No translation needed. Just provide a link to a web page that has anything at all to do with what you’re talking about, let us read that information, and see if we have a clearer understanding of what you’re talking about.
concrete. Real world. No bound variables, no self-referential this or that. No linguistic tokens. No suicide tension.
What would YOU do to test this theory? Fwee, you now have lots of money! Set up a study and tell us what you will measure, under what conditions. You have 1000 average people to work with - that is, a broad sample of ages, religions, race, socio-economic status, and gender (well, there you only get two choices 
), proportionately representing the American public. What conditions are you going to vary, and what are you going to measure?
This will help us to understand just what you are theorizing.
concrete. Real world. No bound variables, no self-referential this or that. No linguistic tokens. No suicide tension.
What would YOU do to test this theory? Fwee, you now have lots of money! Set up a study and tell us what you will measure, under what conditions. You have 1000 average people to work with - that is, a broad sample of ages, religions, race, socio-economic status, and gender (well, there you only get two choices ), proportionately representing the American public. What conditions are you going to vary, and what are you going to measure?
This will help us to understand just what you are theorizing.
And by the way, that’s STILL, not AGAIN, as far as the translation problem goes. Thus far, this thread has mostly been a debate about what olanv means.
Again, you violated the 2 sentence rule and made the situation worse.
But this is only “another way of explaining…” if it is linked to what you said earlier. In what way does surviving by actions relate to suicidal tension? Are you saying that the actions necessary to permit or promote survival are some sort of “…inanimate object inanimate object that would cause a person to commit suicide where it introduced to the environment”? As in the removing the actions which promote survival is equivilant to adding something which promotes suicide? Or are these actions which are “ONLY actions taken where purpose is derived from something that can ONLY be there when there is suicidal tension.”?
Finally, please understand that my plea for you to reduce the number of sentences in your replys is not meant condecendingly or insultingly. Somehow, when you allow yourself to go on at length, you tend to drift into unrelated topics. Or at least into topics which are difficult for me to see the relationship. If you limit your response to defining suicidal tension and describing any real world actions which are only present because of it, we may have a way to procede.
Your argument is entirely irrelevant.
You said your remarks were valid until proven wrong, or at least until contrary evidence was provided. I provided those examples.
Now you have to actually do some work and provide some evidence for your otherwise bogus claims.
I think he’s aruging that philanthropy and the general idea of “doing good for others” could be interpreted a number of ways such that it may not be a counter-example to his ideas.
(He’s bordering on the semantics fallacy.)
Here’s a simple analogy: if a person is in misery, are they better off living or dead?
Some would argue that killing the person is better for them; others would say life is a better choice. In either case, both sides would say their position is best for the miserable person, and you arrive at a semantics problem.
Now either olanv is expressing this semantical idea, or he’s being oblique, or something else. In either case, there’s probably no way to reconcile yours and his viewpoints, as you are probably arguing about different things.
(Kind of like this thread; olanv is kind of off in his own world and not really aruging his ideas with others.)
Anyway, I only see olanv expressing what is essentially a tautology: if you take away all things that prohibit someone from comitting suicide, they will. That’s not a debate at all.
Expressing that semantical idea is precisely what I’m doing.
You’re also missing the rest of the tautology.
If you include all things, that if not there, will prohibit someone from
committing suicide, they will commit suicide, unless they are tautologically
doing something that is not zero sum with respect to their survival
(regardless of what that something is – freedom tautologically defined by
binding a variable. It doesn’t matter what you say, only that you are
doing something to survive in order to survive. And that you are doing
something to die, in order to die.).
The other statement is this:
If you take away all things, that if included, will cause someone to commit
suicide, that person is tautologically doing something to survive that does
not allow them to survive.
Basically, I’m saying that any behavior that operates from the second
statement is going to have all of their actions, words, thoughts and
behaviors inverted such that they are doing the exact opposite of a positive
value, and are representing as a negative value, all values that they
utter, positive or negative.
I’m declaring that there is a way to always tell which semantical
interpretation is correct from all relative and absolute points.
I’m equating the microcosm of a concentration camp/prison to the macrocosm of
the sum of all interactions globally. I’m describing layers of social encryption
enabled by suicidal tension (unbound semantic problems) that cause people to not
see themselves actually killing massive amounts of people, that they are in fact
actually killing. I don’t mean only something like “A soldier killing some
‘terrorist’ in a far off land”. I mean, they are killing themselves and everyone
that they know and billions that they don’t know; murdering them. When they have
a child, it inverts, instead of bringing life, they are murdering someone else.
Literally, everything they do is murder.
If you know how to translate this, and you have the desire, please do.
I’m still working on one.
(WARNING!! TANGENT: read if you want)
Someone throws a point at me like, say, “arrogance”. Ok, the arrogance argument
is reducable to the existence argument… “You’re so arrogant for believing that
you’re hungry, you’re so arrogant for telling me that I’ll starve to death if I
don’t eat food. You’re so arrogant for suggesting that food exists. You’re so
arrogant for believing that there is a refridgerator here.” The list goes on
and on. The self referential stuff comes in when the person leveling the charges,
gets up and begins to interact with the fridge, pull food out and eat it because
they are hungry. The reduction is that one person is being critisized for
believing in the existence of something that the other person interacts with in
order to make the critisism. Things like “motion” for example… as in “You are
so arrogant to move your legs. You are so arrogant to believe that you
believe…”. Which, if the person was consistent, they wouldn’t speak nor move!!!
But instead, they start gossipping and running rhetoric, instantly refuting
themselves, or rather the entire functionality of the last exchange – the entire
behavior is zero sum. But they still go to the fridge and eat food. The zero sum
behavior doesn’t stop the person, as it consistently should. So part of this, is
suggesting exactly what mechanism allows people to derive value from self
refutation. Why do people do this? Why does someone go out of their way, to bypass
all the self referrential arguments anticipating and describing the mechanism of
their behavior, and still take the time to not only refute themselves through
something, like an arrogance charge in and of itself, but RECURSIVELY refute
themselves because the topic being replied to is self referrentially addressing the
response before the response was even made. What’s the POINT?? Why do these
people have stuff, if they don’t do anything? What can they possibly be doing, if
all of their linguistic tokens and actions map to self recursive collapse?
Partly what I’m suggesting, is a method that can be used to prove which
conclusions are and are not correct, not only in GD, but anywhere. TO suggest
that I’m going to have this “link” to show you, is to completely miss the
points that would refute even asking that question. With suicidal tension, I
could be lying to you and you wouldn’t know the difference. That’s the WHOLE
point I’m making!!! You could be lying to you and YOU wouldn’t know the
difference. That’s the whole point I’m making. I’m making the point that
suicidal tension is what causes this to occur. This isn’t about referring to
an encyclopedia or anything to settle the issue. The issue of the truth of
this post is contained within the post itself; translation issue
notwithstanding… I’m working on it.
OMG. This just gets funnier and funnier. Will he start posting ALL CAPS next?
I can’t think of anything much more arrogant than one person claiming that he understands what a large segment of the population are thinking and feeling better than they do themselves.
Oh, and btw, olanv? The line you’re looking for is “my post is my cite.”
Now, now, gentlemen, I smell the beginings of improvment.
It seems to me that you tried to obey a 2 sentence rule. I appreciate it, and can see some semblance of imporvement in this restatement. I do not understand what “Tautologically doing something” means, and I do not understand what you mean by “zero sum wih respect to their survival”. Please don’t, however, try to explain them. Please simply restate the paragraph above without using those phrases. Replace them with something in more common usage.
But this does not follow. Just because everything-which-would-cause-a-person-to-commit-suicide is removed from his environment does not at all mean that that persons actions no longer support his survival. If eating food is necessary fo survival, how is it less so beause the person has not seen the picture of his dead and mutilated family.
I appreciate you efforts to lower the rhetoric. It can be hard. If I may, I’ll tell you a little story about myself. I had a similar problem when I first read Ayn Rand’s writing. I found myself so fascinated that I could not talk to many people without slipping into the rhetorical patterns found there. It took me years to translate much of her work in my own head such that the things I had learned, the things I was so excited about, were actually internalized. What I discovered is that until you can explain an idea in a clearly understood sentnece, you do not really understand it yourself.
BTW, if you are a bot, bravo!
Again, the point is being missed. How is being born, living 80 years and dying, survival?
Where do you equate “being born = survival”? Again, the point comes up about binding the rhetoric to something that tautologically falsifies the rhetoric. My example about someone chiding someone else for believing that they exist, have legs, believing they are hungry etc… while they get up and walk to the fridge to eat food because they’re hungry, was meant to be illustrative of why this thread has the title it has. The implication is that billions people do this same exact thing CONSTANTLY! The receive resources while always refuting themselves, they then become convinced that the reason they are recieving those resources is because they are refuting themselves; their “survival” becomes behavior bent on destruction, in spite of how they are interpreting the event through the emotions simulated by suicidal tension. But again, I’m using jargon. And I need to return back to this process of using simpler words.
The difference between a human society that even has the possibility of having the option to survive, and one that doesn’t, is whether or not they eliminate suicidal tension.
aaaaah! aaaaaaaahhhh! ahh! ahh! aaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
Because you were born and lived 80 years. That’s what survival means. Are you saying that survival is really suicide unless it is imortality?
Well done. I almost did not make it to this part of your post. I’m glad I did.
Ok, but try and rephrase this without the term suicidal tension. I also suspect that you need a different word besides survival. I think you mean something closer to imortality.
AvhHines, I think I was right before. Life is suicide. I don’t say this in a “I told you so” way. I say this in a “Please help me” sort of way. 
I haven’t read the vast majority of this thread, so I apologize if this has already been covered but…
After looking back at the OP, I think that I might actually have a bit of an idea as to what this “suicidal tension” thing is. As near as I can understand, olanv is contending that, were suicide to be made easy enough, everyone would do it. It is only by the removal of all methods of effortless suicide that a type of tension is created that prevents us from committing suicide.
However, I think that olanv’s position is flawed (or at least so tautological as to be meaningless). Aside from the obvious tension-creators such as fear of pain and fear of death, some of the situations that might make suicide difficult could include:
[ul][li]Not wanting to make dealing with your own death difficult for your family/friends.[/li][li]Not wanting to miss the next episode of <favorite TV series>.[/li][li]Not wanting to miss the results of the next presidential election.[/li][li]Wanting to enjoy eating the rest of the Ben and Jerry’s in the freezer.[/ul][/li]
This is, of course, a very small list, but it’s enough to make my point. The only way to lower this “tension line” far enough to cause everyone to commit suicide would be to make life unbearable by removing everything you enjoy about living, including any family of friends you might have. In essence, the only person with zero suicidal tension would be one with no contact with other human beings, who enjoys nothing, takes pleasure from no activities whatsoever, and has nothing at all to look forward to.
Hell, if I were in that position, I’d commit suicide just to end the monotony.
I think that this concept of suicidal tension is completely wrong. Humans don’t constantly exist in a state of being prevented from committing suicide by suicidal tension. At least, no more than we are kept from singing “I’m a Little Teapot” every waking moment by “teapot tension”. You have to admit that, if every inhibition that prevented you from singing “I’m a Little Teapot” were removed, you’d sing it. Everyone would. But it would require such a bizarre set of circumstances that it’s not even worth considering (kind of like a socially isolated person with no joy and no anticipation for anything good, ever). It simply makes no sense to assume that people are prevented from committing X by X tension (where X is anything at all). I mean, it’s completely tautological. “We’re prevented from doing X by conditions A, B, and C” could be applied to every action possible, and it’s just as valid a definition for suicidal tension as it is for teapot tension.
Now, if I’m way off on my understanding of what suicidal tension is, let me know. But if I’m right, then it’s really nothing more than an exercise in logic . . . and one that bears no more significance than saying “The only thing stopping it from raining today is everything that is stopping it from raining today.” A complete tautology, and not worthy of any more attention than as a sample exercise in an introductory logic text.
Returning to the “What does olanv mean?” debate (does someone get a prize at the end?
olanv, if I take what I think you’re saying to its natural conclusion, no one is “surviving” by your definition unless they must actively and consciously strive to stay alive every moment. For example, the constant, ready availability of food is the reason they don’t commit suicide by starving themselves to death.
And with respect to simpler words - you have yet to use a single word I am not comfortable with. It’s the way you’re using them that boggles me.
Again, you said this was an easily falsifiable theory. I beg you to explain to me how you would falsify it: what single condition or set of conditions you would vary and what result(s) you would measure. Unless you can tell me this, your theory is as falsifiable as the divinity of Zeus.
pervert, it’s the best I can do. 
Nope, that ain’t it. That was my first interpretation and he shot it down.
Welp, I’ve given this my best shot here. Given that he’s refusing to cite any of his sources or provide any links to anything he has stated as true, until he changes what he’s saying, he’s just yanking our collective chains. Confusingly.
Well, some sort of peace of mind would be nice.
[/QUOTE]
I certainly hope so. A little peace of mind would be nice.
I think there is a little more to it than this. I think he is saying that the constant striving for food is itself a form of suicide. Something along the lines of “If a person spend all of his waking 80 years working hard just to get food to live those 80 years, how is that surviving.” This is how he can equate Gates’ fortune with mass murder. The fortune is an inanimate object which if given to those struggling could prevent them from committing this drawn out form of suicide, and so is a type of murder. <There is a part of me screaming that it hopes this did not make any sense.>
I agree entirely. This is, in fact, part of the confusion. None of your words are not understandable, you are simply using them in a way which is very confusing. This is why I keep asking you to rephrase things. Many times it is helpful to reword something to make the context of the original more clear.
Fear not, you have done exceedingly well. Better than me I think. Last time I got sucked into this conversation with olanv I swore I would not do it again. I suppose I have no discipline. It’s much easier, though, with someone else struggling to understand as well.
I’m gonna f-in’ kill my computer, which just ate the post I spend half an hour writing! I can’t take more time here now. Will post tonight.
olanv, one problem I have with your posts is that you are removing suicidal tension from the English language. (Baby Noah Webster is crying.) Many of the highfalutin words you are using do not mean what you think they mean. (I wonder how these posts would look run through Babelfish)
For instance, you cannot be in a parameter. You might be within a perimeter, but lines don’t have perimeters, except trivially, and you can’t be within a line.
I don’t think an adverbial form of tautology makes any sense.
I don’t know how you can perform a zero sum action. You can be in a zero sum game, which means that the sum of winnings of the game is 0, and for every winner there must be a loser. However much of life is not a zero sum game, so you just can’t state that things are.
The recent study shows that those given the means to commit suicide easily will do so at a higher rate than those not given these means. I understand this is not what you mean. Survival is an instantaneous thing. That you will not survive forever does not mean that you are not surviving now. That someone 90 years old with terminal cancer gives up the will to live (in this case the means for “suicide” comes from that person’s body, if you could call it suicide) does not mean they did not have a will to live when they were 20. Oh, and your definition seems to have a double negative. I’m not sure how tension can be the omission of something. It might help if you looked up some of the words and phrases that you use to see which parts of speech they are and what they actually mean.
Finally, I don’t know of one capitalist who got ahead by committing suicide. Artists maybe. Richard Thompson does a song about a composer who discovers that he is successful after he commits suicide. “Now that I’m deceased, my record sales increased…”
[Administrator Hat ON]
Olanv has been banned for being the previously banned member “Justhink”. I had my doubts at first for various reasons but no two people can write with that same style and have the same obsession with suicidal tension.
[Administrator Hat OFF]