A question from Canada to Justthink in an earlier post.
quote:
“…by any chance would your first language be something other than english?” (End of quote)
Because my first and second language is not English, I humbly ask, is the sentence above better English than:
…by any chance would your first language be something else than English?
There was a guy in ancient Rome or Greece that said (to a the senate or some other high officials):
“The best deed You can make for Your Fatherland, is to go home and hang Yourself!” (or something like that).
In many places on this earth, he would still be right.
I have seen Justthink posting before in other threads and have seen that he really can think.
Just check him and his posts through “search”.
And because I try to learn English through this site, I would ask many others also to put their texts through a spelling program. I do not have to, because I am a stupid foreigner, but what is Your excuse for raping Your mother language?
Trying to keep in line with the OP, which I never do, I have many times been thinking:
We are the first generations that can afford pencil, paper, painting facilities, music equipment, cameras etc. and most of us does nothing. Creates absolutely nothing. Except in the toilet.
Or not we, we are writing in Internet so we are creating something.
But most of the people with some money, comes home after work, opens the television, lies on the sofa and drink beer.
And on Sundays mows the lawn.
(I have always frantically opposed lawn mowing as a pre-stage of socialism = making every straw equally long, cutting fiercely the longer ones).
So, I would not be against if more sofa-lying, good for nothing- people would vanish and give the opportunity of work and money to someone that writes e.g. in Straight Dope.
A question from Canada to Justthink in an earlier post.
quote:
“…by any chance would your first language be something other than english?” (End of quote)
Because my first and second language is not English, I humbly ask, is the sentence above better English than:
…by any chance would your first language be something else than English?
There was a guy in ancient Rome or Greece that said (to a the senate or some other high officials):
“The best deed You can make for Your Fatherland, is to go home and hang Yourself!” (or something like that).
In many places on this earth, he would still be right.
I have seen Justthink posting before in other threads and have seen that he really can think.
Just check him and his posts through “search”.
And because I try to learn English through this site, I would ask many others also to put their texts through a spelling program. I do not have to, because I am a stupid foreigner, but what is Your excuse for raping Your mother language?
Trying to keep in line with the OP, which I never do, I have many times been thinking:
We are the first generations that can afford pencil, paper, painting facilities, music equipment, cameras etc. and most of us does nothing. Creates absolutely nothing. Except in the toilet.
Or not we, we are writing in Internet so we are creating something.
But most of the people with some money, comes home after work, opens the television, lies on the sofa and drink beer.
And on Sundays mows the lawn.
(I have always frantically opposed lawn mowing as a pre-stage of socialism = making every straw equally long, cutting fiercely the longer ones).
So, I would not be against if more sofa-lying, good for nothing- people would vanish and give the opportunity of work and money to someone that writes e.g. in Straight Dope.
Am I right, Justhink in thinking that you are saying that you can’t explain yourself in language that makes sense to us because that would constrain you to a domain that is entirely without logic, truth or reason?
It’s my fault - I asked you for a definition of ‘counter-intelligence’. :rolleyes:
However you seem fixated on the use of incorrigibly lengthy vocabulary at the expense of total failure to appreciate that transmission of comprehensible ideas requires the involvement of suitably phrased concepts that enable the receiver to utilise chemical-based brain reactions to store and recover the information that was originally perpetrated.
Or (to put it another way) I don’t understand you.
What is the ‘implied social contract’?
Can groups express contrariness to it?
How can any rational being use the phrase ‘gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract’ without giggling?
WHAT?! :rolleyes: :eek: :wally :smack:
A big part of your problem is that you don’t give examples of the undefined phrases you continually use.
WHAT PHILOSOPHY?!
Also you may not know what a dictionary is. It is a book full of definitions. Here is one:
Solipsist - one who has the view that the self is all that exists or can be known.
If I am the only thing that exists, then the rest of the Universe doesn’t. So it is all the same (i.e. non-existent). Therefore ‘difference does not exist’ simply follows from the definition of Solipsist.
See how easy it can be - use simple phrases, define everything new and proceed to your conclusion.
By now, I assume that everything you say is either incomprehensible or wrong. Since a nihilist saying “I don’t believe anything at all” is easy to understand, I wonder if you’ll keep up your remarkable record of 100% incorrectness.
Nihilist -
a rejection of all religious and moral priciples.
An extreme form of scepticism characterized by the assertion that nothing really exists.
Therefore ‘I don’t believe anything at all’ is perfectly compatible with the definition of Nihilist.
Apology accepted.
What bugs me (and why I’ve been so sarcastic above) is not that you initially had a go at being ambitious.
It’s your total failure to react to our responses complaining about your incomprehensible style.
Explain a bit of your idea, using simple words and providing examples of any claims you make.
It’s my fault - I asked you for a definition of ‘counter-intelligence’. :rolleyes:
However you seem fixated on the use of incorrigibly lengthy vocabulary at the expense of total failure to appreciate that transmission of comprehensible ideas requires the involvement of suitably phrased concepts that enable the receiver to utilise chemical-based brain reactions to store and recover the information that was originally perpetrated.
Or (to put it another way) I don’t understand you.
What is the ‘implied social contract’?
Can groups express contrariness to it?
How can any rational being use the phrase ‘gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract’ without giggling?
WHAT?! :rolleyes: :eek: :wally :smack:
A big part of your problem is that you don’t give examples of the undefined phrases you continually use.
WHAT PHILOSOPHY?!
Also you may not know what a dictionary is. It is a book full of definitions. Here is one:
Solipsist - one who has the view that the self is all that exists or can be known.
If I am the only thing that exists, then the rest of the Universe doesn’t. So it is all the same (i.e. non-existent). Therefore ‘difference does not exist’ simply follows from the definition of Solipsist.
See how easy it can be - use simple phrases, define everything new and proceed to your conclusion.
By now, I assume that everything you say is either incomprehensible or wrong. Since a nihilist saying “I don’t believe anything at all” is easy to understand, I wonder if you’ll keep up your remarkable record of 100% incorrectness.
Nihilist -
a rejection of all religious and moral priciples.
An extreme form of scepticism characterized by the assertion that nothing really exists.
Therefore ‘I don’t believe anything at all’ is perfectly compatible with the definition of Nihilist.
Apology accepted.
What bugs me (and why I’ve been so sarcastic above) is not that you initially had a go at being ambitious.
It’s your total failure to react to our responses complaining about your incomprehensible style.
Explain a bit of your idea, using simple words and providing examples of any claims you make.
If you don’t already know it; then I have to use subversive techniques counter-intelligence to convert you. Doing so, would render my action as being negative of my own existential value; it would be more logical to commit suicide.
I’m not seeing how people don’t understand this though…
If you declare:
“I don’t believe anything at all.”
You have forfieted all societal rights of commodity. You have forfieted food, water, conversation, companionship…
It is the crux of counter-intelligence, that a person should speak this and then proceed to accept and/or use any of those commodities just mentioned. It is also the crux of counter-intelligence to BELIEVE this and actually STATE it.
The base contract of intelligence amongst all beings, is that perception of difference exists. A being should not be rewarded with ANY commodity if they renounce this contract within the confines of existence within a society.
By accepting commodity after having declared a lack of belief in all things; you are basically saying; “I don’t exist, so give me all this stuff for free and I’ll use it.” Stating such a veiw, and then recieving commodity for it is the anti-thesis of WORK.
Letting this type of cognition pervade society, is the very definition of liberal. I’ll agree that it is liberal to speak of an embedded social contract within nature itself; however, there is no sense of intelligently oriented (overt) conservation in being permissive of such a cognition. This person is an example of that which has revoked the necessary social contract embedded in nature; so that we can all communicate with each other within the confines of reason. It is implied that this person is always trying to pull a fast one on us.
I’m using the most base example of counter-intelligence, and how the aquiesence of resource (giving it to them); is entirely wasteful.
This is a void that cannot be filled with material items, no matter how much!!! It is a vacuum of endless sacrifice to the alter of a ‘non-existant’ being, demanding resource. It’s astonishing that a constitution has never applied this aspect of punishment for non-transparency. Autonomous constitutions of primitive societies ostracize people who gain material in a hypocritical means. There is literally no end in sight for how much the vaccuum sucks up!
The perception of difference is the mere tip of the iceberg, of things which we all agree upon, or else we MUST deny our existence, our rationality. It is natural, that one should be sentenced to this expressions representation in nature.
If you don’t believe anything; you are sent to solitary confinement until you die. You are declaring your catatonia, it is not rational to feed a non-catatonic being with capital! The pit is endless. Either they shape up and join society, or they enter solitary confinement until they have starved from that which they declare is their truth. We need to maintain this basic premise to operate society.
How many operations of being do you suppose commit this same exact social crime? I suggest that you’d be suprized how many beliefs everyone will agree upon, as being necessary in order to hold an existentially positive outlook! I suggest that you’d be equally suprized how pervasive the very negation of this fundamental agreement exists in society. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess why everything is so screwed up.
People can accept the hazards of nature; but people will not tolorate vaccums of their resources, that exist counter-intelligently. That exist in spite of their actions, that clearly prove their chosen existential negation. People tolorate a fair shake of nature; the vast unrest is a result of that which we all know to be insanity. Just because you can say you don’t believe in anything; doesn’t make it true, and doesn’t make you fit for society. Just because you own a gun and can say it; does not make you right.
“”""I have seen Justthink posting before in other threads and have seen that he really can think.
Just check him and his posts through “search”.
And because I try to learn English through this site, I would ask many others also to put their texts through a spelling program. I do not have to, because I am a stupid foreigner, but what is Your excuse for raping Your mother language?""""
Thank you for the vote of confidence.
I will mention however, that this is a counter-intelligence tactic of appeal to authority. I have no problem letting each post stand for itself; I wouldn’t have it any other way.
I will also mention that solicitation of data by appealing to authority also has no bearing on my ideas. I recall someone stating in no undertain terms that I had exceptional abilities for abstraction; appealing to much of the topics I had been covering.
I did respond to that post (they did have the integrity to degrade the value of high abstraction), but almost regret replying to it because of the ‘appeal to authority’ nature of soliciting intelligence. I am quite convinced that we all agree on the same basic things. To that degree, I don’t see much practical application to the concept of intelligence; except in its ability abstract counter-intelligence, and use this mechanism to decimate society.
Aparently, I can’t write english worth a damned. The thought that I would communicate much more effectively in person, is a bit dissapointing; as it eludes to a state of hypocrisy which requires techniques of more acute brainwashing to convey. I am not interested in any form of deification, I believe it is the substance that corrodes society. I would never want something for nothing in that regard. I would never want validation for my being, when I engage in behavior that negates the purpose of my existence here; down to the very fundamental of my self-awareness.
That nihisists and solipsists DIE within a couple weeks from dehydration and starvation if:
They act consistantly of their belief.
Others grant them the freedom and right to act consistantly of their belief.
There is no bottom to the pit of: "I don’t exist, so give me all this stuff I want. What are you talking about? I don’t exist, so it doesn’t MATTER whether you give it to me or not!! Just give it to me, are you really insane enough to believe that I can and/or would use it if I don’t exist??!!
A few months later…
"What are you talking about, I used that stuff to survive… I don’t exist you idiot! How stupid can you be? That stuff was NEVER used, it’s all in your head… if you don’t give me more; you are absolutely insane!! You’re the one who believes I exist, prove it to me and yourself, give me stuff - I KNOW that I don’t exist, and that your just fooling yourself. Stupid morons pft (nihilist/solipsist takes more stuff and wanders off).
““Can groups express contrariness to it?””
Yes; they require intelligent being to sustain themselves though.
They require intelligent beings to do ALL-THE-WORK, to validate the most liberal and counter-intelligent existence imaginable.
“”"“How can any rational being use the phrase ‘gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract’ without giggling? “””"
If you follow a contract; there is an implied effect, otherwise the contract wouldn’t exist! The very basic contract is that we exist.
The steps to move from ‘difference’ to ‘something’ are tedious in a logical sense… to move all the way to ‘we exist’ is a logical conclusion once one veiws the proof. It is to say; If you don’t believe the proof, you don’t believe ANYTHING exists; that is the necessary coding that nature itself provides.
There is already a contract of rationality embedded into nature. When we articulate it, it becomes clear that to dismiss one brick, is to dismiss them all; otherwise you have proven yourself out of existence. This is a fundamental social contract embedded into nature itself. Those who break the contract STARVE to death. The energy required to sustain them is the embodyment of impractibility! Society cannot sustain many of these people without collapsing. I fact; I’d suggest that sustaining any of them leads to societal collapse. America can absorb a lot of these people, but not indefinitely. Sustaining these people erodes the work accomplished in articulating the social contract. It requires work to abstract these laws of nature… a lot of work to write them down as opposed to being them, like primitive tribes can be observed to do.
You gain the material of reason and the material of sustainence, by joining society. If you deny these ideals; you have denied your existence. Society cannot carry that burden of: ‘negative energy to its own survival’; it leeches work right from the very seams of societal structure with an endless vaccuum bag. We can agree to disagree, but we cannot support people who deny their existential validation.
These denials of existential validation are pervasive in America, into the logical structure itself. Those who accumulate resource under their ownership are stronger perpetrators of this negation in a structural sense, than those who kill themselves. That’s how misguided this society has become, in terms of articulating fraud and protecting against it in the same logically consistant way that nature itself does. You don’t kill people; but if someone disregards their existential validation, you give them a way out or you lock them into solitary confinement until they are dead. That’s what NATURE does to those people. You don’t let the vaccuum suck capital into hordes like that; somewhere, we KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that this person is recieving material at the expense of existential validation. Finding the specific proof for that specific person is somewhat superfluous to the knowledge that there is ONLY one way to accumulate it like that.
By breaking the social contract and recieving resource on behalf of negating ones own existential value.
““Explain a bit of your idea, using simple words and providing examples of any claims you make.””"
““ANd does anyone else wonder where he got the idea thjat suicide is illegal? “ASSISTED” suicide is illegal - because it is considered murder (and rightly so, I think, but that is another debate).””
I’ve been scouring this one about and have yet to reveal down anything conclusive. It seems that britain discarded the criminality of suicide in 1961 (people were hung for it). Aparently, suicide is considered illegal in all of India. And, the best I could track down on the U.S. was a quote: “Even into the mid 90’s, suicide is still illegal in 2 U.S. states.” Which doesn’t help articulate the state of the law now. I was having tremendous difficulty finding whether states considered attempted suicide an illegal act… but, to be quite certain; I believe you will be arrested by the state for threatening suicide or being captured having not succeeded at suicide. I believe you will be in lock-down in a psychiatric institution; if I’m not mistaking…
I believe law holds that suicide is not a freedom, and when detected by the state; the state seizes you for ‘possession’.
I’ve had the darndest time tracking it down though…
Has Cecil done a column on whether suicide (or attempted) is ILLEGAL in the U.S. ?
I just checked California’s, Washington’s, Texas’, and Massachusetts’ penal codes, and in those states at least there is no law against suicide, nor attempted suicide.
My name is not “Canada”… I travel under the name of Feynn in this digital paradise.
If you were somehow offended by a comment that was not directed at you, I apologize. The comment was made as it often-times appears that Justhink’s grasp of the English language is precarious. It makes deciphering his ideas difficult and debating him nearly impossible.
I believe that what he proposes is that certain members of our society have no worth or value and should they come to that realization, they should be able to remove themselves from our society voluntarily.
If that is the idea he expresses then I disagree, offering a service such as this would harm the most vulnerable members of this society. The thought of suicide is associated most often with people who suffer from depression, a mental illness.
Of course, he could be talking about something completely different… it is really hard to tell.
Well, quite, but where are these hordes of nihilists and solipsists? Is “I don’t believe in anything” the official motto of the United States?
If we had some ham we’d have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.
I really had hopes that somewhere in the filigree of your posts there was a nugget of reason but every time you ignore questions (although admittedly you didn’t ignore mine this time), every time you respond to requests for clarity with more obscurity, that hope slips a little further away. I am inclined to concur with Bryan Ekers’ last comment.
:wally :smack: