To our fellow muricans

[zagibu]

It's just your opinion that it's my opinion and a subjective truth. And your opinion is wrong.

Now you are starting to get it.

[Xant]

Now you are starting to get it.

No, no. I got that you're wrong (p)ages ago.

[Kajia]

It's just your opinion that it's my opinion and a subjective truth. And your opinion is wrong.

funny.
let me explain what I think Zagibu meant by saying that you're starting to get it:
your opinion is as true as his, and mine for that matter, because everybody says his own opinion is true, and no one can prove it. therefore you will hopefully agree that an opinion being true is not relevant as long as it can only be backed verbally. the same will apply to all things verbal, opinions are (subjective) truths, truths do exist (in your words), and we can savely rest on the realisation that pointing out a truth is not getting us anywhere. but there you go. have your simple truths, to me it's just a word, but if you want to use it, do it. just admit that you can't have them without a lot of abstraction.

actually this small conversation about truths started for me to understand how you think about truth, so that someone could speak to you in your words. not sure if we're here yet, but I'm gonna take a step forward anyway.

All of those things fall under that umbrella word. And that's obvious.

so "Syria" is (let me rephrase that stuff from page 25) an abstraction. it is an umbrella term. true.
but you basically say an umbrella term can give all the people who hear it and use it all the information they need to grasp its meaning. false.
it can not transport all the links to the general knowledge of a whole country, all it's inhabitants, their ancestors, their history, etc. etc.
to us it's just a term to adress either the government or representatives, or its people, or the country itself.
to someone who lives there or has ever travelled there, it will be a whole lot more than these meanings. and in the other extreme, to someone who can't read a map for example, it won't even be a spacial reference.

actually this is kind of how our brain works. you have tons of tiny bits of information, and words to access them via associations. without associations and implications (like 'lily' being a name aswell as a flower f.i.) language would be void and meaningless. more abstract terms will speak to more potentially useful information, and that is good for creativity and speed of communication, but it certainly has nothing to do with being precise, as it always highly depends on the context in which a word is used. rip it out and the thing loses it's fucking meaning.
my point is, umbrella terms may cover some basic meanings, but whether or not a receiver is familiar with them is another story.

If I say Syrian people, why would anyone think of livestock? Last time I checked people is a word assigned to humans not animals. Anyone questioning that definition of people is a complete fucking tool.

I admit, it was badly phrased. the question about livestock was not meant to point to the people like that. still, when I hear "X people" I also associate their living conditions and cultural habitat. for me it was close too to think of livestock, because if you kill it while leaving people unhurt they would still suffer. anyway, thanks for pointing that out so charmingly.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/rs/created_already_in_motion/

sounds a lot like desperately fighting the shortcomings of formal logic, but I'll look into it to find out.
you should read up on general semantics all the same. it's highly relevant.

I don't think it's spineless, at all.  If it is offensive to you then that is your issue. 

Is my view base profiteering?  Sure.  Is it wrong? no I don't think so.  If you think differently then that is your right as human.  As it is my right to think you live without seeing what is infront of you.   If someone is going to profit from something why not you?  or Me?  Are your morals so strong that you would turn down 500$ for 8 hours of work checking ID cards?  What about 1500$ for just driving a guy in a buisness suit to the diner and back?   If so good for you but I live in teh real world where money walks, talks, and tells people what to do. 

man, why so cynical? you don't sound as if you like to live in a world that works this way. so why talk as if no one should want it to change for the better?
in other words:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

but I don't blame you, little cog in the wheel.


[sorry for the long post]

[Xant]

funny.
let me explain what I think Zagibu meant by saying that you're starting to get it:
your opinion is as true as his, and mine for that matter, because everybody says his own opinion is true, and no one can prove it. therefore you will hopefully agree that an opinion being true is not relevant as long as it can only be backed verbally. the same will apply to all things verbal, opinions are (subjective) truths, truths do exist (in your words), and we can savely rest on the realisation that pointing out a truth is not getting us anywhere. but there you go. have your simple truths, to me it's just a word, but if you want to use it, do it. just admit that you can't have them without a lot of abstraction.

Yes, opinions are subjective truths. Strawberry ice cream being the best ice cream is true subjectively. Saying it rains outside when it isn't raining is not subjectively false, it's objectively false. You will not get wet, nor will anyone else.

actually this small conversation about truths started for me to understand how you think about truth, so that someone could speak to you in your words. not sure if we're here yet, but I'm gonna take a step forward anyway.
so "Syria" is (let me rephrase that stuff from page 25) an abstraction. it is an umbrella term. true.
but you basically say an umbrella term can give all the people who hear it and use it all the information they need to grasp its meaning. false.
it can not transport all the links to the general knowledge of a whole country, all it's inhabitants, their ancestors, their history, etc. etc.
to us it's just a term to adress either the government or representatives, or its people, or the country itself.
to someone who lives there or has ever travelled there, it will be a whole lot more than these meanings. and in the other extreme, to someone who can't read a map for example, it won't even be a spacial reference.

No, I'm not saying an umbrella term transfers all the same information to everyone that hears "Syria." But anyone with higher than 80 IQ and who has been raised in a civilized country will understand what is meant by "bombing Syria." They will not need to be explained that no, the plan is not to bomb livestock or the desert. Indeed, it is useful to define what people mean by "bombing Syria" when discussing it; but you will be talking about things that make more sense, such as asking them which military targets would be bombed and how effective they think it would be and what the civilian casualties would be. You would not be discussing whether or not they mean bombing the Syrian culture.

actually this is kind of how our brain works. you have tons of tiny bits of information, and words to access them via associations. without associations and implications (like 'lily' being a name aswell as a flower f.i.) language would be void and meaningless. more abstract terms will speak to more potentially useful information, and that is good for creativity and speed of communication, but it certainly has nothing to do with being precise, as it always highly depends on the context in which a word is used. rip it out and the thing loses it's fucking meaning.
my point is, umbrella terms may cover some basic meanings, but whether or not a receiver is familiar with them is another story.

How is this relevant? Obviously your average American won't know much about Syrian culture, if that's what you're getting at (your text is very, ah, wandering to say the least and it's hard to follow what your bottom line is at times...) - but so what? What relevance does that have with them talking about bombing "Syria"?

sounds a lot like desperately fighting the shortcomings of formal logic, but I'll look into it to find out.

I'm unsure where you get "desperately fighting" from.

you should read up on general semantics all the same. it's highly relevant.

Doesn't look very interesting, and certainly less so than the other things on my to-read list. But convince me, give me some sort of a demonstration of its power. A practical application.

[Armpit_Sweat]

Yes you can find wisdom in Plato's books. Then again, you can also find wisdom in Mein Kampf.

Also, quoting other people is a sign that one can't conceive intellectual though of their own.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting someone, who is much more intelligent and more knowledgeable than oneself. If you have more to say about human nature than classic philosophers - go ahead, although I suspect that your ability of "conceiving intellectual thoughts" is beyond comparison with Aristotle, Kant or Hegel.

You are probably very young or don't read books, if you still think that you have a single thought, that haven't been said before As for Mein Kampf, I have it in my bookcase, next to the works of Suetonius and biography of B. Montgomery - and they were all worth reading.

EDIT:

Came back from work, and just to make sure, that i was not bullshitting you:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Suetonius, Mein Kampf, einstein's biography

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Gestapo, Pol Pot biography,

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Another book about chocolate chip cookies, and Montgomery's memoir

Sorry, they are in Russian.. But anyone can verify, if needed Btw, I believe it is not enough to mindlessly proclaim - "fascism is bad!", you have to understand why, and so ignoring books like Mine Kampf, can only lead to repeating the main ideas, just under different name.

[Xant]

I think it's just your opinion that they're in Russian.

[Armpit_Sweat]

I think it's just your opinion that they're in Russian.

mine, and around 250 mil other's

[Xant]

No man, that's just your subjective opinion.

[EponiCo]

I admit, it was badly phrased. the question about livestock was not meant to point to the people like that. still, when I hear "X people" I also associate their living conditions and cultural habitat. for me it was close too to think of livestock, because if you kill it while leaving people unhurt they would still suffer. anyway, thanks for pointing that out so charmingly.

The other way around. If you are killing people the question is open what becomes of the lifestock. Since as infrastructure falters they are likely going to die. But who cares, just means people are going to starve in 5 years. A lot of the best intentioned projects have failed because of not taking into account minor details like this. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan overthrowing the government was easy but actually establishing some good and stable situation wasn't and for all I know the places are still shitholes.

edit: I'm not saying those were good intentioned projects, mind you.

[Xant]

Establishing a good and stable situation in Iraq/Astan would be easy too, but Western governments aren't capable of any kind of decisive military action when they have to balance effectiveness with political backlash and moodswings of the President/Congress.

Just like Vietnam was lost because the American military was kept on a leash the whole time.

[Kafein]

Just like Vietnam was lost because the American military was kept on a leash the whole time.

Please explain

[Swaggart]

You are probably very young or don't read books, if you still think that you have a single thought, that haven't been said before As for Mein Kampf, I have it in my bookcase, next to the works of Suetonius and biography of B. Montgomery - and they were all worth reading.

You still didn't address my question, asking you what is the point of reading books that were written thousands of years ago if everything since has been built on those previous works.

And if you think the ravings of a lunatic is worthy reading then you should check out Manson's and the Unabomber's manifestos. I bet you'll find some wisdom in there too. But your arrogance due to reading obscure books, quite frankly, the vast majority of society doesn't give two shits about, and holding it as some sort of sign of superiority, is hilarious.

PS, I've read plenty of books in my lifetime, just not philosophy because I couldn't care less about it.

[Armpit_Sweat]

You still didn't address my question, asking you what is the point of reading books that were written thousands of years ago if everything since has been built on those previous works.

And if you think the ravings of a lunatic is worthy reading then you should check out Manson's and the Unabomber's manifestos. I bet you'll find some wisdom in there too. But your arrogance due to reading obscure books, quite frankly, the vast majority of society doesn't give two shits about, and holding it as some sort of sign of superiority, is hilarious.

PS, I've read plenty of books in my lifetime, just not philosophy because I couldn't care less about it.

"Vast majority of society" only gives two shits about what they are going to eat for dinner, and Miley Cyrus's ass. Being ignorant of history and philosophy, and "holding it as some sort of sign of superiority, is hilarious" too. As to reading obscure books - I have lots of other literature, but these were semi-related.

The thing about philosophers is that their work has some relevance in the world they currently inhabit. A couple of generations later and their work is either irrelevant or outdated.

And yet you ask:

... what is the point of reading books that were written thousands of years ago if everything since has been built on those previous works.

So here is my answer to your question: You need to read Plato, because you will not understand Nietzsche. When you understand the basics - you move to something more complicated. You don't build a rocket, before understanding Newton's 500 year old theory of gravitation. And to have just a little bit wider view on Syria, it would help to read about other civil wars - it might not be relevant, but it will not hurt, even if it is 2000 year old Roman civil war.

[EponiCo]

Establishing a good and stable situation in Iraq/Astan would be easy too, but Western governments aren't capable of any kind of decisive military action when they have to balance effectiveness with political backlash and moodswings of the President/Congress.

Just like Vietnam was lost because the American military was kept on a leash the whole time.

I was talking about building a healthy economic, social and educational situation that stays stable when you pull out. Which I don't think is easy at all. That they didn't even get to that point because they failed to take their situation at home/the amount of resistance they'll face into account the last three times does not at all speak in favour of invading Syria.

[Xant]

I was talking about building a healthy economic, social and educational situation that stays stable when you pull out. Which I don't think is easy at all. That they didn't even get to that point because they failed to take their situation at home/the amount of resistance they'll face into account the last three times does not at all speak in favour of invading Syria.

Who's the "they" that failed to take "their" situation at home/the amount of resistance into account? The military doesn't decide to go to war, they get sent to war and then they make do with the tools they're given by the government. If you're saying that Bush didn't think it through, then yes, I agree. I agree with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, but not with the way it was carried out.