I don't like disagreements. IMHO, they are conflicts which frequently lead to violence, then war, then war atrocities and genocides.
So I am pleased that you see no benefit in fighting with me. That's a good thing.
OTOH, that doesn't stop you talking to me about things that we agree on. IMHO, when people talk about the things we agree on, positive solutions happen exceedingly quickly, and the results are nothing short of AMAZING!!!!!
Now, if we can only get the rest of the world to feel similarly about getting involved in disagreements with each other, then we can all stick to where we agree on things, and then the world will soon be a paradise for everyone.
It seems like you want to silence my free speech because your free speech is more important. I think you have said what you said on this forum completely free from at least my influence.
I love free speech, because I love talking to people about all sorts of interesting stuff.
The other day, I ended up talking to a woman from Saudi Arabia who supports Hamas, with me explaining the side of the Israelis. We had an amazingly positive conversation.
However, I have had major problems for all of my life, because of something that someone was saying. Nearly all of the time, they admitted years later, that they were only saying that stuff because of short-term personal gain. Once I found out their true motivations, I realised that I could have satisfied their personal motives extremely easily, with zero cost to myself or anyone else. But because they weren't honest about their true motivations, everything went to sh*t for me, and at the same time, lots of other people also got screwed over.
My suffering was entirely unnecessary. I'm still dealing with the aftermath of those problems. I'm also seeing the world turn to sh*t because these people won't be honest about their selfishness.
So I am constantly livid.
You might sometimes say that you want to physically harm "bullies" and I think that is a vague statement, I could ask you what are bullies, what does harm meaning,
I have zero problems with people asking me to explain myself, as I get that all day long from my boss, and so is normal for me.
but generally if I express that you shouldn't do that, and you shouldn't write about doing that, I am only practicing my own free speech.
If you were practicing your free speech, then you'd be honest about your personal motivations and true reasons for your claims. To give you proof, is easy, because this conversation is a case in point.
That was why so many Republicans and Conservatives were so opposed to net neutrality back during the Obama administration, in order to hold ISPs and sites accountable, so they'd police the posts posted by their users. But Obama pushed through net neutrality.
The president selects 5 people who run the FCC, the Senate approves them, but ultimately congress as a whole creates the laws that the FCC follows. Obama had a unified house and senate once in his presidency. I'm not sure what exactly Obama pushed but whatever, not sure how this is relevant at all really.
I am amazed at the number of times I've heard people say they were suffering because of policies that Obama introduced.
For example: A few years ago, I met a few Americans on holiday. One was a woman who was being nice to a friend of mine. He had major health problems. She was interested in him, because she was a nurse and was clearly seeing him as someone who she could nurse. She mentioned how she was working 2 jobs, because her sister had cancer. I asked her why her sister wasn't on Obamacare. She explained that Obamacare came with "deductibles", which meant that you could get free healthcare, but only if you paid the deductibles. She was having to work 2 jobs, just to pay for the deductibles. Her sister could never afford them. If it wasn't for the fact that her sister had a relative who was willing to work harder than a slave for pure altruism, her sister would never be able to afford the deductibles with her level of health, and she would have been left to die.
At the time in the UK, if someone had a major health issue, it was free. In the USA, it was free for those who were middle class and could afford the deductibles. But the vast majority of poor people are living paycheck to paycheck, and take 6 months to pay off $150, let alone the thousands that deductibles charge.
The only thing that was comparable to that situation in my memory, was debtor's prison, as once someone owed debts and was in debtor's prison, they were unable to work and so the only way they would ever become free, was if their relatives stumped up the money to pay off their debts. Those who didn't have family, or whose family didn't care about them, or whose family were too poor to pay their debts, could not leave debtor's prison and died there.
In debt and incarcerated: the tyranny of debtors' prisons
So it seems that Obamacare is free healthcare for the rich and the middle class, but is almost as unavailable as expensive private healthcare for the poor, and is a modern-day version of debtor's prison.
To me, that sounds like the most right-wing thing you can do.
en.wiktionary.org
Still not sure what you mean by that. Any argument that "stands on its own", i.e. is independent of anything else, is an argument that doesn't assume anything about anything else that is not in the argument. So if any argument has that trait, even if I mention 100 million other things, those things would not have any effect on the argument, because the argument stood on its own, and was thus true whatever those 100 million other things were.
However, I have seen people get very annoyed when they gave an argument, and I mentioned something that wasn't directly to do with the point, that proved their argument was incorrect. However, that would only be possible if their argument would only be true if that other thing I mentioned was not true, which in turn meant that their argument did NOT stand on its own.
So to me, that's just people getting annoyed because I metaphorically pulled back the curtain and proved that the Great and Powerful Oz was nothing more than an old man with a light show, and not the powerful and super-smart wizards that they pretended to be.
You don't use logic because you chose logic logically, you chose your axioms based on emotions.
I did maths in school and as a degree. My maths teachers and lecturers wouldn't let the slightest mistakes pass, even when the overall argument was correct, and even when the conclusion was correct. I had to present arguments in such a way that I had to be ultra-logical, and where emotions were not allowed to have ANY sway whatsover. I had to do that for YEARS, and for so long, that being unemotional and ultra-logical became an ingrained habit.
| X (I have gone to Kenya) | Y (The World Explodes) | if X then Y (If I go to Kenya, the World Explodes) |
|---|
| True | True | True |
| True | False | False |
| False | True | True |
| False | False | True |
| Expressions of this table? | What does it mean? |
|---|
| (X is false) OR (Y is true) | I haven't gone to Kenya, or the world exploding, or both |
| Y | The world explodes |
| X is equivalent to Y | I have gone to Kenya, The world explodes |
| X and Y | I have gone to Kenya and the world explodes |
| X is false (not X) | I haven't gone to Kenya |
| (not X) and Y | I haven't gone to Kenya, the world explodes |
| (not X) and (not Y) | I haven't gone to Kenya and the world doesn't explode |
| False | Nothing |
Tell me where the problem in the logic is please.
Most of the KKK in the USA haven't been to Kenya. So that means that you have the KKK to thank for the world exploding.
Also, the guy who runs the LGBT-hating Westboro church, probably hasn't been to Kenya either. So according to you, you and the LGBT have him to thank for the world not exploding. Moreover, according to you, if he had been to Kenya, the world would have exploded, and so all the LGBT in the world would be dead. So according to you, the LGBT should be thanking that guy who runs the Westboro church, and should be thanking him for saving their lives.
See what I did there?
You have not proved that if you had been to Kenya, that the world would have exploded. Moreover, there's no mechanism I know that would cause the world to explode just because you visited Kenya. Therefore, there's no reason to think that the world would have exploded because you didn't visit Kenya. So there's no reason to thank you.
Since I don't see a reason why anyone would think that by you going to Kenya, the world would have exploded, unless you're really dumb, even you don't think that the world would have exploded if you'd visited Kenya. So even you believe that you didn't avoid Kenya to stop the world exploding. You probably just didn't feel like going there before.
But since you know that you would probably have not saved the world by not going to Kenya, you are trying to take credit for saving the world, when you didn't do anything to deserve it.
But you only made this false argument, to claim that logic has flaws as well as rhetoric. But you only did that to claim that because logic has flaws as well as rhetoric, that we are not better off by avoiding rhetoric, and therefore we should accept rhetoric as valid (except you haven't done that).
So why would you want to claim that rhetoric as valid as logic, using an argument that is false? Why not bring a true argument that rhetoric is valid, at least in some cases? Because if you used a true argument, then you would only be able to use rhetoric in the cases where it would make sense and thus be beneficial to other people? But if it would not be beneficial to anyone, then it would not be beneficial to you either. So then why suggest that rhetoric would be valid when it wouldn't help you, and would likely harm you? You wouldn't.
Ergo, you're only suggesting that rhetoric is valid using a false argument, in situations where if you would use rhetoric, it would be beneficial to you, but harmful to others, and so
you show intent to do things to hoodwink other people into accepting things that would be better for you, but would cause suffering to everyone else. How is that not evil?
So we're back to people trying to use their "free speech" to making up false arguments that benefit themselves while making everyone else suffer.
Hence why I behave as if I want to crush what you call "free speech".
I am for free speech.
I am just opposed to free speech that is evil, that causes great harm and suffering for millions, just to benefit a few selfish b*stards, the same as
I am opposed to anything that causes great harm and suffering for millions, just to benefit a few selfish b*stards.
) deliberately joins forums to get banned. Some form of obscure masochism.
www.intpforum.com
