What does it feel like to be the greatest philosopher of all time?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Kind of dissapointing actually. Nothing much except some moments of hurray, hands in the air.

The creationist conceptual scheme:
http://www.creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy

Wittgenstein, whom I haven't actually read, is said to have mostly invented correspondence theory, which is basically the logic of fact (but not the complete logic of it). That was his claim to importance.

The ccs adds the logic of opinion, and puts both concepts of opinion and fact in one coherent conceptual scheme.

So you see, the ccs is better than Wittgenstein's correspondence theory.

Why did nobody discover the creationist conceptual scheme before, why am I the one and only? I guess it's because I am much impervious to the idea of doing your best, which tends to corrupt the definition of the verb "choose". I guess I always had the do it the easy way approach. But then I was very persistent in finding the the easiest way, the most efficient way, the logical way.

These kinds of lofty explanations for things, with words like "consciousness", they are too vague, too bothersome, too high standard for me. Words with discrete single clear logical functions, that is better.

If you all can just repeat this idea that the creationist conceptual scheme is the greatest philosophy of all time, so I am the greatest philosopher of all time, then that is a good excuse to have spent so much time on usenet. No time was wasted here when the result is the greatest philosophy of all time.

The ccs is something that can, and should be, learned in school. Maybe at a very young age already, it's not that complicated. Maybe at the same age that they already teach the difference between fact and opinion.

It should be part of basic education, like reading and arithmetic. And that can't be said of any other philsophy that it should be part of basic education.

Also it should be learned, as the lesson taken from the history of the holocaust. The lesson from the holocaust should be that personal character is subjective, and that it can only be identified by expressing a chosen opinion on what the personal character of the person is. As opposed to nazis saying that personal character can be established as a matter of biological fact of racial science.

There should be straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of the subjective part of reality, throughout academics. Which there isn't now, which is catastrophic.

The lesson taken from the holocaust should not be to ban the ordinary human emotion "hate", which is also impossible, because what one says is hate, the other says is love. Or the same person says it is hate one time, and says it is love the other time. This lesson from the holocaust to ban hatespeech, is increasingly showing itself to be fascistic in practise.

And no identity can survive when you are only allowed to like it, and not allowed to dislike it. Then people will just give a pass on both like and dislike, if there is no freedom to dislike. And then the identity suffers neglect.

An actual lesson should be learned from the holocaust, which is to learn how subjectivity works, with the creationist conceptual scheme.

And certainly now that China is executing genocidal policies against Tibetans and Uygur, with a very similar attitude to nazi Germany, with eugenic scientific pretense backed up by the scientific community there, it's time for societies to learn the creationist conceptual scheme.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am much impervious to the idea of doing your best

Yes, that much seems to be true.

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:46:39 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The ccs adds the logic of opinion, and puts both concepts of opinion and fact in one coherent conceptual scheme

Conceptual, perhaps, but completely incoherent. Not to mention
completely pointless, since no one needed the concepts clarified to
begin with. As I have noted before, you spend an inordinate amount of
time and effort combating a problem that doesn't actually exist, in a
language that you don't write in very well. Don Quixote would be proud
but you might want to listen to everyone else playing the role of
Sancho Panza telling you that those windmills aren't giants...

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The holocaust is a problem, genocide is a problem.

It is true that nazis asserted that personal character can be establishes as scientific fact.

The scientists assert they can measure the personal character. So then you get like judgments to say as scientific fact that the painting is beautiful, but then it's judgments about personal character. Emotions are cut off in the judgments, because emotions do not apply to factual issues. So you get judgments that are incredibly hard, emotionless, because the judgments are asserted as scientific fact.

That is how nazi ideology functions in relation to warmongering and genocide. The hardedged pseudoscientific judgments provide the attitudes for warmongering and genocide.

So the problem is real and huge, as evidenced by nazi ideology and the holocaust.





Op donderdag 28 april 2022 om 15:41:14 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Op woensdag 27 april 2022 om 19:06:12 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:

> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I am much impervious to the idea of doing your best
> Yes, that much seems to be true.

You've got nothing. No understanding how subjectivity works. No idea about how things went wrong in relation to the holocaust.

[broger...@gmail.com]

It's simple how things went wrong in relation to the holocaust. You have a bunch of miserable people, Germans, in the midst of terrible inflation and a national humiliation at the end of WWI who need to focus their anger and blame on an identifiable group of people. The Jews were already the subject of anti-Semitism and were a politically convenient target. It's very easy for people to believe that some group of "others" is responsible for all their problems, and it's easy for politicians to take advantage of that tendency to build an ethnonationalist platform. And it's easy for that to lead to progressively greater calls for violence against the chosen target population and, ultimately to actual violence, up to and including genocide.

There's a similarity between that, and the way you blame all of society's problems on a group of evolutionist academics; you already talk about doing physical violence to them. You're already taking the first steps on the road to genocidal fascism yourself.

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 07:09:46 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The holocaust is a problem, genocide is a problem.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with people being unclear on the
concepts of "opinion" and "fact".

>It is true that nazis asserted that personal character can be establishes as scientific fact.
>The scientists assert they can measure the personal character.

Who made such an assertion, and how would one "measure" personal
character? Be specific.

>So then you get like judgments to say as scientific fact that the painting is beautiful,

It would take an exceptionally daft person to make such a daft claim.
Can you give some specific examples of people doing so?

> but then it's judgments about personal character.

You seem to be stuck on this particular notion. Is it from personal
experience with the psychiatric community, perhaps?

>Emotions are cut off in the judgments, because emotions do not apply to factual issues. So you get judgments that are incredibly hard, emotionless, because the judgments are asserted as scientific fact.

By whom?

>That is how nazi ideology functions in relation to warmongering and genocide. The hardedged pseudoscientific judgments provide the attitudes for warmongering and genocide.
>So the problem is real and huge, as evidenced by nazi ideology and the holocaust.

Have you considered that the Nazis didn't actually believe that
character can be measured scientifically (or that certain ethnic
groups possess certain inherent and heritable character traits) but
were making such claims as propaganda to justify their actions?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Your bullshit idea that to ban hatespeech, would have prevented the holocaust, is nonsense, because it fundamentally undermines free speech. It is shown to be obviously fascistic, like banning conservatives on social media. That is what you are saying amounts to, that me hating the evolution scientists, is the beginnings of genocide against them, so that in order to prevent the mass killing of evolution scientists, you want to ban the hatespeech against them. Assuming you want to prevent genocide.

The actual genocidal fascism is currently in China, in regards to Tibetans and Uygur, backed up by that same sort of eugenical thinking coming from the scientific community in China.

The start is to define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option. Which means the subjective spirit is thrown out from the concept of choice, and choosing becomes to be understood similar to how a chesscomputer calculates a move.

So the subjective spirit is thrown out, and from that you get materialism. Zero intellectual acknowledgement of the entire subjective part of reallity. As like Kruschev saying they did not see God out in space, therefore God is not real. Only what is objective, is real and relevant, all what is subjective, is disregarded.

The political application of materialism is socialism, and then you get left wing socialism, communism, and right wing socialism, nazism.

China shifted over the last decades from left wing socialism, to right wing socialism. With eugenics legislation, genocidal policies, Han racism. Also the economy in China looks much more similar to the nazi economy, with enterprise freedom, inside final govenment control.

So you get this overachieverish society of doing your best, with a disregarded emotional basis, and extremely callous pseudoscientific judgmentalism.

And the attractor in this ideology is the utopian society, because the goodness is in the objective material, and not in the subjective spiritual. So get rid of the materially bad enviroment, the materially bad people. Have only good people, living in good circumstances, like in the movie Moonraker.

It makes perfect sense that disregarding the entire subjective part of reality, disregarding emotions, that this would lead to genocide. Without emotions, what is the emotional significance of genocide? It's nothing much, it's just a calculation, substracting some human beings, it's minus.


Op donderdag 28 april 2022 om 17:26:14 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

In evolutionary psychology they still say personal character can be identified as fact. They say it is like software running on the hardware. A wellknown anti-semite evolutionary psychologist is Kevin MacDonald. He just uses the standard evolutionary psychology theory, but on a controversial subject.

You yourself in effect say that personal character can be identified as scientific fact, by saying an opinion on what the personal character is, is not chosen. There are only 2 possiblities a fact forced by evidence, or a chosen opinion. When you discount chosen opinion, as you do, it means you end up with a fact forced by evidence. And all what you say is suggestive of denying the entire subjective part of reality.

I see no reason to believe it was propaganda, because I have found how it works. There is enormous psychological appeal / pressure, related to doing your best. That is a plausible explanation for corrupting the definition of choosing, which leads to objectifying personal character.

Is it true that there is enormous psychological appeal / pressure related to doing your best? Yes

Does this then tend to lead to conflation of the moral advise to do your best, with the logic of choosing? Yes

Does this then tend to throw out the subjective part in the concept of choice, the agency doing the choosing, reconstruing choice as like a chesscomputer calculating a move? Yes

So then when identifying personal chracter, one would be looking for material things that constitute the personal character, as like the material things determining the moves of a chesscomputer.


Op donderdag 28 april 2022 om 17:50:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[*Hemidactylus*]

Someone could exhibit character traits such as honesty or being hard
working. In a work environment these could be evaluated in certain ways. If
a worker was dishonest in dealings with a supervisor they might get a
demerit or fired depending on severity of said offense. If hard working or
not it might be scaled on a performance evaluation, as in meeting certain
expectations or completing given tasks in a satisfactory or exemplary
manner. Would measuring character related traits in such a manner
necessarily make a supervisor a Nazi?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

When you assert judgments as scientific facts, then that is the essence of the nazi belief system.

When you assert judgments as facts, but not scientific facts, then that is basically the same, but the scientific part makes it more extreme.

In your example, the measurement system is chosen, including the subjective terminology in it. So it is basically a complicated chosen opinion, and not neccessarily stating as fact that someone is lazy or dishonest.

Op donderdag 28 april 2022 om 22:15:57 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[*Hemidactylus*]

mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you assert judgments as scientific facts, then that is the essence
> of the nazi belief system.
>
> When you assert judgments as facts, but not scientific facts, then that
> is basically the same, but the scientific part makes it more extreme.
>

Sure evaluating others is largely subjective. Such judgments are largely
framed in a way depending on overarching value systems. In a work
environment efficiency is often a primary value in line with bottom line
and profitability. I’m no engineer but that seems measurable against
expectations. Also customer service but that might rely more on subjective
comment cards.

But facts one gets from researching a problem are not directly related to
values. The former may compel an action in context of the latter. One could
extract oil in a way that maximizes shareholder value from a purely
fiduciary POV or one could measure CO2 as a result of burning fuel and see
how that compels action to reduce emissions from a more environmentally
conscientious value framing.

>
> In your example, the measurement system is chosen, including the
> subjective terminology in it. So it is basically a complicated chosen
> opinion, and not neccessarily stating as fact that someone is lazy or dishonest.
>

Well the focus on hard work and efficiency came from a Calvinist value
system that dovetailed with capitalism, the most material of worldviews.
Contra Kant people became treated more as means than ends. Inequality grew
and people became less in control of themselves, or alienated from
themselves as a good chunk of daily time is doing things that don’t really
interest oneself but are in pursuit of a paycheck to keep the debt piling
decelerated.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Capitalism is based on freedom, and only the subjective spirit can decide anything, so that is not materialism. Problems with capitalism, it's mostly just people disregarding social organization such as family and friendship. That's how people become alienated.

I remember when I was in university there was a studybook on sociology, which said that society consists of 2 spheres, political and economic. And then there was a second theory which says that there is also a social sphere, which functions as a lubricant oil between the 2 spheres of politics and economics. So the social sphere is absent, or it is lubricant oil. That sticks out in my mind as the proof of the totally dead spirit in academics. And that is mostly socialism, not capitalism.

Socialists in the seventies and eighties, were against family. And now they are also against it. And want to have the "community" raise kids, instead of families. They just have no clue whatsoever, where the worthwhile emotions are at, what's important. They have bad subjective opinions, systematically, because they are clueless about subjectivity.

I think social organizations such as fraternities at university, provide a high upward economic mobility, because those bonds are emotionally signficant. That sort of thing is the solution to economic success. You have to provide a strong emotional basis. When you have good relations, family and friends, then generally your life is already a succes, because those are the main things in life. And then from that success, economic success naturally follows.

Some individual with a social case worker, the emotions in that relationship are a total bunch of crap, so that is never going to provide upward economic mobility.




Op vrijdag 29 april 2022 om 01:05:57 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:37:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In evolutionary psychology they still say personal character can be identified as fact.

"Identify" and "measure" are not synonyms. I asked how one would go
about measuring personal character. Well?

> They say it is like software running on the hardware. A wellknown anti-semite evolutionary psychologist is Kevin MacDonald. He just uses the standard evolutionary psychology theory, but on a controversial subject.

Kevin MacDonald is a kook. Why would you take anything he says as
representative of the field of evolutionary psychology?

>You yourself in effect say that personal character can be identified as scientific fact, by saying an opinion on what the personal character is, is not chosen.

That does not follow logically.

> There are only 2 possiblities a fact forced by evidence, or a chosen opinion.

*Yawn". I see you're still stuck on your insistence that opinions are
chosen. That's a really weird hill to die on.

>When you discount chosen opinion, as you do, it means you end up with a fact forced by evidence.

That does not follow logically.

> And all what you say is suggestive of denying the entire subjective part of reality.

No, I just deny that what you're saying on the topic is clear or
coherent, and when it accidentally ventures into that territory, it's
wrong.

>I see no reason to believe it was propaganda, because I have found how it works.

You have very odd ideas about how things work, to say the least, but
go on...

>There is enormous psychological appeal / pressure, related to doing your best. That is a plausible explanation for corrupting the definition of choosing, which leads to objectifying personal character.

Your capacity for stringing unrelated things together is most
impressive.

>Is it true that there is enormous psychological appeal / pressure related to doing your best? Yes

I'm sure there is, if you're applying to an Ivy League school, or
auditioning for a symphony orchestra. How do you think this applies in
a more general sense? Is there enormous pressure to do my best in
picking what I want for dinner tonight? Is there enormous
psychological appeal involved in choosing a pair of socks to wear for
the day? Please elaborate.

>Does this then tend to lead to conflation of the moral advise to do your best, with the logic of choosing? Yes

Speak for yourself.

>Does this then tend to throw out the subjective part in the concept of choice, the agency doing the choosing, reconstruing choice as like a chesscomputer calculating a move? Yes

If you're completely neurotic,sure. Otherwise, not so much.

>So then when identifying personal chracter, one would be looking for material things that constitute the personal character, as like the material things determining the moves of a chesscomputer.

How exactly is one supposed to arrive at an opinion of someone else's
personal character without observing that person displaying it in
their words and actions? By randomly guessing? Coin flip? Please
share.

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:14:42 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Capitalism is based on freedom, and only the subjective spirit can decide anything, so that is not materialism.

"It is wrong from beginning to end", said the caterpillar.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It's evolution theory that is kooky, and Kevin MacDonald just applies it to a controversial subject. It's only when outsiders started to crtiticize MacDonald for anti-semitism, that he was said to be not in the mainstream of evolutionary psychology.

After the holocaust the evolution scientists said that racism is invalid, because in group variation is larger than between group variation. That was the argumentation they used to invalidate nazi racism, and racism in general. But actually this variation argumentation was brought to the attention of Hitler already, and Hitler determined to just look at the bevavior in order to find out if someone had Aryan genes.

Another thing evolutionists did is, to assert that all human beings are the same. Upon changing from socio-biology to evolutionary psychology it was declared that all human beings are the same. Except for man and woman. So then you had all these sociobiologists complaining about how natural selection cannot operate without variation. To which the evolutionary psychologists responded that they just wanted to make statements about people in general, same as they might make statements about elephants in general.

Evolution scientists have never accepted the truth that personal character is subjective. Which is obvious, because subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, and evolution scientists have consistently been against creationism.

Someone like Dawkins, he first makes a technical definition of selfishness. But then he says, that selfish genes generally make people selfish. So then he equivocates the technical objective selfishness, with the subjective personal selfishness. The same Dawkins who openly admits he doesn't understand free will.

So the pattern of evolution scientists has always been to redefine subjective terminology in objective terms, and to deny the entire subjective part of reality.

And obviously, obviously, you are a total nazi yourself, in the way you throw out the idea of personal character being identified with a chosen opinion. It does follow logically, that when there are only 2 options, and you expressly throw one option out, that then you are left with the other option.

Certainly having the best food, and the best clothes, also have psychological appeal / pressure associated. With all the trademark clothes, and the healthiest tastiest food etc.

You look at what choices people make, what the available possiblities were, and which possibility was realized, then you relate to the agency of those choices, you feel what that agency is, and then express that feeling by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on the issue.

So you only look at the objective / factual behavior, in order to trace it back to it's origin in the decisionmaking processes, the agency of which decision is what you then relate to with your own emotions.

But I forget, you already threw out free will, choosing, as having anything at all to do with subjective opinions, because of it being so absurd. That is the whole of your argumentation I believe, that it is absurd. Or maybe you, like Dawkins, and like nazis generally, are clueless about what making a choice means, clueless about subjectivity, clueless about emotions.





Op vrijdag 29 april 2022 om 15:15:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:47:54 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's evolution theory that is kooky,

Suuure it is. Everyone else is nuts, and you're the only sane person
here. In other news, the gostak distims the doshes, and apples now
fall skyward.

> and Kevin MacDonald just applies it to a controversial subject.

For ideological reasons that have nothing to do with science.

> It's only when outsiders started to crtiticize MacDonald for anti-semitism, that he was said to be not in the mainstream of evolutionary psychology.

He isn't. His ideas are nonsensical.

>After the holocaust the evolution scientists said that racism is invalid, because in group variation is larger than between group variation. That was the argumentation they used to invalidate nazi racism, and racism in general.

There are many other reasons to reject it.

> But actually this variation argumentation was brought to the attention of Hitler already, and Hitler determined to just look at the bevavior in order to find out if someone had Aryan genes.

Hitler's ideas on the subject were just as kooky as MacDonald's. No
one here advocates them in any way.

>Another thing evolutionists did is, to assert that all human beings are the same.

That's a rather bizarre idea as well. Who claims such a thing?

> Upon changing from socio-biology to evolutionary psychology it was declared that all human beings are the same.

By whom? Be specific, and provide quotes.

> Except for man and woman.

How so?

>So then you had all these sociobiologists complaining about how natural selection cannot operate without variation

Obviously, but why would sociologists take that position and
evolutionary biologists deny it? That seems confused, to say the
least.

>To which the evolutionary psychologists responded that they just wanted to make statements about people in general, same as they might make statements about elephants in general.

I'm still waiting for quotes from actual people on the topic.

>Evolution scientists have never accepted the truth that personal character is subjective.

What do you mean by that?

>Which is obvious, because subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept,

You are literally the only person who claims this.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Argumentum ad populum is the logical fallacy of saying a statement is true, because the statement is popular. Because many people say it is true. Doesn't fucking matter that I am the only one who says subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, it is the truth still. Doesn't fucking matter 99 percent of scientists accept evolution theory, it doesn't make it true.

The 5 German evolution scientists who wrote the book, evolution der organismen. Which book established the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory in Nazi Germany. Nazis all of them, and 4 out of 5 were members of the SS. Is that book total bullshit, and are these evolution scientists also kooks, same as you say Kevin Macdonald theory is bullshit, and he is a kook?

To say something is "subjective", means that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. As opposed to objective, which means it can only be identified with a fact forced by the evidence of it. And all what is subjective is on the side of what chooses, and all what is objective is on the side of what is chosen. And choosing is the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates. Meaning that the categories of creator and creation perfectly correspond with the categories of all what is subjective, and all what is objective.

Since a choice can be made out of personal character, like a choice can be made out of courage, it means personal character is on the side of what chooses, and therefore personal character is subjective. Therefore one can only reach the conclusion that someone is courageous by choosing the opinion, not by evidence forcing to a conclusion on it, a fact.

See, that is straightforward logic. That works. While what you say is just a big fucking mess.





Op vrijdag 29 april 2022 om 17:15:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Argumentum ad populum is the logical fallacy of saying a statement is true, because the statement is popular. Because many people say it is true. Doesn't fucking matter that I am the only one who says subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, it is the truth still. Doesn't fucking matter 99 percent of scientists accept evolution theory, it doesn't make it true.

It is not an Argumentum ad Populum to point out that you are the only
person to make such a claim, it is an observation that your idea of
subjectivity being "an inherently Creationist concept" is not held by
any other Creationist. This tends to cast gigantic doubts on the
accuracy of your assertion.

>The 5 German evolution scientists who wrote the book, evolution der organismen. Which book established the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory in Nazi Germany. Nazis all of them, and 4 out of 5 were members of the SS. Is that book total bullshit, and are these evolution scientists also kooks, same as you say Kevin Macdonald theory is bullshit, and he is a kook?

The Nazis were, in fact, kooks, who insisted that all "Aryan Science"
be conducted in accordance with, and in support of, their ideology..
Do you dispute this? Hitler thought the Earth was hollow, too. Does
that mean that all of geology is, and all geologists are, tainted by
his ideas on the subject?

>To say something is "subjective", means that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

You're still stuck on the idea of "Chosen opinion", I see. Why, when
it's trivial to give examples of opinions that aren't chosen?

> As opposed to objective, which means it can only be identified with a fact forced by the evidence of it.

I know you think that you're communicating something of importance
here, but why? Facts are indeed objective. But no one is unclear about
that. You may as well run around shouting that water is wet.

>And all what is subjective is on the side of what chooses, and all what is objective is on the side of what is chosen.

That was gibberish the first time you wrote it, and it's gibberish
now. You aren't communicating anything by it, regardless of what you
may think you mean.

>And choosing is the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates.

OK, I choose to have a burger and fries for lunch today. What have I
"created" by making that choice?

>Meaning that the categories of creator and creation perfectly correspond with the categories of all what is subjective, and all what is objective.

I still have no idea what you think you mean by that.

>Since a choice can be made out of personal character, like a choice can be made out of courage, it means personal character is on the side of what chooses,

I don't know what you mean by "personal character is on the side of
what chooses". If you're saying that people make choices, and that
people have a personal character, sure. But what the hell is your
point? You're simply stating the obvious, albeit in a strangely
tortured form of English.

> and therefore personal character is subjective.

That doesn't appear to follow logically from what you just said, but
I'm unclear as to what "personal character is subjective" is even
supposed to mean.

> Therefore one can only reach the conclusion that someone is courageous by choosing the opinion, not by evidence forcing to a conclusion on it, a fact.

How does one form such an opinion without observing a person's
actions? By randomly guessing? By a coin flip?

>See, that is straightforward logic.

It is neither straightforward (due to your bizarre usage of English),
nor is it logical (see my comments above).

>That works. While what you say is just a big fucking mess.

You might see things differently if you were able to read English
better than you write in it.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Well, you're back to your "please hit me in the head with a baseball bat" persona, aren't you?

Why is it, really, that you are a total fucking asshole? Still under the spell of the moral advise to do your best, conflating it with the barebone logic of choosing?

Yes asshole, it is an argumentum ad populum when you say the "accuracy" is dependent on how many people say it is true. Totally moronic, aren't you, emoting your arguments aren't you? Just putting it all out there, your complete idiotic assholery.

Back to your moronic stupidity that it does not require free will in order to produce subjective opinions, that choosing is not an essential part of subjectivity. Then why is it, asshole, that in common knowledge, all things that are automated are likewise said to be without emotion? As like people behaving like a robot, it is a metaphore for people being unemotional.

Present a logically functional concept of emotion without free will / choosing. You say it is possible, then produce it.

Emotions are agency to decisions, is why there is no subjectivity without choosing. As is totally bleedingly obvious.

And I already explained to you several times, asshole, that you look at the objective evidence of what someone chose, to then trace that back to the decision by which it came to be. Someone chooses A, then you see the objective evidence of A, and then trace that back to the decision by which A came to be. And then you relate with your emotions, to the agency of that decision, and feel what it was that made the decision turn out A. And then express a subjective opinion on what it was that made the decision turn out A, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. Thereby choosing an opinion on the issue. That is how you may find the subjective courage, that is at the basis of the objective action A.

You have to fucking feel things, but feeling things, that's something you don't accommodate with your intellect, at all. Total fucking nazi.

Obviously, obviously, you are a total fucking nazi yourself, and there is no surprise whatsoever how the nazis got away with it to objectify personal character. They were coereced to do so by the evolution professors, and academics in general, insisting on it. Total fucking assholes such as yourself.


Op maandag 2 mei 2022 om 18:31:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Mon, 2 May 2022 13:51:17 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, you're back to your "please hit me in the head with a baseball bat" persona, aren't you?

Translation: You're not pleased that I showed the incoherence and poor
reasoning of your previous post. (Spoiler: you'll like the rest of
this post even less...)

>Why is it, really, that you are a total fucking asshole? Still under the spell of the moral advise to do your best, conflating it with the barebone logic of choosing?

Why is it that you have to resort to attacking my character instead of
addressing what I actually said?

>Yes asshole, it is an argumentum ad populum when you say the "accuracy" is dependent on how many people say it is true.

I never said or implied any such thing. I simply observed that your
insistence that "subjectivity is inherently a Creationist concept" is
a position shared by no other Creationist. That changes it from
"inherently a Creationist concept" to "Nando's odd personal opinion on
the topic".

>Totally moronic, aren't you, emoting your arguments aren't you?

Excuse me? You're the one blowing a gasket here, not me.

> Just putting it all out there, your complete idiotic assholery.

Q.E.D.

>Back to your moronic stupidity that it does not require free will in order to produce subjective opinions,

I said no such thing. Why don't you try addressing what I actually
wrote, instead of ranting and raving about things that I neither said
nor implied?

> that choosing is not an essential part of subjectivity.

Why do you think it is?

> Then why is it, asshole, that in common knowledge, all things that are automated are likewise said to be without emotion?
>As like people behaving like a robot, it is a metaphore for people being unemotional.

Your point being what, exactly? This seems to have no relation to
anything being discussed.

>Present a logically functional concept of emotion without free will / choosing. You say it is possible, then produce it.

Where did I - or anyone else for that matter - say any such thing? And
what does it have to do with anything here?

>Emotions are agency to decisions, is why there is no subjectivity without choosing.

Your conclusion does not follow from your single premise.

> As is totally bleedingly obvious.

No, it isn't. It's a Non Sequitur on the level of "Ducks enjoy
swimming, therefore humans who enjoy swimming are ducks"

>And I already explained to you several times, asshole, that you look at the objective evidence of what someone chose, to then trace that back to the decision by which it came to be.
>Someone chooses A, then you see the objective evidence of A, and then trace that back to the decision by which A came to be. And then you relate with your emotions,

Whoa there! First, what does "And then you relate with your emotions"
even mean, and second, what does it have to do with anything?

> to the agency of that decision,

People have the agency to make decisions. People experience emotions.
Emotions can influence the decisions that people make. But to
attribute agency to emotions is a basic category error.

>and feel what it was that made the decision turn out A.

How do feelings come into this?

>And then express a subjective opinion on what it was that made the decision turn out A, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. Thereby choosing an opinion on the issue.

"Spontaneous expression" and "choice" appear to be mutually
contradictory here. That's a problem for your model.

>That is how you may find the subjective courage, that is at the basis of the objective action A.
>You have to fucking feel things, but feeling things, that's something you don't accommodate with your intellect, at all. Total fucking nazi.
>Obviously, obviously, you are a total fucking nazi yourself, and there is no surprise whatsoever how the nazis got away with it to objectify personal character. They were coereced to do so by the evolution professors, and academics in general, insisting on it. Total fucking assholes such as yourself.

And we're back to name-calling. What a surprise.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Really liar, you used the word "accuracy". The statement the world is round, becomes accurate if many people say it is round. And the statement the world is flat becomes to be a personal opinion, if many people say the world is round. Not how it works asshole.

How subjectivity works, is a matter of scientific fact, just the same as the shape of the world is.

And the fact is that subjectivity works by choosing an opinion, on what it is that chooses. And as choosing is how a creation originates, how a creation comes to be, subjectivity is therefore an inherently creationist concept. Regardless of the many who say that isn't so.

And you can disprove it by obtaining a single fact about what it was that made any decision turn out A instead of B, anywhere in the universe, througout all time. If you do that, then what I say is most certainly wrong.

So you started with a straigh up lie, denying that you used the word accuracy. I pray to God, that I never become a liar such as you.

Asswipe, you stated "it's trivial to give examples of opinions that aren't chosen". Go ahead fucker, give an example of an opinion that has no essential element of free will, that is without choosing. Are we now finally going to hear about the Jews, the Aryans, and their nature? The material and objective personal character, forcing the opinions, instead of the spiritual and subjective personal character choosing opinions.

That you said no such thing that opinions aren't chosen, is another straight up lie.

You identify the personal character and emotions of another person, by expressing your own personal character and emotions, in choosing an opinion on the issue. That is what it means to relate to the emotions and personal character of someone. You relate your own decisionmaking processes, to the decisionmaking processes of another.

Emotions, personal character, the logical function of them is to make a decision turn out A instead of B. It is simply correct logic to say love, courage, laziness, fear, made some decision turn out A instead of B. That is how they are referred to, in common discourse.

You apparently refer to the categories agency and experience. And that people are in the category agency, while emotions are in the category experience. Well that doesn't make any fucking sense obviously, to divorce people from emotions. One could say the self is agency, and emotions are an attribute of a self, and that it is therefore wrong to say emotions are agency, because the self is agency, and the emotions are just an attribute of an agent. But it is just wrong, fear, courage, they may indeed by referred to as what made a particular decision turn out A instead of B. It is the self who is frightened, and courageous, so that to say there is a categorical distinction, is nonsense.

It's just a total nonsense nitpicking argument, because you have no argumentation. You only have lying, and ofcourse you have, your erronuous definition of choosing in terms of figuring out the best option. As shown by that you distinguish spontaneity, from choosing, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, and not in terms of spontaneity.

It was already explained at length, that the definition of choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, is a conflation between the moral advise to do your best, and the barebone logic of choosing. It is therefore wrong to regard it as the barebone logic of choosing, which is what you are doing by disthinguishing choosing from spontaneity.


p[

Op dinsdag 3 mei 2022 om 17:21:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 3 May 2022 09:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Really liar, you used the word "accuracy". The statement the world is round, becomes accurate if many people say it is round. And the statement the world is flat becomes to be a personal opinion, if many people say the world is round. Not how it works asshole.

Your inability to read even the simplest sentences for comprehension
is truly mind boggling. To say that "subjectivity is inherently a
Creationist concept" implies that Creationists in general share your
position. That literally NONE OF THEM BESIDES YOU actually claims this
makes it your personal opinion, nothing more.

>How subjectivity works, is a matter of scientific fact,

Your ideas of "how subjectivity works" bear no relation to either
science or fact.

> just the same as the shape of the world is.
>
>And the fact is that subjectivity works by choosing an opinion, on what it is that chooses.

You're very fond of repeating this, but it's gibberish that doesn't
convey any information.

> And as choosing is how a creation originates, how a creation comes to be, subjectivity is therefore an inherently creationist concept.

"How a creation comes to be" is a matter of fact, not a matter of
opinion. You really are hopelessly confused.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Asshole, we can still ascertain as a matter of objective fact that the decisions are made, and that they are in respect to what it was that made a decision turn out the the way it did. That is how it is a matter of objective fact how subjectivity works. That the agency of the decsions is not objective, is besides the point.

And you're really just trying to make an argumentum ad populum, because you're a total asshole. Total intellectual fraud without an argument. That is all you have left, to say that other people don't say the way I say. None of them beside me, ah yes, doesn't fucking matter in logic. It doesn't make it a personal opinion asshole, that the earth is round, if only one person says it, or viceversa that the earth is flat. Cannot play by the rules eh?

To say an opinion is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that chooses, provide the following information:

There are alternative futures A and B, A is made the present, meaning A is chosen.

Then there is the question, what made the decision turn out A instead of B?

Then logic dictates that the answer must be a chosen subjective word.

Choose between subjective words P and Q, choose P, then the opinion is that P made the decision turn out A.

See asshole, I can write this procedure all down, while you have absolutely nothing. Literally no argumentation whatsoever.

And again, you are just a total fucking asshole, total piece of shit. That's all what you are doing here. There is not even the slightest hint that you are trying to ascertain how subjectivity functions.







Op dinsdag 3 mei 2022 om 19:21:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:38:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Asshole, we can still ascertain as a matter of objective fact that the decisions are made,

Absolutely. We are in agreement there.

>and that they are in respect to what it was that made a decision turn out the the way it did.

But you immediately run off the rails back into gibberish. What is
that supposed to mean?

>That is how it is a matter of objective fact how subjectivity works. That the agency of the decsions is not objective, is besides the point.

What do you mean by "the agency of the decisions"? People make
decisions. People objectively exist. People have agency. What part is
subjective there?

>And you're really just trying to make an argumentum ad populum,

You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, but that won't make
it correct.

>because you're a total asshole. Total intellectual fraud without an argument. That is all you have left, to say that other people don't say the way I say.

No, what I'm saying is that you can't claim that "subjectivity is
inherently a Creationist concept" when no Creationist who isn't you
actually thinks this. At most, it's your personal opinion.

> None of them beside me, ah yes, doesn't fucking matter in logic.

You are making a specific claim (that subjectivity is "inherently a
Creationist concept") that is not, in fact, a position that is held by
Creationists who aren't named "Nando Ronteltap". My pointing that out
is not an AAP.

> It doesn't make it a personal opinion asshole, that the earth is round, if only one person says it, or viceversa that the earth is flat. Cannot play by the rules eh?

That the Earth is flat is false. So is "subjectivity is inherently a
Creationist concept".

>To say an opinion is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that chooses, provide the following information:

It doesn't provide any information, regardless of what you may think.

>There are alternative futures A and B, A is made the present, meaning A is chosen.

Whoa there. How does one make an opinion "the present"? That makes no
sense. Also, many choices involve the future, not the present.

>Then there is the question, what made the decision turn out A instead of B?
>Then logic dictates that the answer must be a chosen subjective word.

That does not follow.

>Choose between subjective words P and Q, choose P,

On what basis does one do so?

>then the opinion is that P made the decision turn out A.

Your point being what, exactly? What does this tell us, even if true?

>See asshole, I can write this procedure all down, while you have absolutely nothing. Literally no argumentation whatsoever

My argument is that your "procedure" is a hopeless jumble of ideas
that are either trivial and uninformative, or confused to the point
that you're unable to express them in a way that makes any sense.

>And again, you are just a total fucking asshole, total piece of shit. That's all what you are doing here. There is not even the slightest hint that you are trying to ascertain how subjectivity functions.

So basically, you're trying to objectify subjectivity? That's pretty
weird. Not to mention completely unnecessary.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Assfucker, nazi, you are the one who is objectifying what is subjective. You are the one who, same as a nazi, says he can state as scientific fact, what the personal character of someone is.

As is clearly shown by that you dismiss the procedure to reach a conclusion about what the personal character of someone is, by choosing an opinion the issue. There are 2 possible options on how personal character is identified, with a fact forced by the evidence of it, or with a chosen opinion, and you have discounted opinion.

About 30 times you have rejected opinion, as wrong, incomprehensible, gibberish. So there is no doubt about it that you are a nazi, as also well shown by all the evolution scientists who say they can establish personal character as a matter of objective fact of biology. Dawkins stating selfishness as fact, or evolutionary psychologists. Or Haeckel identifying the personal character of Jesus, as a matter of fact of biology. A long and consistent history of evolutionary scientists asserting they can establish personal character, as a matter of fact of biololgy.

And yes asshole, it is a logical fallacy to assert that accuracy, truth, is dependent on how many people say it is true. Even for a statement that is not true, like to say the earth is flat, it does not make it untrue because few people say it is so. It does not make it a personal opinion to say the earth is flat, just because one or a few people say so. What a stupid fucking moron you are. Total piece of shit.

But there is a sort of copyright issue with words. People use words like creationism, subjectivity, objectivity, choosing, and so on, and basically they own those words, with the meaning they attach to it. So I cannot attach a different meaning to those words. If I have a different meaning, then I should coin a new word, because I don't own that word.

Some evolutionist philosopher Dennett, he says that choosing essentially has the logic of being forced. That is wrong, it is illegetimate redefenition of a word. Although Dennett does correctly make argument that his definition is the same as the definition that is in common use. He correctly tries to legitemize his definition, in respect to common discourse. He asserts that when people say they might have chosen differently, they say that they would have chosen differently, if conditions were different. So that different conditions, make for a different result of a choice, which means choosing has the logic of being forced by the conditions. And he is right that people do many times argue like that. But if you look at the logic used in common discourse, it is shown that the barebone logic used with choosing is always to make one of alternative futures the present.

My definitions are all in line with common discourse. Including my use of creationism, it is in line with the literal use of the word creator and creation. So I am not the only one, because you yourself for instance, you also use the logic of making one of alternative futures the present, when you say to make a choice. There is a dinstinction between the logic people use in practise with a word, and what people say the definition of a word is, if you ask them. Often these are not the same, but the definition must be the same as in practise. My definitions are the same as in practise, logically consistent. It is just the truth that people say like, either Trump or Clinton becomes president, then there are elections, which is referred to as a choice, and then Trump became president. Meaning that the logic used in practise with the word choose, is to make one of alternative futures the present.




Op woensdag 4 mei 2022 om 15:36:08 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/4/22 6:34 AM, Harry Krishna wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:38:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

> [...]

>> And you're really just trying to make an argumentum ad populum,
>
> You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, but that won't make
> it correct.

My impression is that blue in the face is Nando's normal condition.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 4 May 2022 07:29:06 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Assfucker, nazi, you are the one who is objectifying what is subjective. You are the one who, same as a nazi, says he can state as scientific fact, what the personal character of someone is

Again, for what has to be the hudredth time, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED ANY
SUCH THING.

>As is clearly shown by that you dismiss the procedure to reach a conclusion about what the personal character of someone is, by choosing an opinion the issue.
> There are 2 possible options on how personal character is identified, with a fact forced by the evidence of it, or with a chosen opinion, and you have discounted opinion.

On what basis do you form such an opinion, if not by observation?

>About 30 times you have rejected opinion, as wrong, incomprehensible, gibberish.

No, I have rejected most of what you write about opinion as that. Big
difference.

> So there is no doubt about it that you are a nazi, as also well shown by all the evolution scientists who say they can establish personal character as a matter of objective fact of biology.

Again, I have never claimed this.

>Dawkins stating selfishness as fact, or evolutionary psychologists.

I see you understood the point of The Selfish Gene as well as you
understand the English language in general. Which is to say, not much.

> Or Haeckel identifying the personal character of Jesus, as a matter of fact of biology.

What are you babbling about?

> A long and consistent history of evolutionary scientists asserting they can establish personal character, as a matter of fact of biololgy.

What utter nonsense.

>And yes asshole, it is a logical fallacy to assert that accuracy, truth, is dependent on how many people say it is true

Which I have also never said. What I DID say is that you can't claim
that "subjectivity is inherently a Creationist concept" when, in fact,
it is not: it is the weird opinion of one Creationist.

>Even for a statement that is not true, like to say the earth is flat, it does not make it untrue because few people say it is so

I absolutely agree. The evidence indicates that the Earth is an oblate
spheroid, regardless of how many people say it's flat. But you're
making a blanket claim here that "subjectivity is inherently a
Creationist concept". That's simply false on every possible level,
including the fact that Creationists other than you would wonder what
the hell you're even talking about.

>It does not make it a personal opinion to say the earth is flat, just because one or a few people say so. What a stupid fucking moron you are. Total piece of shit.
>
>But there is a sort of copyright issue with words

What a bizarre claim.

>People use words like creationism, subjectivity, objectivity, choosing, and so on, and basically they own those words, with the meaning they attach to it. So I cannot attach a different meaning to those words. If I have a different meaning, then I should coin a new word, because I don't own that word

The reason that you can't use your own meanings for words is that it
makes it impossible for other people to figure out what you're trying
to say, Humpty-Dumpty.

>Some evolutionist philosopher Dennett, he says that choosing essentially has the logic of being forced.

Quote please.

> That is wrong, it is illegetimate redefenition of a word. Although Dennett does correctly make argument that his definition is the same as the definition that is in common use.

That's what people do when they want other people to understand what
they're saying. Have you considered trying it? It might save you an
enormous amount of frustration.

> He correctly tries to legitemize his definition, in respect to common discourse. He asserts that when people say they might have chosen differently, they say that they would have chosen differently, if conditions were different.

Yes, and your problem with this is what? If I want to get a gallon of
milk from the supermarket down the block, my decision on whether or
not to take an umbrella will depend on the weather at the time.

>So that different conditions, make for a different result of a choice, which means choosing has the logic of being forced by the conditions.

Taking external factors into account is not a synomym for being
forced. A prudent person would take the weather into account when
leaving the house, and if it's raining, would most likely choose to
take an umbrella with them. Putting a gun to their head and ordering
them to take an umbrella with them would fall under "being forced".

> And he is right that people do many times argue like that. But if you look at the logic used in common discourse, it is shown that the barebone logic used with choosing is always to make one of alternative futures the present.

And as I have pointed out many times, that's nonsense. If I decide to
visit Ireland this August, I have not made that the present: it is
still in the future.

>My definitions are all in line with common discourse.

No, they most certainly are not. Most of them are unique to you. You
just gave an example directly above.

> Including my use of creationism, it is in line with the literal use of the word creator and creation.

In what way?

> So I am not the only one, because you yourself for instance, you also use the logic of making one of alternative futures the present, when you say to make a choice.

Again, no. I gave a counter-example above, and it is trivial to find
more.

>There is a dinstinction between the logic people use in practise with a word, and what people say the definition of a word is, if you ask them.

According to whom? You?

> Often these are not the same, but the definition must be the same as in practise. My definitions are the same as in practise, logically consistent

Whether they are logically consistent or not is difficult to
ascertain, since using your own definitions for them makes it
difficult to figure out what it is you actually mean.

>It is just the truth that people say like, either Trump or Clinton becomes president, then there are elections, which is referred to as a choice, and then Trump became president. Meaning that the logic used in practise with the word choose, is to make one of alternative futures the present.

That example illustrates the opposite of what you're claiming. The
2016 election was held on the first Tuesday in November of that year.
Trump became President on January 20th, 2017. That isn't "making an
alternative future the present": the outcome of the choice was still
in the future foir over two months.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Asswipe, you say that oh personal character cannot be established a fact, but, then you reach the conclusion about what someone's character is based on observation, which observation is obviously the logic of fact. And oh yeah, to choose an opinion on the issue, is false, and gibberish. And then ofcourse all the other evolution scientists say that personal character can be established as fact of biology, using observation.

What was the basic logic of opinion again, as distinct from fact? Oh yeah, you never mentioned what it was, you never actually made the logic of opinion distinct from the logic of fact. Which means your concept of opinion is just a subcategory of facts, namely facts about brainstates. Just the same as you identify photosynthesis or whatever, you identify personal character in the brain, based on observation of the behavior that is a result of that personal character. And then you call it an opinion, although you actually use the logic of fact.

And when I say you have to fucking feel things to form a subjective opinion, you, don't understand. You throw choosing out from the concept of subjectivity. etc. etc. Which is all using the logic of fact, because there is no choosing in the logic of fact.

Dawkins did use his selfish gene theory to say that people are selfish. He made some issue about altruism, but his final conclusion was that selfish genes make for selfish people. Using the metaphore of mobsters. And it doesn't really matter whether he says people are selfish or altruistic, what matters is that he makes these claims as statements of fact about the personal character of people, and not as a matter of chosen opinion.

It's all lies what you are telling me. It is basically, whatever you can get away with on the moment now, but when push comes to shove, then you are one with evolution scientists who all regard personal character to be objective. Again, as was also shown by that the response of evolution scientist to the holocaust was not to say that the nazis were wrong, because personal character is subjective, the response of evolution scientists to the holocaust was that in group variation, on personal character, is larger than between group variation. Which means to say that the nazis got the facts of personal character wrong, and not that the nazis were wrong to treat personal character as a matter of fact.

Obviously, the fact that materialism is endemic in evolutionary biology, it could not be otherwise than that evolution scientists say personal character is objective. No evolution scientist accepts the subjective personal character, because that is inconsistent with materialism. What is inherently subjective, that is not material of any kind anymore.

Dennett, who is quite popular, obviously he is going to make personal character out to be brainstates, software on the hardware, or some such, because Dennett does not acknowledge anything inherently subjective is real. His whole idea of free will, is based on every part of the concept of choosing being objective, without an inherently subjective agency doing the choosing.

Ofcourse I would not be allowed to claim that subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept if it isn't. But the truth is that choosing is the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates, and a subjective opinion is chosen and expresses what it is that chooses, therefore subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.

Here you say that it is a "fact", that to say that subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, is a, "weird" opinion. Asshole, liar, what is weird is not a matter of fact.

You see you do objectify what is subjective. You objectify weirdness. What a coincedence, not, because you do not acknowledge any subjective part of reality. So you will always, in practise, objectify what is subjective, because reality in it's entirety is all objective, according to you.

And it is not categorically a statement of opinion to say that subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, it is a statement of fact. Regardless if a statement of fact would be in error, like to say the earth is flat, it then does not have the same logic of a subjective opinion, like to say a painting is beautiful. It remains in the category of statements of fact.

Asshole, when you decide to go to Ireland, then you have the words "I will go to Ireland" or somesuch, in your mind, instantaneously. No matter that you go on the trip later, you chose the words now. You maybe chose between the options spain, and ireland, and you chose the word ireland. There were the directly available alternative futures available of saying in your mind, I will go to spain, or, I will go to Ireland, and you made one the present. Instantaneously. I already explained that to you several times, but, you are an asshole, and a liar. So you keep on lying, being a stupid fucking nazi, while the Chinese are committing genocide against the Tibetans and Uygur.

On some politics chat group there is this atheist and apologist for China. Naturally, I bring up the concept of subjectivity to him. Then he keeps repeating, "the subjective is garbage". Basically his entire argumentation. It is not a coincedence, it is a pattern that is rooted in defining choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, which throws out the subjective agency from the concept of choosing, leaving people with materialism, and objectivity, and a dysfunctional concept of subjectivity. It is pattern, overachieverish China, doing their best, killing the Tibetans, killing the Uygur, locking their own people down, all for the best. All emotionless calculations in terms of an optimum, which is their idea of choosing.



Op woensdag 4 mei 2022 om 18:21:08 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/22 6:34 AM, Harry Krishna wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:38:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
>> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> And you're really just trying to make an argumentum ad populum,
>>
>> You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, but that won't make
>> it correct.
>
> My impression is that blue in the face is Nando's normal condition.
>

A long bout of anoxia explains quite a bit about Nando’s relation to the
world really.

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 4 May 2022 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Asswipe, you say that oh personal character cannot be established a fact,

I said that no one in their right mind claims it can be established as
a *scientific* fact. Your inability to read *anything* for
comprehension is almost staggering.

> but, then you reach the conclusion about what someone's character is based on observation, which observation is obviously the logic of fact.
> And oh yeah, to choose an opinion on the issue, is false, and gibberish.

So cutting through your thicket of oddly-phrased English, what you're
essentially saying is that people should just spontaneously choose
opinions out of thin air, rather than arriving at an *informed*
opinion by finding out what the hell they're talking about before they
"choose" it? That's idiotic. But it does explain a lot about your
posts.

[Nando Ronteltap]

I already explained this procedure several times. You trace back the chosen behavior of the person you are making an opinion on, to the decisions by which those behaviors came to be. Then you choose an opinion on what the personal character was that made those decisions turn out the way they did. Choosing from your own emotions and personal character, what the personal character of the other person is. So you should have some idea about how the decisionmaking processes of the other person are organized. That is relevant information.

And the chosen opinion on personal character is then essentially spontaneous.




Op donderdag 5 mei 2022 om 16:16:10 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>I already explained this procedure several times. You trace back the chosen behavior of the person you are making an opinion on, to the decisions by which those behaviors came to be. Then you choose an opinion on what the personal character was that made those decisions turn out the way they did. Choosing from your own emotions and personal character, what the personal character of the other person is. So you should have some idea about how the decisionmaking processes of the other person are organized. That is relevant information.
>
>And the chosen opinion on personal character is then essentially spontaneous.

What you are describing is the exact opposite of spontaneous.

[Nando Ronteltap]

It's not opposite, because choosing the opinion is still free.

Lack of spontaneity in forming opinions, is using a lot of pre-fabricated opinions, prejudice. What I am saying is not pre-fabricated, it's something that can be done in the moment.

Op donderdag 5 mei 2022 om 17:46:10 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 09:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>It's not opposite, because choosing the opinion is still free.

"Free" and "spontaneous" are not synonyms. The procedure you describe
may be "free", but it is in no way "spontaneous".

>Lack of spontaneity in forming opinions, is using a lot of pre-fabricated opinions, prejudice.

One should always eliminate prejudice in forming opinions, sure. But
that does not make your described procedure "spontaneous", unless, as
usual, you're using your own personal definitions for words.

[Nando Ronteltap]

In real life these kinds of things of having some idea about how the decisionmaking processes of someone else are organized, happen largely intuitively, without intellectual guidance to focus on the issue. And in choosing an opinion one would be more focused in the organization of one's own decisionmaking processes, that they are in proper order. Which also involves ensuring to keep things spontaneous, without automatically repeating some pre fabricated judgment. Dealing with the hype, coercing some judgment manipulatively, etc. Lots of things to do, where the intellectual understanding of subjectivity provides a strategic guidance to what otherwise happens intuitively.

Op donderdag 5 mei 2022 om 18:36:10 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Pro Plyd]

Feels pretty good. Why do you ask?

[JC]

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:25:59 PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> Argumentum ad populum is the logical fallacy of saying a statement is true, because the statement is popular. Because many people say it is true. Doesn't fucking matter that I am the only one who says subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, it is the truth still. Doesn't fucking matter 99 percent of scientists accept evolution theory, it doesn't make it true.
>
> The 5 German evolution scientists who wrote the book, evolution der organismen. Which book established the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory in Nazi Germany. Nazis all of them, and 4 out of 5 were members of the SS.

Die Evolution der Organismen was published in 1967-68, you moron. Unless Mengele time traveled to 1968 then back to 1936, it isn't likely it "established the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory in Nazi Germany"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1468627/pdf/jmedgene00376-0079b.pdf

Go peddle you bullshit where no one has any regard for facts - Fox news perhaps?

[Nando Ronteltap]

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/405985

First published in 1943 dumbshit.

And reportedly Mengele had a later copy of it buried with him in his grave.

Goddamned stupid asshole.


Op zondag 8 mei 2022 om 13:56:16 UTC+2 schreef JC:

[Nando Ronteltap]

And Brett Baier, Peter Doocy from Fox News, great reporters.

Or, just ordinary reporters, and reporters are great. Unlike the clown reporters at CNN, who aren't really reporters.

Op zondag 8 mei 2022 om 13:56:16 UTC+2 schreef JC:

[Nando Ronteltap]

On closer inspection, the copy of evolution der organismen wasn't in his grave, it was just amongst his belongings.



Op maandag 9 mei 2022 om 01:56:16 UTC+2 schreef Nando Ronteltap: