Donald Trump

Everything was rigged and he still won.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Religion and culture are very much intertwined, just the same as often nationality and culture are. It seems to me often ppl whom speak of religion often dont recognize this and incorrectly generalize one as being the other.
Thoughts of ideals and 'how to behave' (culture) are very much like a disease, subliminally transferred to others in the vicinity (or through communication) with enough contact. If you abstract culture and find its lowest common denominators, you essentially are left with that cultures 'moral values'. But whos to say which values are better or worse? Ultimately morality is just a useful fictional construct that has evolved with man as it is advantageous to cooperate (the essence from which morality is based upon).
I assert my philosophy of 'the maximizing the sum future freedom of action for all entities capable of mutual cooperation' knowing full well it is fictional and makes the assumption that empowering individuals is 'good'. I believe the propagation of the truth and the suppression of lies, ambiguity, and unfair bias will contribute towards enabling additional freedom of action.
What do you believe in?

I dont understand the point of the argument, all action´s start fictional, be it morality or running or whatever. Once somebody start´s doing it, it becomes real.
Morality is there to prevent pain,sadness,anger etc. or are these also ""social construct´s"".
I have jet to see a Person that get´s beaten up and afterward´s tell´s himself: Oh, my imagination just went trough me or whishes those guy´s a nice day.
And what values are better? The question is simple, Violence yes or no?

Freedom is a empty word, which evrybody can fill how he like´s. If someone walk´s naked down the street to exercise his freedom, it conflict´s with my freedom to not want to see it.
Somebody is free if he isn´t forced to something, that more or less the comen interpretation.

I never understood why all those anarchist social rebel´s don´t just start there glorious village,city,state or whatever it is in the end, and just show the rest of the world how superior there believes,thoughts or what ever it is.

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

I dont understand the point of the argument, all action´s start fictional, be it morality or running or whatever. Once somebody start´s doing it, it becomes real.

If in your head you think the word apple, it does not make it real. If you think of an image of a unicorn, the thought process is real but the subject itself is fictional. If you attempt to claim otherwise, than NOTHING becomes fictional.

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

Morality is there to prevent pain,sadness,anger etc. or are these also ""social construct´s"".

Pain, sadness, and anger are real but the concept of preventing them is merely a fictional construct. Morality was invented by man. Just as a unicorn was invented by man. When we define such a fictional concept and the definition is propagated, it does not mean the concept is true (non-fictional) only that a definition exists.

To believe that a word or association exists does not mean it is true. But most people dont consider such things, and thus propaganda is such a powerfully effective tool in the modern world.

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

Freedom is a empty word, which evrybody can fill how he like´s. If someone walk´s naked down the street to exercise his freedom, it conflict´s with my freedom to not want to see it.
Somebody is free if he isn´t forced to something, that more or less the comen interpretation.

'future freedom of action' is not actually a political term. It is a scientific term that describe the number of available options for change. My philosophy is actually a mathematical formula, although missing a time horizon (tau) i infer a weighted probability instead ( the likelihood of an action being available in the future). It differs from professor alex wisner-gross's theory of intelligence by including a sum for all entities capable of mutual cooperation because not including other entities would literally be the ultimate evil in my opinion.
You should watch his ted talk or read his published papers:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ted-an-equation-for-intelligence-by-alex-wissner-gross
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/papers/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Considering religion in the abstract, sure. But the US was founded by Christians who wove some but not all of their Christian values into its framework, and the result of that experiment was massively successful. You might consider this to be random luck, but Protestantism was a major factor, which was itself an earlier European social movement... so really, it's a mix of earlier rational thought AND religious faith, put into a blender and pureed until it cannot be fully separated out.

US was founded base on the enlightenment movement and rationalism. If there has to be a god, it isn't a Christian God but a God of nature and reason. Inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is base on Concept of natural laws. The concept of natural laws is used to challenge the divine right of kings.

Somehow along the way, America become a Christian nation.

"

Different religions operate differently, because they're different sets of belief. It's silly to pretend that Islam is as compatible with Americanism as Christianity is (especially Protestantism). This doesn't mean moderate Muslims don't do well in the US - they were, if not the majority, a substantial minority of my classmates growing up - but Islam has several facets which require more moderation, relative to Christianity, in order to achieve that fit. To put it another way, Americanized Muslims are further from the worldwide Islamic mean; they're more deviant, relative to mainstream Islam.

I believe I already mentioned my concept of extralegal fundamentalism - that is, placing tenets of religion above the nation's rule of law when conflicts exist. As long as there isn't extralegal fundamentalism, everything is cool... but it should be obvious that the amount of potential conflict depends on the tenets of the religion itself, and the further the hardcore fundamentalist is from Americanism ideologically, the greater the potential chasm.

All of this boils down to a core truth: when someone identifies as a believer in an ideology, religious or not, they can believe in it fervently, barely believe in it at all, or anything in between. We don't live in some kind of Ayn Rand wet dream where logical contradictions within our own head are automatically stricken down; instead, within our belief systems are various prioritizations, and corrections to the thinking of higher priories can challenge conclusions of lower priorities. (My definition of extralegal fundamentalism is a priority-driven one, comparing the prioritizations of two potentially competing ideologies.) I can have a reasonable discussion with someone who identifies as socialist, but this requires that I'm able to latch onto another concept (ex: truth, justice) that they place above the socialism I disagree with; if they hold socialism as their highest priority, I have no route to challenge their beliefs. (Regarding my earlier example of four people: with the second person debate is necessary, and I have a means to persuade them; with the third person, I have no means to correct them, but no immediate desire to do so; the fourth does what I believe is wrong and I cannot persuade them otherwise, so the options are fight or flight.)

Occam's razor. You could go with nobody should be above the law.

As SkyCore hinted at, I believe that freedom is best defined as a range of potential action. To use a crude example, if you go from having 2 choices to having 3 choices, you've gained some freedom. Naturally, it's a little more complicated than that, because meaningfulness of choice is a factor which trumps raw quantity.

Where SkyCore is wrong is in saying morality is fiction. Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. Therefore, any entity with even an iota of freedom must use a morality to choose among choices within their range of possible choices; they must evaluate options for their conduct. (Even "full random" is technically a morality; it implicitly assigns equal value, or lack thereof, to all choices.)

SkyCore seems to believe morality must be fictional because he believes it is unoriginal; he compares it to a disease which only spreads. This is also false and similar to the statement "builds in Path of Exile are inherently flawed, and you only get them from other people." No one is forcing you to swallow a pre-existing morality without a single change; you could modify portions you believe are flawed, and/or create original structures of morality (although it's a study millennia in the making, so true originality is difficult). This "contagion" you refer to (for both morality and builds) is merely economic specialization in action; the vast majority of the population are not ethicists, and instead of making a mortality for themselves will shop around for one which they hope will serve them well.

The only philosophical position which consistently holds to the fiction of morality is determinism. By claiming that freedom itself is an illusion, it cleanly follows that morality is also an illusion. Is determinism what you intend to promote?

"

Xavderion wrote:

Everything was rigged and he still won.

Spoiler

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2016/11/21/election-protesters-ncgop-attorneys-supplied-complaint-information-governors-race/

here is what actual attempted election rigging looks like, incase you wanted a real example.

Notice the large number of inaccurate accusations, notice the governor's office trying to take control of the election boards job as he loses the election. Notice the GOP lawyers fishing for names to put on protests, shaped to look like civilian challenges. This is what election fraud looks like.

I love watching all these losers scramble



Winning so much is actually become a problem, my head is getting too big I need something to bring me down to earth

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Where SkyCore is wrong is in saying morality is fiction. Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. Therefore, any entity with even an iota of freedom must use a morality to choose among choices within their range of possible choices; they must evaluate options for their conduct. (Even "full random" is technically a morality; it implicitly assigns equal value, or lack thereof, to all choices.)

Ask 10 close friends/family to precisely define their morality. Then ask questions of morality of situations which dont fall within what they stated. I think you will find that 99.99% of people cannot give a complete, consistent, and non contradictory definition. And i guarantee none of them will say the exact same thing provided you ask about several exotic scenarios and fringe cases.

I guess i can see how one can generalize all morality as a 'thing'. And that would be a classification. Is a classification real and true? Eh. I dont think so. But i wont contradict you if you say otherwise.
It would be nice if the word 'truth' was less general and more specific, split into several words pertaining to exactly under which context it is applied and what meta property is being evaluated.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

SkyCore seems to believe morality must be fictional because he believes it is unoriginal;

It has nothing to do with originality and frankly dont understand why you think that.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

he compares it to a disease which only spreads.
... This "contagion" you refer to (for both morality and builds) is merely economic specialization in action;

I did not intend to convey any negative implications. I also 'only' mentioned that it spreads because that seemed the pertinent quality. It could also unintentionally mutate into something like the original, be manipulated intentionally, invoke resistance/ counterattack, or strengthen the subjects defense. The parallels are so many it makes me wonder if in some way the metaphysical BECOMES physical on the cellular level. [/quote]

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As SkyCore hinted at, I believe that freedom is best defined as a range of potential action. To use a crude example, if you go from having 2 choices to having 3 choices, you've gained some freedom. Naturally, it's a little more complicated than that, because meaningfulness of choice is a factor which trumps raw quantity.

Where SkyCore is wrong is in saying morality is fiction. Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. Therefore, any entity with even an iota of freedom must use a morality to choose among choices within their range of possible choices; they must evaluate options for their conduct. (Even "full random" is technically a morality; it implicitly assigns equal value, or lack thereof, to all choices.)

SkyCore seems to believe morality must be fictional because he believes it is unoriginal; he compares it to a disease which only spreads. This is also false and similar to the statement "builds in Path of Exile are inherently flawed, and you only get them from other people." No one is forcing you to swallow a pre-existing morality without a single change; you could modify portions you believe are flawed, and/or create original structures of morality (although it's a study millennia in the making, so true originality is difficult). This "contagion" you refer to (for both morality and builds) is merely economic specialization in action; the vast majority of the population are not ethicists, and instead of making a mortality for themselves will shop around for one which they hope will serve them well.

The only philosophical position which consistently holds to the fiction of morality is determinism. By claiming that freedom itself is an illusion, it cleanly follows that morality is also an illusion. Is determinism what you intend to promote?

Real implies it can exist independently without people. Morality is a construct of people's imagination, it is created in people mind. Thus It could be considered a work of fiction.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

I literally just used the wording you used, this is almost exactly what you said in the post I quoted from you, nice too see you arguing against it now, thats very christian (no sarcasm sadly).

No, you didn't.

Here is what I had posted:

If you have ever raised children, than you know that a firm but loving guiding hand must be used to help properly shape their future. It isn't out of hate that a parent restricts their child from eating candy all day long. It isn't out of hate that a parent coerces their child to do homework. It isn't out of hate that a parent grounds their child when they do something wrong. The parent's efforts are directed towards HELPING the child become a better person.

Trump's goals are likewise. It isn't out of Hate that he wants to enforce immigration laws. It isn't out of Hate that he wants to strengthen America's economy etc.

this is also what you posted...

"

Like the unruly teenager throwing a temper tantrum after being grounded, America's leftists are very unhappy that they may have to live by some rules that are for their own good.

and you have started talking about immigration laws etc, when actually we were talking about gay rights, but you seem unable to actually focus on that and would rather dodge the subject.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

You are stuck on nitpicking dogma and taking things literally. Most Christians don't really care if some dude walked on water or not. The point of the religion are the morals & ethics you can derive from those stories. Also believing in a higher power gives a lot of people hope and a direction in life, despite the silly stories.

Well they should care, because if they dont believe it they are not Christians. Having morals that are in line with Christianity does not make you religious, believing in Christ, his book and his teaching makes you a Christian. You cant get rid of the bit where you believe in Christ and the Bible, you can say you have but then you are just deluded on a preposterous level, you are not actually Christian.

You don't have the faintest idea of what a Christian is and you are spreading lies about what someone's religion is or isn't. Their personal belief is theirs, not yours.

Actually I know what a Christian is and have every right to tell someone if they are a Christian or not. You cant say I dont believe in the bible or Jesus I believe we were all made by a big pink pony called Paul and I am a christian. No, that person is not a Christian.

Its not whatever someone wants it to be, it is a defined thing that exists outside of what an individual wants it to be, and is that x1,000,000 for someone who actually believes its real. Making up what you believe in your head is called your beliefs, for them to be Christian those beliefs have to adhere to the Christian doctrine.

If you believe there is an actual God and this God has sent his (its got a gender lol) son (seriously?) and other representatives to earth to tell human beings how they should live their lives, how can you then turn around and say "yeah... Ill take these bits of it but push these other bits aside."? If it, he, whatever, really exists then you have no right to treat his words like some kind of buffet menu of options, take it or leave it on a case by case basis. To start picking and choosing is either not submitting to God and hence making someone a terrible Christian or it is to acknowledge that this God doesnt exist and that this is a complete fabrication of your own mind where you get to decide what it is because it only exists in your head, and at that point you are not a Christian because being a Christian is believing that God and Christ are real outside of ones mind, it doesnt include the concept that its a make believe thing.

Im all up for people having personal beliefs, I cant dictate to someone what they can or cant believe in, but defined beliefs that have a label are something in particular and you dont get to believe something else but still call it that thing. You dont get to believe 100% in the teachings of Scientology, not believe in the teachings of Islam but say you are a Muslim. I mean, you can say it, but its not true, you are not a Muslim, its that simple, you are by definition a Scientologist. I know religion has taken peoples minds down a hole of complete nonsense where its hard to think straight and have a proper conversation with a logical person because "people can believe what they want and its all fine as long as it somehow involves a space alien, dont question it man because the space alien and stuff and angry religious ppl" social politic but there are still rules in language if nothing else. That person can say they identify as a Muslim, and believe it, and no one necessarily has any power to change their mind on it... but they are not a Muslim, the idea that they are is just a delusion in that individuals head that does not conform to what is accepted as a Muslim in the English language. I can say Im an apple, that doesnt make me an apple no matter how woolly and nonsensical you want to be about accepting my rights to be what I want to be.

Believing in some of the morality that derives from the Bible is not enough to be a Christian, you have to be buying into a lot of the supernatural stuff like God, Gods son etc.




In my opinion, my world in my head, religion cannot be justified by its utilitarian value, on any level. It is either true or it isnt within the acceptable realms of proof. I believe it is clear as day we made it up, and hence everything that it is comes from us, not from religion itself, and we have the power to instill all those virtues in another system that is not tied to a fictitious omnipotent alien, a water walking zombie and an outdated and at times offensive book. But this was not my point, the point that you people started challenging was that someone posted gay rights were under threat with Trump in power and my assertion that this was ultimately down to Christians and not Trump himself, and as long as you have orthodox Christians having a big say in laws then gay peoples rights will always be in danger. I do personally believe that religion is a plague on the minds of humanity that should be removed, and when pushed I will not hide it, but I stand by my original point and nothing any of you have said has really made any headway in going against it despite your rush to protect your zombie fantasy. You know why? Because I was right, and because despite this starting about gay rights none of you actually want to stick to that, you want to talk about religion as a concept, so Ive obliged. Obviously its a dead end debate because you believe in a bloke who told you a zombie walked on water 2000 years ago and have built your entire view of reality around it, unlike my views theres no room to debate or alter that sadly and no way a person who believes that is going to have enough credibility with me to change my views, even though they are flexible as I have taken responsibility for authoring them.