My thoughts on politics

[philosopher]

Are you being serious? That's the website for some club of neckbeards. It's an amateur hour make believe political party. Are you saying that this particular bunch of weirdos are the superior beings that should run society for everybody's improvement and benefit? The guy who founded the club was the one who authored the theory of peak oil and wanted to reorganise society for fear of it. Peak oil was a myth, that society promoted a shit idea with massive consequences had it been implemented based on a consumption graph and no understanding of economics.

"Yes, the new incentive to work will not be money, but the love one has to do something regardless of money."
Utopian bullshit.

Your opinion. I have no problem with geeks ruling the world to make Utopia become real.

I believe it is all those "normal people" who make the world bullshit.

So you started off with some big talk about logical deductions, but within a page you have devolved to it's all just opinions and my opinions matter more to me than yours. You really didn't pick the right name when you joined this forum.

Excuse me, but would you please point out the logical contradictions of wanting liberty or - at the very least - have experts to decide the fate of your life instead of laypeople?

I mean, if you really HAVE to obey laws and duties, at the very least wouldn't you expect experts are going to make these laws and decide your duties?

Where is the lack of logic in this?

Besides, everything is about opinion, so is philosophy.

[henry quirk]

'The logical contradiction of wanting liberty and having experts decide the fate of your life instead of laypeople' is apparent to any and every one.

If you look to, expect, other folks to organize your affairs, then you've chosen sumthin' other than liberty.

[philosopher]

'The logical contradiction of wanting liberty and having experts decide the fate of your life instead of laypeople' is apparent to any and every one.

If you look to, expect, other folks to organize your affairs, then you've chosen sumthin' other than liberty.

I expect a government of experts to be liberal, rather than authoritarian.

After all, science is founded on liberalism.

[henry quirk]

I see.

So: as long as the director is 'liberal' you're all in for being directed.

And what of 'me'?

I don't need directors; I need proxies.

What is to be done about 'me' in your liberal, technocratic, utopia?

We both know the answer, philo.

You want I should say it, or do you want the pleasure?

[FlashDangerpants]

Your opinion. I have no problem with geeks ruling the world to make Utopia become real.

I believe it is all those "normal people" who make the world bullshit.

So you started off with some big talk about logical deductions, but within a page you have devolved to it's all just opinions and my opinions matter more to me than yours. You really didn't pick the right name when you joined this forum.

Excuse me, but would you please point out the logical contradictions of wanting liberty or - at the very least - have experts to decide the fate of your life instead of laypeople?


I mean, if you really HAVE to obey laws and duties, at the very least wouldn't you expect experts are going to make these laws and decide your duties?

Where is the lack of logic in this?

Henry's answer seems sufficient, what you have written there is complete train wreck. Maximising liberty by removing the victim's ability to influence their own life is just Orwellian.

Besides, everything is about opinion, so is philosophy.

That directly contradicts your OP where you wrote this....

This is a thread about my political beliefs and thoughts and how I get to these beliefs.
I divided this very long post into three sections, the first one is to prove my knowledge of history and politics so I won't be accused of stupidity or retarded beliefs when I present my opinions. The first is only facts, so if you already know this, you can skip the first section.

The second section is my reasoning/logical deduction.

The third is my opinion.

Obviously you no longer believe that any of what you wrote was fact or deduction.

You are doing this to yourself really.

[philosopher]

I see.

So: as long as the director is 'liberal' you're all in for being directed.

And what of 'me'?

I don't need directors; I need proxies.

What is to be done about 'me' in your liberal, technocratic, utopia?

We both know the answer, philo.

You want I should say it, or do you want the pleasure?

I want my freedom. Science shows that freedom is good for humans:

1. Assumption: Can we agree that speaking freely, and the feeling that one's thoughts and ideas are recognized by the community, feels good?

2. Assumption: Can we agree that whatever "feels good" is due to and/or affects the increased release of dopamine and endorphines?

3. Assumption: Can we agree that science shows that dopamine and endorphines helps relaxation which in turn - reduce stress?

4. Assumption: Can we agree that increased stressors can be harmful to the human body?

5. Assumption: Can we agree that if we reduce stressors through dopamine and endorphines, risk of disease is lowered?

6. Assumption: Can we agree that if risk of disease is lowered in the general population, there will be less costs due to loss of productivity and we can actually raise productivity in society?

Then, can we not conclude that free speech and the share of opinions is good for society - scientifically?

A Technocracy would emphasize that Science is not only a guideline, it is equivalent to God in Catholicism - which is pretty strong.
If Science is not God for Technocrats, then they are not Technocrats.

If Science tells that free speech is good, then Technocrats would have to accept Free Speech as well.

[henry quirk]

"I want my freedom."

Then claim yourself as yours. Defend the claim.

Sure as shit: technocrats aren't gonna free you.

#

"Science shows that freedom is good for humans:"

'I' say my self-ownership (and the freedom that extends from that self-ownership) is good for 'me'...don't care what 'science' has to say on the subject.

#

"Can we agree that speaking freely, and the feeling that one's thoughts and ideas are recognized by the community, feels good?"

How it feels is irrelevant. If I got sumthin' to say, I say it. In my experience: 80 out of a hundred don't give a shit and the other 20 disagree with me. Not about recognition: it's about declaration.

#

"Can we agree that whatever "feels good" is due to and/or affects the increased release of dopamine and endorphines?"

No. You're playin' reductionist and I don't cotton to that. A human being, to be understood as a person, is not reducible to pieces and parts.

#

"Can we agree that science shows that dopamine and endorphines helps relaxation which in turn - reduce stress?"

We can agree that science can explain how some of the pieces and parts work...haven't yet seen an adequate explanation of how those pieces and parts generate 'me'.

#

"Can we agree that increased stressors can be harmful to the human body?"

Stress can injure or inure.

#

"Can we agree that if we reduce stressors through dopamine and endorphines, risk of disease is lowered?"

No. Again, stress can injure but it can also inure. Life (living things) need a certain amount of stress or they don't develop.

#

"Can we agree that if risk of disease is lowered in the general population, there will be less costs due to loss of productivity and we can actually raise productivity in society?"

A perfect analysis, quite accurate...for a community of robots.

I'm not a robot.

#

"can we not conclude that free speech and the share of opinions is good for society - scientifically?"

Mebbe it is...don't think your assessment is particuarly relevant to anything. Agsin: when I speak my mind it ain't for the theraputic value.

#

"A Technocracy would emphasize that Science is not only a guideline, it is equivalent to God in Catholicism - which is pretty strong."

Some folks don't take kindly to direction (from politicians or priests [or scientists]).

Screw your technocracy.

[philosopher]

"Can we agree that whatever "feels good" is due to and/or affects the increased release of dopamine and endorphines?"

No. You're playin' reductionist and I don't cotton to that. A human being, to be understood as a person, is not reducible to pieces and parts.

According to Scientism, humans are nothing more than the sum of it parts.

This is true. You are nothing else than the sum of your parts. Your thoughts are nothing but chemical and electrical signals in your brain. Furthermore, you have no control of your own thoughts. You have the illusion of a free will, but in reality it is non-existent.

There is substatial scientific evidence for this.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -illusion/

"Can we agree that science shows that dopamine and endorphines helps relaxation which in turn - reduce stress?"

We can agree that science can explain how some of the pieces and parts work...haven't yet seen an adequate explanation of how those pieces and parts generate 'me'.

Science has shown the general contours of consciousness. But it lacks the details. Just because you don't happen to know all the details doesn't mean they are wrong, it means further research is neccessary.

One thing for sure though, the soul does not exist. Another thing for sure is, you have no free will.

"Can we agree that if risk of disease is lowered in the general population, there will be less costs due to loss of productivity and we can actually raise productivity in society?"

A perfect analysis, quite accurate...for a community of robots.

I'm not a robot.

You are a biological robot, with no free will on your own. Life is like a movie, it is pre-determined, yet you don't know how it ends.

Your thoughts and even opinions can theoretically be altered to fit the purpose of society. We don't have the technology yet, but no laws of physics prevent this.

Free speech btw. is not entirely free. It comes from the will, but the will is not free. When I say free speech, I mean speech that is felt by the will of the individual. Though, the will itself is not free, nothing in the universe is free.

"can we not conclude that free speech and the share of opinions is good for society - scientifically?"

Mebbe it is...don't think your assessment is particuarly relevant to anything. Agsin: when I speak my mind it ain't for the theraputic value.

Yes it is. You have the illusion that your speech is going to change the world. No speeches, except that of government leaders or rebel leaders have changed the world. Speeches of individual simple citizens changes nothing.

"A Technocracy would emphasize that Science is not only a guideline, it is equivalent to God in Catholicism - which is pretty strong."

Some folks don't take kindly to direction (from politicians or priests [or scientists]).

Screw your technocracy.

This is because they have the illusion that they are free or can achieve freedom.

Here are some truths about the world:

You are in the prison of life. You will remain in the prison of life - for your entire life.

When you're dead, you will have no new life, you will feel nothing because you do not exist anymore.

You have no freedom, you will achieve no freedom. You have your opinions, but you didn't choose them.

You cannot change your future, it has been pre-determined. Any actions you do, any thoughts you think in the belief you alter the future, is only going to consolidate the pre-determined future.

[Charm]

if left liberals believed in man's liberty, why wouldn't they leave those with dissenting views alone?

where's the liberty when you disagree with a "liberal"?

1861

-Imp

Liberal or not, the ability of others with right or wrong views to affect our lives is obvious.. The left right paradigm does not really express how complicated life is.

[-1-]

According to Scientism, humans are nothing more than the sum of it parts.

Fine. According to this, would you agree then, that the sum of a woman is better than her whole?

(Originally coined by Paul A. S.)

Collected aphorisms by Paul. A. S. available from -1-. He is my best teacher and my hero. He used to be my friend, as well.

[henry quirk]

philo,

In light of your last post, you understand this...

*I want my freedom.

...is nonsensical, yes?

By your accounts of things: you're organic automation, programmed meat. 'You' don't exist except as chemo-electrical reaction and response. You don't 'want' anything, you're programmed. Freedom is a fiction.

Simply, by your account: you're a bio-robot programmed to tilt at windmills and chase rainbows.

If this is the case: why am I wasting time debating a self-contradicting toaster?

'nuff said.









*your statement from up-thread

[philosopher]

According to Scientism, humans are nothing more than the sum of it parts.

Fine. According to this, would you agree then, that the sum of a woman is better than her whole?

(Originally coined by Paul A. S.)

Collected aphorisms by Paul. A. S. available from -1-. He is my best teacher and my hero. He used to be my friend, as well.

Better and Worse are subjective opinions. It has nothing to do being more or less (or equal to) the sum of the parts.

[philosopher]

philo,

In light of your last post, you understand this...

*I want my freedom.

...is nonsensical, yes?

By your accounts of things: you're organic automation, programmed meat. 'You' don't exist except as chemo-electrical reaction and response. You don't 'want' anything, you're programmed. Freedom is a fiction.

Simply, by your account: you're a bio-robot programmed to tilt at windmills and chase rainbows.

If this is the case: why am I wasting time debating a self-contradicting toaster?

'nuff said.

*your statement from up-thread

Yes that is correct. What I do want though, is the illusion of my freedom, to be more accurate.

[henry quirk]

Nope. You're a robot. You want nuthin'. You're following a program. You succeed at nuthin'. You fail at nuthin'.

You're a a meat & bone toaster.

[-1-]

Nope. You're a robot. You want nuthin'. You're following a program. You succeed at nuthin'. You fail at nuthin'.

You're a a meat & bone toaster.

Come, now, Henry. Toasters have feelings, too.

And a robot may follow a program of Wanting Something. Which negates your claim of "You want nuffin'."

As a robot, he can fail and also succeed. He can fail into the funfet in hif failboat. Let me not continue, please, I beg you. I'm seriously going to get banned from the site if you force me to.