Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

<= [831][832][833][834][835][836][837][838][839][840] =>

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
2017 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
2021 210
2022 40
2023 40
P. Z.
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
P. Z.
S. E.
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 831) Arminius, 20.09.2015, 04:55, 20:20, 20:32, 22:25, 23:06 (3819-3823)


Some geographical facts and data and also some statistical data (based on the year 2010) referring to the muslim Immigration to Europe (basic year: 2010).

Northern Europe includes 13 countries and territories: Channel Islands, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Isle of Man, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom. Western Europe includes nine countries and territories: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands and Switzerland. Southern Europe includes 17 countries and territories: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Gibraltar, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Malta, Montenegro, Portugal, Republic of Macedonia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Vatican City. Eastern Europe includes 11 countries and territories: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine.

** **
** ** **

„France’s Muslim population is expected to climb from 4.7 million in 2010 to 6.9 million in 2030. Germany’s Muslim population is expected to increase from 4.1 million to 5.5 million during this period. Although Italy, Sweden, Spain, Belgium and Austria have smaller numbers of Muslims than the U.K., Germany and France, their Muslim populations are forecast to grow significantly in the next 20 years. The Muslim populations in Italy and Sweden are projected to more than double in size, while those in Spain, Belgium and Austria will likely increase significantly.

Though Ireland has a relatively small Muslim population, it is expected to have the largest percentage increase in Europe in the number of Muslims. Its Muslim population is projected to increase by almost 188%. Other European countries expected to have percentage increases of more than 100% include Finland, Norway, Sweden and Italy. Countries projected to have percentage increases of 50-100% include the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. The Republic of Macedonia is projected to have the largest increase in the portion of its population that is Muslim. By 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 40.3% of Macedonia’s population, up 5.4 percentage points from 2010 (34.9% Muslim). In Sweden, the Muslim share of the population is projected to increase by five percentage points, from 4.9% in 2010 to 9.9% in 2030.“ **

Muslim populations in Europe today are more youthful than their non- Muslim counterparts:


See also: **

Source: **


Your said post „debunks“ (**) nothing, and your „fabricated diagram“ (**) does not prove anything.

And I have answered all your questions, some of them even several times.

But you have not answered my questions. Here is one of them again:

What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?


Two Children.

A boy and a girl are talking: „I am a boy“, says the blond child. „I'm a girl“,says the black-haired child. At least one of the children is lying.

What hair color does the girl have?


You asked: „Is a religious society better?“ **

If you agree to my statement that religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems, then you also agree to the statement that this spiritual exercise systems are one of the typical human systems and can merely disappear with the humans. So there is no areligious society possible, because religion means a spiritual exercise system. Religion does not only mean „tradition“ and so on and so forth. Religion means a spiritual exercise system. It can be as modern as other human systems. Modern religious systems are, for example, ideological systems, regardless what they claim.

So, actually, you asked: „Is a society better?“


Topic: Can you imagine to be dead?


NACH OBEN 832) Arminius, 21.09.2015, 01:03, 01:24, 02:31, 02:56, 03:31, 16:44, 17:05, 17:14, 17:50 (3824-3832)


Orbie wrote:

„Yes I can, definitely. Now You know me as well as I U, therefore if I tell You of this do not please judge me incensere, or worse yet a total,liar, or a kookier, insane person.

Last week, and I did post this incidence in my daily journal, I died, and for sure. It was at the end of my nightmare, and that is described in somewhat detail there in the same article, where in my dream Eckankaar mode took over ;and incidentally I have only had this experience about 3 or four times, all involved around death ; and I saw myself hovering over a body which I at first could not recognize. It was monstrous looking, or not even that, a dark figure, not dark in the sense of not enigma ting light, but a dearness covered it, and the light could not escape. As soon as I saw this figure, I remember letting out a horrendous , unearthly roar, whereby I awoke. On analyzing this, later on I my conscious state, I became convinced that figure was none other, then myself.“ **

But did you really imagine to be dead then?


Amorphos wrote:

„I can imagine being conscious and that i had died, given that i still existed after i knew i had died.

I can also imagine that my consciousness would be essentially the same, but not receiving info from the brain/senses. Something like dreaming.

I think that perception is part of the consciousness i.e. Focused awareness. Thus i would be consciously perceiving whatever the non-physical world was like. From there on it depends upon what that ‘otherworld’ would be.

If all of that > i would perceive directly other consciousnesses as if there were nothing between us, seeing how there would be no physical body or world. I would also perceive the ‘space’ we all occupy or world.

As qualia of mind are non-physical [though currently correlative to the physical in this body], then i would see the other people as if i were dreaming them perhaps.

Mostly it depends on if i am still conscious after death.“ **

So you are saying that you do not need a brain for thinking ... (?) ....


Orbie wrote:

„Thinking in pictures is all there was before awakening.“ **

Do you mean „imagining“ when you speak about „thinking in pictures“, and, if so, how can you be sure that „imagining“ is „thinking in pictures“? Perhaps imagining has nothing to do with thinking, or/and both come together then and only then, if they are associated (thus: although they themselves have nothing to do with each other).

Orbie wrote:

„It can not even be considered as thinking.“ **

You mean that „thinking in pictures“ is not „thinking“, and, If so, then we should not call it „thinking in pictures“, but we should call it „imagining“ or „representing“.

Orbie wrote:

„But You need a brain for that, unless brain content retains a held together virtual sense, beyond thought, which I suspect happens in this type experience.“ **

Which experience do you exactly mean? The one you described in your first post of this thread? Or what Amorphos described?


Kriswest wrote:

„I have been near death many times as a child even to have stopped heart.“ **

Do you remember that?

Kriswest wrote:

„Teen years were not health near death just stupid actions near death, as an adult rare to no near or heart stops.“ **

If I may ask you, then I ask you: Why?

Kriswest wrote:

„Yea, death has been a companion. I have lost many humans and animals that I love to death. I do not grieve, I am now grateful for the lives that have affected me. Death is the end of a carnival ride, it just is what it is.“ **

But what is it exaxtly, especially when it comes to imagine it? It is the opposite or/and opponent of life, what is before and after life, okay, but that is not what one imagines when one imagines to be dead.


Armorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So you are saying that you do not need a brain for thinking ... (?) ....« ** **

If i am still there after i am dead yes ~ that was the postulation.“ **

And this postulation is a kind of „life“ as we know it for example from the imagination / representation of almost all religions.

Amorphos wrote:

„More generally, i think that qualia [experience, sound [as it is experienced] and colour etc] aren’t physical, so dreaming and visualising in that sense is plausible.
They are transferred and carried by the physical, we know that much, so if the physical is damaged such that it cannot carry the qualia, then i don’t know. I do however think that qualities are distinct, so its possible that they can exist without a physical transport. ..but it’s also possible that they come into existence and stop existing when their physical counterparts change/end.“ **

Do you think or believe that the consciousness / awareness is not merely based on the physical reality and does not need a brain?


Platospuppy wrote:

„The cause of the expansion is unimportant in resolving of whether it is occurring or not.“ **

That is nonsense, because it is no scientifical and thus also no philosophical answer. Every theory must be compatible with the last possible cause.

Platospuppy wrote:

„The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of expansion theory.“ **

That is not true.

Platospuppy wrote:

„You are still not responding appropriately to my posts.
In order to be a good philosopher, you must address each point with equal vigour and attention.“ **

That is your personal self-descriptionion“, because you are the one who is still not responding appropriately to my posts.

So again: What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?


You do not know what all the others know.

Try to think about the definition of „religion“.


Incorrect wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Two Children.

A boy and a girl are talking: ›I am a boy‹, says the blond child. ›I'm a girl‹, says the black-haired child. At least one of the children is lying.

What hair color does the girl have?« ** **

Blond.“ **

You are correct, although your username is „incorrect“.

Incorrect wrote:

„Arminius wrote:


Seven people, A, B, C, D, E, F, G discuss which weekday is today:

A: ›The day after tomorrow is Wednesday.‹
B: ›No, today is Wednesday.‹
C: ›You both are wrong, Wednesday is tomorrow.‹
D: ›Today is not Monday, not Tuesday, and not Wednesday.‹
E: ›I am sure that yesterday was Thursday.‹
F: ›No, yesterday was Tuesday.‹
G: ›All I know is, that yesterday was not Saturday.‹

If only one statement is true, on which weekday was that conversation?« ** **

Sunday.“ **

You are correct, although your username is „incorrect“.


Carleas wrote:

„I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean, but it's true:

1, because that's the smallest (positive) integer.

Perhaps the question is better posed like this: ]
Suppose the smallest square is 1x1. How big is the largest square?

Is that the same problem?“ **

Be careful, because the following tab contains parts of the solution process:

Choosing the most qualified integer is alraedy part of the task. At first you have to derive equations from the diagram, then you must pay attention to some subtleties, then you have to solve the equations, and after that you should choose the most qualified integer ... and so on.

For reasons of simplification you should choose „1“ as the most qualified integer for one variable.

NACH OBEN 833) Arminius, 22.09.2015, 18:29, 18:33, 18:42, 18:50, 23:13, 23:29, 23:57 (3833-3839).


You are derailing the thread again. I warn you: Stop your personal attacks. They have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So if you are not interested in it and want to be still off-topic, then post in the threads of the off-topic sector (**).


Carleas wrote:

„I did a bit of work on this before I realized that they are all different sizes, which means the whole shape is not a square (otherwise B = C).

So I have to start over, which I will do later. My basic plan of attack is to list out the equations (e.g. A + B = C + E + F, etc.), then let J = 1 and solve for each other variable, then multiply them all by whatever gets them all to be integers (I was wrong earlier, J can't be 1, because A - (B + H) < J, so if J = 1, either A, B, or H could not be a integer).“ **

Just do it.


Phoneutria wrote:

„Each sentence invalidates itself, so at any given time, only 1 sentence is incorrect. So at end 99 correct, 1 wrong.“ **

That is false.


Incorrect, all your solutions are incorrect (**|**).


While reading I was influenced by my wishful thinking (), because I wished very much (too much!) that you solved the riddle. But, unfortunately, you did not solve the riddle, and I became sad.

Please try again.


Phoneutria wrote:

„If a first reading fooled you, maybe I was close ....

Each sentence invalidates itself, therefore they are all false.

Please?“ **

No. Unfortunately no. Please try again.


I remember a situation after having an accident when my consciousness and also the pictures came back. It was similar to what you can sometimes see in a movie. There was a white color, perhaps a white curtain, that slowly disappeared and let the reality came through.


NACH OBEN 834) Arminius, 23.09.2015, 01:17, 01:32, 02:26, 02:43, 03:10, 03:42, 04:10, 04:23, 04:34, 04:54, 05:05, 05:06, 05:16, 05:20, 14:43, 14:59, 16:21, 16:58, 17:29, 23:57 (3840-3859)


What are - according to the opening post of this thread - gays and lesbians, „shemales“ and „hefemales“ then? Pakistani immigrants and immigrants in Pakistan?


Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»War has much to do with the market and is one of the most profitable businesses, probably the most profitable business.« ** **

I disagree. War is profitable because it externalizes effectively all of the cost, and it is based entirely on rent-seeking. It doesn't create value, and probably the best way to decrease the incidence of war and increase peace is to create markets.“ **

So you do not disagree, because your arguments are not in disagreement with my argument. War has much to do with the market.

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»A ›free market‹ means an absolutely free market. That's logical, even tautological.« ** ** ** **

I think it is an abuse of language to call the relationship between a lion and a gazelle a »market«.“ **

Nobody said that, Carleas. I said that a „free market“ must logically be an „absolutely free market“, otherwise it would not be a „free market“ but merely either a „relatively free market“ or „no market at all“. A „free market“ is very similar to what we call „nature“. Nobody can seriously deny that.

Carleas wrote:

„And of course, that is not what any economist means when they endorse the market as a tool to improve human well-being.“ **

In a philosophy forum (is ILP a philosophy forum?) the meaning of any economist is not as relevant as you obviously think.

Carleas wrote:

„It is central to an idea of a market economy that exchanges are voluntary on the part of both participants. An "absolutely free" market would be one in which any such voluntary exchange would be allowed.“ **

Yes - like I said: the „free market“ and what we call „nature“ are very similar.

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Besides the fact that your picture shows projections the world population is still growing: ....

Right now, in this moment, as I write this sentence, the daily increase of the world population is about 230000.« ** **

Sure, but the growth rate is falling, and it's been falling for decades ....“ **

Who said anything different? I, for example, did not say that there was no falling of the growth rate.

Carleas wrote:

„That decrease is centered on countries where wealth is highest, as your map corroborates. The developing world population is ballooning because millions of people are being lifted out of poverty. Once their incomes start to resemble those of the poor in the developed world, their growth rate will similarly fall.“ **

Your interpretations is vague, because the derivation of economcal data from dermographical data is not always unproblematic. Wealth has also to do with demography, yes, but it does not only correlate with demography. The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies:

TFR of selected countries



Here is another interesting projection of the world population growth rate:

World population growth rate

Just thinking about it.


Stick to the topic, Puppy, or post in another thread. I am not interested in your personal attacks.

I am not playing a card at all, but you are playing every and any card, because it seems to be opportune to you.

Stick to the topic! No single „you“ is needed, if one sticks to the topic of this thread: Geology. We (except you) are talking about geology not about „persons“.

If there will be still any word like „you“ or similar words in your next posts, then I am going to not respond any of your posts.


Phoneutria wrote:

„If a first reading fooled you, maybe I was close ....

Each sentence invalidates itself, therefore they are all false.

Please?“ **

Phoneutria wrote:

„I was reading it wrong again.

Has to be 50-50.“ **

Both answers are false.


Time means change, yes, but times also means return of the same.


Moderators have to respond to those who have reported posts! Why do they sometimes not respond to them, although the reasons for the reported posts are obvious and absolutely justified?


Kriswest wrote:

„Death is just a part. A triangle, a rectangle, a circle etc. has two ends but, where? An end , a beginning are parts. When you get to the end you get to the beginning. A straight line you can argue has no such but, think about it, a start, a beginning, but , why a beginning and how? Why and ending and how? The how on physical death is easy to a point that we can see. We tend to forget about the law of energy that states : Energy does not cease it changes. All life , all material contains, is /has energy. Tell me where it truly ends? Consider that this life is not truly us it is a journey a piece of that which never ceases. Cling only to this and you could lose the whole. I am not great with words , I do hope you get it.“ **

Would you say that, actually, there are no beginnings and ends?

If one thinks a „beginning“ or/and an „end“, then there are often also thoughts like the following two questions:
„How does a beginning begin?“
„How does an end end?“


Hey, are you sure? You give up, Phoneutria?

Phoneutria wrote:

„Dude 99 is correct.“ **

Do you mean that the sentence of the 99th person correct? And if so: Why is the sentence of the 99th person correct? And what about the other persons? Please give a rationale why the sentence of the 99th person is correct and what about the other persons and why.



Zinnat wrote:

„They are like modern US.“ **

That does not follow as a conclusion from your opening post.


The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies:



Copied post in another thread.


Copied post in another thread.


Copied post in another thread.


Phoneutria, please answer my questions:

Phoneutria wrote:

„First I thought, there are only two possibilities. A single sentence being correcy, or none, because they are all mutually exclusive. But then, if none are correct, dude 100 would be correct. but if dude 100 is correct, then there would be 99 wrong sentences. so he can't be correct. If 1 sentence is correct and 99 are wrong, dude saying that there are exactly 99 wrong sentences is correct. Durrrface.“ **

You are still not exactly saying who is right and who is wrong and especially: why. So my questions again:

Do you mean that the sentence of the 99th person is correct? And if so: Why is the sentence of the 99th person correct? And what about the other persons? Please give a rationale why the sentence of the 99th person is correct and what about the other persons and why.


I was just saying this: „That does not follow as a conclusion from your opening post.“ (**|**). Not more. I was merely referring to your statement in the opening post and nothing else. With humor. So, to me, it was just irrelevant whether you or another person originally mentioned what you wrote in the opening post. What I wanted to know from you was the answer to the question (in other words) : Why US and not Pakistan?


Aeon wrote:

„ILP bans a few people merely for the (dangerous) ideas they present and talk about, which seems very anti philosophical, but then the staff allow other (cool kid club) posters to post death threats, veiled death threats, countless ad homs, derails, and all other kinds of nonsense. Seems like you need to be "cool" and then the rules don't apply to you.

Just don't be too philosophical.

The conclusion is obvious.“ **

If it were just merely a matter of coolness, then you would be right. But the title of this thread is: „Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?“

I do not need ILP. That is cool (just to use your word). If ILP is anti-philosophical and its staff allows any poster „to post death threats, veiled death threats, countless ad homs, derails, and all other kinds of nonsense“ (your words), then coolness is not the best advice when it comes to react to ILP and its staff. The best advice could be that in the long run you should stop posting on ILP! That would be cool. Do not allow ILP to become your drug!


@ The one who is so idiotic to think this thread would be „idiotic“.

The title of this thread is a question. And if you do not know what questions mean, then ask you therapist or your hairdresser (both are the same).

If one can imagine (imagine!) to be dead, then this one should tell us in this thread how and why this one can imagine to be dead. In other words: This thread is meaningful, and the reactions to it show very spectacularly that it is meaningful.


Kriswest wrote:

„Not sure if I can explain,
For a beginning there must exist something for it to begin just as with endings.
Energies are part of material. Take a rock, you can crush it to gravel or fine sand, you can heat it to melt or become an ash of type. It did not begin as a rock it is not ending as a rock. Yet what made the rock still is. Given the proper treatments it could be a rock again.
Our bodies and what we call souls/self had to have something to make them. The material and energy had to be there. They will be there after these bodies change. The energy of self cannot cease. Look at radio or TV. Those energies and how they go from a station to your TV or radio is a proof or example of this. The fact that we can measure the brain activity shows that what we are is leaving our bodies as energy. Yet we are. Now what happens to the energy? It can not end. It changes , adds itself to like or something. Parts may end here or there it may stay cohesive as a radio wave does. Either way your memories exist as part of some thing. A forming brain may take some of the energy. It may remain together in a form that is called spirit or ghost. Think about those two words and the ways we use them other than refering to our souls out of body. When you do that apply the thoughts back to the energy of self and think about radios, TV ,even light.“ **

So you think what is without a beginning and without an end is a ghost or a spirit as a kind of energy or just energy itself.


Please do not confuse „market“ with „free market“!

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So you do not disagree, because your arguments are not in disagreement with my argument. War has much to do with the market.« ** **

I do disagree ....“ **

I disagree.

Carleas wrote:

„Let me express my disagreement more clearly ....“ **

It is not necessary, because the problem has nothing to do with understanding.

Carleas wrote:

„Government rents are not determined by the market, they act outside the market to incentivize activity that the market would not incentivize.
- Government actors (who by and large wage war) are not market actors; they determine for themselves which costs, if any, they will pay.
Therefore, war does not have much to do with the market.“ **

Wars have much to do with the market. Government actors - as you understand them - are not absolutely free; the decision they make are decisions of their money givers who are market actors and mostly also market rulers. Governement actors depend on their money givers. So one should say that the money givers are the real government actors. What is usually called „government actors“ is not much more than a joke. Wars depend on decisions, and those who decide to have war are those who domain and regulate the market, thus also the market of weapons and so on. We do not have a „free market“ but merely a relatively free market. If we had a free market, then we would not be modern humans but merely humans of the Stone Age. Since humans know what a market „is“ or „could be“ they have been regulating it. If one denied that, then this one would not know much about humans, their history, especially the history of the market and most especially of the word „market“.

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»A ›free market‹ is very similar to what we call ›nature‹. Nobody can seriously deny that.« ** **

I can and do deny that. A market is based around voluntary exchanges.“ **

A market is regulated. If the marekt was not regulated, then it would be free, thus like nature. Economically said, the difference between the so-called „capitalism“ and the so-called „communism“ is not the market but the regulation degree of the market.

Carleas wrote:

„In »nature«, might makes right, there are no property rights, there is no rule of law governing what one can and cannot do.“ **

And „property rights“ mean laws, and laws mean regulated markets, not free markets. Note: My equation was never what you falsely interpreted as such: nature = market. No. I said:

»A ›free market‹ is very similar to what we call ›nature‹.« ** **

Carleas wrote:

„A market depends on both parties to a transaction willingly entering into the transaction, agreeing to it.“ **

Therefor you need regulations, thus laws, culture.

Carleas wrote:

„That is not »nature« in the sense represented by the pictures you posted (to which I was referring in mentioning the lion and the gazelle).“ **

Carleas, you forgot that I did not speak about any similarity of the market and nature but about the similarity of the free (thus: absolutely free!) market and nature.

Carleas wrote:

„If you mean something different by »nature«, please clarify. Otherwise, the market, even a very free market, seems very different from nature.“ **

No. A free market is similar to nature, not the same but similar. But the difference between a free market and a market (as we know it, namely regulated by rules/laws) is bigger than the difference between a free market and nature.

Carleas wrote:

„In nature, if I can beat you up, I can take your things.“ **

No, because I am more competent (more intelligent or/and stronger etc.) than you.

Thus: It depends on the competence whether one will be successful or not when it comes to beat another one up and to take another ones things.

Carleas wrote:

„In a market, if I want your things, I need to give you enough in return to convince you to give your things to me.“ **

Yes, and that is because our market is not a free but a regulated market. Our market is regulated by rules (laws).

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»In a philosophy forum (is ILP a philosophy forum?) the meaning of any economist is not as relevant as you obviously think.« ** **

But it is still quite relevant. What's the point of discussing a concept and trying to see what follows from it if we aren't going to accurately characterize that term? We could make up a million meanings for »market« to which economists would object, and find the awful consequences of all of them, but none of them would necessarily bear any relationship to the concept of a "free market" as its supports mean when they invoke that term. Nor, for that matter, would such discussions have anything to do with the »market« as I mean it when I describe the »market as information aggregator«.“ **

It is not relevant. This is „ILP“ („I Love Philosophy“) and not „ILL“ („I Love Liberalism“, also known as „I Love Lies“).

Arminius 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«).“ ** **

And by the way: You quoted me falsely. And that is not irrelevant, because the false quote leads to a different statement and a different interpretation of that statement. Please do not quote me falsely again.


NACH OBEN 835) Arminius, 24.09.2015, 01:32, 02:26, 04:12, 12:45, 13:18, 13:35 13:41 (3860-3866)


Phoneutria wrote:

„99 are wrong. Thus dude who said there are exactly 99 wrong sentences is correct.“ **

Yes. .... That is right.



The main difference between us in this discussion is that we have different concepts of a „free market“. Your concept of a „free market“ is just like the concept of a „market“ (= „regulated market“). My concept of a „free market“ differs much from the concept of a „regulated market“. We have to make a difference between a free market and a regulated narket. If we have rules (laws) for a market, then that market is already a regulated market, but if we have no single rule (law) for a market, then that market is a free market, thus similar to nature: „A“ is more competent (more intelligent or/and stronger ... and so on) than „B“; so „A“ beats up „B“ and takes „B's“ things.


Laughing Man wrote:

„Is the human mind all that natural?“ **


Laughing Man wrote:

„Is there a cut off point or separate distinction between mind and nature?“ **



This webforum lacks philosophy, although and because its name is „I Love Philosophy“.

Arminius wrote:

„Why do ILP moderators accept or even respect ILP members who do not even respect philosophical themes?

(1) Those who are not able to respect philosophical themes derail threads, subforums, and the whole philosophical forum of a board named „I Love philosophy“ („ILP“).
(2) Moderators are those who should prevent other ILP members from derailing threads, subforums, and the whole philosophical forum of a board named „I Love philosophy“ („ILP“).“ ** **

Arminius 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«).“ ** **

So what does an ILP moderator do, if you are philosophical?
And what is the conclusion?

Aeon wrote:

„Just don't be too philosophical.“ **

Yes, or: Just stop posting on ILP.


Other living beings have a market too. But is it a free market? Yes and no. For example: the male bonobos, know that they get sex and offspring if they give emotions / love; the female bonobos refuse, if they can, to have sex with the male bonobos, if they do not give emotions to the bonobo children. This may be interpreted as a prestage of prostitution, and it is a market of sex / love.


Religions can also be secular. Oh, yes. Very much.


I have given the answer already several times, Phoneutria. Just read the posts, please. In addition: I have no time now ... because I have to get the airplane ...: .... Holiday ....


NACH OBEN 836) Arminius, 01.10.2015, 19:23 (3867)


Greetings from ....

The following picture shows the island where I spend my holidays:


Which island is it?


NACH OBEN 837) Arminius, 02.10.2015, 16:40, 17:00, 17:22, 17:36, 17:52, 18:11, 19:21, 19:56, 20:21 (3868-3875)


James S. Saint wrote:

„They produced Karl Marx and Fred Nietzsche, didn't they. **

James, do you know the German humorist, poet, illustrator, painter, and inventor of comics and written comedy: H. C. Wilhelm Busch? He was born in 1832, thus a contemporary of both Karl Marx and Fiedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, and of course: Busch did not take them as serious as most of the ILP members do. H. C. Wilhelm Busch published his first comic illustrated cautionary tales in 1859 when Marx published his „Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“.


Back to the topic:

If the demographically armed societies are going to remain dangerous, then Europeans will perhaps leave Europe and go to those dangerous countries with racism politics, for example: Australia and New Zealand. These racism countries welcome only those humans who have enough money to enrich these racism countries. These racism countries are the real dangerous countries, especially of the near future, and will become even more dangerous than the current demographically armed societies.


Flannel Jesus!


Your statement is false, Phoneutria.

Try again.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Enjoy your holiday ....“ **

Thank you.

Maybe you are interested in the place where I spend my holidays (**|**).


James S. Saint wrote:

„MalesWhale.“ **

I guess you mean that as a wordplay.


Carleas (**).

A quote is a quote, and a definition is a definition.

If a child has to give three goodies in order to get one toy from another child, then this child knows the „price“ and can only be stopped „buying“ the wanted toy because of a law that is called „age of consent“ / „capacity to contract“, but this law does not change anything of the fact that there is a market for the said two children. A market does not have to be regulated in order to be a market.


Primal Rage (Erik) wrote:

„Imagine Sloterdijk's trilogy being called Being and Space.“ **

Yes. It is a continuation of Heidegger's „Sein und Zeit“ („Being and Time“).

Sloterdijk's Sphärologie (logic of spheres) is the method that increases the spaciousness of the world very much, while the usual discourses of the globalization decreases the world disgustfully.


Carleas wrote:

„I don't think this conflicts with anything I've said. My point was more that if Child 1 asks for three goodies for the toy, and Child 2 simply hits her and takes the toy, it is not a market.

A market does have to be voluntary to be a market. And that distinguishes the state of nature from an absolutely free market.“ **

The absolutely free market in nature can be and is not seldom „voluntary“ (your word), as I already said several times. The said market of the bonobos is a „voluntary“ (your word) market, because the bonobos can decide whether they „buy“ or not. And my example of the children explains the same: the market is voluntary, but the laws of the adults do not or not always allow children to buy things. Your example with the girl that hits the boy because of he toy is an example that simply shows how violent regulations can be. Laws do not have to be written laws in order to be laws. The female bonobo shows the male bonobo the „laws“ as well as the female child shows the male child the „laws“ by hitting him.


NACH OBEN 838) Arminius, 03.10.2015, 19:30 (3876)


Who administrates and who moderates on the webforum „Know Thyself“?


NACH OBEN 839) Arminius, 09.10.2015, 19:37, 19:44, 21:48 (3878-3880)


James S. Saint wrote:

„The concept of »being dead« is an oxymoron. A being, in the human sense, refers to the life of the body. If the body is dead, there is no life, thus no »being«.“ **

Being is being. You mean that there is no living being then. Okay. But there is being. Being is being. Thus being does not necessarily mean living being.


And there is this website address.


The humans are the only species that is capable of designing their own replacement as a species and thus their own extinction.


NACH OBEN 840) Arminius, 03.01.2016, 07:02, 07:02, 07:02, 07:10, 07:11, 07:11, 07:15, 07:17, 07:19, 07:27, 07:29, 07:32, 07:36, 07:42, 07:51, 07:53, 08:07, 08:46, 09:45, 10:13, 10:53, 11:49, 12:27, 12:44, 13:31, 14:08, 14:33, 15:05, 16:48, 17:01, 17:51, 18:47, 19:21, 19:42, 19:55, 20:19, 20:32, 20:49 21:16, 22:02, 22:24, 22:54 (3880-3921)


Happy new year.

The book with the following title should be translated soon, or you read it in German: Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit (my translation: The awful children of the modern era) - by Peter Sloterdijk, 2014.

And the follwing video I already posted in your other thread refers to the said book:

Arminius wrote:

„My video contribution to your thread is the following video: ** .“ ** **


James S. Saint wrote:

„Actually Arminius, this post belongs on this thread too: **

The reprogramming of a society begins with the mid-wives and nannies/media (whether human or machine).“ **

Yes. Reprogramming always starts with education because the young people are the most influenceable people.



- Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Live in London, 1968. -
- Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Live in Stockholm, 1973. -
- Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Dupree's Paradise (live in Stockholm), 1973. -

What do you think about that?


Fantastic! ** ** **


Copied post in another thread.


Copied post in another thread.


James S. Saint wrote:

„And without mass particles, there won't be any photons either.“ **

Perhaps mass particles need photons, but photons do not need mass. Whithout photons there won't be any mass particles.


Mithus wrote:

„Hard to understand for somebody who learned already as a schoolkid how important it would be to learn from history, in order to prevent the recurrence of certain situations.“ **

There is also a great interest in the prevention of learning from history.


Another „sucker“ (**) or the end-consumer or the last man.

„»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ Translation: „»We have discovered happiness«- say the last men and blink.“ (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche).


@ Maia (**).

Nobody envies the Jews, but a lot of humans envy the Whites (also called Caucasians or Indogermanics / Indoeuropeans / Aryans), especially the White men.

Rassistische Preise

Where is the price for the Jews? If there were anybody envious of Jews, then there would be a high price for Jews too.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Racism is the act of making decisions based upon race. It is a specific case of the »over-generalization« logic fallacy.

And it is a simple true fact that the Judists (not necessarily all Jews) are more guilty than any in that regard: »We are God's chosen [better than the rest, above all creatures]«. They are also the most guilty of murder because of their belief that the goyem are not really human, thus to them, causing the death of goyem is not really murder.

But then again, the Aryans do play in that same arena.

It is merely a competition of the Godwannabes.“ **

The analogy of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Germans in particular or of all the Jews and all the Aryans in general inspired Hitler.

The intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Germans is similar, the intelligence of all the Jews and all the Aryans is also similar - since 1945 the difference is merely that Jews are allowed to be proud of themselves and Aryans have to feel ashamed of themselves.


The words „Jew“, „jewish“ and other words with the same stem do not refer to biological aspects, thus also not to „race“ but to an ethnic or religious group. The race Jews belong to is called the „semitic race“.

So Jews are not a race but an ethnic or merely religious group. The current propagandists just want them to be a „race“, because otherwise there propganda would not have the effect that is has: racism as a killer argument against any opposition and in order to control 99% of the humans.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Magnus Anderson wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Racism is the act of making decisions based upon race. It is a specific case of the 'over-generalization' logic fallacy.‹ **

It's more than that. Racism is ethnic egoism. Egoism means being concerned only about your own group and unconcerned about all other groups. Racism would then mean being concerned only about your own ethnic group while being unconcerned about all other ethnic groups.« **

That is merely one type of racist ..., »homoracist«.

And its »Portman«, not Pittman (originally »Neta-Lee Hershlag«).“ **

The original form of „Hershlag“ is the German „Herzschlag“. So the original name of this lady is „Herzschlag“, and the English translation of the word „Herzschlag“ is „Heartbeat“.

Egoism does not mean „being concerned only about your own group and unconcerned about all other groups“ (**). „Being concerned only about your own group and unconcerned about all other groups“ means Chauvinism.

A race is a biolgical term, thus does not (necessarily ) refer to an ethnic group.

And instead of the word „homoracist“ I use the more correct word „autoracist“.


Maia wrote:

„What's so bad about the New World Order?


One world government ....“ **

Yes. That is very bad.

Maia wrote:

„What's so bad about the New World Order?


Banning guns ....“ **

That will never happen - unless you mean „banning guns of the poor and defenseless people“.

Maia wrote:

„What's so bad about the New World Order?


Socialism ....“ **

Yes. That is very bad.

Maia wrote:

„What's so bad about the New World Order?


Anti-Christianity ....“ **

Yes. That is very bad too. Have you already bought your „nice“ burka, Maia?


This new world order (globalism) can only and is going to lead to a global chaos. The result of the new world order can only and is going to be the survival of (a) no one or (b) few of the wilderness.


Think about it:

Abgetriebener MenschAbgetriebener MenschAbgetriebener Mensch mit PlazentaTotes Kind im Eimer


Political correctness in a globalistic phase is the most fatal behavior. Globalism destroys everything on this planet, thus also and especially humans.


Einstein did not want an universe that is open and changes the dense of ist matter. He wanted a closed universe in which the dense of the matter does not change.


Perfect Logicians.

Players A and B have got the number 12 written on their foreheads. Everyone sees the number on the front of the other but does not know the own number. The game master tells them that the sum of their numbers is either 24 or 27 and that this numbers are positive integers (thus also no zero).

Then the game master asks repeatedly A and B alternately, if they can determine the number on the own forehead.

A: „No“.
B: „No“.
A: „No“.
B: „No“.
A: „No“.

After how many „no“s does the game end, if at all?


„Where Fichte had lectured: »Act like nobody!«, Stirner replicated: »Do what you can do alone on the world: Enjoy yourself!«“ - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 461. **

„»The rhizome is an anti-genealogy. The rhizome passes through conversion, expansion, conquest, catch and stitch .... The rhizome is about ... ›becoming of all kinds‹.« (Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, Rhizome, p. 35.) The invisible underground mesh (network) against the visibly sprouting, striving upward tree ....“ - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 472. **

Against any past and future - the anti-genealogy - that is one of the main aspects of the modernity, when fashion replaces customs (morals).


The opposite of you? You can be your own opposite, thus without any other body / person.


And you do not think that the discovery itself could be the problem, the mistake? You need light in order to discover mass particles. So for observers their result can only be and is always that „mass was before light“, but that does not need to be true.


For the modern human there is only consumption, no past, no future, no children, no parents, thus no familiy, no genealogy but only consumption, enjoy-yourself-ism. So there is also no sacred thing for the modern human, because for the modern human there is only consumption, no custom (moral) but fashion that has replaced all customs (morals), no sacred things, unless they are consumable. The modern religion (ideology, consumistic manifesto) is consumption, enjoy-yourself-here-and-now-ism, anti-genealogy, the devil-may-care-attitude.


It is not possible to completely understand God. If it were possible, then God would not be God. This impossibility is also the difference between religion and science, and this difference may be called theology. However. It is impossible to prove or disprove God, otherwise we would just know everything. God can do what no one else can do (the accent is on the word „can“). If we were capable of proving that God exists or that God not exists, then we would not need religion, theology, science and so on, because we would know everything, thus the imposibility too. Proving that God exists or that God not exists means knowing as much as only God can know. All other meanings and definitions make no sense in this case.


James S. Saint wrote

„Arminius wrote:

»Mithus wrote:

›Hard to understand for somebody who learned already as a schoolkid how important it would be to learn from history, in order to prevent the recurrence of certain situations.‹ **

There is also a great interest in the prevention of learning from history.« ** **

They can't rewrite it if people keep learning it.“ **

Yes, of course, that is also true, but the accent in your sentence is on the word „if“, because the problem is that the preventors of learning from history and the keepers of learnig from history have one point where they agree, and the preventors have more power.


Most of the buildings Richard Buckminster Fuller constructed were built because of his and other's interests. So the increasing of the dense of the cities was merely his excuse.

In the third part of Peter Slotredijk's „Spheres“ (especially in chapter I) Fuller is often mentioned, yes, but his buildings are primarily representation buildings.


I was referring to the discoverer, the observer, the empiricism when I wrote that „you need light in order to discover mass particles“ (**|**), although it is also right that you need light, at least „a bit“, for the use of your brain for logic.


Ierrellus wrote:

„I admit I'm an old hippie. But I haven't seen here in the USA a better, or even an equal, sense of brotherhood than that expressed by the young people of the 60s. Consumerism dulls all ideals eventually. It is taught hunger that fits the ego better than natural hunger.
The wealth disparity now in the USA is 98 % poor, 2% wealthy. Doesn't that prove there is something wrong with a system that allows this to happen?“ **

„98% poor, 2% wealthy“ - really?


Fact is that history is not the same as mathematics. And fact is also that the winner writes the history. The winner dictates, because the winner has the power, the victor's justice and so on.

Only those who can and do keep history in mind and keep learning from history are capable of resisting the lies about history.


That's impossible. Probably you do not know what you have said.


Zoot Allures wrote:

„I've always preferred the line up in the last two- Montana and Dupree's Paradise. Fowler, Duke, Underwood, Ponty, Humphrey. Most of the live stuff done with the original MOI- the first video- is okay but often overloaded with satire.“ **

I agree.


It is not possible to prove or disprove God. That is why he was „created“ by humans (or did he „create“ the humans?).


Copied post in another thread.


The main mistake of the modernity is to put the „social question“ in the foreground and to forget to ask the genealogical question.


I have put the word „created“ (**|**) in quotation marks, because I have meant „defined“, yes. We both have had many conversations about that without any misunderstanding.


D 63 wrote:

„Thanks for the rhizomes, Arminius.“ **

My pleasure, D 63.


Zinnat wrote:

„I am not sure but it looks to me that some science theorists tend to take the clue from the Bible (let there be light).“ **

No. It was just a thought - not more. And it is true: a discoverer, an observer, an empiricist needs light in order to be capable of discovering, observing, being an empiricist. The idea that the light was before the mass is interesting but not necessarily true. I have learned that the reverse is true. But nevertheless: I am always skeptic.


The fact that Fuller grew up in poverty is not so important when it comes to the other fact: Fuller's buildings have nothing to do with poverty.


Now you are saying that Fuller's „family was prosperous, affording him a Harvard education“ (**) - that contradicts what you formerly said: „Fuller grew up in an abject poverty“ (**).

Fuller was born 1895 - so he was already an adult during the Great Depression you mentioned (**).


Yes, Harbal did not provide a single constructive contribution but a lot of nonsense. He is just a peckish troll.


The idea behind the rhizome was, as I already said, to have a symbol for the anti-genealogy. No ancestors, no origin, no parents, no past, no descendants, no children, no future, no hierarchy - but a mesh (network) of consumers (also drug consumers, of course, because Deleuze and Guattari themselves were professing drug consumers). Deleuze and Guattari had the obsession that the original sin was ancestry, descent, origin, just genealogy. So they said consequently that their rhizome was an anti-genealogy.


Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„The answer:

A. His number is 12? It adds up to either 24 or 27. Mine is either 15 or 12.
I do not know what my number is.

B. A does not know what his number is. His number is 12 though. He must be thinking
his number is 15 or 12. But if his number is possibly 15, that means my number is not 15.
So my number is 12.

So it should only be after 1 no will the game end.“ **

I am sorry, but that is false. Please try again.


Maia wrote:

„Why does a one world government have to be dictatorial? Why can't it be federal, like the EU, which makes it a policy to devolve powers to the smallest local unit that can efficiently carry them out? Surely this is better than the current situation, in which states can go to war against each other? Why is it that half the world is on the breadline and the other lives quite well? It's because of capitalism, and its channelling of resources into things like war and other useless pursuits, and the inherent inefficiency and waste in the system it creates.“ **

So you think that dictatorship and federalism are opposites or do not fit together, but that is a fatal fallacy. The EU is a dictatorship. No one of those in the EU who have power are elected. And the reason why „half the world is on the breadline and the other lives quite well“ is not merely the so-called „capitalism“, as you think, but the so-called „socialism“ as well. You think that „capitalism“ and „socialism“ are opposites or do not fit together, but that is a fatal fallacy. The globalism proves this every day.