Making a living off condemning others for what you do

Great Debates
1

I’m still around. Drama, unfortunately, is evident in my life. I’ve decided to shift from my last topic until the basics are established; at which point it will be resurrected and tied to the foundational principles.

My thoughts osccilate through ideas of self reference, self refutation,
purpose, meaning, consent, intent, value, life, death, suicide, thought.

It’s oft’ declared in these screens of discourse , that people don’t think, or that people don’t listen.

The echo of these declarations is the topic of this post.

How would one even go about evidencing that someone is incapable of contractual behavior, including, maybe, themselves? How does one tell that the being in question doesn’t bind their linguistic tokens; their thoughts to the external world, in a manner that is not always projective and self refuting?
In our legal system, we manage to seperate non-consenting parties from consenting parties in this manner. If their mental process doesn’t correspond to the evident result, we consider them non-consentual, and thus, remove them from contractual binding, and equally, we nullify their contracts. We deem that they are incapable of representing themselves, we deem that they cannot consent. It is determined, that their linguistic tokens are always self refuting of what they demonstrably produce. We consider them to be unconscious frauds, and that by declaring them unconsenting, we are protecting them and ourselves from the ravages of an oblivious linguistic token machine. We are doing it for the greater good, preserving their life and dignity for when and if they ever become
consentual beings.

But, what if the very process we use to seperate these beings out, the very principles and inferences, can be used to generate an internally consistent definition of you or I, the accuser, as a non-consenting being as well? Do we let them free? Do we jail ourselves?

I’m going to use a test, to sort this out. The linguistic token, will be “suicide”, and respectively, “survival”.

When a person engages in an activity that they suggest to be survival, are they always demonstrably committing suicide? And when a person uses the linguistic token of “suicide”, are they always demonstrably, “surviving”? This certainly seems to qualify the criteria for selecting between non-consenting beings from
consenting beings.

To begin this, I’ll highlight a concept that some here may already be familiar with to an extent.

The Suicidal Tension Line.

It can be observed and measured in any environment that linguistic tokens of purpose for survival are uttered. A simple way to measure it, is to select a group of individuals who possess no discernable suicidal ideation or impulse for two massive and seperate control groups. The more control groups, the more representative the statistical data. As these control groups go about their lives, their survival so to speak, the technician for the experiment introduces technology that decreases the tension a person will enounter when contemplating suicide
in staggered integrals to one of the control groups.

As the suicidal tension decreases, the rates of suicide should increase, unless the linguistic token of survival; the persons ideas, are actually corresponding to what survival is.

Everybody who exits life with this technology as suicidal tension decreases, is said to be within that integral of the suicidal tension line. In this manner, it can be determined that the being under observation was only a viable worker, producer, translator of purpose, as a result of suicidal tension. Which means, retroactively, that they weren’t consenting to the previous labor under the auspices of survival; that this behavior actually represents the self refutation of survival. This self refutation, lies dormant, invisible with high suicidal tension, but becomes abundantly clear when tension is decreased. The consent of the persons within the parameter of the suicidal tension line is being simulated with linguistic tokens, and demonstrably self refuting. The being, is not aware that they exist, in the sense that it would be considered that they are contractual beings.

What emerges from observing the two seperate groups, over time, is what systems become viably contractual when suicidal tension is slowly decreased. Every contract formed with a person sustaining as a result of that tension, is a process that is now known to be an intentional means of committing suicide to the research group; no different than decapitating yourself in effect, even though the amount of time spans over decades rather than milliseconds. A disease has been detected; and to the degree that one adopts or represents systems that are only stable with suicidal tension, they would intentionally be injecting this disease into themselves, again, intentionlly committing suicide. It is
literally like uttering the linguistic token “I do this to survive”, and then they decapitate themselves. Hardly, behavior characterized as consenting, or even particularly sane, given the internal consistency of current legal action with respect to consentual being.

So the question comes down to using the legal standards employed in a demonstrable manner that is internally consistent, and how this standard can reflect a person making such legal judgements; thus self refuting their
own accusation for which they take action. In this manner, it can be determined whether a judge or a lawyer or even a sideline critic, represents a system of concept binding that refutes itself and renders them the more substantive perpetrater of what they accuse another of.

One objection that I’ve encountered a few times, to someone who feigns to understand this, is that the systems maintained by the suicidal tension line are statistically insignificant. The irony is, I’m offering a method to prove whether or not their own linguistic token is bound or not; and so there could be, what one might call, a conflict of interest.

How would this happen? How can a being who can test whether they are demonstrably killing themselves or not, who claims to want to survive, not agree with, dismiss, or not even be interested in this mechanism? “Surely, it must be flawed… Every judge can’t be insane, or non-consenting. It’s absurd.”

There is much more occurring here than currently presented, but I want to establish some basic principles before connecting these dots.

2

What?

3

So, the only reason a statistically significant percentage of the population is breathing is because they haven’t been told it’s okay to commit suicide?

Cynical, much?

4

To answer the OP, the juxtaposition of the numerical equivocation is apparent in the transparency of the egalitarian deconstructionism. Technologically infiltrating the status quo could lead to increased inefficiency of the structural connectivity. An unorthodox view of the constricted coalition is evident in the utopian utterings of the disenfranchised. Higgledly piggledy squee squabily squoo.

5

It’s not about the words themselves, it’s about binding the words to external options that demonstrate the consistency of the words. I can tell you that it’s okay to commit suicide, what does that do? I also don’t have to say a word, and make available options that address tensions that people encounter when they contemplate it. What does that do?

Let’s say that I tell you “It’s okay to commit suicide”, and you go along your life without the slightest inclination to do it. But that it can be demonstrated with the introduction of technology that addresses suicidal tension, that you are statistically within the defined parameters of that tension line, or that the systems you adopt for purpose collapse, because they are only maintained by that tension line?

What I’m saying, is that this demonstrates, retroactively, that your linguitic tokens don’t bind. It demonstrates to a new audience, what systems to adopt in order to intentionally commit suicide, namely, the system that you represented while you were embedded in that tension line. And yet, your linguistic tokens stated otherwise, they stated that you were working to survive. And yet, when options that demonstrate the consistency of these statements were introduced, it becomes evidenced that your purpose is to commit suicide. It also alerts the observers of a form of homicide, namely, tricking nonconsenting beings into contracts that give them the exact opposite of what they profess to be working for, as explicitly stated in the contract, both with themselves and with others around them. It’s a contagious disease, that kills everyone involved.

6

Am I the only one here who is incapable of reading one of olanv’s posts without spraining my cerebral cortex?

7

How does this relate to the thread title?

8

The assertation is that there are methods to prove that the only thing certain human beings are capable of is self refutation, and that they literally continue through connected days as a result of selling self refutation, but still being there.
It’s similar to the effect that captivates some humans at a magic show. The being is awed by seeing that something has come from nothing at all; which triggers their brain to shut off it’s awareness that it exists – but that gets into other principles.

The general topic here is that human beings can be demonstrably located, who operate within the parameters of the suicidal tension line, and thus idemonstrably nvert the binding of the purposes they parrot as linguistic tokens and ideas. That this is a disease, and that it kills. And that when you know about it, embracing it is an act of simultaneous suicide of self and homicide of all beings within the scope of the contractual behavior of such a being.

9

Cite?

10

I suck, therefore I am?

11

I tried to give your original post thoughtful consideration. I really did. About 33% into it, I felt I had no idea what in the holy fuck I was reading anymore, and attempted to skim to the bottom. This left me even more flummoxed.

Brevity. Clarity. These are your friends.

12

That’s the only sentence in the OP that I understood, so I’ll debat it:

No, you’re not!

13

Hang on a minute; I think I know this guy Olanv.

Justhink? Is that you? Where you been, buddy?

14

The mind is a terrible thing…

15

I try not to read any post in which the phrase oft’ is used. You lost me about two paragraphs in.

Cut the slack on the 50-cent words there, chief.

16

This message was sponsored by ONDCP and the Ad council.

17

This isn’t about whether or not you do exist, it is about whether or not you are aware of your existence. Whether you are an intentional being or not. There is a distinction between the process that stabalizes a parrots ability to utter linguistic tokens and a human beings ability. The point here, is that human beings have a switch that literally turns on or off the awareness that they exist. I’m presenting a method of testing this phenomenon, to show that the switch does exist, through the inferences, even though it hasn’t been located biologically. It will be located biologically. What’s more, I’m stating in effect, that when this switch is off (or on as the case may be), the being demonstrably inverts all linguistic tokens, and is not applicable as a contractual being. The point seems absurd to most, because these people sign documents, make money, have families, support communities etc…

But, that last one, “support communities”, and similarly associated claims of stabilization can be determined as self refuting in the manner that the being associates them. It can be proven that the being murders communities and commits suicide. To the being, this does not appear to be the case, nor to those around them, all deriving purpose from behaviors that are only stable within the parameters of the suicidal tension line, ranging all the way from percieved agreement and disagreement — all of it a complete sham of oblivion. In stating this, I am not only predicting, I am declaring that there will be people who reply to this thread are literally not aware that they exist, and to the degree that I’m desensitized by the suicidal tension line, my own intent is similarly being circumvented. The switch is not completely an on for life, off for life phenomenon. It oscillates, but more often than not, it stabalizes to the position that unbinds linguistic tokens and forces people to do the exact opposite of the contracts they form, even whether they percieve that they are abiding by them or not abiding by them - this is the default setting, for a reason I am still unsure. It is this state that can be demonstrated as an intentional means of committing suicide, and to any being who knows this system well enough, it is also a means to intentionally murder others (but can only be done at the result of ones suicide). It’s similar to the archetype of “selling ones soul to the devil”, except that the choice is never intentionally made; the irony is, that such cognitions, parrotive cognitions, as I refer to this, are plagued by a response of what is known as joy or happiness that feeds the simulation. The point is not that these are inherently good or bad responses, but that in these beings the response operates in a floating state feedback loop that isn’t grounded externally… in other words, they earn their happiness as a result of doing exactly opposite what they believe they did to elicit the happiness. The mechanism that causes this is slightly more detailed, and I’ll intend to present it.

18

May I ask what specifically is elusive?

Can I get a bit of an informal poll here and start with this question?

Do you understand that it is not only possible, but probable, that a being who appears to be consenting, happy, family, active, successful, many friends, not suicidal either of ideation or impulse, will commit suicide if technology is introduced, that is known to reduce the tensions that people of suicidal ideation say they encounter when they hesitate?
Some comments:

I’m trying to explain that this phenomenon will occur; I’m also trying to explain how it occurs, and also why it occurs. And what it implies, what is interpreted from this phenomenon, what it represents, how it applies to the questions of being and purpose. What shifts it makes to the burden of guilt or innocence, and what it suggests about the correspondence between why you believe that you accept something, and why you actually do accept something in a manner that negates “you” existed to make any such decision.

So, If you’re asking what this means, and you are interested in some form to establish contact with what I’ve intended in my head - I suggest to back up a bit and answer the question, or think about the question just presented in this post, with respect to the probability of subjectively meaningful people being vulnerable to a reduced suicidal tension.

19

Glad someone else said what I was thinking.

20

'K, here’s an excellent example of what I was talking about. First, we are told the “phenomenon” will occur. Then we are told we will get an explanation for how and why the phonomenon occurs. The initial assertion is something lies in the future. Then follows a promise of exegesis to elucidate something that apparently lies in the realm of the present tense. Is the “phenomenon” coming, or is it here?

Without trying to debate your, IMHO, totally insane premise, might I simply point out that your use of language tends to either A) cloud your argument to the point of opacity, or B) reveal the workings of a somewhat deranged mind, or finally C) both?