User Controls
Posts by Common De-mominator
-
2019-08-02 at 12:03 PM UTC in We have two groups of trolls here...
-
2019-08-02 at 12:02 PM UTC in Feral nigger throws 8 year old boy into train (Germany)
-
2019-08-02 at 12 PM UTC in Feral nigger throws 8 year old boy into train (Germany)
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Red is a straw man. I argued that your statement regarding the british "literally"inventing fighting in a line in bright (red) uniforms was false and proved my argument both with words and an image showing an artists rendering examples of "some" of the uniforms from that era.
I literally didn't say bright and I didn't say invented. Do you have athletic abilities problems? You don't need to invent something to be a pioneer. -
2019-08-02 at 11:57 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
Originally posted by -SpectraL But it's not one twice, it's one times one. That means it's one, one time. The second value is not a numerical quantity that you can just add or subtract to the first value, it's a multiplier. Howard is an idiot.
^ Haha this low IQ retard doesn't understand Terryology 😂😂 -
2019-08-02 at 11:55 AM UTC in Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny no. i said they said the reason they wanted the xit was because they dont want the inability to stop migrants from going in into their land. because in order to join the eu you have to give up self determination of your borders and migrants and migration policy.
And the only reason you could give for why, was because of Somalians, even though Somalians aren't the types of migrants they would "lose control" over (not really anyway).
So if you take away Somalians, what's the problem? It ceases to be a "good" reason at that point.
Free movement a buy-in term to the enormous benefits of the EU, because a combined labour market is part of a combined... Market. I'm asking you for a good reason for why you would want to EXIT this arrangement, and your reason is... Somalians?
You understand Somalia is not in the EU right? The EU doesn't have anything to do with them bringing in Somalians.
What's the problem with immigration from the EU that's so bad that it's worth exiting the EU?the irish backstop.
Right but I didn't get your point in the first place. -
2019-08-02 at 11:49 AM UTC in Boris Johnson Prime MinisterJoris Bohnson
-
2019-08-02 at 11:43 AM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Obbe Purpose is what is missing.
Define purpose or go fuck yourself.
I'm not going to argue against REALITRONS. I could replace every mention of purpose in your post with REALITRON related terms and nothing would semantically change. You are just having an actually meaningless argument. Which is further proof that man only discerns and borrows meaning from nature, because you think this is a meaningful argument even though it absolutely isn't. -
2019-08-02 at 11:22 AM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Obbe Nothing has any inherent purpose. Man gives purpose to things, considers things to succeed or to fail. Nature is just stuff happening.
This is why you are such a cock sucker: I just spent 2 posts arguing this very point and your response is literally "BUT BRAWNDO HAS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE, IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES".
Just repeating your talismanic phrase is not an argument asshole. You have to actually establish what you mean by "nothing has inherent meaning". Everything by definition is a "system doing what it does" so what is the notion you're referring to that "nothing has"?
I'm going to asking you to define inherent meaning and what could possibly have it, you are gonna say "it's an incoherent concept, it doesn't even make sense, nothing can have inherent meaning." I don't know what the fuck you mean by it.
This entire argument is me saying "toast is real" and you saying "toast doesn't have the property REALITRON so it's not real", then I ask what it would mean for toast to to have REALITRON and you say "nothing, it's just an incoherent concept." Okay... So what are you talking about? Sounds like you just made up a word to deny even though you don't actually have any well formed semantic content behind it.
I might as well be arguing "blargnarg" isn't real. You're wasting everyone's time including your own by inventing an issue that you've deluded yourself into believing.I'm not saying God gives anything purpose. If anything, I'm saying that God gave no purpose to anything. It is man who asks "why" and searches for meaning.
You're saying some"one" has to give some"thing" purpose when it's just blatantly false. I didn't give the spiderweb the purpose of catching flies, neither did god, but that's the purpose of a spiderweb. Man only identifies meaning.
It is the system doing what it's doing. That's everything. That's why it's real, the system doing its thing actually creates these real phenomena in the wod. There doesn't need to be a magic extra alarm of god's blessing to suddenly make it more real.Life has no inherent meaning, but that has nothing to do with me giving you all my money. It's pretty stupid to even think that makes sense. If I'm going to create my own meaning and purpose in life, I'm going to use all the resource I have available, including the money I earn.
The irony is that you don't see how this is a blatant admission of my point.
- Money is atoms
- Money has a purpose to you
- You are just a system doing it's thing
- Stuff can have a purpose for just a system doing it's thing.
That's all. There doesn't need to be anything above and beyond that, you keep claiming there does for it to be "real" but you never say what it is.
There's nothing fake about money and god doesn't need to validate that money is a real thing for it to be very real and meaningful in the world, so... I really don't know what else you want for something to be meaningful.
The reasons and purposes you have are nothing special or magic or different against the rest of the world, you just recognize them, they didn't just pop into existence in your head. There aren't "real purposes and Chinese counterfeit purposes". There's just purposes.
You're literally just generating a nonexistent problem to struggle against.
What is "missing" from these purposes that makes them not the real deal? Actually try to make a coherent point rather than parroting your phrase of the day. -
2019-08-02 at 10:06 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
Originally posted by Sudo my gf was raped by a dark skinned N word before and so she absolutely hates all black guys except the actor terrance howard for some reason
He is a sploo tier genius after all
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/terrence-howard-thinks-1x1-2-has-a-secret-system-called-terryology-and-spends-17-hours-a-day-making-10502365.htmlHoward studied chemical engineering at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn until he fell out with one of his professors over the answer to the 1x1=1 conundrum.
"How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told its two, and that cannot be." -
2019-08-02 at 10:01 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
-
2019-08-02 at 1:08 AM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Obbe Whether a spider succeeds or fails at catching a spider doesn't really matter. Nature doesn't care. Some natural disaster could wipe out all life on earth - is that a failure? Maybe a failure for life on earth, but a successful disaster? Right now, I don't think it would be either, not really. It's just a bunch of stuff happening.
... Bro do you legitimately have a learning disability, like dyslexia or something on those lines?
Caring is not necessary for success or failures to naturally develop.
There is no need for a "higher" purpose, understanding, judge etc. Purpose is purpose is purpose. The purpose of a spider's web is to catch flies. It can either be successful at it or fail.Yes, nature "selects" certain traits over others by exerting various pressures on life, causing very complex and incredible responses to these pressures, like becoming complex multicellular animals, like some animals developing wings to fly over the ground or other animals developing webs to catch them, but none of this has any inherent purpose or goal. It's just stuff happening. Maybe I will change my mind after I read the materials you've suggested.
The thing you will never get through your thick skull is that God doesn't need to validate something for it to be meaningful.
A spider's web has meaning independent of anyone's recognition. I'd call that "inherent" by any standard, but I really don't think you have even defined the term "I hereby meaning" in your own head.
The point that you can't seem to grasp, which is the focus of literally 99% of modern philosophy since the 50s outside of feminist bullshit, is that these different purposes in the world generated by natural selection are the real deal. You don't need Jesus to validate them.
As I have invited you to do many times before, if you really think being just atoms and shit makes something meaningless then give me all your money. -
2019-08-02 at 12:02 AM UTC in We have two groups of trolls here...
-
2019-08-01 at 10:36 PM UTC in Feral nigger throws 8 year old boy into train (Germany)
Originally posted by Speedy Parker You stated that the British pioneered line warfare with bright or red uniforms. I showed you that wasn't correct and that by the time the brits did it that was standard to wear bright colors to be able to distinguish friend from foe through the thick haze of black powder smoke on the field. You scoffed at that with ad hominem and then quickly turned to the straw man about red dye. That sums up pretty much all the stupid you spewed ITT.
Umm no dickbrain you posted a picture with only Brits wearing bright red uniform. RED. The only colour I mentioned btw. Look at it retard:
Originally posted by Speedy Parker
I said LOOK AT IT FAGGOT. Who are the only guys wearing the most visually striking color, red?
If you really think any of those blues and greens are a shitty a uniform color as BRIGHT RED, go motherfuck yourself idiot.
I'm really not gonna continue this argument with you you dumb nigger retard. -
2019-08-01 at 10:17 PM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Obbe That's assuming nature has a specific goal in mind - does it? I don't know, but I think nature is just a bunch a particles floating around. Sometimes they collide or stick together or miss each other but none of that activity is success or failure, it just is what it is, nature being nature. You don't need to get mad about it. It is what it is bud.
No. Reasons are just naturally emergent in an evolutionary environment. Looking at it as just stuff floating around is what we call a lossful reductionism. I've tried to explain this to you twice before but you didn't get it so I'm not going to go into it. Just read the Two Black Boxes thought experiment. Just try really really hard to pay attention to it and read it twice and really understand it. I want you to understand that I'm 100% serious when I say this: it is the most important piece of philosophical literature you will ever read in all of your inquiries on the nature of mind. Dennett' book The Intentional Stance explores the idea in huge detail and I'd recommend that if you really want to understand it.
The "questions" are just complex selective pressures and the "success or failure" conditions are the right and wrong responses to those "questions" whic lead to differential reproduction. These naturally generate reasons, and s space for success and failure.
For example animals have reasons but they just don't know those reasons. "Why" does a spider weave a web? To catch flies. The spider doesn't know that shit. There have been studies where they will have the same response to black dots in their visual field as any insects, it's just a hacked together little shit animal. But... A spider builds a web to catch flies. It can succeed or fail at catching flies, for example depending on its proximity to a rubbish heap. This can lead to different levels of reproduction for example, or fitness of offspring, or fertile lifespan etc.
Reasons evolve naturally. You should read Dan Dennett's book, From Bacteria To Bach And Back. -
2019-08-01 at 5:30 PM UTC in We have two groups of trolls here...
-
2019-08-01 at 4:01 PM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Obbe I don't know anything so why would I speculate that there is some greater purpose to a bird succeeding to survive or not? Whether the bird survives or dies is the system operating the way it operates. It's a "success" if we consider survival to be the goal, but I don't know anything so why would I consider some birds survival a success or failure any more than I would consider some random pariticals colliding or missing each other as a success or failure?
Man fuck you, you always do this shit.
Who said anything about "greater purpose"?
Classic Obbe move, straw man as if the other guy is asserting some spiritual god grand purpose shit and attack that as if you're taking the rational position.
Stop bullshitting and stick to the argument mother fucker: a system is perfectly capable of creating it's own success and failure conditions. Natural selection does it all the time, that's literally all natural selection does. Where do you think human reasons came from?
That doesn't mean there is some higher meaning to natural selection, but it is what it is: there are success and failure conditions created within nature. Nature makes its own way.
-
2019-08-01 at 3:45 PM UTC in We have two groups of trolls here...
-
2019-08-01 at 3:41 PM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Firekrochfatty i give no fuqs..
-about semantics or spelling for most of you chumpfuckers on here.
I beg you to differ,
..don't you think for a split second mf, that I'm some unedjumacated idiot bitch who doesn't know how to fuq'n spell or know when to use appropriate English. 😎
Didn't read. -
2019-08-01 at 3:37 PM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Irrelevant. Again as firecrotch stated she had a broken toe and yet still performed perfectly the task of walking to the fridge and getting 2 gallons of ice cream.
Again a single component doesn't control the whole device, it only controls the next component(s) that are directly in line with it…it's job is then done. It has no further input on the operational state of any of the other components downstream of it's direct "neighbor". And as stated it certainly had no control on the components before it which are controlling it…
Another analogy with be a single worker ant in an ant colony…the singular worker ant does not control the colony. It's loss will not result in the collapse of the colony or stop it's progress in any significant way.
Great, both of you should conduct an experiment: go ride a bike with half a wheel or half a chain or half a drive gear... off a pier. -
2019-08-01 at 3:37 PM UTC in all is mind
Originally posted by Obbe I don't really know anything, but you have no control over the growth of your hair. Whether your hair grows straight, or curly, or if it maybe all falls out, none of those are really successes or failures but really just the system performing the way it performs.
And in response maybe you will straighten your curly hair, or curl your straight hair or maybe you will wear a wig on your bald head, and again none of those are inherently successes or failures but rather just the system operating the way it operates. You have no control over the beating of your heart and if it stops beating you will die. Again this is the system operating the way it operates. And maybe someone will try to resuscitate you, but whether they succeed or fail, again, is just the system performing the way it performs.
You said you don't know but now you're going ahead and making a positive claim that none of those are successes and failures. What do you know about the purpose of the growth of hair and the ways it varies? If anything you're just ignorant to it like the cuckoo chick.
You have a certain level of comprehension of your own reasons, don't arrogantly get ahead of yourself and assume it's complete.
I don't know how many Newtons of force my hands can generate in all its various arrangements but I'm in control of it to an extremely fine degree, with many degrees of freedom.
The reasons we cobble together are not the only reasons in the world, and our representational awareness of reasons is nothing special past a certain point. A monkey has more of a concept of success than an amoeba while we have more of a concept of success than a monkey, but that's ultimately relative to whatever framing we began with. The reasons are out there independent of us, it's just part of the system doing what it does, and that creates successes and failures by their own criteria.
A cuckoo chick failing its deception is a failure to survive, it's a failure to gain nourishment brood-parasitically etc, even if no one is around to see it, or even if we didn't give it that label. Our recognition is only representational.
