SatanLucy

Such is Tao. Society sometimes evolves backwards, returns to it's inferior form.

The biggest mistake evolutionists make is thinking that evolution only goes forward. No, it can go backwards too.

You dont seem like AI to me. tho I dont really care if people use AI to come up with arguments. Sometimes I do too, tho I cant really say AI is any good. Its at best an average debater. Its useful for brainstorming, like getting bunch of new ideas quickly. tho a detailed argument? It sucks there. the only time it is any good is when I tell it to roleplay as tao te ching book or give it txt file with instructions. It is more useful when checking argument for fallacies, than for making argument itself.

I don't don't like you.

Next chapter is "clever people are stupid"

"

A mind free of thought, merged within itself, beholds the essence of Tao

A mind filled with thought,

identified with its own perceptions,

beholds the mere forms of this world

"

thinking too much is harmful.

So I dont think.

If I dont think, then I cant have negative thoughts.

Ideal human is the one who doesnt think at all. He is one with tao.

thinking is the source of all evil. Why is thinking the source of all evil?

thinking is source of all evil in two ways.

First way is that person who does evil thinks that he should do evil. It is thinking which guides him to do evil.

Second way is that person who experiences evil done to them are only experiencing it due to their thinking and perception.

If someone punches me in the face, I could think how that is evil, and then I would experience evil from my perspective. But instead, I choose not to think. So when someone punches me in the face, I dont think of it as good or bad. So from my perspective, I experienced no evil.

Experiencing evil is a choice. Person who doesnt think cannot think that he experienced evil.

You think having a migrant stay in your country for a day is bad, so why would you want them to stay for 400 years?

Forum doesnt have any rewards for posting. I would be perfectly fine with some virtual currency being in forums. It doesnt have to buy anything useful. Just so I can show off my virtual money.

Admit being an immigrant? I've never said anything else. The point is, and always has been, that it is over four hundred years of immigrant generations.

that doesnt matter. If the first year of being an immigrant is bad, surely 400 years of being an immigrant is way worse.

Next chapter is "clever people are stupid"

I remember seeing this youtube vid of some spiritual dude who thought that he could outwit crocodiles with the power of the mind...So he jumped in the infested water, pretended to be super-spiritual, was promptly dragged under and never seen again

If he was a Taoist, it wouldn't affect him.

Taoist is same in death as he is in life. No thoughts. Empty mind. He is emptiness. One cannot destroy what doesn't exist.

After I realized that Taoism is the only true religion, I have decided to embrace it and also I will be posting once a week here chapters of Taoism which I will also explain.

This chapter is about becoming invincible by abandoning the very concept of perceived harm.

Once person stops identifying himself with his body, there is nothing which can harm a person for he is no longer the body. He is the spirit. The idea of being harmed doesn't exist in his mind.

"“Be wary of both honor and disgrace”

“Endless affliction is bound to the body”

What does it mean,

“Be wary of both honor and disgrace”?

Honor is founded on disgrace

and disgrace is rooted in honor

Both should be avoided

Both bind a man to this world

That’s why it says,

“Be wary of both honor and disgrace”

What does it mean,

“Endless affliction is bound to the body”?

Man’s true self is eternal,

yet he thinks, “I am this body, I will soon die”

This false sense of self

is the cause of all his sorrow

When a person does not identify himself with the body

tell me, what troubles could touch him?"

Of course I am doing less debates now than before, but that's cuz I am playing more games and reading more manga now, as well as watching more anime and reading Tao Te Ching more deeply.

I can't really post as much I used to. Tho I still post a lot.

So you admit to being offspring of immigrants.

I'll have you know that "Native American" was a moniker that first-generation born-in-America Irish immigrants gave themselves over 300 years before Indians thought to abandon their tribal name in favor of that more generic name in the 1960s, so let's not get loosey-goosey with that moniker. I wonder if that is known among them?

I will have you know that immigrants are indeed not Native Americans by definition. Go back to where you came from.

You will soon bow to the true religion of taoism.

taoism doesnt compete, so no one can compete with it.

Wu is the most useful thing. Wu is emptiness. Everything which is useful is only useful because of emptiness. Car is useful only because it has emptiness in which someone can place himself in. that which has no emptiness which a person can occupy is useless to that person.

Person himself must have emptiness to be useful to others.

there is a reason why virtually all games out there which have zero sum system also have other systems such as match up system and team fights to compensate for zero sum. Its reason why in those games, even worst players can have close to 50% win rate. Because someone who is ranked "grandmaster" aint gonna be playing against someone who just started a game few days ago or someone who has low rank.

But I propose a more simple positive elo system which simply doesnt punish participation.

Stock trading is also zero sum, but that doesn't stop people from participating.

Gambling is below zero sum, yet it doesnt stop people from participating. However, people would participate more if they didnt lose on average.

But we are not gambling nor stock trading. We dont really have a brand which can compensate for zero sum system. Its why I have been saying for a long time that zero sum system (current elo system) is very bad for small sites and small communities.

Its a system for those who can afford to lose players from burnout. It doesnt work well for small communities, because it guarantees about 50% of people are being punished for participating.

And while they are not losing anything "real", no one really likes watching their rating sink. I would actually probably keep better rank on ultrarated if I never do another ultrarated again after I reach good enough rating, because past that point I can only go down in rank.

If you still think its not a zero sum game, take a look at ultrarated leaderboard:

6 debaters with rating above 1500

3 debaters with rating 1500

8 debaters with rating below 1500

So only 6 players progressed in elo, 3 remained where they were from start, and 8 have reduced in elo.

It is a zero sum game no matter what type of match up you use. the amount of wins can never be greater than amount of losses. Amount of gained elo can never exceed amount of lost elo.

this is why some modern systems use separate elo gain or loss for win / loss. the player who wins, for example wins 12 elo while the one who loses only loses 5.

the reason why these systems were even put in place is because game designers pretty much noticed that about half of players have elo in the negative from starting point.

When its a zero sum game, whatever one wins must be lost by another. So its not possible to progress without someone else losing their progress.

the math doesnt lie.

there is a famous joke in Bosnia about this (joke might get lost in translation) :

-Why are these people running?

-Because the first one gets huge reward.

-So first one gets huge reward, but why are the rest of them running?

My biggest issue with vampiric systems is that they are designed to punish participation. Even under ideal elo conditions, about half of people will sink. the only way majority of people can be rising is if they all collectively farm minority or share rating gained from farming minority, so that minority would have to lose a lot.

Vampiric systems face an unavoidable problem, because they are designed in a way that one can only grow if another sinks further down.

Its a true zero sum game. It always results in 50% average win rate.

Its a concept a lot of modern multiplayer games abandoned, mainly because about half of players are guaranteed to face burnout from having mostly losses.

Bosnia is safer than USA in all ways. Less homicides, less suicides, lower homelessness rate, much greater home ownership rate.

USA doesn't even beat Bosnia in life expectancy.

So yeah...

I like debating too. I just understand what Taoism first understood about all competition. It's a zero sum game.

There are some types of competition which make everyone in it stronger, but any "win lose tie" system is essentially built upon what Karl Marx described as vampirism.

Vampiric systems are described as "self draining systems", because one part of system gets drained for another to progress.

Now, a lot of video games in multiplayer are designed on vampirism, but the ones which are not sometimes have more players. Roblox is not designed on vampirism, at least a lot of games in it are not.

"The Pareto Principle", is a different area. It is built on assumption that 20% of people in top tier are most competent ones, thus they produce the most wins.

Maybe you could say that 20% of people on leaderboard have 80% of wins, but that's a different area to unavoidable vampirism in all competitive systems.

The principle holds mathematically true because number of wins can never be greater than number of losses.

And it already showed itself to be true in ultrarated. Ultrarated leaderboard has about 50% of users at rating below 1500, and the reason why principle shows so true there is because its random and everyone debates everyone.

When everyone debates everyone, output of that can only realistically be 50% of people mostly losing. The other option is having mostly ties, but that rarely happens in debating.

Simply put, in order for one group to have mostly wins, some other group has to have mostly losses.

When it comes to any "win lose tie" competition, it is literally a zero sum game.

For each +1 (win), there is a -1 (loss) somewhere.

And because of this principle, the system acts vampiric.

Debate art had same problem. It relied on winners farming losers, but once losers quit the site, the winners are left stick with no one to farm, but each other.

The system is simply designed in a way that there must be someone, some group, ready to endure mostly losses, for system to work at all.

And I am afraid that any system relying on vampirism is essentially a bad system for at least half of people in it.

I have similar critique of capitalism, the vampirism of resources.

Even my stupid slow brain sometimes poops out a smart idea here and there.

People who hate immigrants are those who want USA to be returned to Native Americans.

Only Native Americans are those who come from non-migrants. Everyone else is technically a migrant.

You misunderstood my strategy. It is not running away.

It is retreating while dodging the turd strategically.

And you will eventually run out of turd to throw, creating an opening for me to counter attack with my own turd.

I can also use advice of great warrior Sun tzu. After you run out of turd to throw, I will in the meantime be collecting all the turd you threw so far, so that I can throw it back at you, using your weapons against you.

You have underestimated the power of the best of planners.

I will simply apply the teachings of tao. When someone throws a turd at me, I will avoid like water which avoids obstacles, escaping the turd and moving to a safe turd-free location where the turd cant reach me. So my taoism is safe from your turd.

People dont want to debate. People want to win debates.

However, mathematical logic guarantees that in any group of people where each debates each, average victory rate of above 50% is impossible. So the most likely case is that at least half of people are mostly losing debates, less likely that most are merely not winning and getting tied results.

In any win lose competition, average win rate cannot be lower or higher than 50%. It means that half of debating population has no any chance of having win rate above 50%.

World of mathematics is a depressing and crushing world.

the only exception to this is majority farming minority for wins. So for example, 6 debaters are only debating against 4 debaters and getting constant wins against them.

But in any "everyone debates everyone" competition, such as similar case in ultrarated, the output will basically always be one half of population mostly losing. And such is the case on leaderboard too. You could draw a line on half of leaderboard, and the bottom half is pretty much gonna be mostly those with rating 1500 or below.

In war, the most useful strategy is retreat.

Such is teaching of Taoism, and all actually good strategies (hit and run, guerrilla warfare, underground tunnels...ect.) are based on one specific concept, which is not merely attack but actually retreat as their core idea of battle.

Iran has mastered the art of retreat. It is why USA doesn't actually have victory plan against Iran.

Dropping bombs doesn't do much against bunkers under mountains which could survive a nuke.

And ground invasion of Iran would mean Iran gets to bait US deep into it's territory, and territory of Iran is one of biggest in the world, with plenty of mountains.

All Iran has to do in order to win is to keep retreating and attacking while retreating.

Such is the defensive strategy of Tao: "Retreat after victory".

If USA knew how to retreat, their battle abilities would actually be hundred times greater.

But problem for Trump, just as it was problem for Imperial Japan, is that word "retreat" doesnt exist in his dictionary.

And army which doesn't retreat is always an army which is gonna both get stretched and eventually walk into a trap.

Iran isn't Iraq. Iraq fought against 32 countries. Iran is much stronger and fights only against 2.

The idea that Trump (who has about zero knowledge on warfare) is gonna win against a country who spent 40 years perfecting it's warfare for this very situation, is very silly.

Person who doesn't retreat, attacks both when at advantage and when at disadvantage, and thus guarantees a loss when at disadvantage.

Which religion are you now?