With regard to your second point I said “The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.”


No, retard...you mentioned his "conspiracy" theorizing as a way of dismissing him.
That you declare yourself in disagreement says nothing, you moron....it's a declaration with no content."

Not so. To remind you on Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:17 am I wrote:

I've never heard of Quigley, Carroll, but as you choose to quote her, you evidently agree that the great contributions made by Galileo 'and his contempories' were in refuting Plato and Pythagoras rather than Aristotle. It is my contention that such a belief is utter bollocks; would you care to debate that point?

“Using your own methods you are dismissed based on the fact that you admit that conspiracies do occur”

To remind you on Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:50 am I wrote:

The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.

“and nothing works as it is supposed to when it comes to human social systems.”

You’re making things up again.

“I therefore do not have to give you any other reason.”

You are refusing to answer challenging questions again.

“Debate you on what, retard?”

See above.

“You say nothing.
All you do is insinuate and allude to my "errors".”

The quotation marks are superfluous.

“You ask for a definition which is readily available, thinking to yourself that you've found a weakness....that's how stupid you are.”

No, I ask you for your definition.

“I offer you a quote from a well-known historian...
You reject this intellectual, dealing with history, which you've never heard of before, then dismissing him, after a short google search, no doubt, as a conspiracy theorist...that's how stupid you are.”

I refer you again to what I said on Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:17 am

“You then admit that conspiracies are common”

Yes

“ and it would be naive if anyone thought that systems or humans in power behaved in accordance with the rules, laws, morals, they set up to control others”

No, that’s you making things up.

“....effectively contradicting yourself or painting yourself as dismissible on those grounds alone.”

Not true for the reasons stated above.

“This is where you give yourself away:
Turd wrote:
Agreed. So an absolute statement about one race being superior is not true.

Yes...and neither can species be claimed to be absolute....nor breeds....nor any scientific categories for that matter.”

I have agreed with you twice already on this point.

“And, by the way, if you wish for an excuse to remain obtuse then also use this as a way of maintaining your belief in God, if you have one.”

I don’t.

“So, given that nothing can be said about anything absolutely, as the absolute is non-existent...God is also credible.”

This is gibberish.

“Probabilities, moron, not absolutes.”

Yeah, yeah; for the forth time.

“Truth is not an absolute it is a perspective.

True is what humans call a perspective they consider more probable than not, or superior to another perspective.”

True. I don’t disagree with that point either. For someone who repeatedly insists that there are no absolutes, it is perverse that you insist I must be absolutely wrong. You are so mad that you refuse to see where I agree with you and you invent beliefs that I have never stated and do not hold. You keep bleating that you have had this type of conversation before; that’s because you reinvent it every time.

[Satyr]

Funny how you never heard of "her" and then, after a quick google search, you decided he was a conspiracy theorist.

Yes, that humans have conspired since the dawn of civilization does not mean that men in power do so...excellent reasoning.
Using it we can also conclude that since politician lie does not mean that these modern ones do.
The past is no precedent at all, since all are reborn brand new and void of all predispositions.

My definition, turd?
Let's see:
Sensually collected data, collected processed and simplified; combined into abstractions by finding patterns of repetitive predictability in them; then these abstractions being used as samples, precedents, experiences, to project or to formulate greater laws and make predictions of behavior. Then these abstractions tested against sensual data being continuously collected; adjusting the mental abstraction, correcting it or giving it up as obsolete or as inapplicable. When not being able to be tested against reality directly, given the nature of the abstraction - it being tested rationally via debate.

Turd, if race is not an absolute then nothing is. If race is an imperfect designation then so is species, you imbecile.
That a concept is imperfect, or not absolute, is not an argument against it since all concepts are so, given that no absolute exists - the absolute being the very definition of non-existence.

Moron...you are dull.
There's nothing to debate...you make no stance...you are a coward and a moron.
When you do, like with the "race crack" you expose your need, your agenda and your simplicity of mind.

Imbecile, the human mind was made to discriminate, to differentiate to distinguish...to categorize using sensual data (empiricism, maggot).
It generalizes and simplifies as required.
The more simple the mind the more general and simple its constructs and categorizes.
Where a simpleton sees a herd of cows a more sophisticated mind sees individual types of cows within the broader pattern of bovines...and an even more sophisticated mnid sees sub-groupings within this type within this general groping of bovines.
Ergo to teach a mind to not discriminant is to teach it to blind itself, to not discern or to be less sophisticated.

Moron, a dog sees black and white and the shades they produce....it's sight is unsophisticated. it makes up for it with its more sensitive nose....smelling details no man can; distinguishing, differentiating recognizing similarities and differences on a level where a man only smells the same shit.

And you....are....a dullard.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr

"Funny how you never heard of "her" and then, after a quick google search, you decided he was a conspiracy theorist."

Am I wrong?

"Yes, that humans have conspired since the dawn of civilization does not mean that men in power do so...excellent reasoning.
Using it we can also conclude that since politician lie does not mean that these modern ones do.
The past is no precedent at all, since all are reborn brand new and void of all predispositions."

One more time:"The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.”

"My definition, turd?
Let's see:
Sensually collected data, collected processed and simplified; combined into abstractions by finding patterns of repetitive predictability in them; then these abstractions being used as samples, precedents, experiences, to project or to formulate greater laws and make predictions of behavior. Then these abstractions tested against sensual data being continuously collected; adjusting the mental abstraction, correcting it or giving it up as obsolete or as inapplicable. When not being able to be tested against reality directly, given the nature of the abstraction - it being tested rationally via debate."

Finally! Is there no role for mathematics?

"Turd, if race is not an absolute then nothing is. If race is an imperfect designation then so is species, you imbecile.
That a concept is imperfect, or not absolute, is not an argument against it since all concepts are so, given that no absolute exists - the absolute being the very definition of non-existence."

For the fifth time I agree that no concepts are absolute, but to conclude that you cannot argue against them on that basis is the logic of a madman, "the absolute being the very definition of non-existence," being the rantings of one.

"Moron...you are dull.
There's nothing to debate...you make no stance...you are a coward and a moron."

Once again:

To remind you on Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:17 am I wrote:

I've never heard of Quigley, Carroll, but as you choose to quote her, you evidently agree that the great contributions made by Galileo 'and his contempories' were in refuting Plato and Pythagoras rather than Aristotle. It is my contention that such a belief is utter bollocks; would you care to debate that point?

"When you do, like with the "race crack" you expose your need, your agenda and your simplicity of mind."

Says a madman.

"Imbecile, the human mind was made to discriminate, to differentiate to distinguish...to categorize using sensual data (empiricism, maggot)."

Is this some argument from design?

"It generalizes and simplifies as required.
The more simple the mind the more general and simple its constructs and categorizes.
Where a simpleton sees a herd of cows a more sophisticated mind sees individual types of cows within the broader pattern of bovines...and an even more sophisticated mnid sees sub-groupings within this type within this general groping of bovines.
Ergo to teach a mind to not discriminant is to teach it to blind itself, to not discern or to be less sophisticated."

You idiot. You are the fool who believes they can categorize entire races and not bother discriminating between individuals.

"Moron, a dog sees black and white and the shades they produce....it's sight is unsophisticated. it makes up for it with its more sensitive nose....smelling details no man can; distinguishing, differentiating recognizing similarities and differences on a level where a man only smells the same shit."

And we can tell what colour it is. What is your point?

"And you....are....a dullard."

Says a nutcase.

[Satyr]

Hi Satyr
One more time:"The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.”

No, and the fact that bears are omnivorous does not mean that any one of them actually eats meat.
You are thick aren't you?

In other words, for a naive, fearful imbecile, like you, it is best to imagine a world where men, even if they have the power to do so, or history shows that they've always done so, that they do not....because they are moral....benevolent....holy....the exception to the rule?

See, a healthy mind does not place his confidence in a lion's kindness, since the past teaches him that lions are unpredictable and wild creatures and it is best to be weary of them....but for naive morons, like you, the past teaches nothing...and each case is a new case.
Luckily, for you, there's an entire system built to protect you from your own stupidity and one which enforces, for you, a particular kind of behavior.

You are just looking for any hint of doubt to retain your delusional world views.

Finally! Is there no role for mathematics?

And what did I say about mathematics, simpleton?
What did I say about language?

For the fifth time I agree that no concepts are absolute, but to conclude that you cannot argue against them on that basis is the logic of a madman, "the absolute being the very definition of non-existence," being the rantings of one.

Clueless, aren't you?

Show me an existing static state, and I'll bother with you.
Not static relative to you, moron, static in the absolute sense.

You are the fool who believes they can categorize entire races and not bother discriminating between individuals.

I know...like science categorizes entire species or entire cultures or entire population groups.
Simply evil.

I suggest you teach scientists that they must deal with each individual bear or wolf or sheep before they dare come up with general behavioral and physical attributes.

A category, simpleton, indicates potential.
Genes establish it within parameters. Individuals and their nurturing are placed within these parameters, and the exceptions to the rule supports the rule and requires explanation.
You want to be comforted. You are not interested in seeing the world as it is.
So, instead of accepting categories you prefer to focus on the exceptions because this gives you hope that all categories are false and freedom reigns and the past has no determining effects on the present or the future.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr

"Hi Satyr
One more time:"The fact that powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive does not imply that they belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies.”

No, and the fact that bears are omnivorous does not mean that any one of them actually eats meat."

Well technically, if no bears ate meat they wouldn’t qualify as omnivores. The point I presume you are trying to make is that because powerful people can be manipulative, conspiratorial and secretive, they necessarily belong to manipulative, conspiratorial secret societies. It doesn’t follow logically and I have never seen any compelling evidence that it is so. People’s reason for believing or otherwise reduce to an essentially Kantian aesthetic. You know what I mean, don’t you?*

“You are thick aren't you?”

Given your rejection of absolute statements I presume you mean relative to you. Well, you are the basket-case.

“In other words, for a naive, fearful imbecile, like you, it is best to imagine a world where men, even if they have the power to do so, or history shows that they've always done so, that they do not....because they are moral....benevolent....holy....the exception to the rule?”

You silly sausage, I have already made it clear that I do not believe this.

“See, a healthy mind does not place his confidence in a lion's kindness, since the past teaches him that lions are unpredictable and wild creatures and it is best to be weary of them....but for naive morons, like you, the past teaches nothing...and each case is a new case.”

This is a variation of Russell’s criticism of induction, you know*, every day the chicken believes the farmer will feed him until one day the farmer wrings her neck.

“Luckily, for you, there's an entire system built to protect you from your own stupidity and one which enforces, for you, a particular kind of behavior.”

Frankly the thing that protects me from lions is the thousands of miles between myself and Africa. Tragically your mental illness controls your behaviour

“You are just looking for any hint of doubt to retain your delusional world views.”

That’s you making things up again.

“uwot wrote:
Finally! Is there no role for mathematics?
And what did I say about mathematics, simpleton?”

Actually I have some sympathy with your views, I think mathematics is a very useful tool, but I am not convinced that it is critical to scientific discovery.

“What did I say about language?”

Some old bollocks that I refuted in less than a paragraph.

“uwot wrote:
For the fifth time I agree that no concepts are absolute, but to conclude that you cannot argue against them on that basis is the logic of a madman, "the absolute being the very definition of non-existence," being the rantings of one.
Clueless, aren't you?”

As to your meaning, absolutely.

“Show me an existing static state, and I'll bother with you.”

Do or don’t; see if I care.

“Not static relative to you, moron, static in the absolute sense.”

What have I ever said that requires me to do so?

“uwot wrote:
You are the fool who believes they can categorize entire races and not bother discriminating between individuals.
I know...like science categorizes entire species or entire cultures or entire population groups.
Simply evil”

No you fool, I have never said this.

“I suggest you teach scientists that they must deal with each individual bear or wolf or sheep before they dare come up with general behavioral and physical attributes.”

No you fool, for the reason above.

“A category, simpleton, indicates potential.”

Mildly interesting.

“Genes establish it within parameters.”

Well, I’ll humour you.

“Individuals and their nurturing are placed within these parameters,”

That seems reasonable, is there any overlap? For instance, could it be that an individual from one racial group has a higher IQ than an individual from another despite the fact that their respective racial groups score differently in IQ tests?

“and the exceptions to the rule supports the rule”

Bollocks.

“and requires explanation.”

A thesis such as ‘All swans are white’ is refuted by a single contrary example.

“You want to be comforted. You are not interested in seeing the world as it is.”

If you weren’t so bonkers I would think you had a brilliant sense of irony.

“So, instead of accepting categories you prefer to focus on the exceptions because this gives you hope that all categories are false and freedom reigns and the past has no determining effects on the present or the future.”

I accept categories and you, you idiot, just a few sentences ago claimed that “the exceptions to the rule supports (sic) the rule”. Challenge what I say, you coward, not what you project.

*Of course you don’t.