WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [781][782][783][784][785][786][787][788][789][790] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 781) Arminius, 31.07.2015, 04:18, 05:31, 18:25, 19:57, 21:39, 22.28, 22:57, 23:23, 23:36 (3389-3397)

3389

Orbie wrote:

„I, Orbie, being a pacifist and a neutralist, shall hold my tongue and remain non-committrd on the issue of KT? I know this os a very precarious stance, however, in all honesty, have never been anywhere else. Unfortunately, it shows, and i am not put off by reactions to this. But being a man, i can not be empahtic to both sides now. Arminius is convinced i am a Kantian, and i am at the point of having been convinced.“ **

Yes. I think you are at least a Kantian when it comes to some important points, for example to the important point named „world peace“ or „perpetual peace“ (Kant).

Orbie wrote:

„I meant i am sensitive to both sides now.“ **

Yes (see above). One has to see both sides. And if one side is the minority, then a pacifist and a neutralist like you (see above) should especially listen to the minority (see below).

Orbie wrote:

„There are merits and demerits to both points of view, one need not exclude the other, Lys should not be excluded, anyway ....“ **

I wrote:

„There are so many other ILP members that should have been banned but not Lys and some others who have been banned.

Lys is interested in philosophy, Primal Rage (Erik) is interested in philosophy, Arbiter of Change is interested in philosophy. Many other ILP members are not interested in philosophy. So ILP („I Love Philosophy“) would do better to not bann or even permaban ILP members who are interested in philosophy, if ILP were a philosophy forum.

Orbie wrote:

„... they do oft come in under assumed names.“ **

Many other ILP members too. I know that you know some of them.

I do not know much about the forum „Know Thyself“, but I know some arguments of its members that were/are also ILP members, and sometimes I ask myself: „Why are these ILP members treated like lepers, as if they were already (perma)banned?“ And some (again: some) other ILP members do not convince much in this case - I think it is because of their special prejudices.

Philosophy must be and remain the main concern and main interest of philosophy forums.

Again: ILP („I Love Philosophy“) would do better to not bann or even permaban ILP members who are interested in philosophy, if ILP were a philosophy forum.

3390

Are the producers of that video (**) creationists respectively neo-creationists?

3391

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Partially true and partially false scientifically means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct theory.« ** **

Arminius,
You are making a mistake here.“ **

No. You have misunderstood me, Zinnat.

Zinnat wrote:

„Partially true and partially false simply means partially true and partially false, neither completely true not completely false, whether scientifically or philosophically.“ **

Yes. That is what I also said.“ **

Zinnat wrote:

„Science does not have all answers.“ **

And here you have misunderstood me. I did not say that the whole science but merely its „theorist ... has to provide a correct theory“ (see above). The theorist must have the honest claim to provide a correct theory. Otherwise science would choke. Scientists have to do their jobs seriously, that means in the case of theorists to provide a correct theory, and a correct theory means correct according to the current knowledge about logic and observation/experimentation. Referred to Darwinisms scientists know or could know that the Darwinistic selection principle is partly false, and then they have to scrap or to correct the whole theory. Maybe that I did not choose the most adequate translation of my thoughts, but it was no mistake. Science consists of observation/experimentation as praxis and of theory, and the theorists do not have less responsibility than the practicians (observers/experimenters). Probably one can rescue the other two principles of the Darwinistic theory of evolution but not its selection principle, if humans are included in it.

Zinnat wrote:

„In other words, it still not get everything right.“ **

Yes. That is what I also said, although I used some other words and put them in the correct position of the sentence.

Darwin's selection principle has not much to do with science in general but with a relatively small part of a scientific theory, if it really is a scientific theory. But the theory is as important as the praxis. If there were no kind of falsification in science, then all theories of the past would still be valid. Many theories are valid, although they are partlially false. So the Ptolemaic system could also be correct, because it is not totally incorrect. But that is not the way how science works. Ironically but not accidentally science works like Darwinism, Social-Darwinism, so to say. So if one says that Darwin's selection principle is partly false, then this one will get a problem with some powerful people, but that does not mean that this one is wrong. The real reason why some theories are scrapped has more to do with power than with science itself.

Zinnat wrote:

„But, does this mean that the science is totally false and has not got any single thing right?“ **

No. I did not say that science is totally false.

Again:

„I wrote:

„... one part of a theory is false.“ ** **

And this part is even a relaitively small part of a theory.

But then:

I wrote:

„Partially true and partially false scientifically means false, because it has to be regarded as false.“ ** **

This statement is okay. And as I already said: Many other theories are also merely partly false and regarded as being totally false, but some currently valid theories are regarded as being correct, although they are partly false as well.

A theory is falsified not only then, if a theory is false, but also then, if only one single part of a theory is false.

Zinnat wrote:

„Then, how would you evaluate scientific achievements like mobiles, internet and enabling humans to land on the moon! Should we discard all scientific achievements just because it is not completely right!“ **

Technology is an applied science and belongs more to the praxis side of science than to the theory side of science. There have been many examples in the history of science and technology that have showed how a theory can be strongly influenced by technology and/or scientifiic praxis (obsevations/experimentations): in some cases a theory got approved, in some cases a theory got scrapped (discarded). Allegedly some geological theories got approved by the landing on the Moon because of some rocks that were brought from the Moon to the Earth, whereas other geological theories got scrapped (discarded) by it because of the same rocks. Both science and technology and again both scientific praxis and scientific theory influence each other.

Dariwn's selection principle insofar as it refers to humans (!) has not lead to any technological (!) success but merely to more belief in it.

Regarding a theory as false, although merely a small part of it is false, has often led to more science success than a conservative defence of it. And false theories are usually not „dead“ theories, if science is not „dead“.

But, please, do not forget:
A theory is falsified
not only then, if a theory is false, but also then, if only one single part of a theory is false.

3392

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Videos got nothing to do with religion, in the christian sense. **

My question (**|**) was not meant in a religious sense. Creationists are often but do not have to be religious, Darwinists are much more religious, namely modern-religious, thus ideological.

3393

@ Zinnat.

I do not want to destroy the whole Darwinistic theory. What I want is to find out what happens to that theory without one of its three principles, because that one principles is false, if humans are included in it. This forum is called „I Love Philosophy“. So let's do some philosophy, Zinnat!

3394


Laughing Man wrote:

„It's possible but only with the complete destruction of the giant prison structure known as civilization first.

We had an authentic lifestyle of freedom and independence in animalistic form at one point in human history where civilization destroyed that completely.“ **

So do you want the humans to completely go back to nature then?

Laughing Man wrote:

„Civilization is where humanity has conquered itself creating a virtual prison of enslavement, servitude, dependency, and social bondage.

The problem arises that this dangerous human enterprise has become so self destructive that once it destroys itself it will probably make all of life impossible in an extinction style event ....“ **

Do you not foresee a few survivors of that catastrophe? *Grabs the scratchpad and a ballpen*


Opa wrote:

„I also think that the laughing man is more talking about a natural life; instead of an open mindset. Or did I misunderstand?“ **

No, not really.
Nein, nicht wirklich.

3395

Laughing Man wrote:

„I sometimes think to myself we were better off in our animalistic form, yes.

I also rather fatalistically think to myself there is simply no going back where a collapse scenario will more than likely wipe us out in a global extinction style event.

A few survivors? Not anymore. A quick glance at thermonuclear reactors around the world along with nuclear weapon stockpiles in the case of global war would pretty much guarantee there wouldn't be anybody left.“ **

The survive of such a catastrophe is not unlikely for some humans.

3396


James S. Saint wrote:

„If in only one single case, a hypothesis does not match the data, the hypothesis is false. Because of that, every hypothesis must include the degree of error allowed by the data gathering and analyzing technique (»significant error limit«).“ **

Yes. Of course. Duh!

James S. Saint wrote:

„The selection principle plays a role in the progression of evolution. But it is not the god of evolution, totally controlling principle. As long as the Darwinian Principle is stated as merely an influence (thus allowing for other influences and errors in its projections), rather than the only influence, it can be said to be true.“ **

Negligible quantity / amount. Okay, although it is a little fraud.

3397

Laughing Man wrote:

„Basically total annihilation for everyone.“ **

Why are you so sure (no wishful thinking, please!)?

 

NACH OBEN 782) Arminius, 01.08.2015, 20:45, 20:51, 21:51, 23:52 (3398-3401)

3398

Japan could also have been the place of origin of the Bubonic Plague - think of the many volcanoes in and around Japan. But it is an unanswered question whether the Black Death was caused by a meteorite strike or by a pathogenic germs or viruses.

3399

I know much about approximately 100 generations of my forebears / ancestors and of genealogy in general.

3400

Vou have absoluetly no idea.

Darwin was a theolgist. If you do not believe it, go and google it and get that your false god Darwin was a theologist and a theist, eaxctly a „pantheist“, and pantheists are often confused with atheists, although pantheists are theists and there are almost no atheists. Also often confused with atheists are antitheists. But this thread is not about theologists, And a new religion in modern times can be correctly called a modern religion, thus an ideology, of course with false gods, thus idols. But this thread is also not about religion. So, please, search for another thread.

Darwin was no atheist, Marx was no atheist, all babies are no atheists

3401

Ierrellus wrote:

„Early Christianity and modern capitalism are incompatible. Agree/disagree -- why?
The first Christians shared everything in common.
Modern capitalism is that you must compete with others for your supply of the goods.
The first Christians had churches: in the houses of friends.
The capitalistic church is big business, reeking in billions of dollars from tax exemptions.“ **

There is change, and change strikes everything. Christianity also changed. It became corrupted or/and corrupt. Another change is possible. But I do not know whether christianity will become something like it was in its early times.

 

NACH OBEN 783) Arminius, 02.08.2015, 00:28, 01:39, 18:04 (3402-3404)

3402

A society in which only the middle class is taxed (as it is in the U.S.) is almost dead.

3403

Phyllo wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is change, and change strikes everything. Christianity also changed. It became corrupted or/and corrupt. Another change is possible. But I do not know whether christianity will become something like it was in its early times.« ** **

What was Christianity?

While Jesus was alive, there were disciples who did not understand what he was saying and there were disciples who thought that he should be doing something else.

After Jesus died, the movement immediately fragmented into different factions, each with its own ideas on how to proceed.

Which was the true authentic Christianity?“ **

That is a good questions, because this thread is not only about christianity but also about economy, at least capitalism; and mostly all good questions are not easy to answer. I strictly referred to the op of this thread when I wrote the post you are referring to (**|**). So we could ask Ierrellus how he meant the term „early Christianity“ in the op of his thread. But at first I try to answer your question. To me the most authentic Christianity is identical with the Christianity of the Late Antiquity on the one side and of the Early Middle Ages of the other side. But this thread is about both christianity and economy, and Christianity came to its economy in the early Early Middle Ages, beginning with - for example - St. Benedict of Nursia (480–547) who wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

„The Rule of Saint Benedict has been used by Benedictines for fifteen centuries, and thus St. Benedict is sometimes regarded as the founder of Western monasticism.“ **

The monasteries became centers of the Occidental culture (science included - of course), economy, and so on. So the earliest typical Occidental form of economy has its roots in the monasteries. Whether this form can also be regarded as the earliest form of capitalism or not is indeed not easy to say, but I would say that this earliest typical Occidental form of economy led to the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. And the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism was already achieved in the 8th century.

But we have to add another aspect, if we want to find out the earliest typical Occidental form of economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. We have to consider the economy of all Germanic peoples, thus also of those Germanic peoples who conquered and settled the Roman Empire, because the Germanic peoples were the real founder of Europe and had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade. The combination of their economy and the Christian monastery (cloister) economy led to the the earliest typical Occidental economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental capitalism.

If we seek what the true authentic Christianity is, then we might find it in the Late Antiquity, but because of the fact that this early Christianity was suppressed and pursued until the early 4th century it did not have its own economy style - it had the pure poorness. So economically and socially the Christianity of its first 300 years was the the Roman empire's proletariat, so to speak in modern terms. The proletariat and the modern capitalism are not incompatible, Ierrellus. They are compatible - unfortunately.

3404

I used the word „success“ instead of „fitness“ just in order to rescue the Darwinistic theory, because the concept of „fItness“ is problematic. Those humans who are „fit“ have less offspring than those humans who are „unfit“. You can easily observe and prove this as a fact.

 

NACH OBEN 784) Arminius, 03.08.2015, 01:20, 01:48, 02:42, 03:58, 04:17, 05:14, 10:17, 11:22, 11:52, 12:01, 13:23, 13:54, 19:41, 20:17, 20:30, 21:57, 22:15, 22:40, 23:17, 23:32 (3405-3424)

3405

@ Turd Ferguson.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I did not deny the fact that other ancient societies did not have economy or even capitalism. They had their economy and capiatlism. Of course. If you really want to know what I was talking about, then you have to read my post more carefully than you did. I said that the mix of the Germanic form of economy and the Christian monastic form of economy led to the typical Occidental capitalism - and not the Greek and Roman form of economy. You did not notice that I was talking about forms of economy - because of the op of this thread.

I was talking about historical facts every schoolchild knows. It is a historical fact that Christianity was a huge part of the Roman empire's proletariat during the first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a historical fact that Christianity became powerful after this first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a fact that the Germanic people conquered and settled the Roman empire and that they had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade (you do not know which typical kind of economy I meant); and it is also a fact that Benedict of Nursia (480–547) wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

„The Rule of Saint Benedict has been used by Benedictines for fifteen centuries, and thus St. Benedict is sometimes regarded as the founder of Western monasticism.“ **

„ORA ET LABORA“.

I was strictly referring to Ierrellus' opening post (**) and talking about historical facts every schoolchild knows.

Turd, you do not know what you are talking about. You just make dick jokes here. As usual.

Turd Ferguson wrote:

„If I get banned, I'll be plunged back into productivity again. Great new ideas will emerge. Nobody wants me pondering new ideas, better if I just make dick jokes here.“ **

I am not interested in your derailing posts.

3406

Opening post of this thread:

Ierrellus wrote:

„Early Christianity and modern capitalism are incompatible. Agree/disagree--why?
The first Christians shared everything in common.
Modern capitalism is that you must compete with others for your supply of the goods.
The first Christians had »churches: in the houses of friends«.
The capitalistic church is big business, reeking in billions of dollars from tax exemptions.“ **

Again (in short):

„So economically and socially the Christianity of its first 300 years was the the Roman empire's proletariat, so to speak in modern terms. The proletariat and the modern capitalism are not incompatible, Ierrellus. They are compatible - unfortunately.“ ** **

Unfortunately, Ierrellus.

The gap between rich and poor is widening. It is similar to the situation in the Roman empire of the Late Antiquity. And just as decadent. The only difference between the Roman Empire of the Late Antiquity and the current Dollar empire is the extent: currently the injustice is truly global.

3407

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Evolution seems to violate the law of entropy also.“ **

Yes, it does. Of course. Duh!

Laughing Man wrote:

„By these standards the travelling train hobo who has a kid with a woman in every town he travels through is evolutionary successful ....“ **

Only then, if he is supported by liberalism, socialism and other modern isms. .... You do not want to become a travelling train hobo, do you?

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„What you're getting at is the fact that humans are capable of creating artificial environments ....“ **

Exactly.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„This is observable in socialism and similar leftist systems but they eventually collapse, either on their own or they are conquered by a system better aligned with nature. Socialism/leftism basically creates an environment which breeds weakness and slowly eats the system inside out, so such an outcome is inevitable.“ **

Yes, although I do not think that it is only a thing of socialism but of liberalism and other modern isms as well. It is typical for modern humans.

Phyllo wrote:

„If an idiot criminal is well suited for an environment, then idiot criminals will proliferate in the long run.“ **

This can only be certainly said if the environment is a natural environment - and not a human cultural environment. In a human cultural environment idiot criminals can be punished or not - thus: it depends on the human cultural (especially political) environment whether criminal idiots proliferate or not. This idiot criminals can be punished by death and do not proliferate but die out, and the same idiot criminals can be revered as heroes and do not die out but proliferate.

You can easily observe this.

3408

I think you meant 1348 and not 1548.

3409

„Occidental“ means „Western“, namely „Western Europe“. Did you know this? Greece is not Occidental. „Occidental“ is a geographical and a cultural word. Did you know this? You can find Greece in the South East of Europe - not in the West of Europe. I am sorry, but that is also a fact that you do not want to be true. It is not my „idea“ that Greece is in the South East of Europe. The other point is that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity, thus the Roman Catholic part of Europe. It is not my „idea“ that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity.

The frontier/border of Occident and Orient:

Die Ostgrenze des „Westens“ (S. P. Huntington, 1996)


During the time I was talking about the said post Germanic peoples settled in the whole Europe; some of them became, for example, Romans which means Rome + Germans = Romans, or they remained Germanic peoples and/or suppressed the peoples of the conquered territories and forced them to speak their language and live according to all their habits, for example in the territory that later was called England. How did they get there? An example:

*""*

The fact that you have no idea, Turd, is your own fault - not the fault of anybody else.

I am not interested in your Antigermanic hate - racism. I am merely interested in historical facts - and not in Fixed-Crossed or Turd-Cezared ideologies, idols, false gods, and so on.

3410

You are again talking nonsense, Turd. Maybe it is because of the fact that you are a North American, because the fact that you have no inkling and no conception of Europe and especially of the European history is your own fault - and not the fault of anybody else.

Do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread, Turd?

3411

Turd or Contra-Nietzsche, it is not possible here to give you all the informations I have, because the extent is too big for you. And I am sure that you have studied nothing - except turdology. I just provide you some maps, because you have not even a tiny idea of the geography facts of the European history:

**
Before the conquests.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... ire_period .

**
They all were Germanic tribes - except the Huns.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration ... Chronology .

**
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration ... Chronology .

You have to consider the history of the Germanic peoples and of the Christianity in order to understand the Occidental culture - religiously the Roman Catholic and Protestantic Europe, geographically the Central, West, North, Northwest, South, Southwest, and some parts of the East of Europe.

I guess that you were even not born when I finished my study of history.

And stop making dick jokes here, Turd.

Turd Ferguson wrote:

„If I get banned, I'll be plunged back into productivity again. Great new ideas will emerge. Nobody wants me pondering new ideas, better if I just make dick jokes here.“ **

I am not interested in your dick jokes.

3412

Phyllo wrote:

„How is the ancient world different from the modern world? Only scale has changed.“ **

There are some differences more, but we are talking about economy, and economically you are right, because economically only the scale has changed:

I wrote:

„The gap between rich and poor is widening. It is similar to the situation in the Roman empire of the Late Antiquity. And just as decadent. The only difference between the Roman Empire of the Late Antiquity and the current Dollar empire is the extent: currently the injustice is truly global.“ ** **

This time the danger is a global one, not only in an economical sense but also in a military and survival sense. Maybe this time the humans will not survive.

Ierrellus wrote:

„But has the scale advanced toward seeing that all can be housed or fed? Early Christians practiced a form of socialism in which all needs were met.“ **

I wrote:Again (in short):

„I wrote:

»So economically and socially the Christianity of its first 300 years was the the Roman empire's proletariat, so to speak in modern terms. The proletariat and the modern capitalism are not incompatible, Ierrellus. They are compatible - unfortunately.« ** **

Unfortunately, Ierrellus.“ ** **

Who survived? The capitalists? The proletarians? Both?

Ierrellus wrote:

„Competition insures that only the strong survive. But strong in what way?“ **

Human cultures can insure that only the strong do not survive.

3413

Orbie wrote:

„Philosophical underpinnigs are fairly new, and if psychology is a joke, surely, philosophy is too. But, if it is, then the joke is too recent, as well, and no one is lauhing, (yet), and if they do, it usually assumed, that the last laugh is on them. And no one really wants that.“ **

Hey, Orbie.

But what if just the reverse is true? ...:

„Psychological underpinnigs are fairly new, and if philosophical is a joke, surely, psychology is too. But, if it is, then the joke is too recent, as well, and no one is lauhing, (yet), and if they do, it usually assumed, that the last laugh is on them. And no one really wants that.“

I think this is more true ....

Modern psychology is merely useless, if it is as it was: a subdiscipline of philosophy and not more.

The chemical industry and other industries want to sell their „products“. First they selled them only on physicians, then they started to sell them also on psychyatrists or even psychologists. And the next step is already achieved, isn't it? If yes: what will be the after next step?

3414

Opa wrote:

„Lest we should happen to end up on the bad side of Sokrates' wise exclamation:
»By all means marry.
If you marry a good wife, you'll be happy.
If you marry a bad wife, you'll become a philosopher.«
~ Sokrates.“ **

I wrote:

„Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.

Should all people be philosophers?

Most of the people should not live alone (thus: should not be philosophers).“ ** **

3415

Your tirades of hate, Turd.

That has nothing to do with this thread.

Belisar's cuccess was of short time. The territories in Italy and in South Spain he conquered for a while were completely reconquered by the Germans (at last by the Langobards), by „us“, as you said, although you are not a German - but you hate Germans like Hitler hated Jews.

So it was 100% correct what I said before you started your ideological propaganda against Germans - probably wanting the WW3 because of the US debt.

You are a nihilist par excellence, and your fight against history is completely based on hate, on racism.

You need a scapegoat for your ideological nonsense - and you have found it.

Again: I am not interested in you Anti-Germanic hate - racism.

3416

Can philosophy be a „birth defect“ (**)?

3417

Ierrellus wrote:

„If not 100% correct, what is?“ **

It is not 100% correct, but Turd's „interpretations“ are even not 20% correct. They are based on lies, on bias, on hate, on racism, on resentment, and on lies again. He is fighting a fight against history, against Germans as if he had just declared WW3 on Germany. That has nothing to do with this thread.

Do not believe in agitators. They chosse some historical facts (for example: 20%) out of the historical context and glue them and their ideology together. That is not how scientific history works.

In all my posts here in this thread I was referring to all historical facts that are necessary in order to answer the question of the opening post of this thread (**). It has been proven that the economy of the Occident (the Christian Occident is meant!) can only be based on both Germanic peoples and Christianity, namely Roman Catholic and later also Protestantic Christianity. Belisar (Turd was talking about) had nothing to do with it, because he was a Byzantine, an Orthodox Christian, thus a man of the Orient (East Europe and West Asia). This was how the Europeans divided the world at that time as well as later and how they divide it today too: West and East. (And by the way: I am not against the people of the East - the mother of my daughter is Greek, and my current wife has lived in Greece for 12 years).

Turd is an US American. He himself told me last year. Do not believe in his lies. He is telling lies over lies. And he is confusing this lies with cynism. That is rediculous.

3418

Is it now possible to return to the question in the opening post of this thread (**)?

1) Is robbery also a form of economy?
1,1) Is robbery also a form of capitalism?
2) Has Christianity anything to do with economy and capitalism?
If yes:
2,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for economy?
2,1,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for capitalism?
2,2) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for economy?
2,2,1) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for capitalism?
3) Is economy avoidable?
If yes:
3,1) Is economy avoidable by Christianity?
4) Is capitalism avoidable?
If yes:
4,1) Is capitalism avoidable by Christianity?

Answers:
1) Yes.
1,1) Yes.
2) Yes.
2,1) Yes.
2,1,1) Probably.
2,2) Yes.
2,2,1) Probably.
3) No.
3,1) No.
4) Perhaps.
4,1) Perhaps.

3419

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't think that putting declared/judged criminals to death affects the future population much at all.“ **

In the short run, maybe, but not in the long run, and evolution is more about the development in the long run.

Phyllo wrote:

„It's possible to organize and kill all people who have red hair. A subsequent examination would lead to the conclusion that red-haired people were not well adapted to the environment.“ **

Exactly.

Phyllo wrote:

„The fact that it was an organized act brought on by 'culture' is not important in terms of evolution. Stuff happens and whoever survives was the fittest to survive.“ **

The fact that it was an organized act brought on by culture is important in the long run. Thus it depends on time and on the capability of the humans to circumvent the nature by culture.

3420

Phyllo wrote:

„False dichotomy of nature and culture.“ **

It is not really a dichotomy, because culture is embedded in nature.

Phyllo wrote:

„Evolutionary theory does not care about such things because it cannot identify why some trait survives and why it dies out.“ **

Which evolutinary theory? That is the question. And the next and more important question is: Is it false?

Phyllo wrote:

„Nor does it care. The »environment« is too complex to identify single direct causes.“ **

What do you exactly mean by „identify single direct causes“?

3421

Opa wrote:It is a condition that I have suffered from since an extremely young age. As young as my memories go. No one else I know has it. it has impeded me from being what others call 'a success', or even 'socially acceptable'; maybe even 'compliable'. It must be a defect, then. So, a birth defect. **

Bist Du sicher?
Are you sure?

„As young as your memories go“ - that means: when you were about 2 to 3 years old. So you do still not know for sure whether it is a „birth defect“ (**) or not. And to „hunger for“ philosophy „sometimes“, as you said, does not necessarily mean that it is a „defect“. But if you „can't stop it“, as you also said, then it could probably be a „defect“. Hmm ....

3422

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The ›price‹ you mentioned could be paid in another, namely a better way. That was my main point. No EU, no Eurozone, no NATO but nonetheless a powerful political, economic and mliitary organisation of European countries without any influence of the USA. It is namely a contradiction that there is a military parrtnership with an economic enemy (›competitor‹) like the USA, because this means the contradictional politics between Europe and the USA.« ** **

You are not getting it.“ **

It has nothing to do with „getting it“. The current situation will not remain the same for centuries. I have children. I know that you have chidren too, by the way, but do not know how many.

Zinnat wrote:

„European leaders have sorted it out. There cannot be another way except something exactly like Eurozone, even EU cannot serve the purpose without Eurozone.“ **

There are other ways. It is possible, for instance, to reform the EU, the Eurozone, and the NATO. It does not have to be much reform in the case of the EU, but in the case of the NATO it has to be very much reform. Think of the competition. The NATO was formed as an alliance of defense, and now it has nothing at all to do with defense but exclusively with aggression.

3423

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM reforms nations as what you might think of as »organs of the body of Man (or Machine, or whatever)«. But does it quite naturally without intent.“ **

SAM does that without intent?

3424

Opa wrote:

„Well, I have always felt that a life like Dick Proenneke led (**) would be very calming to me.“ **

Yes. Does he really live alone?

 

NACH OBEN 785) Arminius, 04.08.2015, 01:02, 01:04, 15:18 (3425-3427)

3425

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Does he really live alone?« ** **

He did; although there were a few others in the general area. He died a few years back, I read. Beautiful movies though.“ **

Yes, very beautiful movies. In one of them I read: „Dedicated to Richard L. (»Dick«) Proenneke - 1916-2003“.

Do you remember our conversation about „loving philosophy and living alone“?

Arminius wrote:

„Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.“ ** **

According to that Richard L. („Dick“) Proenneke was not a philosopher.

3426

Amorphos wrote:

„We should be looking at this globally, the average human is more intelligent and has a better understanding of the world now, than the ancients, and even people 100 years ago did.“ **

More information is availableI now, but I would not subscribe that „the average human is more intelligent and has a better understanding of the world now“. Most humans do not make use of the fact that more information is availableI now, and a lot of the nowadays information is waste (you can easily convince yourself of it by reading some ILP threads). So it is also possible that the IQ of the humans is now lower than it was e.g. 100 years ago.

3427

@ Turd.

Even the Roman empire had its German Caesar, for example one of the Franks. More and more Germans became high military generals in the Roman army. The reason for all of this was the fact that the Romans had had no or too less offspring and to let more and more Germans into the empire - additionally there had been to German provinces in the Roman Emipre since Ceasar: Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. This Germans became either Romans or remained Germans. So the whole thing in the Roman empire during its last 5 centuries was the fact that the Romans had not enough children anymore - beacuse of wealth. It was the same problem the Europeans have today. (It was also a reason why I referred to this time when responding to Ierrellus' opening post of this thread.) After Rome was conquered by the Germans there was no single territory - except in East Europe which was a steppe and Byzantium, although it had also many German inhabitants. There was a treaty between them. This all is well documented, also the fact that Augustus tried to prevent by law (LEX JULIA, 14 B.C.) that the Romans in his empire died out. After Rome was conquered there was no single place in Europe that was not ruled by Germans. Shall I name all the German kings of the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages in the whole Europe? That would be a very long list. Go and google it, pupil. You have not the tiniest idea of history. Read your science fiction books, watch Hollywood popaganda, and dream on, Turd. During the whole Middle Ages the Holy Roman empire of German Nation was the main power. One can say that the whole Occidental culture is a German culture. The nations as we know them today were formed later when the main power changed more and more to the side of the sea power, and the German Hanse was also a great sea power. Sir Francis Drake was a robber, but he was also ennobled by the queen of England. Why? .... So we have to ask whether robbery is also a great business and a form of economy.

These are facts, reagardless whether a Turd accepts them or not.

The Roman empire was not conquerd by your Niegrian friends, Turd. If you want to change the history, then you must be more powerful than you are, little warrior. You are not God. And the Africans have no possibility of producing like other people have. Ask yourself why that is also a fact. The US Americans have been having the most responsibility in the world since 1945. So you have a huge duty but do not care about it. You want but you do not need to fight against history. Search for another enemy but let the history alone, Turd.

 

NACH OBEN 786) Arminius, 05.08.2015, 15:05, 21:13, 21:24, 21:34, 21:52, 22:49, 23:05, 23:54, 23:58 (3428-3436)

3428

That's great, Zinnat. Congratulations.

3429

Barbarianhorde wrote:

„England saw what was coming.“ **

Not England but the City of London. The City of London. Do you know what that means?

3430

Equal to You wrote:

„In a Sexocracy there is no financial economy. The economy is status based. There are just four statuses:

Rehabilitative status: This status is for criminals only. I anticipate that crime in a Sexocracy would be extremely low. Only serious criminals would require rehabilitative status so the population of the Sexocracy living at this status would be very low or zero.

Standard status: This status would be available for everyone except those on rehab status and would provide a basic standard of living.

Luxury status: This status would provide a luxury standard of living and would be given to everyone who worked or was incapable of work.

Super luxury status: This status would be available only to 'Sexual Service Providers (SSPs)' who in today's society would be described as prostitutes and/or pornographic models. SSPs would have the highest levels of luxury and also would be the most respected and adored members of Sexocratic society.

In a Sexocracy everyone would be able to fulfill their sexual desires because of the accessibility of SSPs. They wouldn't have to feel guilty about using SSPs as the SSPs would enjoy the highest levels of luxury and using their services would be considered natural and healthy. Also drugs would be legalized and regulated for adult use.

That is the essential structure of Sexocracy. I believe the formation of a Sexocracy is the only path to maximum human happiness and minimal human suffering.“ **

Your interpretation of sexuality in general and of sex in particular is false. It is a Proton Pseudos, because you use it as a premise. So your sexocracy would never work in reality.

3431

@ ALL

Genes and memes do not work in the same way. So Richard Dawkins' meme theorie is false too.

3432

Yes. Richard L. („Dick“) Proenneke was an interesting and enjoyable man.

3433

I remind you of this: **
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.

In addition: the demographical situation is a bad one. How dangerous are demographically armed societies? ** **

Are you expecting a savior, Ierrellus?

3434

How dangerous are demographically armed societies? ** **

3435

This was my post: Copied post.

You were comparing the intelligence of the current humans with the intelligence of the humans 100 years ago. So I referred to that comparison. And again:

„Most humans do not make use of the fact that more information is availableI now, and a lot of the nowadays information is waste (you can easily convince yourself of it by reading some ILP threads). ** **

Do you agree?

3436

The City of London is independent. It has nothing to do with London, England, the UK, and os on.

 

NACH OBEN 787) Arminius, 06.08.2015, 01:00, 01:14, 01:56, 02:24, 03:21, 03:29, 04:15, 04:17, 04:44, 05:27 (3437-3446)

3437

There is the dulling of the mind by bad education, by movies / cinema or television films, internet, cellphone / mobile and many other things.

You have a nice citation in your signature:

„»Warum willst du dich von uns Allen
Und unsrer Meinung entfernen?«
- Ich schreibe nicht euch zu gefallen,
Ihr sollt was lernen.“
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

That's the point.

3438

Amorphos wrote:

„Warum willst du dich von uns Allen
Und unsrer Meinung entfernen?«
- Ich schreibe nicht euch zu gefallen,
Ihr sollt was lernen.

Google translate;
Why wilt thou from us all
And remove our opinion?
- I do not write to please you,
We'll teach you what.

I am no closer to knowing what that means.“ **

That is a very bad translation.

Try this free translation:

Why do you want to go away from all of us and our opinion? I do not write in oder to please you, you shall learn something.

Learn!

3439

Equal to You wrote:

„My interpretation of sex is that it is a fundamental desire human beings have evolved to have alongside the desires for air, nutrition, excretion, hydration and sleep. We have become like this through the process of evolution. If we don't fulfill our sexual desires we become frustrated and experience psychological disintegration. A global society that fails to fulfill its populations' sexual desires and oppresses their sexual desires is a society that inevitably becomes riddled with crime, poverty and war and is continuously on the precipice of self destruction. The society we have today.

If you don't realise this your interpretation of evolution, humanity, psychology, economics and pretty much everything about reality is false. So you're the one with the proton pseudos, buddy.“ **

No. You are the one with the proton pseudos, buddy. Your premise is false because humans have more than one fundamental desire. Humans become even more frustrated, if they do not fulfill other fundamental deires.

So your „sexocracy“ does not work. The „flower power society“ of the hippies failed, and your „sexocracy“ will also fail. But some of those who have other desires will welcome your „sexocracy“, because your „sexocracy“ is no competitor for them. In the long run your „sexocracy“ will even lead to more inequality, injustice, frustration, and so on.

I am sorry, but there is no doubt.

3440

Equal to you wrote:

„I know that humans have more than one fundamental desire. I said sexual desire is a fundamental desire, then listed the others. If you're going to respond to my posts at least read them properly. Human beings will not become 'frustrated' if they do not fulfill the other fundamental desires, they will die if they do not fulfill the other desires. If you don't get air, nutrition, excretion, hydration and sleep then you die. Sexual desire is the only fundamental desire where you don't actually die without it, that's why society is able to make such a mess of it without immediately wiping itself out.

The Sexocracy isn't flower power. It's a complete political and economic system not hippies smoking weed and making peace signs. You're drowning in proton pseudos and I'm flying free.“ **

Are you more frustrated now?

I did not say that you did not list other desires. But that does not change anything. You are referring to mererly one desire when it comes to find a solution for frustration. You will always find the same frustration and even more frustration. Again: Your „sexocracy“ will never work because of the said reasons.

You did not read my posts carefully. I did not say that your „sexocracy“ was „flower power society“. I am saying your „sexocracy“ will fail like the „flower power society“ failed. Try to read my posts again.

Your proton pseudos is a huge one.

3441

Equal to you wrote:

„I did not say that you said that my Sexocracy is flower power

I said that it is not the flower power society to make the point that.“ **

You said:

Equal to youe:

„The Sexocracy isn't flower power.“ **

78 minutes ago! **

3442

Equal to you wrote:

You're implying that the Sexocracy is not a flower power society but it will behave in the same way as a flower power society? That doesn't make sense. Get your reasoning together before you try to debate with me.“ **

Your „sexocracy“ is based on a proton pseudos. If you do not understand what I mean and what the reasons are why your „sexocracy“ is nonsense, then read this post from Flannel Jesus who said nearly the same that I said:

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„Because of the apparent lack of any basic idea of how economics works.“ **

Yes.

Equal to you wrote:

„My ideology is based on reasoning and you've got proton pseudos all over your face.“ **

You do not want to discuss, you want to dictate.

3443

You are telling nonsense. And by the way: You have to give us some arguments for your thesis. But your thesis and arguments are nonsense, because they are false, based on a huge proton pseudos. And now you are hiding yourself behind the „flower power“. That is rediculous.

Your „sexocracy“ is comparable with the „flower power movement“ and other failed social experiments.

Empty phrases like „all humans will be happy“ or „all humans will not be frustrated“ are no arguments but examples of your own wishful thinking and your own desires. Your „sexocracy“ concept is false.

May I ask you how old you are?

3444

Equal to you wrote:

„I'm always prepared to accept the possibility that I may be wrong. Maybe I do have the proton pseudos.“ **

I say: You do have the propton pseudos. Your „sexocracy“ is based on a proton pseudos.

3445


Orbie wrote:

„But how did the City of London see things, as England didn't? Or did they? some junction is missing here, and may be beneficially clarified. It seems so, as a missing link, as if, it's assumed that England or the City of London, saw something coming is less important than the differentiation between London the city and England.

Maybe this insight is trite and unnecessary, and yet it may be good to detail here, not necessarily for the sake of agument.

If unnecessary, lack of comment will mean an agreement with such reasoning.“ **

Orbie, you could also ask: „How did the City of London see things, as the EU or the US didn't?“.

Again:

I wrote:

„The City of London is independent. It has nothing to do with London, England, the UK, and os on.“ ** **

3446

Barbarianhorde wrote:

„Not a clue.“ **

Again:

I wrote:

„The City of London is independent. It has nothing to do with London, England, the UK, and os on.“ ** **

 

NACH OBEN 788) Arminius, 07.08.2015, 02:41, 03:14, 03:44, 03:53, 08:56, 09:33, 10:52, 13:01, 13:41, 13:57, 14:24, 22:27, 22:35, 23:40 (3447-3460)

3447

You believe in reincarnation. Okay. But that does not justify your „sexocracy“. You do not want to be frustrated. Okay. But that does not justify your „sexocracy“. The reincarnation and the frustration are the false premises, the „sexocracy“ is the false conclusion.

„Sexocracy“ will always show a bad situation, much worse than the current one.

Your „sexocracy“ lacks too much of what human beings are with all their hopes, fears, desires, dislikes, and so on. Humans are more than sexual beings.

I have read some posts of this thread and picked some of them that also show some aspects of the reasons why your „sexocracy“ is based on a proton pseudos:

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„Because of the apparent lack of any basic idea of how economics works.“ **

Kriswest

In the following way some posts from the woman with the lovely kitten:

Kriswest wrote:

„Love is private it is sharing it is bonding with another soul, Love is not sex.
The intimacy between two souls is private, it should be on a level that is not a commodity. Love is not just for the beautiful it is for all. Sex is not just for the beautiful or those with status it should be for all that can find a willing partner. Love is not sex. It is love that makes us happy not sex. Orgasms are nothing more than a high. Its equal to getting stoned or ripped. Is that what you want for all? Or would you rather have real love? You can't love or be truly happy getting stoned whenever you can.“ **

„Your Sexocracy is nothing more than a boy's fantasy to get laid. It does not hold water, you don't understand humans at all ....“ **

„Easy problem to fix so that I can keep my expensive toys. mass forced birth control. If you can't afford kids you should not be able to breed. B.C in water and food will put a stop to starving kids.You could just reward folks with food and water if they agree to get sterilized permantly. works for me. I have no guilt over starving kids in other lands, i feel bad for the kids but its the adults that are doing it. humans figured out long ago how to stop making babies. if folks would stop having sex , there would be no kids. The adults in africa are not stupid nor that ignorant. So why should I sacrifice for their selfish acts? Screw that give me my 68 Tbird and my home and bus.“ **

„B.C. is birth control. yea, and so I sacrifice so that those wealthier than me can have their luxuries that I will never get , thats the way of this mudball. Why should I sacrifice for those that will not stop producing more burdens to their society? Why should I pity any but the kids? Its like Islaamic women that put up with being owned by the males. if thats what they wnt then why should I care if a female gets stoned to death because she was raped. People bring it on themselves, They do not leave a region or religion behind, they stay there expecting others to help or their Governments. Well then that is on them. If they cannot help themselves or will not, its not my place or my desire to help them.“ **

„We cannot help those that do not help themselves.“ **

„Birth control must be required, heck I would say every country have their people on forced birth control. Only licensed people become parents. If a country wants compassion the n let them act like they deserve it, let them help themselves first. You cannot help in the long run by throwing money at a problem that is not about money. Its about self respect and deciding they don't want to live that way , by working together on their own.“ **

„In the financial world what does interests mean and special interests mean? Do you think that China has no interests here in the US or japan or any number of other countries? They poor money into the US economy. Just as we do with other countries. think civilian interests. Have you never been to any .gov sites? You might want to strat looking around the net at our government and other government sites. You can find lists on the net of whare to go. If you think our Government or any other Government has full disclosure on finances , you are so wrong. Even the largest corportations have money interests they never disclose. The media is biased and it does not get all information . It is fed what the big whigs want them fed.“ **

„Government loans are about control, diplomacy and investments. Recall the last amount we borrowed from China? It was not about needing the money, it was about giving them a vested interest in our economy. So they would not cause too many more issues. We gave them some control over us.. That is what it was about.“ **

„The loans are not primaraly for funding. The Chinese expect the interest to be paid not the principal. As do most countries , yours mine . It is about control . Think about it this way. If a country loans another money, they have invested in the security of that country. They want money or other things from it, they won't look for ways to cause problems for the country that they loaned money to, that would go against their financial interest. The borrower has a shield and a diplomatic control also. When the US last borrowed money from China our problems were being added to by some of China's actions. Borrowing the money helped stop those issues, China backed down from its positions on that front. It buys the US time and it gives China something to hold over the US. Its all about control not funding.“ **

„No one likes to borrow, but it is a very good diplomatic tool for different reasons. The US is no different no matter what bluster the media is given to report. I can't recall the details that, was back in the latter part of Bush days. China was doing something that could cause the US severe problems either in the mideast or something somewhere. I am sure a net search would reveal it. Borrowing the principal of 500 million gave China a vested interest in our economy, so instead of harming it they changed positions. Have you ever spent real time on any govt. sites? It is very interesting and well worth the effort. Especially if you fiddle around with your searches and decypher possible pages that lead to other places. I always find the definitions of any legal document/law to be far more interesting than anything else.“ **

„You are a nonreading nonresearching lazy child, Bush proposed did it, it Obama carried it out I gave you 610 references to research to read to gleen information from. 610 sites on that google search. You child, need to go back to school. You are stuck on the laziest pettiest details of what we have been discussing. You are a waste of time and space. Go do research , learn about diplomacy and politics then maybe I will listen to you. Until then you have, in your lazy uneducated thinking attitude, wasted my time and effort. Go read.“ **

Some other posts:

Apaosha wrote:

I think this thread is one of the most eloquent self-descriptions I have yet read on this forum:

„Eqaul to You wrote:

»In a Sexocracy everyone would be able to fulfill their sexual desires because of the accessibility of SSPs. They wouldn't have to feel guilty about using SSPs as the SSPs would enjoy the highest levels of luxury and using their services would be considered natural and healthy. Also drugs would be legalized and regulated for adult use.« **

You expose yourself so carelessly here.“ **

Only Humean wrote:

„Eqaul to You wrote:

»Apaosha wrote:

›I think this thread is one of the most eloquent self-descriptions I have yet read on this forum.‹ **

»I'm guessing that you're implying that I'm exposing my desire to have sex with lots of young beautiful women and to take drugs. If I'm correct then you're wrong because I'm not exposing my desire to have sex with lots of beautiful young women and to take drugs because I'm not concealing my desire to do those things in the first place. Being a heterosexual male who wants to have sex with lots of beautiful young women and take drugs is perfectly natural, that's my point.« **

If something is not concealed, it's often exposed.

But your thesis as stated above is that everyone's sexual desires could be met by prostitutes, and that guilt is (the?) significant factor holding them back from doing so now. In so far, I agree with Apaosha that you're universalising your own feelings on the matter and projecting that as a Utopia.“ **

Calrid wrote:

„Equal to you wrote:

»What's degrading is living in a society that oppresses sexuality at every turn and condemns normal sexual desires and behaviour as perversion.« **

How does that happen? Are you talking about criminal sex?
Where do you live? If I may ask, might put some perspective on it?“ **

Calrid wrote:

„Freud had a few things right, but man when he was wrong.“ **

Only Humean wrote:

„I have a few acquaintances who have had their issues with heroin, and they say that it's far better than sex. Why a sex-based economy and not an opiates-based one?“ **

Only Humean wrote:

„How do you ensure that the best people are taken for the roles they are needed in, and remain motivated? And how does the sexocracy »fund« large-scale infrastructure?“ **

Only Humean wrote:

„Eqaul to You wrote:

»All human activity is always pleasure seeking.« **

That's simply not true, even at a facile level. Unless you redefine pleasure as being whatever motivates people to do things.“ **

Calrid wrote:

„I'll say one thing your single minded pursuit of hedonism does make me laugh. I wish you all happiness in life but I think if you spend it only in the pursuit of your own selfish goals and absolutes, your chance of finding it are slim. We've all said it, Utopia: is you topia. You're scant regard for what anyone else wants is ridiculous.

No one can understand your goals, no person can rationalise your overwhelming desire to be selfish, because, and I hasten to add, because they are not you. No matter how brilliant you are, or claim to be, there are other people who do not think like a horny teenager on this planet, hell I'm willing to bet some of them aint horny teenagers.

Please for God's sake find a loving relationship, learn what life is all about, and mostly and sincerely and with all my heart: stop, just stop talking shit as if you're the all singing dancing fairy of the universe. The reason no one believes you is because they have lived. Now this might sound patronising, you might think all man's best work is done in his trousers. But trust, me I was once told when I was young that sex is not the be all and end all of everything. I mocked them then, I still mock them for underestimating my desire, but at the end of the day there's more to life than running a society purely based on one individuals inability to get laid, or selfish desires. You really need to get some perspective, you wont of course because you are the Kwisatz Haderach , everyone is a cocky arrogant SOB when younger, it's only when you are older if you have any intellect you learn how valuable doubt can be.

»This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrap heap; the being a force of Nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.«

George Bernard Shaw.

»The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.«

Bertrand Russell.“ **

Tyrannus wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»All entities incapable of conscious logic, live in a universe of nothing but competition of will and passion.« **

Power. Once realizing this we can then cut through the chase showing the social contract is complete bullshit and get to the point that morality is a deceptive false charade that needs dismantling or to be destroyed. A conversation for another thread.“ **

Tyrannus wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Like I said.« **

Yeah, I get it.“ **

Phoneutria wrote:

„A pretty good rule of thumb is to never take anyone seriously when they speak about social equality.“ **

These quoted posts do not show all of what your ideology of „sexocracy“ lacks, but they show the most important aspects, namely those I also mentioned in my posts:

Interest (=> will) is the most important thing (perhaps it is really Kant's »Ding an sich« - »thing in itself«). A good example is the »sexual selection« that I would prefer to call reproductive interests when it comes to get ressources (including offspring / children), namely either by (a) dominance or by (b) will to appeal. If a female can't reproduce herself and doesn't want a male or children, because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms, then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.

Who benefits from that?“ ** **

„Your interpretation of sexuality in general and of sex in particular is false. It is a Proton Pseudos, because you use it as a premise. So your sexocracy would never work in reality.“

„You are the one with the proton pseudos, buddy. Your premise is false because humans have more than one fundamental desire. Humans become even more frustrated, if they do not fulfill other fundamental deires.

So your »sexocracy« does not work. The »flower power society« of the hippies failed, and your »sexocracy« will also fail. But some of those who have other desires will welcome your »sexocracy«, because your »sexocracy« is no competitor for them. In the long run your »sexocracy« will even lead to more inequality, injustice, frustration, and so on.

I am sorry, but there is no doubt.“

„You are referring to mererly one desire when it comes to find a solution for frustration. You will always find the same frustration and even more frustration. Again: Your »sexocracy« will never work because of the said reasons.

You did not read my posts carefully. I did not say that your »sexocracy« was „flower power society“. I am saying your »sexocracy« will fail like the »flower power society« failed. Try to read my posts again.

Your proton pseudos is a huge one.“

„You have to give us some arguments for your thesis. But your thesis and arguments are nonsense, because they are false, based on a huge proton pseudos. And now you are hiding yourself behind the »flower power«. That is rediculous.

Your »sexocracy« is comparable with the »flower power movement« and other failed social experiments.

Empty phrases like »all humans will be happy« or »all humans will not be frustrated« are no arguments but examples of your own wishful thinking and your own desires. Your »sexocracy« concept is false.

May I ask you how old you are?“

„You do have the proton pseudos. Your »sexocracy« is based on a proton pseudos.“

Your »sexocracy« lacks too much of what human beings are with all their hopes, fears, desires, dislikes, and so on. Humans are more than sexual beings.

3448

The text is a poem.

In this poem Goethe is speaking like a teacher of life.

3449

But why can you be so sure that SAM can be put into practice without any problems? Are you implying that the engineers are machines?

3450

Turtle wrote:

„22 vets kill themselves every single day .... I am shocked to hear this ....“ **

I can't believe it, if you mean the US veterans. If so, then which US veterans are exactly meant? And where did you get that information from?

3451

The engineering system and the social engineers of SAM are analogous to the central nervous system and the heart of a living body.

What James calls „SAM coop“ is a cybernetic feedback control system.

3452

@ Orbie.

The City of London was a a very special target during the Second World War.

3453

Opa wrote:

„Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

»I enthusiastically applaud this article despite being a relativist in so many other ways. The best example given: When people support their disbelief in climate change by appealing to public opinion polls. Either climate change exists or it doesn't, and that cannot be determined by public opinion, especially given the political nature of the controversy about it. You might as well argue that the Koran is the direct word of Allah because everyone at the mosque thinks so.« **

Well put.

As a further proof, I would like to give these 2 thoughts:
1) A long time ago, everyone said the world was flat. That was wrong. Nowadays, everyone says the world is round. That is still wrong. The majority is normally wrong.
2) If the majority is always right, then there is no more need for specialised education, is there?

Might want to rethink any position based on what the majority thinks.“ **

Yes. What the majority thinks is what Nietzsche said about the „Scheinmensch“ and Heidegger said about the „Man“.

It has much to do with the question: „Is a human authentic dasein (existence, life) possible?“ (**|**).

3454

Language is more than communication. The science of language is called „linguistics“. The following Illustration shows linguistics as the system of language within the „universe of the eight greatest systems“(physics, chemistry, economy, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics):

**

** ** ** ** **

3455

James S. Saint wrote:

„Seems odd that in that picture biology and economics are on the same level.

And where is Governance?“ **

Yes, but it merely seems so. I had to decide whether I name that system „economics“ or „politics“ or „sociology“, and I decided to name it „economics“. The word „economics“ has its roots in the Ancient Greek words „oikos“ („house“, „flat“, „home“) and „nomos“ („law“). This is close to „SAM“, isn't it? :)

So the governance is in the system „economics“.

3456

And biology and economics are on the same level (2) and also not on the same level (II and III):

**

** ** ** ** **

Physics: 1a and Ib.
Chemistry: 1b and IIa.
Biology: 2a and IIb.
Economics: 2b and IIIa.
Semiotics: 3a and IIIb.
Linguistics: 3b and IVa.
Philosophy: 4a and IVb.
Mathematics: 4b and Ia.

1) Anorganic.
2) Organic.
3) Mental.
4) Spriritual.
I) Order (means mainly ordinary mode of being).
II) Matter (means mainly material mode of being).
III) Function (means mainly functional mode of being).
IV) Consciousness (means mainly conscious or phenomenal mode of being).

3457

The royal family was no target.

3458

Concerning the general control in SAM: Do humans control machines or do machines control humans?

3459

Why does the US governance consider the US veterans to be the greatest terrorists?

3460

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Concerning the general control in SAM: Do humans control machines or do machines control humans?« ** **

A silly question to be asking me.“ **

It is not a silly question. The topic of this thread is the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). Have you forgotten that? James S. Saint wrote:

„With SAM, machine serve only the purpose of increasing the IJOT of humans. Replacing the need for humans is counter to that goal. Humans need hopeful occupation in order to sense joy and maintain their priorities. Societies are more destroyed by disabling job opportunities than most anything else. Without full occupation, society become decadent, chaotic, diseased, suicidal, and rebellious.

A sentient being is made of;
1) Awareness
2) Understanding
3) Influence
4) Spirit (incentive, energy).

The only purpose for machines is to enhance those qualities for each human as well as each Coop. The machines do not need to be sentient in order to do that.“ **

Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

 

NACH OBEN 789) Arminius, 08.08.2015, 01:01, 02:30, 02:53, 03:39, 05:44, 06:43, 16:23, 16:49, 18:57, 19:53, 20:29, 20:47, 21:38, 22:23, 22:41, 22:49, 23:26, 23:50, 23:57 (3461-3479)

3461

Equal to You wrote:

„Sex is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the Sexocracy. The Sexocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises sex.“ **

It is like saying: (1) „Money is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the plutocracy. The plutocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises money.“ (2) „Work is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the workocracy. The workocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises work.“ (3) „Love is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the loveocracy. The loveocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises love.“ (4) „Music is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the musicocracy. The musicocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises music.“ (5) „The Demos is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the democracy. The democracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises the demos.“ (6) „Nobility is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the aristocracy. The aristocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises nobility.“ (7) „A king is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the monarchy. The monarchy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a king.“ (8) „A drug is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the drugocracy. The drugocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a drug.“ (9) „War is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the warocracy. The warocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a war.“ (10) „Machines are the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get them. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the machinocracy. The machinocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises machines." .... And so on, and os on. .... The world is full of such examples. .... It is always the same error - and always based on a proton pseudos.

Sex is not the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's not why it's called the sexocracy. The sexocracy does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise sex. .... IIt is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.

And by the way, Equal to You:

Equality is not the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's not why it's called the egalitarianism. The equality does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise equality. .... It is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.

3462

Sauwelios wrote:

„I recently came to understand the last four great ages or Aeons of the Western world as follows:

1) the Homeric Age as the age of the theistic deification of nature;
2) the Platonic Age as the age of the theistic demonisation of nature;
3) the Machiavellian Age as the age of the non-theistic demonisation of nature;
4) the Nietzschean Age as the age of the non-theistic deification of nature.

We are now in the transitional period between 3 and 4, in which the two overlap. The necessary link between the two is nihilism.“ **

Your theory of „the four great ages or Aeons of the Western world“ is too much originated from Friedrich W. Nietzsche, thus too much Nietzsche-orientated. Long before Nietzsche there were Goethe and the philosophers of the Deutsche Romantik (German Romantic) who deeply idealised the nature, so that one can speak of a very strong deification of nature. Most of them were pantheists. A deification is always theistic. Of course. Duh! A „non-theistic deification“ is not possible.

So at least your 4) has to be corrected:

4) the Romantic Age as the age of the pantheistic deification of nature.

3463

Equal to You wrote:

„The forces of evolution have primed our sex drives to be extremely powerful. The more powerful the sex drive the higher chance that the organism will pass on its genes. That's why sex is a fundamental desire. Evolution has made sexual desire powerful, not work or love or music or money.“ **

There are other „drives“ and desires that are more important than sex. Do you not know them? Do you not breathe? Do you not drink? Do you not eat? Is there no metabolism in your body? If not, then you are no living being.

And there are many people who prefer, for example, work or love or money, not sex.

There are even people who hate sex, for eaxmple Anna Nicole Smith who said: „I hate for men to want sex all the time. I hate sex anyway.“

Pandora wrote:

„»I hate for men to want sex all the time. I hate sex anyway.«

»All women want is to be loved – and all men are jerks!«

»I don't love anyone but I'll find someone just to get preg and not let him no. Is that so bad. I don't think so. Men are pigs.« (From a letter to her mother).

- Anna Nicole Smith.“ **

And Pandora even thinks that the „straight male ... will end up below a gay man-whore“.

Pandora wrote:

„Ah, men and their need for sex. In such society a straight male will eventually find himself at the very bottom of the pecking order.

If sex is the currency, then females will end up at the top: prostitutes, as well as women who will use 'free' sex for manipulative reasons.

Then gay men prostitutes.

Then regular straight men.

Yes, dear straight male, you will end up below a gay man-whore.“ **

3464

The religion of modern nihilism are all these ideologies that have been confronting us since the beginning of modernity. Besides nihilism itself: liberalism, egalitarianism, fraterianism, nationalism, internationalism, communism, socialism, fascism, globalism, feminism, sexism, genderism, and some other isms. These ideologies are modern religions or nihilistic religions.

3465

Laughing Man wrote:

„Nihilism is the positing of an absence of objective purpose.

All of those other ideologies or philosophies are positing a purpose ....“ **

If you are a nihilist and say „I am positing an absence of objective purpose“ you will not be nihilstically successful. Most of the other humans do not want an absence of objective purpose, unless they are already nihilists. You are an honest nihilist, Laughing Man. But the most nihilists are not honest. They often do not know that they are nihilists, although they are. So by positing a purpose you can be nihilstically successful - either you do it consciously or unconsciously. But you do not have to do it.

3466

Laughing Man wrote:

„Having spent my life without money a majority of the time. Money can indeed buy happiness and anybody who says otherwise is a schmuck.“ **

A fool, or a clown, or a liar, or a hypocrite.

Money is not a problem. A problem is the interest.

3467

Laughing Man wrote:

„Interest is inherent within money.“ **

That is the reason why interest was forbidden for Christians but not for Jews - in the same countries. That was odd but true. It should be forbidden either for everyone or for noone.

3468


Equal to You wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There are other "drives" and desires that are more important than sex. Do you not know them? Do you not breathe? Do you not drink? Do you not eat? Is there no metabolism in your body? If not, then you are no living being. :shock:

That you would write this just proves you are not reading what I write properly- see next post.“ **

You are the one who does not read what other ILP members write in this thread. If you had read the text of other ILP members, then you would have learned a lot. But you have not. .... Pity.

Equal to You wrote:

„Equal to You wrote:

»I know that humans have more than one fundamental desire. I said sexual desire is a fundamental desire, then listed the others. If you're going to respond to my posts at least read them properly. Human beings will not become 'frustrated' if they do not fulfill the other fundamental desires, they will die if they do not fulfill the other desires. If you don't get air, nutrition, excretion, hydration and sleep then you die. Sexual desire is the only fundamental desire where you don't actually die without it, that's why society is able to make such a mess of it without immediately wiping itself out.«“ **

That is nonsense. There are many other desires where you don't actually die without it. And if you had read my posts properly, then you would have known this. One of my posts (try to read it properly):

Copied post.

Equal to You, I am afraid you will never learn the right basics.

Equal to You wrote:

„I'm not responding to you anymore Arminius.“ **

Are you again frustrated, my boy?

I have given you all the informations you need in order to understand that your „sexocracy“ is nonsense - based on a proton pseudos.

Other humans desire money, work, love, war, lierature, music, sports, machines, a healthier life, a happier life, and many other pleasures - but not or not necessarily sex.

Are you from the UK? If so, then - please (!) - realise that the Victorian era is over!

3469


Opa wrote:

„Arminius, are you writing this for yourself?“ **

Not really.

Opa wrote:

„Because almost all posts are yours. It is not to get opinions, or information, I think.“ **

I am just trying to make the thread more interesting. Most ILP members are not interested in linguistics - and, by the way, also not interested in demography or in comparison of economics with sociology or psychology. They are not even interested in philosophy.

I wrote:

„I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:

(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«).“ ** **

3470

All your „sexocrats“ are wasting time. Your „idea“ is not new. Those with that idea were, are, and will be wasting time.

Your „project sexocracy“ is foredoomed to failure. It is based on a proton pseudos.

All typical Jacobean „projects“ are foredoomed to failure.

**

3471

James S. Saint wrote:

„Solomon said to not loan or borrow money. The Judists took that to mean, »not amongst us Jews. But anything is okay concerning others.«“ **

Exactly.

James S. Saint wrote:

The Pope advised to never change more than a very small interest, but the protestants couldn't resist the temptation to extort extreme wealth through the same usury schemes being used by the Judists against the Christians.

Money was never the problem. Merely "usury"/"interest". Use money for trade. But do not rent money, else get totally dominated by users.“ **

It is better to rent a bike.

Mechanical Monster wrote:

„Money is a symbolic stand-in for value (real or imagined value). Interest/debt is extracting value from the future into the present via this mediating-symbolic power that money is. When you borrow $5000 for buying a car you are transferring value from the future into the present: you gain a car now while requiring to pay future values (symbolized in the cash you will pay your loan with) later on. It's a temporal transfer.

The problem is such transfers can malfunction due to that temporal displacement. You might lose the ability to pay those values in the future, the symbolic power of the money itself changes as well since transactions are always relative in nature and the broader relative economy determines money's ability to fluidly negotiate economic situations. Inflation can make loans more attractive to borrowers and less attractive to lenders, for one example.

Just because Jews said usury is bad doesn't make it so.“ **

It does:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Solomon said to not loan or borrow money. The Judists took that to mean, »not amongst us Jews. But anything is okay concerning others.«“ **

Mechanical Monster wrote:

Borrowing against future value and betting on expected and planned gains is a vital part of being alive, all animals do this when they gather food, build dwellings, hibernate, mark off territory, stalk and hunt, etc. Humans are just a lot better at this whole negotiating cross-temporal interactions of value and values-anticipation.

Don't buy into the hype that money or ursury are bad, but understand how it works and manage the risks. That's what life is all about.“ **

No. There is not one single phenomenon but many phenomena what life is all about. Don't buy into the hype that waiver is bad.

3472

Laughing Man wrote:

„I just don't think one can be a genuine nihilist by positing any kind of purpose in the objective sense.“ **

Do you not know any famous nihilistic philosopher who was just a „genuine nihilist by positing any kind of purpose in the objective sense“?

3473

Orbie wrote:

„Money is beyond good and vil, it is a necessary form of tryng to simplify barter.“ **

Money is primarily and mainly a means of barter, but it is also a means of hoarding and of making more money by interest, usury, banking, speculation, insurance/assurance, ... and so on. So money is not totally beyond good and evil.

3474

Your „sexocracy“ has nothing at all to do with genes and evolution, nothing at all to do with offspring, nothing at all to do with children, nothing at all to do with family.

You just want to have sex with young girls. And this for ever and ever.

You ignoring all the lots of posts that call attention to your „sexocracy“ error, because you do not want to discuss but to dictate your „sexocracy“ error and terror. Dictating error and terror is typical Jacobean.

Why are you so obsessed?

3475

James S. Saint wrote:

„Orbie wrote:

»But, if money could not rise above the level of exchanging goods and services, there could not conceivably be re-investment, or what the name ›progress‹.

If, the money earned=things bought, there would never be surplus value.

I agree to the linear idea of value and worth, but, it would also knock out incentive. Incentive equals the difference between current value and the expectation for more. Human nature is grounded on an increasing
rate of change in value.« **

Emmm ... No.

That is like saying that drug trafficking makes more money, so it's good that we have it.
If usury is your incentive for progress, evolution should step in and regress you.“ **

Yes. There must be a regulation. All things and phenomena that humans invent mut be regulated, because human inventions belong to culture. Nature has its own regulation.

3476

Can I also have a beer, please?

3477

Equal to You wrote:

Arminius wrote:

„Your »sexocracy« has nothing at all to do with genes and evolution, nothing at all to do with offspring, nothing at all to do with children, nothing at all to do with family.

You just want to have sex with young girls. And this for ever and ever.

You are ignoring all the lots of posts that call attention to your "sexocracy" error, because you do not want to discuss but to dictate your "sexocracy" error and terror. Dictating error and terror is typical Jacobean.

Why are you so obsessed?


Arminius ... seriously ... you're just embarrassing yourself.“ **

„Thanks“ for your „response“, because you wrote exactly 656 minutes ago::

Equal to You wrote:

„I'm not responding to you anymore Arminius.“ **

How embarrassing!

I can't take your „sexocracy“ seriously. You have no serious arguments, and you can't have any, because your „sexocracy“ is based on a proton pseudos. This has to do with your very individual desires, your own self-descriptions:

Apaosha wrote:

I think this thread is one of the most eloquent self-descriptions I have yet read on this forum:

„Eqaul to You wrote:

»In a Sexocracy everyone would be able to fulfill their sexual desires because of the accessibility of SSPs. They wouldn't have to feel guilty about using SSPs as the SSPs would enjoy the highest levels of luxury and using their services would be considered natural and healthy. Also drugs would be legalized and regulated for adult use.« **

You expose yourself so carelessly here.“ **

You are the only one who is embarrassing himself.

You have no single argument, merely excuses and accusations. That is no discussion. That is your written showmanship, your ridiculous self-description.

How embarrassing!

3478

Orbie wrote:

„Ya, wohl, licht oder dark, bitte?“ **

Hell oder dunkel, Orbie? Dunkel, bitte.

Ja, danke!

3479

Ierrellus, are you having a beer with the ILP Bob?

**

Bob.

 

NACH OBEN 790) Arminius, 09.08.2015, 05:13 (3480)

3480

Laughing Man wrote:

„Money is about control. Plain and simple.“ **

Money is also about control, yes, but not only:

„Money is primarily and mainly a means of barter, but it is also a means of hoarding and of making more money by interest, usury, banking, speculation, insurance/assurance, ... and so on. So money is not totally beyond good and evil.“ ** **

If you control the money, then you will pretty soon also control almost all of the rest that can be contolled. This would not work, if the possibility of money control was forbidden. But it is not forbidden. The main reason for the possibility of money control is the compounded interest, thus usury, which causes the exponential increase of the debt, namely of those who were, are, and will be more and more indebted, thus controlled.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN