Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Muh Roads wrote:Well we are married...

Wait a minute? There was a wedding? and I wasn't invited?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Wait a minute? There was a wedding? and I wasn't invited?

Ya, I personally sold your invite on stub hub.

Ankha wrote:Ya, I personally sold your invite on stub hub.

But, I had a speech and everything. I was going to say how wonderful their marriage was and how it was a very historic and momentous occasion. Almost as important as Michael Sam getting drafted

And then being released...

Ankha wrote:And then being released...

They are just discriminatory against homosexsuals(talking in lispe and exaggerated hand motions.)

This region needs a torture chamber.

I'll test it out to see uf it works.

The Time Alliance wrote:This region needs a torture chamber.

I'll test it out to see uf it works.

Ewewewewewwwwww

Baphometus wrote:Ewewewewewwwwww

What is it Hallo?

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:Why is that so gross?

Exactly.

Zeouria wrote:Why is that so gross?

You must not know TTA.

Ankha wrote:You must not know TTA.

He knows me.

He knows somewhat of what I meant.

Ankha wrote:You must not know TTA.

And not everything I say is bad.

The Time Alliance wrote:And not everything I say is bad.

But most of it is kinda gross.

Ankha wrote:But most of it is kinda gross.

Well. Okay point of fairness there. Wait gross?

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Kinda gross? Hell, he's addicted to horse hooves.

Einsiev wrote:Kinda gross? Hell, he's addicted to horse hooves.

Ya that.

Einsiev wrote:Kinda gross? Hell, he's addicted to horse hooves.

Shaddup already and go back to CFN Mr. I lead guys on for my enjoyment.

I'm not addicted to them. I just like them somewhat.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

The Time Alliance wrote:Shaddup already and go back to CFN Mr. I lead guys on for my enjoyment.

I'm not addicted to them. I just like them somewhat.

There is something better than horses... Scarlett Johansson.

Zeouria wrote:See. We may find that gross, but he likes them and doesn't think they're gross.

In my mind at least. Then again. I find a lot to be okay and i understand a lot of stuff I like is gross.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:There is something better than horses... Scarlett Johansson.

Most girls are better than horses....duh.

You can date a human and marry them.

You can't do that with a horse.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:They're not gross. Nothing is actually gross, since its subjective. It's all your personal likings and thoughts. Hooves are gross to me, but not to you. That only makes it gross to me.

You can't say anything is objectively gross.

I can indeed say it is. It's called reasoning. I can like something bad or gross. It's objective but can be interpreted subjectively within an individual.

A is A

Wait. Why am I arguing on the standpoint I'm gross and weird?

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:No. That's your opinion. I could easily say cheese pizza is gross, and the reasoning being is it's really greasy and unhealthy. Does that make it gross? Of course not.

But reasoning and....God dang it Rand. You aren't making since. Why is the philosophy of Objectivism friggon Subjective

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:How am I not making any sense?

Gossity (or whatever it may be called) is subjective. Like morality. You may find apples good tasting and I may find them disgusting. Does that make them good or disgusting? No. It's all in personal likings.

What are you again?

Zeouria wrote:No. That's your opinion. I could easily say cheese pizza is gross, and the reasoning being is it's really greasy and unhealthy. Does that make it gross? Of course not.

This is for the most part true, but I think somethings are found to be naturally and universally recognized as repulsive and gross. Such as skunk spray. Could be wrong though.

The Time Alliance wrote:What are you again?

Cause I swear. I'm hearing the 70 page John Halt speech again.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:What if someone likes the smell?

Anarchist Communist and Nihilist.

Then even I'm calling them gross. Which is hard.

You no stop. Be Objectivist now.

It's not. Gross, as objectively defined, comes from a reference point (we have these things called error and lying you know). Often times objects defined as gross are not actually so; yet certain aspects of a single object can be simultaneously gross and not gross. The reference point would be the effects a certain object has on the mind and/or concepts that pervert (make gross) certain moral values. So, whilst I hold life as the objective standard of value, I could not say life is gross and have it be so since it would be a contradiction.

Zeouria wrote:What if someone likes the smell?

I'm not denying the potential existence of someone who might like the smell. But being that the smell/spray is the skunks defense, a skunk kind of relies on its predators to be repulsed, right?

I hate philosophy and Metaphysics and Objectivism and Ayn Rand and Aristotle and Plato and Socrates (what did he do?)

It's important to draw the distinction between subject as individual and subject as process of biology/thought. Nihilism confuses the difference quite often.

Muh Roads wrote:I'm not denying the potential existence of someone who might like the smell. But being that the smell/spray is the skunks defense, a skunk kind of relies on its predators to be repulsed, right?

There's that one guy with that one fetish.

Okay. Philosophy time. I'm lost. Can someone translate into non-philosophy talk please.

The Time Alliance wrote:Okay. Philosophy time. I'm lost. Can someone translate into non-philosophy talk please.

Basically, contradictions do not, cannot, and will never exist.

Liberosia wrote:Basically, contradictions do not, cannot, and will never exist.

So A is A?

The Time Alliance wrote:So A is A?

Can it be anything else?

Liberosia wrote:Can it be anything else?

Well yes.

A when flipped upside down and it's line removed is V

So by manipulation A can be V

It could be, but then your statement would be

V=V

Liberosia wrote:It could be, but then your statement would be

V=V

Well then A+[Manipulation] =V=V

Yes, that would be valid, except the final V is redundant

Liberosia wrote:Yes, that would be valid, except the final V is redundant

Hahaha

Thus A doesn't only equal A. Forget you Ayn Rand and Aristotle.

I added the V in to show the V then stayed V unless manipulated again.

The Time Alliance wrote:Cause I swear. I'm hearing the 70 page John Halt speech again.

eheh

Baphometus wrote:eheh

Shush. John Galts got nothing on you with what you've said to mem

The Time Alliance wrote:Hahaha

Thus A doesn't only equal A. Forget you Ayn Rand and Aristotle.

I added the V in to show the V then stayed V unless manipulated again.

....

No, TTA, you're not getting it.

The above statement, illustrated, would be the following:

A single Apple is that Apple and can be nothing else. When I take a bite out of the Apple, the Apple becomes the single apple with a bite out of it. It cannot be anything else.

Liberosia wrote:....

No, TTA, you're not getting it.

The above statement, illustrated, would be the following:

A single Apple is that Apple and can be nothing else. When I take a bite out of the Apple, the Apple becomes the single apple with a bite out of it. It cannot be anything else.

By manipulation of man or something else I'll say science instead of religion though it works both ways.

Lets say man invented a machine to turn lets say water into food.

Id that not manipulation?

A thus is V

What would you call a cat stored in a box that has a fifty-fifty chance of being alive or dead with no way to determine its life status without first opening the box and observing it, before observing it to determine whether it is alive or dead?

The Time Alliance wrote:Shush. John Galts got nothing on you with what you've said to mem

well what ever do you mean?

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:What would you call a cat stored in a box that has a fifty-fifty chance of being alive or dead with no way to determine its life status without first opening the box and observing it, before observing it to determine whether it is alive or dead?

A cat.

Baphometus wrote:well what ever do you mean?

You must've pulled Objectivism out on me at least 50 times.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:What would you call a cat stored in a box that has a fifty-fifty chance of being alive or dead with no way to determine its life status without first opening the box and observing it, before observing it to determine whether it is alive or dead?

Schrodinger's cat.

The Time Alliance wrote:You must've pulled Objectivism out on me at least 50 times.
Probably because you were being a moron.

The Time Alliance wrote:A cat.

Damn, I'm starting to like this philosophy.

Baphometus wrote:Probably because you were being a moron.

I was not.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Damn, I'm starting to like this philosophy.

Screw Objectivism.

Ayn Rand. Meet your Match. Subjectivism! (Or is that invented already?)

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:What would you call a cat stored in a box that has a fifty-fifty chance of being alive or dead with no way to determine its life status without first opening the box and observing it, before observing it to determine whether it is alive or dead?

An absence of absolute knowledge. We can't know what we don't know.

If we must speculate, then we fall back on the odds.

Liberosia wrote:An absence of absolute knowledge. We can't know what we don't know.

If we must speculate, then we fall back on the odds.

Or you can call it a cat.

Dead or alive it'd still be a cat.

The Time Alliance wrote:I was not.Screw Objectivism.

Ayn Rand. Meet your Match. Subjectivism! (Or is that invented already?)

You mean the philosophy of being a pussy.ass bitch, yes.

Also, you were being too Mormon, and I was beginning to dry heave at your vile stupidity.

The Time Alliance wrote:I was not.Screw Objectivism.

Ayn Rand. Meet your Match. Subjectivism! (Or is that invented already?)

Good for you. I'll continue to pursue my happiness.

Baphometus wrote:You mean the philosophy of being a pussy.ass bitch, yes.

Also, you were being too Mormon, and I was beginning to dry heave at your vile stupidity.

You're an objectivist?

Liberosia wrote:You're an objectivist?

I thought this was clear.

Baphometus wrote:I thought this was clear.

I mean are you a straight up orthodox objectivist?

Baphometus wrote:You mean the philosophy of being a pussy.ass bitch, yes.

Also, you were being too Mormon, and I was beginning to dry heave at your vile stupidity.

I am not stupid.

Let me tell you Subjectivism will be the advanced form of Objectivism....once I study metaphysics.

Liberosia wrote:Good for you. I'll continue to pursue my happiness.

Subjectivism and Objectivism would have lots on common.

I simply don't want to call anything like New Objectivism.

Liberosia wrote:I mean are you a straight up orthodox objectivist?

Yep.

Liberosia wrote:An absence of absolute knowledge. We can't know what we don't know.

So what does that make learning?

The Time Alliance wrote:I am not stupid.

Let me tell you Subjectivism will be the advanced form of Objectivism....once I study metaphysics. Subjectivism and Objectivism would have lots on common.

I simply don't want to call anything like New Objectivism.

You have no grasp of any philosophy whatsoever, Blake.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:So what does that make learning?

Exactly.

On time all can be revealed by ways of Human science. We can learn what we don't know.

It's not an absolute that it is hidden knowledge. All knowledge is unlockable.

Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:So what does that make learning?

Depends on what you're learning. What you perceive. Some knowledge is probabilistic. A lot of it is open to error I'd say (history classes are a good example.)

The Time Alliance wrote:Exactly.

On time all can be revealed by ways of Human science. We can learn what we don't know.

It's not an absolute that it is hidden knowledge. All knowledge is unlockable.

no no no, no no no no, no no no no.

The Time Alliance wrote:Exactly.

On time all can be revealed by ways of Human science. We can learn what we don't know.

It's not an absolute that it is hidden knowledge. All knowledge is unlockable.

Liberosia says no knowledge (aside from absolute), you say all knowledge...I don't think either extreme is correct, really.

Baphometus wrote:You have no grasp of any philosophy whatsoever, Blake.

I have quite a good grasp of Objectivism. It's just I don't agree with your chosen philosophy that you say this.

I can say you don't either. It's a subjective viewpoint based on the minds bias.

The Time Alliance wrote:Exactly.

On time all can be revealed by ways of Human science. We can learn what we don't know.

It's not an absolute that it is hidden knowledge. All knowledge is unlockable.

Do you know what you're saying?

Baphometus wrote:no no no, no no no no, no no no no.

Do you believe there is stuff humans will never learn?

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Liberosia says no knowledge (aside from absolute), you say all knowledge...I don't think either extreme is correct, really.

Humans will one day know a the mysteries of life and the universe.

Liberosia wrote:Do you know what you're saying?

That Humans can think, learn and evolve.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Liberosia says no knowledge (aside from absolute), you say all knowledge...I don't think either extreme is correct, really.

First, what are you asking?

Second, care to enlighten us?

The Time Alliance wrote:That Humans can think, learn and evolve.

Yeah...that's what we're saying...

Go back to the dead cat.

Lib. You say you can't say what the cat is because we don't have tje knowledge.

I say. I have the knowledge that either way it will still be a cat. It's easy to open the lid and check instead of sit and wonder on philosophy.

Blake, the ultimate truth if the universe, is that there is no ultimate truth. Once you accept that you are meaninglessly hurdling through space on a giant rock and your life is completely insignificant and there is nothing you can do about that, you can focus on making yourself happy.

Liberosia wrote:An absence of absolute knowledge. We can't know what we don't know.

If we must speculate, then we fall back on the odds.

Liberosia wrote:Yeah...that's what we're saying...

Can't know what we don't know?

The Time Alliance wrote:Go back to the dead cat.

Lib. You say you can't say what the cat is because we don't have tje knowledge.

I say. I have the knowledge that either way it will still be a cat. It's easy to open the lid and check instead of sit and wonder on philosophy.

They're not mutually exclusive. It depends on the question.

Liberosia wrote:They're not mutually exclusive. It depends on the question.

Ask another then and see how our answer vary.

Baphometus wrote:Blake, the ultimate truth if the universe, is that there is no ultimate truth. Once you accept that you are meaninglessly hurdling through space on a giant rock and your life is completely insignificant and there is nothing you can do about that, you can focus on making yourself happy.

There has to be truth in all things.

The truth of the mind is that all minds are subjective.

The trith of a rock is that it's a rock.

Everything has a truth. One day humanity will be able through religion science or whatever to see all the truths of the universe.

Nothing can be hidden from knowledge. If it exists it is understandable somehow.

Maybe not today or in a century but eventually humans will learn.

Sure, I'll grant you that perception functions as an absolute, and that error occurs only in conceptualization (or perhaps there is sensory damage, not sure).

You'd think it'd be the Atheist spouting everything could be understood and not the religious.

You are so immature. There is no meaning of life. You are going to die and we all are going to die and everything we have learned and experienced will be irrelevant, so you may as well sit back and enjoy the ride.

Liberosia wrote:First, what are you asking?

Second, care to enlighten us?

Statistically speaking, wouldn't it be more rational to suggest that there are some things that can be known rather than no/all?

Anyway, while one might have an intimate knowledge of some aspects of a subjective thing, there are other aspects that cannot be qualified. Would this count as something that can and cannot be known?

I enjoy Hallo how Objectivism has done to you what you say religion has done to me.

I have a mind. I think and learn. I adapt. I thrive. I create.

You. Believe humans are nothing. Meaningless. Have no thoughts besides what makes them happy.

Liberosia wrote:Sure, I'll grant you that perception functions as an absolute, and that error occurs only in conceptualization (or perhaps there is sensory damage, not sure).

...What?

Baphometus wrote:You are so immature. There is no meaning of life. You are going to die and we all are going to die and everything we have learned and experienced will be irrelevant, so you may as well sit back and enjoy the ride.

Time for Atheist Camp! Let's sing campfire songs!

No one loves the little children

The little children of the world

No one hears you when you cry

No one hears your lullaby

No one loves the little children of the world

...Damn, that's depressing.

Baphometus wrote:You are so immature. There is no meaning of life. You are going to die and we all are going to die and everything we have learned and experienced will be irrelevant, so you may as well sit back and enjoy the ride.

No meaning of life.

I thought the meaning of life was decided by your own goals. If you decide now there is no meaning then what goals do you have. My life's meaning is determined by me. Not the fact I'll die and no one will no me.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Statistically speaking, wouldn't it be more rational to suggest that there are some things that can be known rather than no/all?

Anyway, while one might have an intimate knowledge of some aspects of a subjective thing, there are other aspects that cannot be qualified. Would this count as something that can and cannot be known?

Humans by advancement in learning can know all things.

It make take years or 100s of them but humans will know.

I'm sorry if you look at yourself with no Value Hallo.

But hey. Your value is made by you not by me. So to me your worthless. Meanwhile. I view myself as important. Thus value.

The man who thinks of himself more highly IS worth more.

The Time Alliance wrote:I enjoy Hallo how Objectivism has done to you what you say religion has done to me.

I have a mind. I think and learn. I adapt. I thrive. I create.

You. Believe humans are nothing. Meaningless. Have no thoughts besides what makes them happy....What?

All of our lives are irrelevant. especially yours, if all you do in life is suck your priest's cock.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.