Delano

In your response you said most people would agree so you could consider it universally true. This statement doesn't make sense. It's I'd like saying it id mostly universally true, or that's absolutely true most of the time.

You could say I am being overly critical or you can tell me what dictionary you are using.

If you live in a war zone you are not likely to delay gratification.

Pioneer - I found out last week. Although I am not sure. My Astrology teacher says I am a psychic, and my light worker friends says I am a clairvoyant.

My point is that I ad am individual do not want yo day what id right for others. And since I am not part of the judicial or executive branch I feel no need to do so.

I am mot saying that offensive behavior should be tolerated bit different views should be.

Can you ask me a simple question like maybe a sentence or two instead of two paragraphs.

Universal in my opinion is absolute.

Take one point and I will attempt to ex So you explain it. I will ask you a question again is set theory a subset of Logic?

This was my reply.

Veteran Member

• 
• Members
• 
• 364 posts
• 0 warning points

The following is a direct quote from you and my resposne.

Platinum Level Poster

• 
• Administrators
• 
• 2,079 posts

• LocationHarlem, USA

Posted 21 May 2013 - 10:50 PM

I guess that is the fundamental difference between what you and I believe Del.  I believe the behavior of these suicide bombers is reprehensible and wrong. 

 

You seem unwilling to commit either way in describing the behavior.  That is cool, but it is a profound and fundamental difference in our belief systems.

 

Those suicide bombers don't corner the market because I also feel the behavior of the US in many occasions is far worse.  I believe some of my personal behavior is wrong from time to time.

 

I think a definition of what is right and wrong is required to avoid complete and utter chaos in the world.

 

I also do not believe this is what should be done. However what I saying is that the suicide bomber believes this is a correct action. And my question becomes who is right. And how can or should you judge another with your yardsticks. You feel they are wrong they feel they are right. What I am saying if there is an objective true you would say they are right or they would say you are right or some position in the middle. Do you believe killing in war is right, or would you say let the other side slaughter us because we are correct. And different points in history people have chosen one or the other.

So here I am asking you a direct question can you answer them, which is something you are accusing me of doing. I can not explain my position any clearer.

As a tarot reader, astrologer and a clairvoyant. I would say that they both are relevant. Although at the moment o find astrology has more pull because it is symbolic and it follow my way of think.

Troy I am not bring judgmental, because I am not sating tour position is wrong. When you talk about behaviors being wrong. What I am saying is more about beliefs and attitudes. However from the suicide bombers their position is the correct one.

You day we make the laws, then you day other people run the system. No other people also make the laws. So for me your response lacks internal consistency. In my opinion you are fitting the world to your beliefs, because there is dome objective reality and universal truth.

I remember you were using statistics to prove your point. I systematically explained why your conclusion was wrong. I fund it fascinating when people use science or mathematics to support their argument without understanding the science they are quoting.

What I said is that science is dismissive about fields that don't lend themselves to quantification. Luke religion and astrology. Granted this isn't all scientist. But it isn't an open minded position.

Troy I'll ask you a direct question why do you assume your beliefs are correct. I think most people assume they are right in their assumptions which is fine. The problem is this doesn't always lead to sensible conclusions even if they are valid.

Troy the real issue for me is that you feel your beliefs are facts. Once you assume that you are right you stop thinking. Or at your thinking is constrained. I'll go back and check, but I asked you the following question. Isn't set theory a subset of logic. I suggested you look st the embodied mind theory, no response. You are implying that I don't have the fundamentals to argue certain points.

This is the difference between us I can discuss s topic without the need for the other person to share my views. Since I am interested in original thought not just rehashing what I know. My objective is to have an open mind.

Troy I am making assumptions and generalities, but my whole position is that absolutes and objectivity are not very useful.

What I www talking about was logic, I think set theory and Venn diagrams are a subset of logic.

You think there are correct ways of doing things and some people are mistaken in their views and hence their characters. I don't believe that simply because I can't objectively judge that. Morals are accepted local practices. So they aren't universal. The KKK would say that black people are inferior and have defects in their character. You would say that suicide bombers are wrong. I would say I can't judge someone's actions. So this is what I mean when I say your position is closer to the KKK. Since you share the same viewpoint that somethings are objectively wrong. That is not my position.

Money has a price it's called the interest rate and the exchange rate. I would agree that the value is arbritray but it is based on supply and demand.

The US Govermnent funds itself with Government bonds. Some of those bonds are held by companies and countries. Those bonds are secured by the taxing ability of the US. If you print more more money each dollar is less valuable, and in effect you have decreases your outstanding debt.

Let's say there 1 trillion in debt and the us economy produces 20 trilion in goods. So each dollar that is lent you are pretty sure the US can pay you back. Let's say that the economy drops 10%, well now you still have atrillion in debt but it is supported by less revenue. So your bondholder is likely to be happy because the dollar is worth 20 percent less, and is more likely your debt is less secured. So you wouldn't lend the Us more money.

Let's say you lend a friend $1,000 every year, and he pays you $200 dollars interest every year. One day he says look I am know working part time, you would be less likely to lend her a $1,000 and you may start worrying about gettng your money back. So you may say look I'll lend you $1,000 for less than a year but you have to pay me more interest.

Hopefully we won't find out if you are right.  Because if the US defaults on it's debt then it will effect the global economy.

Troy I am evaluating your position not saying whether ot is correct. The statement I was attempting is ad follows. You and the KKK don't share mu beliefs about being non judging. So in that dense you are closer in your world views about others. Than either of you are with me.

I have not said that your view point nor the KKK is wrong. I have said it is not mine. However you could imply that because most people assume they are right.

You may have missed the point about the law. You are talking interpretation of the law. You said we create the laws, no some of us create laws. It was legal to treat people like property.

The US is funded through government bonds. China is one of the holders.

If you print more money you devalue the currency. Germany did it after World. War I. People were paid in buckets and there was hitlet

Pioneer - I wasn't specifically thinking of Jung, but the comment fits.

Where in physical reality is the mind located. You could also ask the same question about the following: thought; memory; feelings; the subconscious; unconscious; preconscious.

Your definition of mbs works for me.

So you are saying being judgemental is good for society. This position leads to intolerance or the inability to accept difference. I would wager more harm is done by judemental people in following their beliefs. Your position is more closely aligned with the KKK than mine.

I came across the following quote.

We might greet with skepticism, perhaps ridicule, the mystic's claim that imagination is the path to happiness. But imagination is not alien to reason. How else do scientific discoveries occur except when scientists imagine that something is true - the hypothesis - and then set about to prove it?"

If we make the laws then why do we have the inequities in the criminal justice system. We don't even elect the people who run the judicial system.

Me not judging people does not hamper either the judicial or the criminal justice system.

Thwre is no need for me to judge anyone's actions.

How can science prove something unquantifiable?

There are certain things that don't lend themselves to testing