Libya - the truth - Page 8

On September 01 2011 09:44 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 23:36 palak wrote:   On August 31 2011 22:50 Baalim wrote: Oh i forgot what you said about my friends. Actually i hang out with somewhat intelligent people, im the only one who doesnt have a university degree lol, at least half of them have a master degree, only two of them have PhDs tho, so im not Dan hanging out with douchebags with 5k watches and 2 digit IQ bleached blondes, but i just feel im smarter than them, one of the Ph.Ds is probably smarter than me in many areas but he is religious so he loses most of his points there. probably less than 10% are catholics, and my country is over 90% catholic so that should give you an idea of the kind of people i hang out with, i find it unbearable to have conversations with morons, thats the reason why i barely reply to Zep One or two flaws in a persons logic should not disqualify them from being intelligent nor should it elevate you above them. Fwiw I don't consider myself in the top 10 intelligence wise of ppl i know irl. Also there are multiple ppl who i disagree almost violently with but I will admit they are more intelligent then me overall. examples of ppl i know who i disagree w/ but I consider more intelligent then me. Catholic conservative...libertarian conservative greek orthodox sunday school teacher...mormon hardcore republican....unitarian democrat...presbyterian computer engineer...conservative jewish rabbi...etc It doesnt disqualify them, it makes them lose a lot of points, if you believe in santa claus im sorry but you simply will look like a fool to me. Im sorry but all those you mentioned are idiots, a Mormon? a guy who believes in an intergalactic Jesus and that blacks are sub-humans being punishment for their undecition... sorry but that guy is a fucking idiot. Even if that Mormon is a brilliant mathematician then he is at best some kind of pseudo-savant, an absolute idiot who happens to be really good at something in particular.

He/They decide not to think about it or accept the illogicality on the basis that it improves there lives personally and does not effect/hurt anyone else. I don't take a person making the decision as disqualifying them from being extremely intelligent overall. If they went around preaching or arguing things that go against science then that would be one thing. But a person who says "sure science is right, but I choose to believe x personally" does no harm as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't go around denying scientific analysis and in any academic debate setting will argue the side of science when forced to pick between science and religion on some type of issue.

On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: For example, you dont need to be a genius to realize christianity is absolutely retarded and false

If your gonna fling poo at least use Roman catholicism plz -__

edit: also Zep, your a fucking idiot lol

On September 01 2011 10:24 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2011 09:44 Baalim wrote:   On August 31 2011 23:36 palak wrote:   On August 31 2011 22:50 Baalim wrote: Oh i forgot what you said about my friends. Actually i hang out with somewhat intelligent people, im the only one who doesnt have a university degree lol, at least half of them have a master degree, only two of them have PhDs tho, so im not Dan hanging out with douchebags with 5k watches and 2 digit IQ bleached blondes, but i just feel im smarter than them, one of the Ph.Ds is probably smarter than me in many areas but he is religious so he loses most of his points there. probably less than 10% are catholics, and my country is over 90% catholic so that should give you an idea of the kind of people i hang out with, i find it unbearable to have conversations with morons, thats the reason why i barely reply to Zep One or two flaws in a persons logic should not disqualify them from being intelligent nor should it elevate you above them. Fwiw I don't consider myself in the top 10 intelligence wise of ppl i know irl. Also there are multiple ppl who i disagree almost violently with but I will admit they are more intelligent then me overall. examples of ppl i know who i disagree w/ but I consider more intelligent then me. Catholic conservative...libertarian conservative greek orthodox sunday school teacher...mormon hardcore republican....unitarian democrat...presbyterian computer engineer...conservative jewish rabbi...etc It doesnt disqualify them, it makes them lose a lot of points, if you believe in santa claus im sorry but you simply will look like a fool to me. Im sorry but all those you mentioned are idiots, a Mormon? a guy who believes in an intergalactic Jesus and that blacks are sub-humans being punishment for their undecition... sorry but that guy is a fucking idiot. Even if that Mormon is a brilliant mathematician then he is at best some kind of pseudo-savant, an absolute idiot who happens to be really good at something in particular. He/They decide not to think about it or accept the illogicality on the basis that it improves there lives personally and does not effect/hurt anyone else. I don't take a person making the decision as disqualifying them from being extremely intelligent overall. If they went around preaching or arguing things that go against science then that would be one thing. But a person who says "sure science is right, but I choose to believe x personally" does no harm as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't go around denying scientific analysis and in any academic debate setting will argue the side of science when forced to pick between science and religion on some type of issue.

not sure if ill keep replying on the war debat tbh im a bit tired of talking about it and i dont think any of us will persuade the other.

Religion doesnt make you a better person, it makes you worse, denying reality robs you of many things in life, believing you are ethernal will make you life your life in a different way than you would if you accepted reality, there is simply no upside to it, it also makes people weaker, unable to deal with true loss etc.

Also the are pray for the cynic, people with this stupid tendency for magical irrational beliefs are simply sheep waiting to be hearded as you see every fucking day, Scientology exploiting idiots, people being sent to war to fight over imaginary friends, its just absurd.

Also obviously to have absurd irrational beliefs does makes you less intelligent, it means your reasoning ability is only limited to what you want to hear and that is clearly inferior to somebody who is willing to critically analyze absolutely anything.

lol baal, you carry atheism like a religion, how u like them apples :

you guys have been debating the anarchy thing here so just wanted to post some things i've been thinking about on that topic or someone can start a new thread. it might motivate me to read some books i've been meaning to read as well.

baal v palak. anarchy v government. it comes down to this.

rawls original position to determine morality/ethics/social contract summarized (personally i feel it's the best one)

everyone goes into a room under a veil of ignorance. no biases, everyone is equal. they agree on what is fair.

nature is going to be nature. the genetic lottery is going to be the genetic lottery.

the government side thinks there should be a minimax strategy to account for nature and the genetic lottery. that's what humanity would agree is most fair.

the anarchy side thinks the government side is too risk averse and flawed. behind the veil of ignorance humanity would come to the conclusion that gambling for their spot in a 100% meritocracy is the most fair and best for humanity.

i'm w/ baal and believe humanity would come to the second conclusion. i don't have time to go into all the reasons why government, voting, and the utility of a minimax strategy for the world we live in is deeply flawed but it's a decent start.

On September 01 2011 11:03 brambolius wrote: lol baal, you carry atheism like a religion, how u like them apples :

What an idiotic thing to say.

Religiouns are based on faith, on the belief of something despise evidence, i simply believe in evidence and reason if i am presented with evidence that points that im wrong, ill quickly change my view.

On September 01 2011 12:34 RiKD wrote: you guys have been debating the anarchy thing here so just wanted to post some things i've been thinking about on that topic or someone can start a new thread. it might motivate me to read some books i've been meaning to read as well. baal v palak. anarchy v government. it comes down to this. rawls original position to determine morality/ethics/social contract summarized (personally i feel it's the best one) everyone goes into a room under a veil of ignorance. no biases, everyone is equal. they agree on what is fair. nature is going to be nature. the genetic lottery is going to be the genetic lottery. the government side thinks there should be a minimax strategy to account for nature and the genetic lottery. that's what humanity would agree is most fair. the anarchy side thinks the government side is too risk averse and flawed. behind the veil of ignorance humanity would come to the conclusion that gambling for their spot in a 100% meritocracy is the most fair and best for humanity. i'm w/ baal and believe humanity would come to the second conclusion. i don't have time to go into all the reasons why government, voting, and the utility of a minimax strategy for the world we live in is deeply flawed but it's a decent start.

thats not really the main argument between anarchy, its not a stance against wealth distribution.

Its a stance against immorality, we believe that the "social contract" is immoral, no contract can exist without the approval of both parties, therefore taxation is theft, if you fight this theft you are killed.

We are also aware of human nature and know that power corrupts, and corrupt ones seek power therefore government is doomed to fail, it simply empowers corruption.

If you want to see it in a simple way, both sides agree that human nature is vicious and greedy... so their solution is to give a small group of people insane power and the monopoly of violence so they keep us from "killing each other", but who on the fuck is going to stop that corrupt powerful group of violence?.. nobody.

On September 01 2011 13:35 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2011 11:03 brambolius wrote: lol baal, you carry atheism like a religion, how u like them apples : on the belief of something despise evidence, i simply believe in evidence and reason if i am presented with evidence that points that im wrong, ill quickly change my view.

I doubt this. Most of the time that ive seen where ur presented with alternative evidence to ur beliefs on a topic u scoff it off by saying something like "right..." or by just flat out saying the sources r biased or wrong without presentong evidence to contradict them.

On September 01 2011 12:34 RiKD wrote: you guys have been debating the anarchy thing here so just wanted to post some things i've been thinking about on that topic or someone can start a new thread. it might motivate me to read some books i've been meaning to read as well. baal v palak. anarchy v government. it comes down to this. rawls original position to determine morality/ethics/social contract summarized (personally i feel it's the best one) everyone goes into a room under a veil of ignorance. no biases, everyone is equal. they agree on what is fair. nature is going to be nature. the genetic lottery is going to be the genetic lottery. the government side thinks there should be a minimax strategy to account for nature and the genetic lottery. that's what humanity would agree is most fair. the anarchy side thinks the government side is too risk averse and flawed. behind the veil of ignorance humanity would come to the conclusion that gambling for their spot in a 100% meritocracy is the most fair and best for humanity. i'm w/ baal and believe humanity would come to the second conclusion. i don't have time to go into all the reasons why government, voting, and the utility of a minimax strategy for the world we live in is deeply flawed but it's a decent start.

Agree to disagree for now? unless someone wants to bump the anarchy thread or whatever

i dont feel like opening a new thread since its all the same bullshit but for some of you who dont know, Wikileaks actuall unintentionally revealed more cables and so far.

- American soldiers lined up an civilian iraqi family, made them kneel down and shot them in the head

- American soldiers lined up 10 civilians, handcuffed and shot them in the head, included children and women

- UN "peacekeeprs" in africa were trading food for sex with underaged african girls.


This is the world we live in, this is the what the government and war produce.

one source cuz im not going to bother to copy paste the other links, its just not worth it, coward and willingly ignorant people will keep believing no matter what, no amount of blood shed will make them question themselves.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/311006

Oh and obviously, not a single person involved in those executions and rape of inocents of the people involved in the coverups will ever face justice...

Just as i write this, 2 "anons" in Ireland are being arrested for involvement in cyber-attacks against government and revealing cables... nice

On September 01 2011 13:41 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2011 12:34 RiKD wrote: you guys have been debating the anarchy thing here so just wanted to post some things i've been thinking about on that topic or someone can start a new thread. it might motivate me to read some books i've been meaning to read as well. baal v palak. anarchy v government. it comes down to this. rawls original position to determine morality/ethics/social contract summarized (personally i feel it's the best one) everyone goes into a room under a veil of ignorance. no biases, everyone is equal. they agree on what is fair. nature is going to be nature. the genetic lottery is going to be the genetic lottery. the government side thinks there should be a minimax strategy to account for nature and the genetic lottery. that's what humanity would agree is most fair. the anarchy side thinks the government side is too risk averse and flawed. behind the veil of ignorance humanity would come to the conclusion that gambling for their spot in a 100% meritocracy is the most fair and best for humanity. i'm w/ baal and believe humanity would come to the second conclusion. i don't have time to go into all the reasons why government, voting, and the utility of a minimax strategy for the world we live in is deeply flawed but it's a decent start. thats not really the main argument between anarchy, its not a stance against wealth distribution. Its a stance against immorality, we believe that the "social contract" is immoral, no contract can exist without the approval of both parties, therefore taxation is theft, if you fight this theft you are killed. We are also aware of human nature and know that power corrupts, and corrupt ones seek power therefore government is doomed to fail, it simply empowers corruption. If you want to see it in a simple way, both sides agree that human nature is vicious and greedy... so their solution is to give a small group of people insane power and the monopoly of violence so they keep us from "killing each other", but who on the fuck is going to stop that corrupt powerful group of violence?.. nobody.

it is the main argument though. if you agree with rawl's test of morality/ethics/justice if everyone is under the veil of ignorance and agrees to a social contract that social contract will be fair and moral. if there was worldwide anarchy you'd surely have plenty of lazy crybabies complaining that they were born into THAT "social contract" and had no say and would then probably spend more time trying to viva revolution the "immoral" world w/ socialism instead of improving their position in life. except they wouldn't have an unavoidably flawed government to subsidize their laziness so they would either hold themselves accountable and work harder and make better choices/decisions or suffer/die.

also, besides some scandinavian countries, the first scenario in my original post is far from anything we have today. i am not that familiar w/ government anywhere outside of the US but there certainly was no veil of ignorance or 100% moral motive when a bunch of rich, white, powerful landowners got together and drew up the declaration of independence. that position is still flawed for a number of reasons but i just wanted to make that distinction clear.

anyways, unless anyone wants to bump the anarchy thread we can leave this at agree to disagree w/ palak and agree w/ baal besides maybe some minor semantics and move on.

you should post that on the anarchy thread

On September 01 2011 13:35 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2011 11:03 brambolius wrote: lol baal, you carry atheism like a religion, how u like them apples : What an idiotic thing to say. Religiouns are based on faith, on the belief of something despise evidence, i simply believe in evidence and reason if i am presented with evidence that points that im wrong, ill quickly change my view.

Ok, i dont really want to add to the derailing (like it would matter at this point ;3) so I'll keep this short and simple (I hope lol).

Since you brought up "the flood", this "notion" is common in more beliefs then you would guess. These "religions" have documented this "notion" in various forms, tales, myths, and so on.
But they all come down to the same thing, flood, arc, etc.

Now please don't get me wrong, I'm actualy not religious, I'm just saying don't bitch about books, movies and games that you haven't read, watched or played.

Edit: also these "religions" have compiled these works separately. I think this would be obvious but just to be done with it

Brambi is right, every civilization and culture there ever was talked about floods and doom. And those guys didn't have all day to sit and make fairy tales. They were hard workers and what they recorded was of utmost importance. What if those floods and earthquakes really happened. If they did, we sure would be reading about them everywhere and guess what... that's exactly how it is... And how likely is it that they all wrote about the same things - a star coming and raping our asses. It's also interesting to note, that those civilizations had no access to each other so it makes it even more compelling that they all, hundreds of them, talked about some star/planet coming to fuck us. And add some fuel to the fire - NASA says 80% of solar systems have two suns orbiting each other in loooong ass orbits - binary solar system. Just food for thought...

On September 02 2011 01:17 D_smart_S wrote: And how likely is it that they all wrote about the same things - a star coming and raping our asses. It's also interesting to note, that those civilizations had no access to each other so it makes it even more compelling that they all, hundreds of them, talked about some star/planet coming to fuck us. And add some fuel to the fire - NASA says 80% of solar systems have two suns orbiting each other in loooong ass orbits - binary solar system. Just food for thought...

On September 02 2011 01:17 D_smart_S wrote: Brambi is right, every civilization and culture there ever was talked about floods and doom. And those guys didn't have all day to sit and make fairy tales. They were hard workers and what they recorded was of utmost importance...

I stopped reading right there. It's well known that the middle east has bred pathological liars for thousands and thousands of years. Do you really deny this as well?...That's just another reason I wouldn't believe anything written in the quran, tanakh, or bible as fact.

i'm not talking about the three or four main books. There are hundreds of ancient bibles and texts/tablets from civilizations barely known today. That's why it's strange that the same scenario appears everywhere and there is nothing else, the same doom and gloom shit. Go figure...

On September 02 2011 15:11 D_smart_S wrote: There are hundreds of ancient bibles and texts/tablets from civilizations barely known today. That's why it's strange that the same scenario appears everywhere and there is nothing else, the same doom and gloom shit. Go figure...

Like which ones...?

On September 01 2011 13:47 Baalim wrote: i dont feel like opening a new thread since its all the same bullshit but for some of you who dont know, Wikileaks actuall unintentionally revealed more cables and so far. - American soldiers lined up an civilian iraqi family, made them kneel down and shot them in the head - American soldiers lined up 10 civilians, handcuffed and shot them in the head, included children and women - UN "peacekeeprs" in africa were trading food for sex with underaged african girls. This is the world we live in, this is the what the government and war produce. one source cuz im not going to bother to copy paste the other links, its just not worth it, coward and willingly ignorant people will keep believing no matter what, no amount of blood shed will make them question themselves. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/311006

That's completely disgusting. Glad it got leaked, wish ppl would face charges.





This however is a completely idiotic move by wikileaks.

WikiLeaks has released its full catalog of 251,000 unredacted U.S. diplomatic cables, exposing the names of sources and potentially placing those individuals in harm’s way. The organization’s five former publishing partners, the U.K.'s the Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel, France's Le Monde, Spain's El Pais, and the New York Times have released a joint statement condemning WikiLeaks’s move. “We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted State Department cables, which may put sources at risk,” it reads. “Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were on the clear basis that we would only publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough editing and clearance process. We will continue to defend our collaborative publishing endeavor." In the past, these media organizations would cull through documents and publish files deemed newsworthy in small pieces. The names of sources, some of which had communicated confidentially with U.S. diplomats, were omitted as their identities had been labeled “strictly protect” in the files. The Guardian says more than 1,000 of the documents exposed on Friday had been given this designation, and at least 150 whistleblowers are named specifically.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392345,00.asp