"You have certainly found a path for yourself that most people do not care to look for."
People like him do not need to be encouraged, always remember that, just look at how fast he's churning out nonsense debates, like a child, if you ignore that particular fire, it will go out.
"your path in life will do very little harm to the world, and will likely help it if anything."
I'd like to know, if you do not mind that is, what makes you so certain of this?
"keeping an open mind is a valuable tool. Just don't let your brain fall out."
One of Bertrand Russell's most widely quoted yet rarely correctly attributed epigrams, one I have always hated and loved simultaneously.
"Because everything is basically the work of nature?"
Again, it depends on your definition of nature, of course accepting the standard definition you are for the most part correct.
"What proof do you have that it's even possible for anything to truly to work against nature?"
This is why I included the qualifier: "I feel I should point that I don't necessarily be;lieve the converse of this vie" in the brief few seconds it took me to type that reply.
I knew that as a defense mechanism you would automatically assume that I believe the inverse proposition. I've seen you state this view more than once on this site in past, but I've never seen anyone call you out on it, my position if it still unclear is that I don't know, but you seem to have acquired knowledge that goes well outside the domains of scientific inquiry, or you have simply fallen into an empirical trap.
"You can be basic about it and talk about damage to the environment, but is that really working against nature?"
I'm going to give the classic engineers answer here and please don;t think I'm intentionally trying to be evasive:
It depends
"What is it to work against nature?"
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I have the time for this back and forth, I don't, I simple wanted to see if you have a solid justification for your view.
I could write extensively, go into incredible detail and speak extemporaneously on this particular question (not intentionally trying to brag) but my time is severely limited so this will be reasonably short and sweet, and to the point.
Russia Today is a propaganda news station, just like every other news station on the planet, no news is completely objective, this doesn't even need stating. In fact, I barely watch any mainstream news anymore, it hurts my head and lowers my IQ, even the news stations I tend to side with on certain issues (i.e. RT, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, etc.).
Russia Today has a particular slant on the news, and it can be misleading at times, but it is no better or worse than the BBC, of this I can assure you. Its just its message is always fairly antithetical to what the West wants you to think on any particular issue. Russia Today has its good sides and its bad sides, but it has quality programming, and it tackles subjects that most western stations wouldn't touch with a 100 foot pole,particularly US networks which are largely deplorable if being relied upon for objective non-biased info., but most Americans like being told what they want to hear and like believing in their own bullshit about the world, although no one else does (the world wised along time ago, not so easy to beleive the US is are the good guys when you're on the receving end of brutality).
This makes it a rather unique in that it isn't as propagandized as we'll say Press TV or CCTV, but it is still well outside the realm of US influence, which cannot be said of most other networks.
However, it's always much better to simply go directly to the source of the info. you are looking (if available), or if you don't have the time then a lesser but still good option is to find an honorable, respectable, and moral journalist whose opinion you trust, this isn't easy, but one prominent example would be Robert Fisk, although there are tens of millions of equivalents all over the world.
"On a somewhat off-topic note, nothing is unnatural that we create."
Depends on how you define "natural", I'm not trying to say that just because something is natural it is "bad" or "good".
"If they were unnatural and against nature, they would not exist."
Why, why do you assume that nature cannot produce something that works against itself? What evidence, argument, or references can you supply to support that hypothesis?
"To presume that anything we create is not a work of nature is to presume that we are above nature. We are not above nature."
Again, see my 2nd pt., give me evidence, a concrete argument, or even a solid reference proving beyond any resonable doubt that we are not above nature.
I feel I should point that I don't necessarily be;lieve the converse of this vie.
"I'd like to see the end of all money"
The human race is nowhere near ready for such a thing, we'll exterminate ourselves first in all probability.
"However, I don't bother to correct them. I just laugh at them in my head"
The ability to think and not make intellect your game is a virtue not many people possess.
"Garry... Really? Propaganda bullshit video.You really need to stay off of YouTube."
All the videos on her story are heavily propagandised due to the emotive nature of it. If you'd rather something a little bit more objective try this debate:
http://www.youtube.com/
I'd like to know who you think wins.
"Any nations who didn't agree would likely be singled out as enemies, and if they were places like North Korea or China, we might need military force."
So you're saying the US should wage war in order to enforce a peace treaty?
"Once they agree,"
You mean once a master-slave relationship has been established.
"bringing all nations out of third-world status."
Ah yes, a noble goal, one I'm sure very few people in the West would disagree with in theory, however the reality is for the vast preponderance of the time the 1st world has existed the 3rd world has also existed, this isn't an accident, in order to have a 1st there needs to be a 3rd world, you think we'd be able to stuff our faces with steaks and drive humvee's if there wasn't another few thousands people somewhere staving for it?
Science is wonderful, it has cured many of humanities ills, and will continue to do so in the future, but at the moment it cannot overcome the physical and material limitations of our planet, and shows no sign of doing so anytime soon. I think this guy puts it rather well:
I was worried you were going to say something like that, I suppose there isn't much more to discuss.
Not that I disagree with your point, but I assume he meant someone close to you (i.e. best friend, sibling, parent, etc.), if you've met this condition and still don't sympathize with his point of view, I would be quite surprised.
"New York and California and Michigan are the most productive states in the union, so this is why liberal parasites go and make ridiculous claims like yours."
So, are you saying thpse "liberal parasites" don't contribute to the prosperity of those regions?
It doesn't take a genius to realise that the "war on terror" had very little to do with fighting terror, that's why it was nicknamed the "war of terror", because that's what it was (and still is), hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions more lives have been irreparably damaged by this US and western crusade. The only people who believe this "war on terror" bullshit are the ones peddling the propaganda (because they are pathological liars who cannot differentiate what is truth from lies), and the masses (of course) who need their comforting illusions in order to believe they're not somehow responsible for horrible atrocities, but its very easy to be comforted by illusions when it isn't your family, your friends, your community who live their lives at the sharp end of a tomahawk missile or a drone.
"as if I'm not supposed to because I don't believe in intrinsic value."
It's a valid point.
"What are you even talking about? What experience? I don't believe in objective morality or intrinsic value of meaning or life. What experience am I supposed to have in order to have a system of philosophy? I think YOU'RE trying to apply rules to Nihilism based on the fears of Nietzsche instead of realizing how there are systems such as existential nihilism that are not ideological predictions."
Fair enough.
"I don't."
Yes you do.
"Are you reading what I'm saying?"
Yes, you need a universal code in order to "beleive" in some "greater good".
"I said that I don't believe that pursuing my own interests is some kind of Universal code."
I know.
"Not, in any way, directed towards you."
I know.
"Language functions on applied meaning. You can apply whatever symbolic representation that you wish, language has just been the most uniform."
So, why do you continually use that fact to denigrate the "things" it tries to convey?
"I don't believe in God. This has been my testament for quite some time. Maybe when I first joined I was a pretentious "agnostic," but I've still never believed in God."
I must admit, I doubt whether you've ever really experienced true nihilism.
"Nihilists and Existentialists don't believe in OBJECTIVE morality. That is the difference. I believe in pursuing my own interests, however I don't believe this to be some kind of Universal code."
And can you tell me why it is you so desperately need a universal code in order to modulate your behaviour?
"No, I point out that pursuers of the greater good view an idea as more important than life itself"
Not just pursuers of the greater good, pursuers of all kinds of ideas and illusions (some could be characterised as pursuers of the greater bad - if there is such a thing) , it turns out that the best reasons for living are also some the best reasons for dying, so I ask: what isn't simply illusion? And why are they not more important than life itself?
"This, at times, infringes on my own life."
Of course it does, it must.
"What the hell are you talking about? I just want to challenge and be challenged.
I'm sure you do."
I don't want to challenge or be challenged, I simply don't have the time for that, I really should stop coming on but I can't bring myself to break all ties with the site, anyways, I just wanted to provide you with some food for thought, hopefully I didn't sound too much like a pretentious ass.
"I am open minded to any thing presented with evidence."
I'm not open minded to anything with evidence as I don't need to be, the evidence speaks for itself, hypotheses are open to question but not evidence.
"I don't believe in morality,"
It's not about belief.
"so I can understand how Nihilism applies to me,"
I can understand how it applies to me as well so how do you figure our world views are at such variance from one another?
Not that I've ever made my views known, but even just based on the stuff I have made known on this site.
A very sophisticated response thoroughly deserving of all the up votes it has received;-)
"God I love idiots sometimes."
If it wasn't for stupid people there would be no smart people.
"That's not power?"
How perceptive of you.
"We're in the decline now, but I do hope we can put a stop to that."
Most probably by waging war, something tells me your country won;t let its empire die without a whimper, which could easily result in MAD!!!
"Our advantage in the war was due party to our innate greatness."
Perhaps, but "your" main advantage was the fact that you weren't fighting on "your" land and only entered the war a year before it ended.
"Calm your European fag-horses."
Can you keep a straight face when you speak that way in public?
"The reasoning of non-hypothetical me isn't clouded by emotional trauma."
So you would view your feeling function as valueless when attempting to orientate yourself in the world?
"Only if I don't get into the Marines."
Why do you think I said army.
"I never said anything about war being virtuous either; just said peace wasn't."
Well it seemed like an either/or proposition, but if you don't think so I'd like to hear why.
"I, myself, am pretty Nihilist in a lot of ways."
Only because you have to be.
Ya, true dat, there's nothin I love more than chowin down on a big fat sweaty sausage;-)
Don't forget Sean Penn, he really "hates" America :
