If you're snookered by the likes of Walsh and the Daily Wire I'd be more worried if you approved of my opinions.
"Pretending to be a faggot" isn't any better a defense than "pretending to be retarded" is.
100% EU. They rode rancors in Empire at war. Was fun.
I mean, for the most part the advocates have recognized they lost that argument.
The normies are often behind the times. Those that aren't truly enmeshed though have dropped the clump of cells argument mostly. And switched to "Yeah its human but blah blah still a parasite blah blah you can't force somebody to donate organs."
Which is retarded for other reasons but still.
It's gay for mack
I've not returned to burger King in almost 8 years so I can't say I related
THAT'S why you don't eat burger king? Like you would otherwise?
It's a poor tactic in my opinion.
If I was creating such a system I'd want some way to identify people like me and filter them out.
Currently it doesn't do that
The funny thing is, as that type of teaching becomes more common, cheating it becomes easier.
For my part I had a 4.0 in the semesters I bothered to turn in assignments.
Their questions aren't hard. Half the time you can tell the correct answers without reading the questions.
It's why they're such abject failures at everything else, as soon as they leave the context of fools and have to actually do something
A lot to respond to, but the knot cut is that it's obvious difficult me for me to construct the alternative that I don't belive in as perspective conparision for what I do.
Obviously I don't believe that only the physical is reality, but to make that claim without also making a supernatural or at least preternatural doesn't seem reasonable. Any argument that essentially says "but it has to or nothing works" hits the same problems that I have with a secular universe to befin with.
I'm a determination not because I think perfect knowledge is possible, but because reality is independent of knowledge. We as humanity have claimed to have completed possibly knowledge repeatedly and then summilary been proved wrong. Over and over. That leads me to believe that while we can't know the substance perfectly, it doesn't change that it already IS and has always been.
The sun shined at the exact intensity both before and after it was assigned its proper place in astronomy. And every atom had a precise position and velocity in The Begining regardless of our inability to measure that. Unless something outside that system acts, those results are precise based on the interactions within that closed system. There's no randomness there. And nothing that couldn't be predicted with perfect information.
So taking free will onto that, it's either a result of those processes in which case it is also predictable and thus "not free" OR something outside that system COULD make those predictions and somehow didnt. Which comes to the same thing.
Again, outside ive that model, I've no idea what free will even means.
Assuming it isn't a by product of physical process, which seems to be where your aiming with emergent concepts creating emergenct concepts, I still have two problems.
#1 they still have a physical zero point where they started if they aren't super natural to begin with.
2 if they are "divine" rather than physical they're either predictable or they aren't. Both options aren't "free."
Outside of that, we get into stuff that's so epistemological I don't know if it even serves to say more than "I believe" this or that. How do you define "real" why does that matter and what constitutes distinctions between real things.
I believe justice exists because the Supreme being defined it the same way he defined the atomic weight of Hydrogen. There's not debating either philosophically because both are reality that exists.
Anything that can't be defined as precisely as the atomic weight of Hydrogen doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. And I don't me to say you have to be able to define it, just that it has an objective definition at that level of certainty.
What societies DO or do not do seems irrelevent to me I'm defining those realities, unless you define moral along utilitarian lines, which is fine but A. Isnt what I hold to, B. Is one choice among many that can't be proved. And C. (This is the big one) demands that other belief systems kowtow to it for it to exist, while pretending not to do that.
Liberalism MUST triumph over all. That's built into its premise, if something else becomes more practical, or a society is bless by their God for arbitrary reasons, that society tramples a liberal one. And the belief in that ideal creates more motivated conqourers than one that believs in utilitarianism. Because utilitarianism doesn't allow you to choose the king of ashes option. And when ashes comes something else grows out of it. All of that is true whether the God in question exists or not.
For my part, the God I follow has decreed my behavior regardless of whether it leads to me winning or not. It's not about winning or losing, but about doing assigned duty unto death.
According to this morons paradigm the Holocaust was totally really killing 6 million jews, and so the jews are a great example of why it's totally fine to be a stateless minority? Not risky at all!
If you think it's holistic than I can't fault you, I just can't bring myself to see it that way. It seems too...chaotic as a strategy.
It's why I don't buy most conspiracies as such, I don't think people acting in large groups are good enough at keeping secrets to pull most "inside jobs" off. But people who went to the same schools, believe the same things, have the same friends, and have the same ethics will as a force act in a way that furthers their agendas without coordination.
Which i suppose from your perspective is just evidence that the programming IS that effective. I can't really see anyway to prove it one way or the other personally. But you're consistent on that so I'll concede the point.
Whats your faith convictions/lack thereof? Id guess that colors your perspective on this more than anything. For my part, the universe IS deterministic in the sense that there are no truly random actions. And our belief in randomness is just an illusion created by our inability to perceive all things at once in full detail. It's the perfect simulation argument I realize, but I do believe in a God that's all powerful, and every argument with an all powerful God that tries to square that with him somehow blinding himself to the outcome of Free willed beings falls flat.
Otherwise it wouldn't be free will, it'd be predictable acceptable outcome that he elected not to alter. Which still make the only choice and will that matters His.
I'm not even sure in that context what free will IS. It can't be part of the natural world, so it's either mechanically Void and therefore random or mechanically random. Neither of which work because... if you have perfect information randomness doesn't exist.
On the flip side. A secular perspective on it demands consciousness be chemical. Or at the very least, physical. In which case I come to the same question. Hormones and neuron temperature and whayever else reacting in complicated ways that we aren't even aware of producing a process we can't even quantif yet.
So ignoring all the metaphysics of it all.
Tldr. You seem to be saying that not understanding basic chemistry and linguistics is the same brainwashing that turns people into pavlovian attack dogs in politics. In which case, hey fair enough.
Again. The fact that you actually can't read isn't something I can correct for you.
If they called it fag time you wouldn't take it because youre not gay.
Your lack of reading comprehension is not my fault. Blame classroom education.
I haven't lied here? And taking sick days isn't lying.
So again. Nice try.
You tried to say taking sick days was embarrassing. It isnt.
Also not what I said. Goalposts now in another sport with you.
The fact that you missed the point so completely shows that hostility is all you merit.
I've never been drunk in my entire life.
Next question?
Your argument would be valid to me if I was only talking about politics. I'm not.
I'm talking about every aspect of life. And the PAINFUL slog it is to get people to even play pretend at critical thinking.
The conclusions that people draw from information is in my experience, barely even tangitally related to what the information actually IS.
And again, if I only saw this in politics id say you have a point. But it isn't. There are programed blindspots, I'm not disagreeing with you there. And there are people who could otherwise make connections and leaps of logic that don't because of that programming. But in my experience the vast majority couldn't. Even without the programing.
Free will is a separate issue, I don't believe it exists and I've yet to hear an argument that was convincing. Most boil down to "but it'd be totally lame if it didn't exist" and I don't find that paticularlu compelling.
Have I mentioned u racisss?
It needs to be said more often because your last paragraph is on the money.
Most people would fail a Turing test. They're basically ameboes. Stimulus response. Stimulus response. (Granted I don't believe in free will to begin with so I'm coming at this from a fairly dark place as far as "the human spirit" goes)
The end result is it doesnt actually matter what anybody does or doesn't do, all that matters is what's memorable and framing. That's the basic idea of "fortifying an election" the number of people who are UNABLE and I don't mean haven't learned, I mean lack the capacity, to parse connotation and denotation separately is way higher than those who can.
"Republicans pounce" indeed. The fact that pounce, point out, seize, hold accountable, raise questions, bring up, push, question, call out, and comment on are exactly the same thing is lost on 80% of people.
How pragmatic and yucky of you
Have you considered unconditional surrender and letting your enemies have everything while raping your friends and family? It's way more principled.
Cozy games article: Holy shit what a deplorable useless faggot. As much as I hate journalists and black people, I hate this sort of person even more.
At least the other two can be an enemy. A struggle is there inherent to their evil.
This person is boil, a puss filled open sore on existence. They're what 682 sees in humanity. In short. "you.... are..... disgusting"