I'm glad to hear it. If you're like me you're tired of these religious crackpots telling everyone they are shit and only a bible verse is good. If he exists and he scripted it all out like they claim than they can just shut their mouths because we are who we are for a reason.
Watched the ISIS red room last night too and thoroughly enjoyed every second of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/deepweb/
1. Ad hominem is an attack on a person, not their argument.
2. Learn the meaning of Cliché because you're ignorant of it.
3. Ad hominem is gibberish to you because you don't know what it means.
4. You're a liar.
5 Ad hominin gibberish is all you have, it's all you ever use against God and against me, far outweighing your ability to communicate reasonably and for that reason I'm not reading your stuff any more.
Good get the hell out of here.
6.Maybe after a few days I'll read something you posted to see if you show any maturity in it, but at least for a few days I won't be reading your posts.
Don't count on it asshole. Screw you and the whore that spat you out of her demonic womb.
Don't use ad hominem attacks to justify your points and here's a little tid bit for your scrawnly Christian brainwashed mind. I do believe in God... MY GOD... not your god... not the god from the bible. I believe what ever the fuck I want to believe. I don't trust that stupid fucking book because in the 13+ billion years that this universe is said to have existed it's only been around for less than a second when you look at the scale of it all. Not only that, but it turns good, honest people with a brain into mindless drones like you. I pity you deeply.
not only that , the artic has record breaking ice at the moment. Something that global warming was said to not allow.
Saving this spot for links to the things I talked about
A video about the highway
https://www.youtube.com/
picture of the NAFTA superhighway route
http://supereagle69.com/blog2/wp-
Big brother definition 3-b:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
MK ULTRA project (was declassified in recent history):
https://www.youtube.com/
Georgas guide stones:
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/
how the pyramid scheme works:
https://i2.wp.com/
I do not doubt that power is thoroughly consolidated into the hands of an exceptionally small number of people. However, I do wonder at how cohesive and cooperative this power infrastructure is; the extent of division of interests could well be the differentiation between a single world government and a collection of government.
It's much easier than you think. Hitler tried to dominate the earth and form a one world government by force. That doesn't work. Instead you play by the rules and progressively do it under the cover of night. What they do is they take the most ridiculous thing that everyone is sure to reject, dumb down the population and propagandize the entire operation, tell you every reason it's good leave out every reason it's bad to do this, and use mainstream news and entertainment to further this cause (like gun control and the conflict between guns saving lifes and stopping crime vs random shooters shooting unarmed civilians) as well as mafia style hits and threats to dangerous opposition such as the doctor that was curing autism (cover up: A happy man doing good work shoots himself off a bridge into a river. No gun found just a bullet wound and a quick assumption of suicide) or another example; Edward Snowden exposing the NSA's illegal unwarranted spying of American citizens.
"You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word. - Al Capone
Read more at http://quotationsbook.com/quote/47847/
Now, ill give you an analogy for the interests part of this comment.
You formulate a gang of brothers who are hell bent on taking over the world. You realize that having a street presence is a bad idea and is small time. So you and your group get educated and you follow all the rules. A great way to find like minded people while weeding out the strange and undesirables is to form a fraternity, one that employ the greatest of secrecy and in turn anyone that attends this fraternity ends up with time usually ends up somewhere in a seat of power. Be it the chief of law enforcement, a judge on the supreme court, a senator or a president. Once a large majority of the power structure has been infiltrated you can start passing from the top down your dictator rule. A great example of this is Obama's "executive order" which allows for this first time in American history to bypass the entire political system to ordain bills directly from the presidents desk. This is commonly referred to as dictatorship.
From there we look at the European union. While divided territories the European Union is a "united" area. Much like states or provinces. It was never this way before, but somewhere down the line it turned into a super state. The plan thus far has shown that they want three of these. The north American union (evidence: the amero has been pushed for quite awhile. There is a mostly untalked about highway that is being built from the prairie provinces of Canada through the heart of the united states and into Mexico providing the infrastructure of the union) has been proposed for a while now and the last would be the Asian union.
These three unions makes it very easy for a world leader to dictate on the pyramid scheme of power. All the shit rolls down hill and no one knows just what the guy in the other department has been ordered to do let alone what the guy above them is doing.
Like a company it's all straight forward business once it's achieved.
The only way this is remarkably different from the roman era or any other in history is that it's being done mostly with the pen and a play on peoples emotions a fears and very, very secret. The best analogy possible for this is if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water it will sense the danger and jump out, but if you put a frog into a luke warm pot of water and gradually increase the heat it will have no clue and will die promptly.
Given that government has always been a geo-politically constrained concept I wonder as well at the accuracy of even describing such consolidated power in the terms of government (singular or otherwise). It seems to me that there is a need for semantic distinction between the geo-political world government and the non-geographic power infrastructure that has arguably always existed behind geo-political governance.
It's very easy, very little would probably change only your president would now be 1 step lower than the world leader and the counsel underneath him would look a lot like the united nations does today.
If I may also ask: What exactly do you find objectionable about a world government? And do you really think there is any chance that the masses will throw off such a system?
You can of course, What I find objectionable about a world government is that power corrupts. You see It from the highest echelons of power down to the street thug. The more power you have the more corrupt you can possibly be. Not only that, having read the books of some of those people who are seeking this power, they intend to reduce the population of the world down to 500 million people. So a mass genocide would be inevitable. Martial law and big brother forever present and the inability to ever challenge such a power staggering not to mention the RFID chips they want to implant... good god... if you do something they don't like you're not allowed to buy or sell anything, all land would be owned by the government/banks (which it already is... you cant buy or build a house and it be yours... no money... no house)... it's just bad all around...
the chances you can derail it before it happens is slim. It takes a well informed, intelligent collection of people who are capable of critical thinking. Saddly, most people are dumber than a door knob or outright reject that their are people out there lobbying for global domination. Can it happen? Abso-friggin-lutely. Has the population shown much effort? no... a great example is the TSA... If americans would have boycotted flying because of them they may have saved the entire country 160million dollars in tax money a year or more.
I'm on the side of evolution being provable. Since this is another redundant debate with one untrue side and a question as the opposing side I'll make my statement by disputing your ridiculous claim.
No! Evolution cannot be proven because it goes against time.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I can make the statement that Monday is evolving into Tuesday and be quite accurate linguistically.
Here is the definition of evolve:
e·volve
/ēˈvälv/
verb
verb: evolve; 3rd person present: evolves; past tense: evolved; past participle: evolved; gerund or present participle: evolving
1.
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
That being said all the theory of evolution is, is the gradual development of life over time from a simple to a more complex form. The more complex details are in the how. which the theory seeks to prove. Evolution has already been proven. I'll say it again, it's the "how?" that the theory has a problem with.
evolution cannot be proven, nor is it true, because it would go directly against time.
actually evolution is in parallel with time. Without time, nothing can evolve.
I disagree, the majority of black on black shootings never make headlines. This only did because the suspect was attacking a reporter during her performance. The media only covers blacks being beat by white cops and whities shooting up black churches.
I agree, but when a few dozen of the worlds power elite come together for secret meetings where publicity is scrutinized I tend to think something is happening I should probably know about.
To think that power elites have never conspired for world domination behind closed doors and never would is a fools wish.
Nah, you clearly missed the point. Money buys politicians you may not know this, but the guys in charge of your country are bought and paid for. They do what ever they are told by corporations who give them money for their campaigns. One of the biggest in America is offshore banking cartels. Nearly every politician in the united states for example is following an specific agenda coined and written by very powerful people. As for major banks not showing any sign of establishing an actual global government I'd ask you to do some research and maybe read some of the books these kooks have written.
The U.N has already started writing global laws and has its own army. It has its own court system and it's full of dictators. Saying they have no power is a far cry from the truth. However, it is people who are attending Bilderberg meetings who are the most troublesome.
I could spend the rest of the week writing you a 500 page essay on that clarification question. I'm not going to. I'm instead going to give the a speech made by George H.W Bush. Tell you that the financial system is completely rigged and depressions and recessions are now scientifically studied. The major world banks can now artificially create them throughout the world as they please. These include names such as Kissinger, Rothschild, and Rockefeller. On top of that, the United nations is full of dictators all waiting for the opportunity for a one world government. Which is pretty much suicide for the entire human race.
Enjoy.
I agree we need change, but I don't agree that god is the answer. What people need is to distance themselves from authority control. As it stands, the government makes sure that only "Canadian Dollars" are acceptable as currency. What we need is a system that does the opposite... I think it was used many years ago... it was called trade.
i agree entirely with your assertions that in the second scenario all people aside from the fat man would die in reality. it's quite a nice answer really.
I suppose, I should be thankful.
however what you are solving is not a thought experiment, but a rather linear problem. in a thought experiment you assume certain things to be true even when realistically they are not.a moral thought experiment is not designed to test your ability to think realistically or outside the box, but invents a moral dilemma representing a confliction of morality that creates a divide of opinion.
I never said that I was solving a thought experiment.
You have to assume certain things for example in the trolley scenario, you are not given enough information to know anything more about the man standing on the tracks other than he is there and in a blink of an eye from the time you pull the lever he is dead which of course makes these scenarios abstract ideas and open to interpretation.
Which is why the trolly problem is still debated today because of all the variables that can reasonably be put in place. Without the sense of realism the man is no different than a plank of wood standing on the track with a supposed heartbeat. Also, without reason accompanying this factitious scenario you can't truly make a reasonable choice. For example, I myself probably couldn't push the fat man in front of the trolly even if I wanted to.
these philosophical scenarios are only representations of conflictions. how about if i remove some options?
Not sure what you mean by this.
a nuclear warhead is incoming towards the country you run. do you return fire with another nuke and claim retaliation and justice or sit and die? you have a small country entirely projected to be consumed by deadly radiation and only a minute before it hits.
Okay, so a nuclear warhead is coming to my country and I run... I live in a small country which will inevitably be consumed by deadly radiation and I only have a minute before it hits.
There are a few things wrong with this whole scenario. 1 I don't know if this nuke is going to hit right beside me or if it's going to explode 10 miles off and I have to contend with the blast radius.
So, I cannot make a reasonable choice because there is to little information. Considering my choices are to return fire or sit and die there are a few questions that need solving (if I was really in this situation they'd be things I know)
If the nuke is over top of me and I have one minute to run, I'd most likely sit and die. there is no point in trying to outrun an inevitable death.
Am I the leader of this country? certainly I cant return fire if I don't have the launch codes.
If the nuke is a ways off and I catch the blast radius and live and I'm nothing more than a peasant or slave I'd probably sit and die as well. If I was the leader of the country I'd most likely return fire.
you are flying in a hot air balloon. the burner sends up a plume of flame and burns a hole in the parachute valve before running out of fuel. you are descending despite the heat coming up from the volcano, but the hole is small enough that maybe if there was less weight the volcano's heat might carry you up. there are 4 passengers. you, a very fat banker weighing twice as much as the others, a celebrity, and a doctor. the total weight of 3 people or an equivalent must be removed. the burner won't detach from the basket. the balloon won't detach from the basket.
This is an interesting one. One I can probably relate to quite easily. Without a question I'd toss the banker and the doctor.
a person with a gun has entered your house and shot your partner in the head. you rush upstairs to call the police and grab your gun. you come back down a few minutes later to see the person begin to aim at your 5 year old child who is unaware of the intruder. do you shoot the intruder or hide? the police are on their way and you can hear the siren a little down the street.
Shoot the intruder
you are captured by jigsaw. 4 people are lying on the floor unconscious. a thick titanium collar on your neck is rigged with explosives set to explode in 20 minutes. there is a blunt blade on the floor in front of you. in the intestine of one of the 4 people is a key they were made to swallow that unlocks the collar around your neck. what do you do?
My will to survive trumps all choices. I'd start hacking away.
Oh! bit it is a thought experiment. The second scenario where the trolly is runaway has no alternative round and you are standing beside a big fat man who is big enough to stop the trolly provided you push him in front of it is even better. Assuming logic is the prime determiner of the moral compass the best option here is not to push the man in front of the trolly because you are directly forcing the persons death in order to stop the trolly. Further more, this action of pushing the man into the trolly has an extremely high chance of being a misadventure anyway because like a train, a trolly is on tracks. Trains are easily derailed by larger objects on the tracks. Provided it is speeding it is more likely to use the man as a ramp sending the trolly into a crash course with the ground which is likely to kill the 5 passengers anyway. So instead of 5 people dying you directly forced up to 6 people to die because you decided you needed to be a hero and took the dumbest route you could possibly take which will lead up to 5 counts of manslaughter, 1 count of murder and 1 count of assault. The best option here is to remain neutral and look on in helpless horror as the trolly makes for that misadventure anyway.
These philosophical questions need to be looked at logically because in a realistic scenario the philosophical moral question is rather bland and obvious. Now, lets consider that the mans body did stop the trolly dead in its tracks, provided it was a rock the same size as the trolly; and stopped it dead in its tracks, we'll be conservative here and say it was only going 100mph, you'd result in 5 very dead people because there are no seatbelts on trollys and momentum would be their demise.
I actually really enjoyed that trolly problem and here is what I have to say about the first dilemma presented.
In the case that you could pull a lever and save 5 people, but kill one in the context of the trolly dilemma I'd have to say, that given this man is not deaf (was not clearly stated) the most positive thing you can do is pull the lever.
If this man is within earshot you can yell for him to move out of the way. giving him a 100/0 chance of surviving
If not there is a 50/50 chance that he will hear the trolly and move out of the way himself as you pull the lever.
given that there is enough time for you to pull the switch, before it reaches the turn off there will be a loud audible transition of the tracks. A warning sign for anyone within earshot of the transition area. decreasing the chances of dieing to 25% and the chances of surviving to 75%.
Considering this trolly was maintained properly by the city if in a city at all it would have a gong.
"Gong – streetcars traditionally used large bells mounted under the car and activated by the motorman’s foot as a warning signal. They typically did not have horns or whistles installed unless operating outside of cities."
A gong would be able to alert the man to the impending doom raising his chances of survival 20% to 80% chance.
now there are probably many more variables to consider, but I'm pretty sure this mans chances of dying were rather slim.
that sounds interesting, could you explain, or link where you discussed it?
Okay, I'm going to try not to spend too much time on a real in depth explanation.
so, here we go. In there book of genesis after much of the early creation had happened and adam and eve were around, god commanded adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Now, I'm going to stop there for a moment and assess the tree.
By the symbology of the bible this is a tree of thought and very neatly fits as such. Starts as a small seed and grows its many appendages and branches of said thought.
Now, I've read some priestly definitions of this and they actually claim that the bible is real and that this tree was a real tree and the fruit was tangible. I'll tell you it must take a genius to figure out that a talking snake and a woman made from a rib is not in anyway practical and is totally symbolic so just bear with my assessment, but I digress.
Continuing on; in the bible God specifically demands that Adam not eat of the tree lest he would surely die. (btw adam was apparently immortal before eating of the tree too)
and for a long while adam and his new sex toy eve were frolicking around the garden of eden having a gay old time when the devil or "advisory" as the old jewish text stated, slithered up in all his serpentine glory and proceeded to nag at Adam and eves thoughts and manipulate their desires. Pausing here a moment.
At this point I like to think of Adam as a mildly retarded redneck who thought talking to a snake was legit. Continuing on!
Adam and eve decide to eat of this fruit from THE TREE OF KNOWLEGE OF GOOD AND EVIL due to the devils reluctant skill at quick talking and God already knows and is angry (Where the divine plan fits into all of this is well beyond me, you're just going to have to figure that shit out on your own) so angry that he kicked adam and eve out of the garden of eden all for the disobeying of god in the learning of the secrets of good and evil which was coined the original sin.
Swinging to Christianity. Jesus died saying forgive them father for they know not what they do has just become contradictory to what the creation story preaches.
Seeing as we ate from the fruit are descendants of Adam and eve we should have some inclination of what good and bad are given the time frame of the creationists theory. By forgetting about good and bad we would essentially be repenting for our original sin because any and all sin was a direct result of original sin, the knowledge of it in the first place as sin is synonymous with an evil/wicked act. That act was disobeying god and thinking about what was good and was bad for ourselves.
Now, to the mathimatics of it all. Good and bad by todays standards are quite literally a balance scale (yes the Egyptians had the right symbology) You have the pros and cons and you weigh them out based on "does it help"/"does it hurt" and the more it helps the more "good" it is and the more it hurts the more "bad" it is. Destroy a 100k people in a blink of an eye? Well here's where it gets interesting because good and bad are completely subjective and abstract. Each person has their own scale and weighs everything out accordingly based on their own personal factors. For example That bomb going off looked good to the military industrial complex, looked pretty bad to the japs, but all were weighing there own scales. Thus, this makes any solid objective definition of good and bad obsolete and doesn't exist for real in the real world. That being said, since good and evil doesn't exist in anything more than a thought and the way it seems to me is that good and evil are things we are clearly not supposed to know about. We should just dump the concept and start thinking about what is life cuz that tree was also in the garden and it was very neglected.
I quote George carlin with this 2 minute video and by doing so drive the point home.
Words are neutral. There is nothing wrong with the words fuck, goddamn, queer, faggot or cocksucker. It's the context that makes them good or bad. I'll let George Carlin say the rest.
