Dude, talking about Internet Stormfags. Don't pretend that they know anything of history.
Except you (used to?) call me a sToRmFaG for presenting the same historical arguments. I think you’re being a little too broad when you just assume that everyone who feels this way is an unthinking racist. They may since have descended into unthinking racism on the subject, but I would wager many if not most got to that point through applied logic initially, saw that the subject was not ((allowed)) to be discussed logically, and decided “well if they don’t why should I” - or something along those lines. I mean, you even do it here. You’re dancing around the validity of everything I raise while still decrying the imagined (though not necessarily imaginary) sToRmFaG.
And where did I say that? There are plenty of causes. Middlemen minorities are hated everywhere, as Sowell has demonstrated.
So you’re victim blaming? Yikes. Do better sweaty.
The Old Testament is the holy book of Rabbinic Judaism.
Wrong. They don’t follow “the OT”, they follow the talmud. That’s the definition of rabbinic judaism.
Hell, that disputation you cited was conducted by a converted Jew.
Yeah no shit, who else could expose evil from within but for someone within already. Are you ((again)) trying to insinuate that I’m looking at this solely through a racial lens? You’d be a fool to. You should look up Ron Unz of the Unz Report, Henry Makow, Norman Finkelstein, Glenn Greenwald, among others for some modern day jews with integrity. Sounds like you could do with some exposure to thoughts outside your comfort zone.
All I have to do is present one white pedo and you'll say
If you found one who was running his operation on behalf of a White intelligence agency for the purpose of collecting blackmail on influential non-whites*
Seriously stop playing so fucking dumb on this subject. “Blood Libel” “vampires” “Saint Simon of Trent”. Literally thousands of years of accusations of satanic ritual child abuse.
Inb4 “mUh mean goyim were mean to them for no reason!!!!! Whites are gross too!!!!!”
Fack off with that gay shit
"Intellectuals" generally back Islam...
Yeah I think they’re calling themselves “jews for palestine” these days?
This is the very first time that an even mildly dubious text from the Talmud has been sourced by someone.
Lmfao, dude, don’t be so disingenuous:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Paris
That was what? 800 or so years of cited sources of “even mildly dubious text from the talmud”? On the one hand you’ll claim “most oppressed people of all time!” But you never seem to want to discuss any potential causes for their situation beyond “goyim bad”.
the Talmud is nothing more than a collection of the words of famous Jewish 'theologians'.
Wrong, it is the holy book of Rabbinic judaism. Like hadiths if every muslim agreed on them. Nothing like “early church fathers” (tangentially, many of whom had based opinions on that matter, but that’s neither here nor there).
were effing off to a country they created
Well it seems they were trying to until a few people with funny sounding last names took over in a violent terroristic campaign of violence, murder, and genocide. You might have heard of it? Palest-something? Palaski? Palawitz? Palestine? Something like that.
Just posing an alternative interpretation to "the Jews just want to rape 2-year-olds", which seems pretty strange to me.
Shit dude did you miss that whole Epstein raping kids for the mossad thing? Amazing how selective you are with your memory. Because jews have never EVER been associated with child murder and mutilation. Nope never, totally invented out of whole cloth in 2016.
Right now, it's the 'Chosen People' fighting Islam and the Muslims. So "the goyim" are sending the Jews to do their dirty work for them. You should love them.
Lmfao the naievity is astounding. I bet you would have supported the austere religious scholar Bin Laden in his holy religious crusade against communism, had you existed as anything more than a sample of jizzum at the time. You seem far too easily swayed by the ramblings of ((intellectuals)).
Many excellent infographics or whatever you want to call them on the subject exist, sourced and everything, but there’s no winning with some of you people, and even if every quote is cited and an unambiguous translation of writing included in the talmud, you’ll be accused of gishgallop - and on the other hand, if even one of two dozen quotes comes from, say, a kabbalistic text (thus not the talmud, a good example being the Toledat Yeshu), the image will be accused of conflation and dismissed out of hand by the usual suspects.
So that’s why I go to the source, and following from that the translation the mainstream jews themselves agree upon.
So to bring us back, tell me, why do you take such severe issue with one “purity religion” and not the other? When the jews work out just how old their rape victims can be to still be of mariable quality, you squeak out “buh buh im no expert, but I’m sure it’s justified!”, yet when the Muslims say “women should behave in X, Y, and Z fashion” you raise a bitch fit and act like we should send goyim, I mean “our sons and daughters” to fight them in some kind of clash of civilizations. Am I reading you wrong?
But I think you misunderstand
So explain that verse to me, why are they worried about the virginity of 3 year olds?
I'm impressed that you
Yeah I’ve learned how to preemptively avoid many of the pilpulous pitfalls parlayed against the truth
A female less than 3 years old, her intercourse is not considered as intercourse, and her virginity returns.
Weird thing to sneak into your holy book no?
What does the talmud say about 3 year old girls?
Sure, of course, but that doesn’t change the facts that:
-
they are on the box
-
presumably they are “default” choices
Both are dogshit
“Whoever”?
Instead they’re all fat ugly disabled POCs
That’s isn’t an accident
Anyone have a link to the full video/context? Can’t find it
The algorithm will delist any video using a “hard W”
“To except leftist rhetoric about jews”
Learn the fucking language of the people you’re trying to subvert, or better yet DON’T because it makes you so much easier to notice
Pretty sure it nullifies the tag so the other person doesn’t actually get notified, not sure though never been much of a twit
I think we can trust Moriarty on his take here
Like when people say X-men was a “coded” discussion of the different approaches to the civil rights movement (prof x = mlk, magneto = malcolm x)
The story of AC is unironically closer to real life than “anatomically modern humans sat around jerking off in caves for 290,000 years until inventing agriculture 10,000 years ago”.
I’ve been asking the admins for over two years now for a setting which would let communities sort their front page by /active...it might finally be coming now that the legacy sites have been switched over to the system
.win limitation... mods can filter posts from new accounts, but it’s all or nothing (someone correct me if I’m wrong - the filter is written in YAML so it could be possible I just don’t really know the language’s limitations)
The argument that math and the complex symbol systems required by chemistry, physics, and so forth MUST have been existing out there in the ether
Is that not the obvious case? The universe developed for billions and billions of years according to these physical laws with no humans around to write them down symbolically. Simultaneously, these laws don’t physically “exist” in the sense that they aren’t written down anywhere. Protons aren’t labeled “this side up”, yet somehow the universe knows just how to proceed, in all respects.
Math, physics, chemistry are highly effective maps of the natural world, so effective you can make predictions about how some stuff will act or behave.
Can you think of anything “real” which can’t be explained/modeled by math? How could a mindless universe be so totally governed by something which is synonymous with mind? It’s (LITERALLY) illogical
And just so you know, this post isn’t suggesting any specific God over another, it’s about trying to find common ground where everyone can congregate to through logical argument, from where the discussion could branch off in many interesting directions
Tell me which part of the argument makes a mockery of math:
There are, according to the standard model, 27 independent and fundamental variables which underpin “the laws of physics”
There is no reason for these variables to have the value they do (hence independent), or any other value, beyond the logical necessity that they must have some value
One of these 27 variables is lamda, the cosmological constant, which has been determined to posses a value on the order of 1x10^-122 (unitless)
Should the value of this number change, a variety of effects would occur depending on the degree of change. A very very very very small change would result in galaxies never forming. A very very very small change would result in stars never forming. A very very small change would result in the universe collapsing in on itself nearly instantaneously after the big bang.
That same reality applies to each of the 27 independent fundamental variables, and while I may not be able to actually produce this equation which multiplies the acceptable error bounds, it is clearly logically possible to produce it.
If you want to, from this point, make some Anthropic Principle-esque rebuttal along the lines of “well who says these variables can take any other value than the one they hold in our universe” / “there could be infinite universes, we just happen to be in the one where they take these values”, congrats on shutting down the conversation, but I and Roger Penrose alike assure you, you haven't actually responded to the argument, merely attempted to avoid it (Dip, Dodge, Duck, Davoid, and Dip right? Been a while since school)
It is implausible to the degree of practical impossibility to suggest that this is the result of chaos, chance, and meaninglessness (“beyond a shadow of a doubt”? We execute people on less grounds than you seem to be demanding from a fucking forum conversation lol).
Go back to your first statement, where you effectively claim everyone who perceives existence as possessing meaning is stupid. You’re the one who kicked things off on a poor foot. I made a logical argument to start a discussion, you made a judgement and placed yourself above everyone with a different understanding. The fact you don’t understand limits is just the cherry on top.
- If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
Still waiting for you to deal with that argument. If you recall, all you’ve done so far is bitch, spout non-sequitors, and insult the intelligence of others
If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different?
Well, for starters, math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic. Existence would be truly meaningless in every sense of the word. There would be no correspondence between cause and effect. So on and so forth.
I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave.
I’m wrapping the “Laws of Physics” into the broader umbrella concept of “Applicability of Mathematics to Reality”. The star functions the way it does (mostly) because of the interplay of gravity, nuclear fusion, and electromagnetism. The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.
But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted
I’m not trying to be tautological, though I understand how these arguments could be interpreted that way. The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality that it has long been called “the language of nature”, unless you include the possibility of intelligent design. You could say, “I believe in the thing so mind bogglingly implausible that it could be rightly said that the possibility of its occurrence is approaching 1/∞” but that is just an inferior answer in my opinion.
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know
So two things:
Firstly - even the parts of math we think don’t apply to reality often end up astoundingly showing up in some theretofore poorly understood realm. A great example of this are the imaginary numbers and their associated operations.
Secondly - “Math” isn’t a physical thing right? It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right? So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe?
Oh it’s good stuff. Basically what you describe and variations on the theme usually dealing with changes in scale. One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves, in an assumed multiversal situation. I can look for the link if you’re interested, I think I posted it a while back.
I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better.
Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!
Not really, the trafficker/pimp has greater culpability than the John or victim/prostitute in literally every jurisdiction on earth. But again you manage to deftly avoid the point with a swift and substanceless “no u”.
I see you still haven’t looked into the origins of feminism, transgenderism, sexual depravity, and myriad other forms of the degeneration of western culture. You might get there one day but it’ll take a lot of reading and more importantly reflection.
The talmud supercedes the Torah in rabbinic judaism. No one consults the Torah for direction, they consult their rabbi who consults their talmud. That’s the point of rabbinic judaism.
Have you ever deeply asked yourself how a gay jew could have such a different opinion than you of his own “nation”? That might be a good place to start if you respect him as much as daily viewership would imply. Then from there check the articles on the Unz report and read the first one with a title that jumps out at you. I’d be interested in your thoughts because the authors posted there tend not to pull anywhere near as many punches as you’re likely used to in your regular edgy centrist discourse.
Dude they literally identified the ship as American then tried to sink it, and succeeded in murdering dozens of AMERICAN NAVY MEN. How could you possibly justify any feeling on that subject other than (rabid) “hate”. I’d love to hear this. And do try to put yourself in the shoes of an American for this one and not some aloof eurofag who decries the American empire or whatever the fuck your first instinct is to get out of this one.
:)