Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Like I saod. View yourself as irrelevant Hallo. And thats all you are. No value.
View yourself highly and you HAVE VALUE.
Religious people have no value, because all they do is try to please some douchebag who doesn't exist. End of story.
Evolution, this I know
For Charles Darwin told me so
Accidentally alive
If you're weak, you won't survive
No resurrection
No immaculate conception
Just natural selection
Charles Darwin told me so
...Yep, major depression factor detected.
The real meaning of life is Darwin's facial hair.
You have no Value because all ypu do is say how insignificant you are in the scheme of things.
I have value because I KNOW I am significant. Because I am me. An individual human.
unless you change the course of the universe as a whole, you are insignificant.
As I said direct perception and logic are our absolutes. Evidence can lead us to truth as well....yeah, I dig it
Knowledge can build on itself. For example our knowledge of the atom.
True.
Also, the problem with knowing everything is that it likely does not lie within the bounds of the human brain to do so. One could not finish reading every book in existence in their lifetime, just to name one limitation.
That's saddening you think humanity has no values because your just an individual.
An individual who values himself is the noblest ideal in Human history.
I said humanity would unlock the secrets. Not each individual.
True, but that leads us to logic holes like whether it is possible to know a falsehood, or whether a set of all possible information contains itself, or other such concepts.
There is an objective restraint to total knowledge yes (capacity and time).
However, absent logic and the scientific method, we can't know anything definately. Like induction required a valid theory to even begin approaching validity.
First two Principles of Subjectivism
1. All knowledge is learnable
2. A human that believes he has Value has more Value than one who believes themselves to be insignificant.
You will never know if there is a highest number.
Also, it is impossible to measure emotions. You have never had the exact same emotion as anyone else on the planet, so you will never know what others feel. Everyone could see different colors, and we wouldn't know. My red could be completely different than your red.
Are you autistic or something?
Of course. One day every truth will be revealed and every falsehood erased.
Science does that daily as we speak.
You are banned from using the term subjectivism. It's a well-established school of thought, and I will not have you appropriating it and perverting it.
There is no highest number. Only higher numbers.
Numbers can't end. You can always add a 1.
People measure their own emotions. Due to the science behind colors unless your colorblind which has a science behind that it's not possible.
More like rejectivism.
Banned from a freedom of speech eh?
The Beuguosies Dictatorship strikes again.
CI, if you wish to have this conversation elsewhere, I'd be happy to oblige.
Also. Whoever the hell invented the word Beuguosies can burn in hell.
You actually so dumb, I cannot even.
Unless you're concerned about clogging the RMB, we can keep it here.
eheh
Lol
Technically you're violating my property rights. I of course won't physically ban you, but cut it the hell out.
Bourgeoisie isn't that hard to spell when you get used to it.
I was wondering why your main nation couldn't speak, but I think I get it now.
I love how blind you all are to limitations.
Get it through your heads. Limitations can be broken by ways of science.
Hell is not real.
Made you the meaning of life can be found by gently licking my anus, you never know.
Well I'm about to bow out seeing as night doth fall on the mountain of NorCal. The offer stands.
Thats the biggest piece of sh*t I've ever heard. Here I am preaching basic knowledge and you threaten me to shield yourself from it.
That's a hell of an assertion.
...Humanity can learn.
And if it is I want to be one of the first to experience that meaning.
I shall invoke the way of the Buddha and not meaningfully respond to this.
THAT OFFER DOES NOT STAND STAY AWAY
You're the best
I shall invoke the way of Honey Badger and not give a...well, you know.
Not to say I won't respond, though - responding is fun.
Okay.
-_-
I've got a few billion people competing with me for the title, but it's nice of you to say so.
Ha, Libby.
Just shut up man of no value.
So, TTa has been existentially choke slammed sufficiently tonight.
Ah, but don't you know, the only other relevant candidate is Lack. For to each of you have I used the aforementioned title.
It is just the fact you are blinded by limitations and somehow can't even remember what Value an individual has.
Your no better than a Collective that believes they are worthless.
Yeah. I should have known something was up when these dark-robed dudes showed up saying "Sithism is a perfectly valid religion", but it didn't dawn on me to do anything about it.
I hand-waved the whole thing, and so did they, apparently.
NOOO SOMEONE INVENTED SOMETHING WITH THE TERM SUBJECTIVISM
and. OH MY GOD IT'S THE ATLAS SHRUGGED COLLECTIVE IDEOLOGY.
SCREW THAT NAME I NEED ANOTHER.
Subjectivism, Objectivism....what fits in.
*cough* Rejectivism *cough*
Hmmm... Your right. Thats is Objectivism Rejectivism
http://www.scienceoflife.nl/html/objectivism_rejectivism.html
I'm preaching a real ideology I didn't know about...
You're right, the name isn't negative enough. Abjectivism!
Stop inventing names.
Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.
Tell that to people who believe in it; Darwin's theory of evolution was taken way too far. He admitted himself that the principle that species evolve into entire different species (that are not even members of the same genus, necessarily) would require evidence of thousands of "missing links" having existed in order to be substantiated, and we haven't found a single one!
I do, however, agree with many of Darwin's observations on the state of nature. I think he recognized the potential for flaws in his theory, but many were quick to embrace it as hard fact (when it clearly isn't) because the alternative is creationism - an unthinkable premise to scientists who don't believe in a God.
Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.
It hasn't been conclusively proven impossible, but any signs pointing to it are just as flimsy - if not more flimsy - than creationism. No evidence has been provided that any species could become a species of a different genus, as would be necessary for macroevolution.
Microevolution, however, is not only observable but strongly supported by data. I'm not questioning that.
Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.
Objectivism is a contradiction to itself hahaha
Objectivism says that thoughts aren't absolute thus don't exist thus Objectivism an ideal isn't absolute because it's not material. Thus it can't exist.
Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.
Indeed. Charles Darwin provided invaluable contributions to the biological sciences, and while his suggestion that species could evolve from entirely different species was a very good guess, I don't think many scientists are secure enough in that theory to insist that he can't be wrong.
Naturally; it's impossible for animals to successfully breed with those of another genus! How, then, could we possibly share a common ancestor if the genus of a species cannot change?
There might be something to the striking similarity of animal DNA, but I don't think macroevolution is it.
Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.
I lol'd to hard at these
I accept the fact I've got some steep competition
This does not explain the creation of separate genera; how could these have come about as a result of microevolution? Furthermore, where is the evidence that we are direct descendants of this ancestor? The fossil record indicates nothing of the sort - this indicates that there is some other reason to our similarities with some other species.
You keep using certain words that I don't think you understand what they mean.
I don't know a lot about biology, or scientific theory, but I did find this on the internet,
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10454066_857396227621381_3523103297086198643_o.jpg
So it's probably accurate
It's on the Internet, so it can't be untrue. The Internet said so.
I support Palestine.
Is this real, or are you just trying to get a rise out of someone ?
https://fbcdn-photos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-0/10544370_853349874692683_6396472020159066095_n.jpg
Allo Peasants!
BOOO HISSSS
So, yeah, it probably wasn't the best idea to give Hallo a Cabinet position. He has effectively stomped on the sanctity of his office as he swore in the oath. Strike two, Mr. Manager.
Why not both?
Minerva, please be joking
uh-oh... here comes the internet
Question: should individuals have the right to duel other people - which may result in death - as long as it is completely voluntary?
I don't think Keynesianism has ever had any real major influence on the political class in the United States for most of its history. Realism always seems to triumph over the absurd idealism of the Keynesian doctrine. FDR was not a Keynesian, since his programs came before The General Theory and he refused to cut taxes. His monetary policy was also nothing special. What followed his presidency was several decades of increasingly lower taxes and stable money, with only the stagflation of the 1970s and the 2000s interrupting this trend. Even John F. Kennedy, who ran for President as a Keynesian, ended up raising interest rates and cutting taxes in the face of a slow economy. I think the only President that can actually be considered a Keynesian is George W. Bush, who pursued loose, weak-dollar monetary policies, cut taxes, vastly increased spending and stimulus packages to stimulate the economy during down times.
I think that the next President, be it Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton, will inevitably realise that the course the United States is following is unsustainable. The next President will, I believe, follow tight-money policies, cut spending and cut taxes. For all the silly ideological talk out there, even the most moderate presidential candidates surely know what must be done.
if anything is between two consenting adults (that can be provenand doesnt afferct anyone else) should be leagle
Of course!
I really don't care about what happens in Israel.
#offenderrbody
Yes, absolutely.
We need to back Israel in their endeavours
Shocker
Ok, I'll bite. I fail to understand how people justify taking sides on this issue. It boils down to a religious/ethnically charged conflict in which both groups consider themselves innately superior to the other. My heart goes out to those civilians trapped in the middle, but as for the warring factions I have little interest in the surviving of either.
Yeah.....
Palestine can be justified by Lockean property rights and acquisition.
Come at me, bros
*Shakes head in disappointment*
Anyway, I don't care really too much about the conflict. Let's give them a goodie basket and withdraw from the Middle East and half our problems will be solved.
See, now you're making sense. It's all racially/religiously motivated anyway.
I'm going to remove the 'Raider' tag. We just lost a possible alliance because of it and we defend more than we attack. PS. Not an end to a war, just a tag.
Everyone ok with this?
To be honest I find both Hamas and Israel to be bad guys. There is a definite better side (Israel), but as neither is really good I refuse to support them.
America needs tk back out of Israel's and the entire Middle East business unless an event there will directly hurt us.
We need to pull all unnecessary troops out and put them in the Americas to Stabilize Latin America. We stabilize America and then work our way out. Don't stabalize Israel when our southern partner is sending illegals at us.
Sounds like a good idea.
People know what our region is and what it stands for, and yet we still receive embassies from random strangers. If a simple tag is enough to turn them away, that's their problem. We shouldn't cave it, that makes us look weak, and our embassy program should be reactive and not proactive, like LfH's, with the exception of REATO members and regions controlled by REATO members.
My two cents.
That's sort of a legal gray area, considering murderers may attempt to justify their crimes by claiming that they were engaging in a duel. (And it would be rather hard to find evidence to the contrary, no?) On the other hand, duels would be really fun to watch...
Indeed. "Invader" isn't even all that accurate a term for what we do anyway, as that implies we occupy sovereign free regions rather than destroying garrisons of enemy forces. Furthermore, we engage in far more defense missions anyway in order to roll back the influence of real invaders.
I see a small problem with duels but if it's proven they are voluntary and is observed by witnesses as fair then sure.
Hello, Libertarem ! we would really appreciate it if some of your nations could come to TFI as we have moved back to our original region. if any of you would like to help start it up. help would be very appreciated
Oh yeah, there's that. What Coumba said.
Are you recruiting or is this a temporary thing? We are not recruiter-friendly.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.