Whereas personal status and benefits are governed by by where one lives.
Rights are result of logic, not arbitrary whim of power.
Whereas personal status and benefits are governed by by where one lives.
Rights are result of logic, not arbitrary whim of power.
Old testament has God commanding the fire offerings.
Worship of fire is ancient worship, maybe one of oldest forms of worship in existence. Unlike other elements, fire actually consumes the offerings very quickly.
What are offerings to the fire?
Best offerings are tasty food such as chocolate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fire_deities
Now, people who are greedy usually refuse to give offerings to the fire because they see it as "waste of food". But such couldnt be further from truth. All very successful religions in history did offerings to the fire. Even Judaism and Christianity both had burning of food as offerings to the fire, which they thought was offering to their God. Only few religions in history didnt have fire offerings.
Problem with poor people is exactly in the fact that they are economically greedy. Greed produces poverty, because not giving anything to others means others wont give anything to you and you are stuck relying on yourself only.
You will often see rich people sharing their wealth, and this isnt any coincidence. It is how they form connections which later become useful.
It is same with religion. You have to be willing to give to the Gods. If you think Gods are to be worshipped in a way of "give nothing, take all" approach, you will get answer from Gods that will knock you out of your delusion!
Fire deity requires constant offerings of food, if you want blessings of the fire deity. It doesnt matter if you are poor or rich. Food must be offered for blessing to happen.
Let the guy have his opinion. All this mocking you guys do is only proving his point to him.
so we have this notion of an external reality converting into an internal reality
You are correct to say that external reality converts into internal reality. However, internal reality likewise converts into external. So belief affects both internal and external reality.
Though the reality of the State in which you live is such that it determines the rights of "trans kids"
Logic determines the rights.
Make it 5%.
I dont want 120 IQ retards governing a nation.
Maybe 1% of men selected the bear over the woman they didn’t know based on false rape accusations. Vice versa isn’t true for women.
Yes it is! Most women dont choose to go to a forest and live with a bear. Statistically, woman is more likely to date her rapist than live in a forest with bear.
Magic/prayer is what you believe in. I believe Gods will make me happy, and they do!
Not necessarily FLW. There is the placebo effect, that, may act as blessing, ergo, a healing to the individual who says it to themselves, if not also in regards to others or humanity as a whole even if a vibration at some space and time scales of existence.
Prayer makes me so happy. I can see why people do it. It is some special feeling, atheists will never know.
My suggestion is just to make blocking all inclusive, where you cant debate with them, cant private message them, and cant see their comments on forums.
So if you block someone, they cant see your comments?
I was talking about self referencing logical fallacy.
Sort of like "A = A and B".
It is a claim false by law of identity. A cannot contain both A and B, because it would mean A contains more than A.
It is reason why "I always lie" or "this statement is false" are both logically incorrect statements.
Statement can never logically contain itself and more than itself.
Should one of Godel's theorems suffer from such fallacy, it wouldnt deal a great blow, his other theorem of system failing to prove itself still stands.
I agree that for sure, you can define things into existence. Merely thinking about something means it exists in the mind and alters the mind. And existence itself is entirely determined by mind. Non-mind material world cannot determine if things exist.
Godel cleverly avoided self-referencing fallacy when making this statement, by the way.
On second thought, if he did make a cleverly hidden self-referencing fallacy, then one of his theorems is terribly wrong.
"This statement is not provable in this system."
Godel cleverly avoided self-referencing fallacy when making this statement, by the way.
I cant exactly explain it right now, but its sort of like how computers avoid self-referencing.
Alright, so someone told me that I cant define things into existence. And I thought to myself, yes I can!
First, I tried defining "box of gold" as box full of gold which appears before me any time when I want. No great suprise that box didnt appear even tho by definition it should have!
But then I thought, what does it mean to appear? What does it mean to exist? Maybe the box appeared and I cannot detect it?
So I changed the definition of box of gold to: box full of gold which appears before me any time when I want, and which I can always detect.
No great wonder, box didnt appear this time either.
Or did it?
I remembered Godel's incompleteness theorems, and Godel's completeness theorem, when applied to arguments.
Completeness theorem says that first order logic and definitions are provable within the system. In other words, the only thing which is provable within the system are basic logical laws, such as A=A, and definitions used, and what is able to be proved by definitions and basic logical laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
So per Completeness theorem, definitions when accepted are used for proof, and this proof is valid everywhere, even outside the system. So the math defines things into existence.
However, what is existence? How do we know that we exist?
And this is where Godel's incompleteness theory comes in. Hilbert's program had a goal to create one universal system for whole math. In simple terms, it had two goals: Create a system which can prove itself to be true, and which can prove all the remaining math as well.
However, Godel's incompleteness theory completely destroyed Hilbert's program. Incompleteness theory gave 3 major problems which program could never solve:
Gödel constructed a statement like:
"This statement is not provable in this system."
If it were provable, the system would be inconsistent.
If it is not provable, it's true, but unprovable ⇒ incompleteness.
How does incompleteness apply to proving existence?
System which is used to prove existence would require ability to prove that such system exists, that such system is consistent. But that is impossible to prove within the system. You cannot prove your senses are consistent or that they even correctly determine what exists.
So while completeness theorem does say definitions are used as proof and are true everywhere, the incompleteness theorem makes any other proof of existence impossible.
In other words, not only that you can define things into existence, but proving existence without definitions is impossible, because senses are flawed.
In simple terms, box of gold exists by definitions, and my senses are just flawed!
More about Hilbert's program:
Hilbert proposed that the consistency of more complicated systems, such as real analysis, could be proven in terms of simpler systems. Ultimately, the consistency of all of mathematics could be reduced to basic arithmetic.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems, published in 1931, showed that Hilbert's program was unattainable for key areas of mathematics. In his first theorem, Gödel showed that any consistent system with a computable set of axioms which is capable of expressing arithmetic can never be complete: it is possible to construct a statement that can be shown to be true, but that cannot be derived from the formal rules of the system. In his second theorem, he showed that such a system could not prove its own consistency, so it certainly cannot be used to prove the consistency of anything stronger with certainty. This refuted Hilbert's assumption that a finitistic system could be used to prove the consistency of itself, and therefore could not prove everything else.
Without an authoritative body, rights are just an individual and variable concept...What might be one persons logic, may not be the same as another's.
The logic dictates equal logical powers. In other words, your "authoritative body" has just about as much logical rights as everyone else. So who gets to impose their logic on whom? Power and strength dont determine what is morally correct. If that were the case, any criminal capable of escaping justice would be about as morally justified as any saint or any good person. If your position is that power makes right, then everything which person has power to do is justified. That isnt morality, but a complete lack of morality. That is just Satanic principle of power. But morality itself comes from what is logically necessary, not from power. Power is an arbitrary justification, and anyone can make arbitrary justifications, thus they are useful to no one in a logical discussion.
USA isnt a country of freedom. You legally shouldn't be able to arrest anyone without clear evidence of them violating others. USA maybe has some free speech, but cops can literally arrest you at random if they have any random suspicion or if you dont comply with even clearly unjustified orders. Basically cops get to be bullies, and if you stand up to them, they shoot you or tie you down.
"Rights" are dictated by State and society
Incorrect, rights are dictated by logical laws. However, you have that slave morality issue where you think government or society owns you.
Ancient philosophers talked of changing forms and non-changing forms.
Non-changing forms must exist, otherwise ability to identify anything doesnt exist.
For example, I change as I age. But people still know its me, even tho I changed. So something had to stay same, or people wouldnt be able to even know about me.
Truth demands "non-changing truths". Truth which changes isnt permanent truth.
All things which change must have the core which doesnt change, and which creates them. Because they are created, they need to have something which created them, and that something is their core.
Is death guaranteed?
No, the ancient philosophers already worked out forms and basis. While forms are temporary and changing, basis which form comes from can never change. In other words, your current forn is just one of forms you can have, and your basis cannot be destroyed by death. Only form can die because its temporary, not the basis core which is eternal.
To put it in a simple language, there is temporary and there is eternal. Eternal can never die. The body may die, but the core which created it remains.
There obviously are basic parts which person is made of, smallest possible parts, and these parts cannot be destroyed.
GOD EMPEROR TRUMP
What are you doing to oppose your very self being a slave to the system daily?
Nothing, it is impossible to live without resources. We are all slaves to resources, in a sense.
So I see people keep claiming that screen brightness doesnt affect performance on smartphones and laptops.
However, this couldnt be further from truth.
First we must establish what affects performance:
Screen brightness affects both of these in smartphones and laptops.
Heat slowls down smartphones and laptops, but increasing screen brightness increases heat.
Also, available power is directly affected by screen brightness. There is simply no way around this. Full battery works faster than half full or nearly empty battery. However, screen brightness is a significant drain on battery, meaning there is less resources for other tasks, such as performance.
Maybe in regular computers this isnt a problem because power source for screen and computer is separated, but for laptops and smartphones, power source is not separated. Also, in smartphones, screen is very close to processor. So any increase in heat by screen goes directly to other parts of smartphone.
So to prove my theory, I did some tests, such as using phone at max brightness and at lowest brightness for certain time. And yes, lowest brightness generally saves battery, which results in increased performance indirectly.
In laptop, likewise, I notice a slight increase in performance when brightness is lower.
If brightness had no effect on performance, we would see same performance on max brightness and on lowest brightness. But we dont.
Nice. I really like Ancient Egypt and their religion was amazing! I can completely understand worship of Sun God, and I usually extend it to worship of fire which provides warmth like the Sun.
And trans enablement relies upon a whole raft of social provision overseen by the governance of State and society.
I dont think government or majority owns people. If that was true, then slavery of the past was okay because majority agreed with it. Slaves in Egypt were small minority, and majority agreed that they should be slaves. If you want to say slavery, forced labor, forced marriages, rape...ect. are all okay as long as majority agrees, I am afraid such morality has no morality.
If I dont violate your rights, why would you violate mine? Am I your property? Am I property of majority? Who is the one who gets to take away rights of others at will?
I dont know about all feminists, but arguments I saw were:
P1. Porn is sexual exploitation of women, either directly either indirectly
P2. Sexual exploitation of women is wrong
C. Porn is wrong
Now, P2 is generally accepted premise. P1 is likewise accepted because non-exploiting porn cannot be effectively separated from exploiting. Conclusion logically follows.
So someone who supports porn (unless animated) must defend that sexual exploitation of women isnt always wrong.
So I am not sure what argument can even be made to say that porn is morally okay, other than body autonomy argument because obviously not all porn is sexual exploitation.
If they dont like the name, I wouldnt call them that name. There is no point in me making someone uncomfortable like that.
I believe body autonomy can only be limited when it contradicts body autonomy of another. Thats the only case where it logically can and must be limited. In other words, I dont believe you get to make choices about my body if I am 10, 20 or 30. There is no logical law which gives you the special right to take away my rights using arbitrary justification. Maybe you can explain why you get such special power, and I dont?