CreateDebate


XMathFanx's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of XMathFanx's arguments, looking across every debate.
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@BurritoLunch

Absolutely. Yourself included.

Have we not discussed the nature of snarkiness previously? Or, would you like to explore it more thoroughly?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@BurritoLunch

Creativity necessitates branching out, though further complexity in no way dictates corresponding level of creativity. One could, and people often do, fabricate a bunch of complex nonsense.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@BurritoLunch

I do believe that you sometimes complicate the things you write for the reasons stipulated.

There is truth in that only in-so-far as I am trying something new or playing around, to various extent. Consider, in basketball, for instance, one can stick to basics such as crossover, jump-shot, spin move, bounce pass, etc. as well as the relevant attributes leading to a stronger successful completion of these fundamentals, such as speed, strength, awareness, etc. Now, in sport, as in thought, I, in truth, very much stick to fundamentals as staples, and then creatively play around with new combinations as a means of expanding the tree trunk with few branches to new, varied branches and twigs that are sound in structure. That is what you may see from me, nothing more or less.

In truth, I detest the "And1" excessive flashiness in both physical domain as well as with thought. It misses the point, excessively postures, is a violation of the rules, and is generally inferior.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@BurritoLunch

The suggestion being that your job as a writer is to accurately communicate your ideas to others, not to purposefully complicate the things you write to sell the idea that you are intelligent.

Although I agree with the spirit of your comment, there was nothing complicated about my OP. In fact, it was rather straight-forward. Mint clearly comprehended the meaning I am quite sure you understood the meaning, and, further, it appears SlaveDevice, who is the thread-creator, grasped the meaning as well. Then, who is this invisible, intangible audience that I allegedly have wronged?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Slavedevice

Also dude, if you want to influence or come across to the general population- you need to use PLAIN ENGLISH lol.

The suggestion being my former post is undecipherable to the vast majority? I find that exceedingly doubtful.

Also, I am able to speak across intelligence ranges rather well, actually--and can adjust according to the audience. The key is to find a window into their (i.e. the audience's) world, and utilize analogies, symbolism, poetic-styled language, story, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------

Additional note:

IQ is a majority nonsense measure, as stated previously and discussed briefly in prior posts on CD. If you want to ball-park a person's intelligence, analyze their ability to create or destroy, the difference hinging upon morality or immorality.

For instance, I do not need to see an IQ score for Leonardo Da Vinci to gather his exceptional level of intellect, as he was able to objectively produce so much. Likewise, I do not require the knowledge of Voldemort's (from Harry Potter) IQ points as he displayed a remarkable ability to destroy.

1 point

@Mint Tea

Agreed. There is a great deal more towards being superior than IQ. While it is remarkably beneficial it is not the single most important attribute.

Yes.

For instance, a quick list of other relevant attributes could include, though not limited to (in no particular order):

-Perseverance

-Courage

-Verbal Fluency/Command of Language

-Integrity/Strength of Character

-Discernment

-Wisdom

-Composure/Remain Calm Under Pressure

-Order/Organization

-Creativity

-Strength of Physical Health i.e. Immune System, Maintenance of Physical "Youth"

-Admired/Naturally Respected by Others

-Strong Physicality & Ability to apply Strength in "Battle"

-Honesty

-Loyalty

.

.

.

etc.

There is quite a list of character traits to consider, putting all of the weight on any one in particular seems misplaced, to me. Although, some attributes may in fact be, and likely are, more relevant than others. For instance, "integrity" would seem to be high up on the list in my view.

3 points

The top 5% IQ should be our leaders

The notion of Trial by Competency, I am in support of. However, intelligence--as, IQ is a (failed) proxy for intelligence--is insufficient in-it-of-itself to demonstrate clear superiority. There are a great many attributes that make a person what they are, spanning various domains such as mental strength, physical strength, and otherwise. In order to determine a person superior, or inferior, one must take all such attributes into account.

Consider, as means of mental imagery, the example of video games with character attribute bars/meters displaying the strength, or weakness, of specific traits. Then, with this information, one can calculate averages for specific broad categories based on sub-traits, as well as a total average. Map this onto our world, and understand that each person has this bar graph template inherently attached to them as well, and it is exceedingly useful to decipher so as to be wielded as a powerful tool in the kit when evaluating the state of things.

1 point

It is worth noting, "education" is an intentional misnomer in-it-of-itself--propaganda designed to get the public to willing ingest poison as though it were medicine.

2 points

How do you fix our broken public education system?

They have no intention on fixing it, as the purpose is already being served--drain the human spirit of passion, hammer in obedience, fear of authority, priming people to live in the Mammal Snow Glob World (concept discussed in previous posts), among other things.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@BurritoLunch

How are you by the way? You haven't been on in a while.

Thank you for asking, I have been exceedingly busy as of late.

1 point

Pretty much everything in the Bible is objectively wrong

The template the Bible provides is on display in such masterpiece's as Lord of the Rings. Philosophically, it provides tremendous insights into the natural order of our world, as well as the deviations (i.e. "Shadow World" inverses).

Other Religions, and corresponding texts, have varying degrees of Philosophical insights, as well as errors.

1 point

When you keep importing cultures that contradict yours

It is subversive to one's own homeland, and ultimately will lead to a struggle for control/ownership dispute over the territory.

1 point

HARRISON BERGERON by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal

before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter

than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was

stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the

211th, 212th, and 213 th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing

vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for

instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in

that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-

year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very

hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't

think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his

intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his

ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a

government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would

send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair

advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel's

cheeks, but she'd forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George's head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits

from a burglar alarm.

"That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did," said Hazel.

"Huh" said George.

"That dance-it was nice," said Hazel.

"Yup, " said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They

weren't really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway.

They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces

were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty

face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the

vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn't be handicapped. But he didn't get

very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his

thoughts .

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself, she had to ask George

what the latest sound had been.

"Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer, " said

George .

"I'd think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,"

said Hazel a little envious. "All the things they think up."

"Urn, " said George.

"Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?" said Hazel.

Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper

General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. "If I was Diana Moon Glampers,"

said Hazel, "I'd have chimes on Sunday- just chimes. Kind of in honor of

religion . "

"I could think, if it was just chimes," said George.

"Well-maybe make 'em real loud," said Hazel. "I think I'd make a good

Handicapper General."

"Good as anybody else," said George.

"Who knows better then I do what normal is?" said Hazel.

"Right," said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son

who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head

stopped that.

"Boy!" said Hazel, "that was a doozy, wasn't it?"

It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling, and tears stood on

the rims of his red eyes. Two of of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the

studio floor, were holding their temples.

"All of a sudden you look so tired," said Hazel. "Why don't you stretch out

on the sofa, so's you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch."

She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in a canvas bag,

which was padlocked around George's neck. "Go on and rest the bag for a

little while," she said. "I don't care if you're not equal to me for a

while . "

George weighed the bag with his hands. "I don't mind it," he said. "I don't

notice it any more. It's just a part of me."

"You been so tired lately-kind of wore out," said Hazel. "If there was just

some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take

out a few of them lead balls. Just a few."

"Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took

out," said George. "I don't call that a bargain."

"If you could just take a few out when you came home from work," said Hazel.

"I mean-you don't compete with anybody around here. You just set around."

"If I tried to get away with it," said George, "then other people ' d get away

with it-and pretty soon we'd be right back to the dark ages again, with

everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn't like that, would

you?"

"I'd hate it," said Hazel.

"There you are," said George. The minute people start cheating on laws, what

do you think happens to society?"

If Hazel hadn't been able to come up with an answer to this question, George

couldn't have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.

"Reckon it'd fall all apart," said Hazel.

"What would?" said George blankly.

"Society," said Hazel uncertainly. "Wasn't that what you just said?

"Who knows?" said George.

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It

wasn't clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer,

like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a

minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say,

"Ladies and Gentlemen."

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

"That's all right-" Hazel said of the announcer, "he tried. That's the big

thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get

a nice raise for trying so hard."

"Ladies and Gentlemen," said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must

have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous.

And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all

the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred

pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice

for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. "Excuse

me-" she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely

uncompetitive .

"Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen," she said in a grackle squawk, "has just

escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow

the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under-handicapped, and

should be regarded as extremely dangerous."

A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen-upside

down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture

showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet

and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.

The rest of Harrison's appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever

born heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H-G men

could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he

wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses.

The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him

whanging headaches besides.

Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry,

a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison

looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three

hundred pounds .

And to offset his good looks, the H-G men required that he wear at all times

a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his

even white teeth with black caps at snaggle-tooth random.

"If you see this boy, " said the ballerina, "do not - I repeat, do not - try

to reason with him."

There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.

Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The

photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as

though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.

George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have -

for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. "My

God-" said George, "that must be Harrison!"

The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an

automobile collision in his head.

When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A

living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.

Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood - in the center of the studio.

The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas,

technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him,

expecting to die.

"I am the Emperor!" cried Harrison. "Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody

must do what I say at once!" He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

"Even as I stand here" he bellowed, "crippled, hobbled, sickened - I am a

greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can

become ! "

Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore

straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.

Harrison's scrap-iron handicaps crashed to the floor.

Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head

harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and

spectacles against the wall.

He flung away his rubber-ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor,

the god of thunder.

"I shall now select my Empress!" he said, looking down on the cowering

people. "Let

the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!"

A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.

Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical

handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all he removed her mask.

She was blindingly beautiful.

"Now-" said Harrison, taking her hand, "shall we show the people the meaning

of the word dance? Music!" he commanded.

The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of

their handicaps, too. "Play your best," he told them, "and I'll make you

barons and dukes and earls."

The music began. It was normal at first-cheap, silly, false. But Harrison

snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang

the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.

The music began again and was much improved.

Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while-listened

gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.

They shifted their weights to their toes.

Harrison placed his big hands on the girls tiny waist, letting her sense the

weightlessness that would soon be hers.

And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the

laws of motion as well.

They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.

They leaped like deer on the moon.

The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers

nearer to it.

It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling. They kissed it.

And then, neutraling gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended

in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long

time .

It was then that Diana Moon Clampers, the Handicapper General, came into the

studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the

Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

Diana Moon Clampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and

told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.

It was then that the Bergerons' television tube burned out.

Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George. But George had gone out

into the kitchen for a can of beer.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him

up. And then he sat down again. "You been crying" he said to Hazel.

"Yup, " she said.

"What about?" he said.

"I forget," she said. "Something real sad on television."

"What was it?" he said.

"It's all kind of mixed up in my mind," said Hazel.

"Forget sad things," said George.

"I always do," said Hazel.

"That's my girl," said George. He winced. There was the sound of a rivetting

gun in his head.

"Gee - I could tell that one was a doozy, " said Hazel.

"You can say that again," said George.

"Gee-" said Hazel, "I could tell that one was a doozy."

"Harrison Bergeron" is copyrighted by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., 1961.

2 points

@Sherlock

Agreed .

1 point

Protection of borders from outside invaders is the chief reason for the existence & justification of the military.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Amarel

Number fudging is specifically used in order to make pre-conceived notions/models work. They (try to) teach students how to do it, and "fall in-line", as well. Of course, pupils resist at first, as they do in all other subjects in school, but ultimately indoctrination is a very powerful tool. Of course, there are still those in the outcasted minority who try to call it out, as there are in other areas as well. As for images, nearly everything you see is one form or another artist rendition. NASA pictures of the Hubble Deep Field, Andromeda Galaxy, the "Pillars of Creation", or any such thing in astronomy, for instance.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@DragonBorn

Nom does believe in the mainstream to a large extent when it comes to physics but then again so do you.

No, I do not. We could discuss that much further in a separate thread, though I'm pressed for time a the moment. In short, (a) the only people qualified to do the legitimate work are Physicists and possibly Chemists, while all others lack the absolutely necessary mathematical background (and system of internal logic) to accurately model their claims (b) as such, other fields of "science" are extremely loose/hand-wavy, consist of wildly inaccurate & incoherent models due to innumeracy & other illiteracies, etc. etc (c) even in Mathematics, Physics, etc., people will intentionally fudge numbers in order to work out a pre-conceived model--it is very common. Fudging numbers is only part of the issue, however, as images & such the public sees from the 'telescopic' to the 'microscopic' are in fact, artists renditions that, in many cases, are quite imaginative and go far beyond the bounds of what one can legitimately determine.

1 point

@Amarel

I agree.

Now is the time to stock up on valuable resources which money buys, e.g. water, food, land, etc.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@DragonBorn

He may not be a "scientist" per se but he is still involved with and informed about science.

No, he is not. He is far too much of an outsider, it all looks extremely impressive & undecipherable to him, and Nom therefore puts it, and the people attached to the "clubs" up high on a pedastal. However, this is extremely dangerous, and inaccurate. It is very weighty baggage that he carries with him, and reflects highly on his worldview. It has created a priest class, in his mind, with the authority to pontificate to those outside the "club".

Now, to be clear, it is not that one needs to know the fundamental "technical" material to be rid of this, that is not the point I am making. Rather, it is more whether or not one has wisdom to comprehend the situation, as a whole.

Frankly, you and Nom are in two different intellectual classes--you the superior, and Nom the inferior. It is why you are able to see through "Priest Class" illusions to a degree (among various other societal illusions)--which i guarantee will increase orders of magnitude once you begin making notable progress in those particular studies i.e. Universty level Phys/Math/etc.--while, Nom lacks the aptitude to break the spell, as of yet.

1 point

The dollar is going to collapse sometime withing the next 50 years

.

2 points

Nomenclature

I would point out, Nom intentionally does not engage in (real) Phys, Math, Chem, Engineering, Architecture, or anything along such lines with actual, hard substance--even though his job, by nature, necessitates it.

Therefore, the picture posted is nearly the opposite of the truth of the matter.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Blood, Jamesbody, Amarel

xMathFanx:

@Nomenclature

When one person moves into the future at a faster rate than you do, then clearly you become his past.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate by this based on your usage of the term "past". The only ways Physics currently knows how to theoretically "time travel to the past" (on a "Classical Scale") are:

A. Faster than speed of light travel

B. Tunneling to the past via a Wormhole (CTC)

C. Cosmic Strings to bend the fabric of space-time...

..The fundamental question in this debate is, "Is it possible to time travel to the past in a "Back to the Future" type format?" That is, could you travel into the past and meet your parents before you were born? Could you travel back to the "Wild West"?, ect., ect...

Amarel:

I hope you understand the problem with his post. When you are younger than your counterpart due to time dilation, you are not in their past. Time dilation does not allow us to get ahead or behind the present, by anyone’s frame of reference.

I am appealing to you on the hope that someone who typically disagrees with me isnt as intellectually stubborn as him so that one day, debate may occur

xMathFanx:

Yeah, I do understand, I think I have seen a couple of issues actually, that is why I raised the issue about his use of the term "past".

For instance, in his OP, he stated "Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future." Now, there is already a problem with this initial statement because although we have experimental data demonstrating that time travel to the future happens regularly, we do not know of an instance where it has occurred to the past (in a classical sense). Now, there are potential theoretical models for which this could be achieved, but they have not been bared out through observation/experimentation. Therefore, to say the "existence of time dilation proves that time travel...into the past" occurs is not accurate.

Then he stated "If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly. In fact, technically speaking if you come down off a hill you have travelled into the past. This is because the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower time becomes." Now, "time running more slowly" does not give you a window into the past (and I'm not sure how/why he believes it does). The arrow of time is still running forward (from your perspective) just at different relative rates. At no point is the arrow of time running backward.

In the next paragraph, he said "To put it another way, I am able to travel to somebody else's past or future, but not to my own. In Hawking's famous thought experiment a person is able to take a long journey away from Earth and return to the same frame of reference to potentially access the future, but again this is not their future, since they have been away from Earth's frame of reference." When would you have access to another person's past? You have access to two competing personal presents that now misalign in a more overt fashion (although they once appeared to align more closely) because of the various relative circumstances the people found themselves in. As for the future, yes, we know that you can travel to your version of their future in the sense that you identify with life on Earth and if you did the Hawking thought experiment, then you would return to a "future" Earth relative to your conceptual memory of it (from when you left) and other people would be older relative to you. However, the past is an entirely separate matter.

You (Amarel) said "The relativity of time does not allow you to travel to someone else’s past " Now, to my understanding (and I could be wrong, I definitely want to brush back up on my Special Relativity after this debate because I feel that I am becoming needlessly confused here and concepts are being phrased sloppily; although I have taken SR at Uni. level so this isn't just off the top of my head bs) you are correct in that statement Amarel. The only way one would get access to another's past (that we currently consider theoretically possible) is through one of the several methods I listed in a separate post (or some other theoretical framework that I did not list or hasn't been thought of yet). This is why I was confused by Nomenclatures us of the term "past" in this context. To make one correction I saw of yours also though Amarel, you said "However fast or slow you’ve traveled, when sharing a location and speed with another, it is both of your presents." Now, this is a statement that is operating on Classical Mechanics view of time. As Nomenclature rightly pointed out before, there is no universal "now" or "present". If you had an extremely precise clock out to many sig figs attached to people born at the same time, same place, and then allowed them to live their lives in separate ways, then time dilation effects are still occurring off-aligning their "clocks" relative to one another, just in an infinitesimal manner so it is effectively trivial and non-relevant in daily life (thus why it can still be usefull to model many events on Earth as though they occurred in a universal present).

Nomenclature:

For instance, in his OP, he stated "Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future." Now, there is already a problem with this initial statement because although we have experimental data demonstrating that time travel to the future happens regularly, we do not know of an instance where it has occurred to the past (in a classical sense)

Your terminology "in a classical sense" does not actually mean anything. I have patiently explained that time runs differently dependent upon the frame of reference you are standing in. I have furthermore explained what the implications of this are in a real sense. It seems that you are here simply to argue, and the problem with that is that the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion.

Now, "time running more slowly" does not give you a window into the past (and I'm not sure how/why he believes it does).

I genuinely thought you were more intellectually honest than to ignore the explanations I took the time to write and simply come back with, "nah". How is it even possible that you do not understand this? I explicated in the absolute simplest terms possible. If time runs faster at point A than it does at point B, if I move from point A to point B then I have moved into the past relative to point A. It isn't complicated, mate. This is the reality, and you are responding here by refusing to understand why I am correct. That really isn't my problem.

When would you have access to another person's past?

You just asked me this precise question two hours ago and I gave you a simple answer. Do you even understand the principle of relativity in the first place? Because, forgive me, but I do not think you do. Right now, assuming you will have grandchildren, you are in their past, without even doing anything. This is because relativity stipulates that there are no absolute past, present and future. The entire point of relativity in the first place is that time is relative to where you happen to be standing. Yet you keep blathering on in such a way that you are making it absolutely clear you do not understand this fundamental point.

I have explained how time runs at different rates depending upon your frame of reference and I have explained how moving between these frames of reference can take you either to the past or the future relative to where you were previously. If you don't understand then that is one thing, but it seems more the case that you are refusing to understand.

1 point

@Blood, Jamesbody

Nomenclature:

Hi brother.

I believe it works like this.

Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future. If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly. In fact, technically speaking if you come down off a hill you have travelled into the past. This is because the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower time becomes. Hence, we can say that time is not absolute but rather relative to the situation of the person observing it.

However, what appears to potentially be impossible is to travel either backwards or forwards within the same frame of reference. That is, in order to time travel I must necessarily cover distance. To put it another way, I am able to travel to somebody else's past or future, but not to my own. In Hawking's famous thought experiment a person is able to take a long journey away from Earth and return to the same frame of reference to potentially access the future, but again this is not their future, since they have been away from Earth's frame of reference.

If we look at it realistically, we can see that travelling to our own past or future is a seemingly insurmountable task, because everything else in the universe needs to meet the exact same conditions which existed at that time. As you will know the universe is in a constant state of acceleration, which means we would have to change the state of the entire universe in order to time travel within own frame of reference. Furthermore, even if that were a possibility, there would still have to be an absolute version of time which applies to the entire universe, and that is exactly what relativity refutes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xMathFanx:

@Nomenclature

When one person moves into the future at a faster rate than you do, then clearly you become his past.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate by this based on your usage of the term "past". The only ways Physics currently knows how to theoretically "time travel to the past" (on a "Classical Scale") are:

A. Faster than speed of light travel

B. Tunneling to the past via a Wormhole (CTC)

C. Cosmic Strings to bend the fabric of space-time...

..The fundamental question in this debate is, "Is it possible to time travel to the past in a "Back to the Future" type format?" That is, could you travel into the past and meet your parents before you were born? Could you travel back to the "Wild West"?, ect., ect...

Amarel:

I hope you understand the problem with his post. When you are younger than your counterpart due to time dilation, you are not in their past. Time dilation does not allow us to get ahead or behind the present, by anyone’s frame of reference.

I am appealing to you on the hope that someone who typically disagrees with me isnt as intellectually stubborn as him so that one day, debate may occur

xMathFanx:

Yeah, I do understand, I think I have seen a couple of issues actually, that is why I raised the issue about his use of the term "past".

For instance, in his OP, he stated "Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future." Now, there is already a problem with this initial statement because although we have experimental data demonstrating that time travel to the future happens regularly, we do not know of an instance where it has occurred to the past (in a classical sense). Now, there are potential theoretical models for which this could be achieved, but they have not been bared out through observation/experimentation. Therefore, to say the "existence of time dilation proves that time travel...into the past" occurs is not accurate.

Then he stated "If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly. In fact, technically speaking if you come down off a hill you have travelled into the past. This is because the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower time becomes." Now, "time running more slowly" does not give you a window into the past (and I'm not sure how/why he believes it does). The arrow of time is still running forward (from your perspective) just at different relative rates. At no point is the arrow of time running backward.

In the next paragraph, he said "To put it another way, I am able to travel to somebody else's past or future, but not to my own. In Hawking's famous thought experiment a person is able to take a long journey away from Earth and return to the same frame of reference to potentially access the future, but again this is not their future, since they have been away from Earth's frame of reference." When would you have access to another person's past? You have access to two competing personal presents that now misalign in a more overt fashion (although they once appeared to align more closely) because of the various relative circumstances the people found themselves in. As for the future, yes, we know that you can travel to your version of their future in the sense that you identify with life on Earth and if you did the Hawking thought experiment, then you would return to a "future" Earth relative to your conceptual memory of it (from when you left) and other people would be older relative to you. However, the past is an entirely separate matter.

You (Amarel) said "The relativity of time does not allow you to travel to someone else’s past " Now, to my understanding (and I could be wrong, I definitely want to brush back up on my Special Relativity after this debate because I feel that I am becoming needlessly confused here and concepts are being phrased sloppily; although I have taken SR at Uni. level so this isn't just off the top of my head bs) you are correct in that statement Amarel. The only way one would get access to another's past (that we currently consider theoretically possible) is through one of the several methods I listed in a separate post (or some other theoretical framework that I did not list or hasn't been thought of yet). This is why I was confused by Nomenclatures us of the term "past" in this context. To make one correction I saw of yours also though Amarel, you said "However fast or slow you’ve traveled, when sharing a location and speed with another, it is both of your presents." Now, this is a statement that is operating on Classical Mechanics view of time. As Nomenclature rightly pointed out before, there is no universal "now" or "present". If you had an extremely precise clock out to many sig figs attached to people born at the same time, same place, and then allowed them to live their lives in separate ways, then time dilation effects are still occurring off-aligning their "clocks" relative to one another, just in an infinitesimal manner so it is effectively trivial and non-relevant in daily life (thus why it can still be usefull to model many events on Earth as though they occurred in a universal present).

Nomenclature:

For instance, in his OP, he stated "Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future." Now, there is already a problem with this initial statement because although we have experimental data demonstrating that time travel to the future happens regularly, we do not know of an instance where it has occurred to the past (in a classical sense)

Your terminology "in a classical sense" does not actually mean anything. I have patiently explained that time runs differently dependent upon the frame of reference you are standing in. I have furthermore explained what the implications of this are in a real sense. It seems that you are here simply to argue, and the problem with that is that the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion.

Now, "time running more slowly" does not give you a window into the past (and I'm not sure how/why he believes it does).

I genuinely thought you were more intellectually honest than to ignore the explanations I took the time to write and simply come back with, "nah". How is it even possible that you do not understand this? I explicated in the absolute simplest terms possible. If time runs faster at point A than it does at point B, if I move from point A to point B then I have moved into the past relative to point A. It isn't complicated, mate. This is the reality, and you are responding here by refusing to understand why I am correct. That really isn't my problem.

When would you have access to another person's past?

You just asked me this precise question two hours ago and I gave you a simple answer. Do you even understand the principle of relativity in the first place? Because, forgive me, but I do not think you do. Right now, assuming you will have grandchildren, you are in their past, without even doing anything. This is because relativity stipulates that there are no absolute past, present and future. The entire point of relativity in the first place is that time is relative to where you happen to be standing. Yet you keep blathering on in such a way that you are making it absolutely clear you do not understand this fundamental point.

I have explained how time runs at different rates depending upon your frame of reference and I have explained how moving between these frames of reference can take you either to the past or the future relative to where you were previously. If you don't understand then that is one thing, but it seems more the case that you are refusing to understand.

1 point

Nom VS Mathfan rap battle.

MathFan ===> Eminem .

8 Mile - Ending Battles
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@Blood

Center-Right Libertarianism (?)

My position is that people should have control of what is in their reach, and no further--which can & should be enforced by boundaries resorting to physical force, when necessary. So, I have no issue with Socialism, Communism, or (essentially) any experimental design people create, as long as those who participate are there of their own accord and have the option to opt out, in some way.

The matter of where I, personally, would want to live, is generally a different matter.

Now, the problem with many (self-proclaimed) S & C is the inclination for greater amounts of control over non-willing/disinclined participants--which, interestingly enough, was Stalin's perversion of the original doctrine as a means to gain power--that is, "World Revolution, Now!" Note, interesting, as there is a tremendous amount of double-think/double-talk present in many modern (self-proclaimed) S & C, as they denounce & distance from Soviet Style while also pushing for a similar program unwittingly, wittingly, or otherwise.

And I think you had disagreements about time travel as well.

Nom claimed that modern Physics declares we know for a fact that time travel to the past, inside the context of the same time-line, is possible and further, happens all the time. I countered that no such conclusion has been made, not by a long-shot. The matter is still very much up in the air, and unknown/unresolved.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Blood

compile a list, then commence with the intellectual combat

If this were a contest of (hard) Mathematics, hard Physics, Engineering, hard Chemistry, Logic, athletic contest of strength, etc. etc., then that could work. Outside of such areas, one is not able to prove anything on that level.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Blood

That would be sensible, if the matter of dispute were one of merit.

However, Nom feels betrayed that I am not a "Yes Man" for him, and dared to challenge his views in various areas. That is, it is a matter of ego, pride, differing views of what true alliance looks like, etc.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Blood

I'm, personally, fine with Nom. Although, it appears the past is, as of yet, unresolved for him. We need to find a way to hash it out, once for and all.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@jamesbody

Are you aware that snark is a sign of both weakness & cowardice?

1 point

The RW has plenty its share of Snowflakes, however it more comes in the standard "Conservative (quasi)Nationalist"-type who do not question current governmental authority in areas such as the Police, Military action, and abuse of our own government against the people/in general ("conspiracy theories", and such) e.g. MK Ultra.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Blood

Global Capitalism is a disaster, particularly when the Government helps prop up certain businesses to the detriment of others.

Social Democracy can only be thought of as (potentially) good if one believes in the 'benevolent dictator' philosophy.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

Social Democracy is a pernicious political philosophy which is blissfully ignorant to the history & reality of government evil against their own people & elsewhere.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@AKJPrewrath

Interesting, was it the recent New York bill that changed your mind?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

There are two branches of Satanism--religous & secular.

Then, it would seem that is a fitting label.

Question is, why?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

You are a Satanist ?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@jamesbody

Wtf does this even mean?

Lingering shame shackles a person to a mentally catatonic state.

You could apply that exact same reasoning to all negative emotions, you banal twerp. There's nothing special about shame.

Shame is a 'negative emotion'. However, the argument you seem to have attempted to voice--that all states of mind could equally be described in a similar fashion--is (also) incorrect. For instance, honor, self-respect, self-esteem, are positive constants, and liberating states of mind.

1 point

You should be ashamed.

Shame is a slave emotion.

It is only good in a short, restricted, yet powerful burst that functions as a catalyst toward producing the opposite outcome--not wallowing in aimlessly, nor indefinitely.

A prime example of proper shame, used correctly is the character Boromir from Lord of the Rings. After he attempted to thieve the Ring from Frodo, he was ashamed of his actions, caving into vice and all he swore an oath to protect. From this, he tripled down on his oath in the affirmative by fighting valiantly to protect Merry & Pippin from the hordes of Isengard. Thus, reclaiming his honor before the end.

Boromir Tribute
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

Then, you take from elements of other religions/philosophies, along with your own unique views, synthesize that into a new religion?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@jamesbody

Did you not create a thread, under the alias Nomeclature (or, possibly Quantumhead), title "You Have it Backward, There Should Be No Freedom Of Speech"? Which, would seem, to contradict the sentiment of your statement here.

No?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

Where can I go to read up on this more (or otherwise acquire the information)?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

Then, your belief is that Alien Overlords of our world are run by the Blue God, which is a high ranking Demigod to the real God?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

I was under the impression that you believe in Alien Overlords rather than a God.

No?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Jamesbody

Worth noting:

It is possible to retire partially, or even completely, at quite a young age if a person utilizes a sensible plan and time is most desired--20s or 30s

1 point

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is extremely intelligent and informed

False on both counts. In fact, quite the opposite .

I can get into the particulars in follow-up posts, if anyone is interested in taking up the debate topic with me

1 point

@jamesbody

You are a failure because you permitted other people to define your own interpretation of success...not everybody views "success" as a situation where their own fucking kids hate them?

Good point. Agreed.

I made a thread topic about this recently titled "The Nature of True Wealth".

1 point

@Jody

I agree with the general sentiment .

3 points

Is post birth abortion okay?

It is a cult of child sacrifice .

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

Midwits are overwhelmingly attracted to soft/fake science, tend to be manipulative as they are smart enough to read, write, speak, and know they are significantly more intelligent than the average person, while simultaneously oblivious to how feeble minded they are relative to the truly highly intelligent, and generally refuse to engage in any activity that will objectively show them where they, in fact, rank--be it Mathematics, Physics, Basketball, Fighting, Building/Construction with ones own hands, (real) Art, Classical Music, etc. etc. etc.

Everything Peterson talks about is extremely simple material, and, further, he is often only partially correct--with the foundational premise being off. He carelessly runs with poorly researched, and even "fake news" not understanding that more intelligent people will follow through and look at the sources cited in order to check the validity or lack thereof. Of course, this fact goes clear over other midwits heads, along with quarterwits and below.

Chomsky does significant independent research projects that check out--including primary sources from independently selected/located internal gov. documents from the de-classified archives, has notable contributions in Natural Philosophy to the field of Linguistics, and demonstrates the capacity for novel, independent, creative thought.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@Mingiwuwu

Chomsky's IQ is 140+ range. JP lied about his IQ terribly, which, in reality, is in the 115-120 range--as is most Psychologists. That is, Chomsky is a man of high intelligence while Peterson is a midwit.

Scholars & journalists are overrun by midwits who are overwhelmingly wanna-be all-stars. Hence, the desire to manipulate, lie, fraud, exert control, etc. etc. Chomsky is able to see through it easily as his intellect is markedly superior.

Also, understand, Chomsky intentionally does not speak in the rhetorical style of JP, as wizardry is an evil intended to play on ones emotions. See video, start 1min 30sec in

Note:

Midwit- Above average in intelligence, though not highly intelligent. Think of the negative counterpart of 'halfwit', or a dim person, though not retarded. On the spectrum of extremely unintelligent to extremely intelligent, with average in the middle, halfwit is midway between extremely unintelligent and average, while midwit is halfway between average and extremely intelligent.

Noam Chomsky: Don't Seek to Persuade Others to Your Own Views
2 points

Contest of wits: Who is smarter, Noam Chomsky or Jordan Peterson?

Noam Chomsky, hands down.

Jordan Peterson is a "Wizard of Oz" type.

Chomsky is a genuinely very bright individual.

Relevant previous post from separate forum reproduced below. Note: 'right to left' is a Socialist:

@right to left

We may in fact agree about a bit more than may be obvious, as I have read quite a bit of Chomsky (for instance) and appreciate his views on certain areas. Now, where I fundamentally disagree with Chomsky is his view on Human Nature, most relevantly regarding benevolence given proper conditions, while I view Human Nature much more in the style of Tolkein and "Lord of the Rings". Naturally, this leads to significant differences, which can be most scene and highlighted on the topic of self-defense/self-preservation of oneself, local community, & homeland/safe-haven.

"The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them."

-Eowyn, Daughter of the KIng of Rohan, "Lord of the RIngs" by J.R.R. Tolkein​

1 point

Good point. I have not been to Miami, and am unfamiliar with the customs.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@jamesbody

-What aspect of the past do you believe I am unable to let go?

-There is no urge to get even. In fact, that is quite contrary to m.o.

3 points

@jamesbody

It would be wise to heed your own warning, by turning the looking glass your way.

1 point

Solid advice, aside from the last .

0 points

"God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;

enjoying one moment at a time;

accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;

taking, as He did, this sinful world

as it is, not as I would have it... "

-Serenity Prayer

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@jamesbody

Relevant comments were submitted elsewhere, of which I have no doubt you have seen.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@jamesbody

Then, you would argue, the average American Progressive has intentions on a stateless society someday in the not-so-distant future? Of course, after conceding a tremendous amount of power to that same government.

That is all part of the plan?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@ArchonElite

Marx believed that in order to implement communism there would first have to be a state, the purpose of which is to re-organize society and then dissipate as more power is passed to the public.

Precisely.

However, most, not all, who self-identify as "communist" & certainly "socialist" never have a thought of a stateless society. Rather, they view the state as a legitimate official/referee/authoritative middle-man that will set down fair rules to the game, and see that they are abided by to a highly reasonable standard. Now, that is quite odd considering one of the foundational beliefs of the ideologies, and particularly communism, is the extreme evils of the state.

Socialism & Communism alike can work very well on a small scale, consisting of people who are on the same page, and can genuinely trust eachother through shared bond/inner circle. However, as it scales it, even starting at one more order of magnitude, it becomes quite problematic. Those who do not consent to the community pool of resources are to be forcibly stolen from, by people they do not know, have no reason to trust, nor do they philosophically agree with, etc. Again, this is assuming the motivation is as stated, as well, for which I disagree about the minority core group/sub-section of the movement pushing the philosophy relative to the followers. That can be explored & explained further in a subsequent post, if desired.

That is, put bluntly, a load of bollocks.

Please state an exact argument, so I know where you are coming from and have something tangible to wrestle with.

In short:

Libertarian far Right-Wing is as stated in my previous post. Nationalist far Right-Wing is very similar to Sparta (as depicted in the relatively recent popular movie).

1 point

@jamesbody

Sophistry & lazy thinking ..

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Cocopops

he entire human race should be sterilized thus ridding the earth of it's most destructive species.

This would pave the way for the acceleration of the mental development of other intelligent life forms such as ants,dolphins etc., to develop their abilities and perhaps reverse the unforgivable decimation we have inflicted, and continue to inflict, upon mother Earth.

You are describing Misanthropic Nihlism--a very dangerous, pernicious philosophy that is being pushed as of the last couple decades.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@ArchonElite

I myself am a libertarian socialist, and an anti-federalist.

That would hold if you consider the system confined to a local area or state, though not others. That is, in the absence of nation-wide, and/or global mandate.

That's similar to what socialism is meant to do in the first place.

The term "socialism" is a player in a language game, as with "communism". The idea of small-scale communes operated by several dozen or so people at a time few people take issue with, when voluntarily created & maintained--same with worker co-operatives. Now, communes have decentralized power, and organization, however when people practically discuss the terms "socialism" or "communism" in modern political discourse, they refer to willfully & happily conceding tremendous amounts of power to a state authority who would, in principle, act as an authoritative mediator/arbiter/referee/middle-man. Of course, this is the antithesis to the guiding principle of a small-scale commune.

Right Wing

The further right-wing one gets, it strips away government power entirely and becomes individualist in nature. That is, one is in charge of & responsible for themselves, their possessions (i.e. private property) & their family unit, as well as an inner circle, if applicable (e.g. very close friends, etc.). Then, these people/units voluntarily decide whether or not they desire to collaborate with others, or disengage/disassociate. It can potentially look quite a bit like communes, in some instances, with the main difference that people barter and/or trade for goods, if desired, rather than a mandated collaborative pool of community resources.

1 point

Can a socialist be right wing?

One could be quasi-libertarian/quasi-anti federalist that support weak federal government, and strong state & local rights/power. Then, each state and/or local community could have much pull on their area. As such, it is possible they could support some form of Socialism on a small level. It is conceivable that an entire town could be run on Worker's Co-operatives, and agree to pull money/resources together in some fashion to be distributed throughout the community in a pre-planned manner. Then, such a person could decide to live under this setting, while supporting limited or no taxes, classical capitalistic corporate structure, etc. etc. elsewhere.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@Cocopops

By implication, in your view, Socrates & Nikola Tesla were life losers while Brittany Spears is a winner.

Yes?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Ayemaker

it's just that the higher that IQ rises the less human you are.

Actually, one becomes more human and less mammal--so to speak. The reason being, the frontal lobes, and particularly the pre-frontal cortex, is the most advanced part of the brain (as we understand it) and separates us from the animals. Those with higher intellect have stronger frontal lobes

0 points

==================Deleted===========================

=

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Mingiwuwu

Are you familiar with David Icke ?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

-I do not know how life began

---Open to the possibility of Panspermia or Directed Panspermia, though that still would not answer the fundamental question of origin.

-9/11

---The notion that the attack was exploited to justify extreme intervention in the Middle East & elsewhere, I agree with, as it would seem difficult to deny/contend with--certainly by this point

---The government likely found the attack useful in this respect

---Whether or not it was a false flag, the flood gates were left down intentionally, or some other ill, is unclear to me, though it is a possibility.

---I think the 9/11 Commission Report standard narrative is less than or equal to 70�curate, as essentially all 'official' reports are. Even a survey look at de-classified records/internal documents throughout the years would tip one off to that.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Bronto

That is a valid point in its own right, although I am not sure how it connects with the topic at hand(?)

1 point

@Amarel

Agreed.

Those are, generally speaking, my thoughts on the matter as well.

1 point

@DragonBorn

Yes, generally--though not out of necessity.

Socrates is one such perfect example. .

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@DragonBorn

Sv3rige was really your alt ?

1 point

What is your philosophy of Evil? Do you view it as an inextricable part of the human condition? Do we all internally struggle with it, or does a 'pure-hearted' individual exist?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@ChiefToad

FactMachine ?

I've been gone for a bit, trying to see who's who. What does Nom go by these days?

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Cocopops

Antrim ?

1 point

Should you go to University

No.

Scholars & journalists are overrun by midwits who are overwhelmingly wanna-be all-stars. Hence, the desire to manipulate, lie, fraud, exert control, etc. etc.

Edit:

Midwit- Above average in intelligence, though not highly intelligent. Think of the negative counterpart of 'halfwit', or a dim person, though not retarded. On the spectrum of extremely unintelligent to extremely intelligent, with average in the middle, halfwit is midway between extremely unintelligent and average, while midwit is halfway between average and extremely intelligent.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@BurritoLunch

That's what you Nazi morons...

Are you familiar with the allegory of the boy who cried wolf?

2 points

Is free college possible?

Not only is it possible, we already have it.

I have discussed this exact topic at some length multiple times in the past on DTT, without going back into my content history is, the cliff-notes are:

-Pell Grants & State Grants cover full cost of Community College

-Some Community College programs are free due to private charity grants from organizations, such as the National Science Foundation

-Companies like McDonald's pay employees $2500 for College if they work 15 or more hours per week, which covers full cost of CC + left-over cash

-Federal loans are granted in the amount of $6000 per semester, no co-signer required

-Hence, everyone has the opportunity to go to College for free, and not even have to work or only 15 hours a week to do so and support a comfortable living standard

Let us look at one example:

Ohio State University is $10,000 a year tuition & fees for in-state residents. Pell Grant & State Grants cover $2000 each, per semester which comes out to $8000 a year. McDonalds provides $2500 per semester to employees that work 15 hours a week or more, which is $5000 a school year plus at minimum $5000 in earnings through hours worked. A person with a room-mate can easily make a $450 a month rent or less which is $5400 per year, say $3000 on food (either independent or meal plans), and walk/bicycle/bus to school & work. Then, we have:

Tuition: $10,000 ===================== Pell & State Grants: $8000

Rent & Utilities: $6000 ================= Tuition Assistance: $5000

Food: $3000 ========================== 15 Hr per week Work: $5000

Miscellaneous: $2000 ================== Federal Loan: $3000

------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

Total: $21,000 ====================== Total: $21,000

2 points

If my friends and I colonize another planet, do we have to let you live there?

It is not a question humanity would be faced with anytime soon.

1 point

You can pay more taxes voluntarily, so why don't libs do it?

Exactly.

I have written about this at some length in the past, perhaps I will dig up an old post and paste it here.

2 points

@DeathWolf

I would have to second on Nicola Tesla as above those the mainstream most adores.

1 point

Who is the smartest human being known to history?

It is extremely difficult to quantify. Personally, I would bet the most intelligent, strongest, fastest, wisest, heroic, etc. etc. people who have ever lived nobody will ever know about.

2 points

"The fact that many of the finest ever in academia weren't the finest in their so called formal education proves how inefficient an idea it is to try to quantify intelligence through degrees. It doesn't take one much to observe that there is little to no actual emphasis on genuine learning and critical thinking in the larger scale. "

-beastforever

1 point

@Mingiwuwu

I have an account as xMathFanx, though I have not posted as of yet.

6 points

"Colleges want you to look different but think the same."

-brontoraptor

2 points

"Why is it those on the Left do not fear a corrupt Government controlling the people?

We see it every day. Politicians lieing to us, making laws behind closed doors, not allowing the people to even know what's in the bill before it is passed and then after it is passed, Pelosi telling us we will then find out what's in it. Why is it Democrats were not outraged by Obamacare and all the lies...Now knowing all this, why on earth do Democrats not fear bigger and bigger Government? "

-FromWithin

1 point

=====================Deleted==============================

1 point

"Bear in mind, the following are only basic principles. This is not a model for a government, nor do I mean to imply that there are not valid or important exceptions for implementation of some of the following principles.

- 1 - People are individuals, always and unmitigably.

- 2 - People are flawed as individuals, but we are generally worse as groups. This includes governments, so government should be designed to be weak.

- 3 - Maximum practical freedom must be the paramount aim of any political system. Without freedom, people cannot solve their own problems, or achieve their individual visions for their lives.

True, this means that safety MUST be much lower priority, even if it is number two on the list.

- 4 - To make freedom work, it is important that government does not protect individuals from the consequences of their own decisions and actions.

- 5 - Governments cannot be depended upon to address problems well, efficiently, cost-effectively, or without destroying lives and stealing freedom.

In general, government reactive activities should be limited to doing only those things that enforce the following principles.

-Nobody should be allowed to interfere with anyone else's person or property.

-Nobody should be allowed to create any involuntary obligation on anyone's part.

-Provided the preceding criteria are met, people must be able to do what they like on their own property, provided they pay for it themselves.

- 6 - Government proactive activities should be limited to doing only those things that both are impractical/impossible for people to do without government, and that affect EVERY person in the state/nation."

-marcusmoon

3 points

"I have no control over past events, all I can do is raise my children to be better than it by example. White people also fought to free slaves and while that doesn't excuse past atrocities, and pointing out that just about every culture and race has been a slave in the past doesn't make it any less egregious, I will not take responsibility for something I had no control over. Racism comes in all shapes and colors, it's not a "whites only" event so how about we stop pretending like white Americans are the only one's capable of acting racist and start putting responsibility on those (of any color) that do presently."

-Mint_tea

2 points

"It appears to have become commonplace in America to use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" as a form of blanket attack against anybody or anything which scrutinises or questions the status quo in any regard. In other words, if you question what you are told by political authority, you are to be mocked with this disparaging phrase and compared to people who believe Elvis is still alive."

-Nomenclature

2 points

"Simply because evil exists in the world is not a sound reason to intentionally get tied up in it with no plan or hope of prevailing over it. People remove themselves from shadow in order to create safe havens of trusted networks that are able to maintain reasonable levels of peace & harmony while acknowledging and preparing for the worlds ills that will attempt to infiltrate them, attacking back as necessary."

-xMathFanx

3 points

"Most people are dumb fucks, so if you agree with the majority that means you are an idiot in most cases. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. When are "most people" ever right about anything? The answer is almost never, because insanity is the norm and logic is extremely rare among the human species."

-DeathWolf666

5 points

"The disregard for the Constitution is standardized and accepted. Lying is part and parcel of politicking. Bribery is too, but they don’t call it that."

-Amarel

1 point

If teachers encouraged children to think independently & creatively, they would surpass the master inside of 30 seconds.

Children Solve Obi Wan's Research Project Instantly
1 point

Now, as far as socialization, this is perhaps the greatest myth that keeps parents sending their children to schools. First, it is based on a faulty view of healthy human social relations, and the desire for popularity. That is, quantity is no replacement for quality--in fact, it is overwhelmingly in stark contradiction. If a person has a tight family unit, and a small group of healthy, trusted friends, that is night and day with being placed inside of a unstable, unhinged, hostile, deranged, uncontrollable human zoo environment that will inevitably infiltrate the child's psyche & physical state, to varying degrees.

As far as homeschooling, that, of course, would depend upon the morals, principles, and general competency of the parents.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@DeathWolf

Most people are dumb fucks, so if you agree with the majority that means you are an idiot in most cases. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. When are "most people" ever right about anything? The answer is almost never, because insanity is the norm and logic is extremely rare among the human species.

Very accurate.

xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@BurritoLunch .

Chomsky on Schooling

1.25 of 24 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]