did I say climate change isn't happening? no. I said the long term effects cant be tested, which is an inconvenient requirement before a theory can become a fact. liberals aren't stupid for thinking climate change exists. theyre stupid for buying into the doom saying. note how liberals love to conflate the data on climate change and the predictions about its cause and effect. anyone challenges the predictions, they are criticized for denying there is climate change at all. that's some shady ****. kind of like how if you think a country should enforce its borders you must be a racist. typical liberal tactic. and the only people it fools are other liberals.
In other words; Ragic thinks humans should take no action to combat climate change or its effects because he does not care that things are going extinct or are extremely threatened right now because he forgets there is a lot more people and a lot less nature. so he thinks species still have the same room to adapt or we can just move food production elsewhere like in -100 000 BC or whatever. climate change is a fact, not a hypothesis. its effects are real right now, not hypothetical what is hypothetical are the cause and future effects about this Ragic is right, but inaction is the dumbest possible policy to take in this regard. and while there is nothing wrong with enforcing borders there is something wrong with him, the thing wrong with him is racism. but he's trying to hide it. Typical Ragic racist I'm also pretty sure he hates plant based food having consistent undiminished trace and vital mineral content over the coming decades, corals, and people that live near the ocean.
pretty much what i've expected from you. The dualistic nature of all things is lucidly described in Plato's Phaedo, where Socrates proves the immortality of the soul. Might be an interesting read for you, and even if it isn't in the light of our discussion, it's a highly influential dialogue of Plato which helps you understand how the way of thinking has developed over time and how it still influences the best minds of mankind. I'm not appyling "weird quantum effects of particles" to the entirety of reality (although, FYI, they do apply at a macroscopic scale too) -- I'm simply pointing out that even at a quantum level reality which we perceive is illusive and dualistic, which serves very strong evidence to believe that the concept of maya is true. As for the namedropping: I merely pointed out that such narrow logic is infantile and just shows your limited view on what science is and how it works. To ensure you are coherent in that subject, you first need to educate yourself on the history of philosophy, and after that, the philosophy of science. But even then, the scientific world view is limited: science is strict and rigid and is systematically organized and follows a subordinate structure, just like religion in a way and like religion, people of such world view tend to believe that the reality of the "infinite classifying machine" (according to Shopenhauer) has told them is the ultimate truth, which is rather amusing considering how many times science has produced the most ridiculous ideas: have a look at Physiognomy, Phrenology, Homeopathy -- some of the fairly recent ones. But we don't have to look so far as to the 19th century. Quantum physics basically says that newtonian physics is a load of garbage. In a system that follows such strict laws there are already too many complications, contradictions, outdated concepts and theories, and considering all this you have to be extremely illiterate to solely believe in this way of approaching reality. My arguments are concrete enough, you just live in the dull and unimaginite post-modern paradigm and because of that have difficulty comprehending anything that isn't "concrete" in your world or somehow deviates from the narrative in which that has made you accustomed to live in, which is totally fine to you, but makes you boring and makes your arguments and your rhetoric in general stiff and sluggish. We wouldn't have this talk at all if you've read Plato's cave metaphor in his Republic. But, ignorance is fatal ^^ What has god got do with any of what we've talked about? That's an entirely different subject.
sounds to me like you don't understand science,the purpose and meaning of the laws in physics and otherwise or how this relates to Plato. this is why psychology and philosophy, your fields I believe, are not a science.
Biopsychology is as much science as it can be, but psychology as a whole is obviously not 100% scientific indeed. But philosophy is definitely science. Moreover, it's the mother of all sciences. I'm not surprised you believe this, to you philosophy is, from what I've gathered, something recondite and impalpable; little do you know that the majority of early scientists, who contributed to physics and maths, considered themselves philosophers -- not mathematicians or physicists, one of the latest including Newton btw. Sounds to me like you don't understand science and haven't fully developed (or at least to an adequate level to have a coherent argument)a thing called abstract-logical thinking, because even a d*mbf*ck can see how flawed your syllogism is (even if we were to consider it to be true that both me being secluded only in those fields and you being right in the sense that psychology and philosophy are not sciences). It is very important for understanding science to build a good comprehensive thinking apparatus, particularly, the logical one. Otherwise the logical structure of arguments is bound to be erroneous without you even knowing so! That's why you ought to study philosophy -- because it's the knowledge of knowledge. EDIT: Found this article, maybe you'll find it useful. https://www.thoughtco.com/g00/criteria-for-science-and-scientific-theories-250570?i10c.referrer=https://www.google.ru/
that's what I said. your mother is the mother of Gutsa, your mother is not Gutsa. Philosophy is the mother of science. philosophy is not science. science is not going to look into a mirror one day and go "No, I've become my mother..." I'd like to point out that rather than make a new hypothesis or rework the old one you went "REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE NOTHING IS REAL" just because something intentionally primitive like the laws of physics was broken again by new results. read what you link you silly goose.
Gutsa, you can not cure willful ignorance. liberals don't learn. they just redefine terms to fit with their world view. to them, the 'truth' is whoever speaks the loudest and longest. note how Gressen has to have the last word (no matter how stupid it sounds).
The mitochondrion (plural mitochondria) is a double membrane-bound organelle found in all eukaryotic organisms. Some cells in some multi-cellular organisms may however lack them (for example, mature mammalian red blood cells). A number of unicellular organisms, such as microsporidia, parabasalids, and diplomonads, have also reduced or transformed their mitochondria into other structures. To date, only one eukaryote, Monocotyledonous, is known to have completely lost its mitochondria. The word mitochondrion comes from the Greek μίτος, mitos, "thread", and χονδρίον, chondrion, "granule" or "grain-like". Mitochondria generate most of the cell's supply of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), used as a source of chemical energy.
I'd be wary of calling all plants with one-lobed seeds one eukaryote. I'd have gone for; "To date only Monocotyledonous eukaryotes have been known to have completely lost its mitochondriav" but it is my second language so I could be wrong.
Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance in logic. By an analogy we don't form a conclusion. it's one of the fundamental principles of forming an argument and yet you flagrantly violate it. Even though what you've stated may portray it conradictory at first(like any sophism for that matter), philosophy can be a science whilst maintaining the status of the mother of all sciences, since: A) the mother is a metaphor and does not mean that philosophy is literary a mother B) other sciences like arithmetics are in the same sense mothers to algebra and geometry, philology to linguistics etc. but that doesn't make them less "sciency" than the sciences which are concomitant to them C) Philosophy meets the scientific criteria because: It is based on knowledge (not on belief) It is reflexive it is logical (maintains an inner unity and structure) Is based on precise concepts and categories The only reason you think otherwise is because (I'm getting tired of saying this), due to your science fanatacism and post-modern view of the world, you believe, from what I see, that any theoretic discipline is lofty and nebulous and therefore unscientific. Funny thing is, we've estabishled that your concept of what science is is fundamentally flawed and the logical structure of your arguments do not stand up to criticism. I highly suggest you read greek philosophy, because you're literally making the same mistakes Protagoras and Gorgias did, and that was way back in 5th century BC. I didn't say that. That is merely how you interpreted what I purported. Taking out of context one of the minor arguments I presented and misrepresenting what I meant -- and you say something about keeping the bar high, eh? That's what I did and that's why I sent the link to you. Go read it too.
The only person who can cure ignorance is the individual himself. I'm simply pointing out what I see wrong. Nobody is hopeless, even the lowest of the lows can redeem themselves. Don't forget that I come from the country of Dostoevsky ^^
Would you not say that everyone being able to redeem themselves defies their nature? This would start the whole nature vs nurture debate. Perhaps theres different levels of redeeming yourself, depending on the person.
Pot---->kettle. you argued that X is Z because X is the mother of Z I argue that X is not Z just because X is the mother of Z you say X is Z because A is the mother of B and C and A,B and C are all D you are just mad because you are on the one side of philosophers who thinks it still is and should still be considered a science.
Exactly. You can't apply the same expectations on people of different levels of consciousness, because it could be that for one the actions that one ought to to do to redeem himself he does by default, hence, he soars for something else, something higher and deeper. I do believe that there are certain factors that tend to predetermine a person's path: genetics, social background, cultural background etc., but I also believe that everyone has the Buddha potential which is significantly easier to realize compared to back when people were illiterate and poor and were only preoccuppied with the thought of how to freakin' survive. The problem of todays world is illusive needs that the capitalistic culture has sticked in our heads. If people only knew how little they need to maintain a good, healthy and interesting life, I doubt we'd have so many f'd up problems that we have today. It just takes really a lot of rethinking of the most basic things that we tend to never question and assume as axioms. But yeah, basically, love thy neighbour, as hard as that is (and it's f'ing hard) cause when you help someone, you essentially help yourself. The earth is round and we all have to work together to live in it harmoniously (or at least strive towards doing so).
the formula for altruïsm in animales with kin selection in small groups is actually rB-C>0 but you know, whatever. probably applies less to large worldspanning situations.
First of all, where did I even remotely show a sign of agitation, let alone madness? Where did you exactly constructively argue on how philosophy as a scientific discipline and worldview (i'd say it's more the second rather than the first) doesn't fit the scientific criteria, may I ask? Your "me and my mother" analogy is a blatant sophism, because, as I said, the word mother serves as a metaphor and doesn't imply that philosophy and the sciences that came out of it are of different nature. I'm really curious to see how you argue against the scientific criteria which philosophy meets, but you probably don't have enough knowledge of the subject to do so. Honestly, to not go through the same process and so that I won't have to dot the i's and cross the t's I suggest you just admit that you're ignorant in this subject. Really. Philosophy is a deep and abstruse discipline which requires a lot of time and effort to comprehend and is discreditted today in the mass consciousness and it's been like that for the past 50+ years. No hard feelings, I understand your situation (i was once the same) and I commiserate with you. All you have to do is read a bit of sh*t. It's pointless to debate about the meaning of a book which you haven't read and which you only know by foggy hearsay, right? If your ego is hurt, you can continue with your stuff if you want, but frankly, I'm a bit tired. I've spent more than enough time on explaining fairly simple stuff. If you manage to have at somepoint in your life a tiny bit of doubt in your point of view, you can easily come back to this thread and reread some of the stuff where I've brought up certain literature which deals specifically with the issue of your ignorance. Although, I don't regret this talk since I enjoy practicing english (I don't really have such oppurtunity too often in Russia), but I hope you understand why I withdraw from this seemingly fatuous debate. Unless, of course, you actually provide sound evidence, which is virtually impossible because it's essentially you, trifle Geressen, arguing against the brighest minds of mankind.
