Wow. “He’s a better question mr. anti-war, why aren’t you being carpet-bombed more often?”
That’s not what I am saying. What I am saying, is that you claim that there is no objective truth, that A is not equal to A. That logic doesn’t matter in a world without logic. But then you make a claim, one you support consistently, which would undermine your claim that A is not equal to A, because you continue to support a particular idea instead of being arbitrary or random.
Do you see what I am getting at? You’re saying the world is A, then you’re saying you base your judgments off a world which is A. Then you turn around and argue that A is not equal to A.
You could say, LS that is my point. The world is illogical. But then you would be admitting that your own understanding is also illogical.
And you’re caught in an endless loop of not being able to assert anything (including that the state is good or necessary).
I don’t follow.
I don’t think that’s what I’ve said. Or what I tried to say, perhaps the way you’re interpreting it is the way it came out.
Really? Then why is it only a couple hundred thousand out of millions in the U.S. are currently engaged in war? And why is war always between states? Why is it that I have never in my life tried to stick someone with a knife or put a bullet in someone, if it is in my nature?
Truth is not derived from God, it is derived from logic. (And yes, I do believe in a creator or creators).
Now that’s the question I ask myself all the time. “Why don’t we see more war than we do?”
I know how to kill people. It’s really not difficult, a child can kill someone. Why don’t I go around killing, Spidey?
I should rephrase then. The only way I personally will ever accept absolute truth is if I learn God exists and that God can be proven.
I say this because I believe all truth requires an enforcer.
I would really like a response to the above.
Because the Constitution is the Law of the Land only if the United States continues to exist.
All economies are “of scale” perhaps you have a particular one in mind. If anything you are arguing against yourself, as currently your identity is far more accessible than ever before.
Obviously because it is not of value for you to do so.
So as LS pointed out, is A always A? Or can A sometimes be F?
Let’s take the United States. Very few people know who I am. Most of my actions are carried out under the shroud of anonymity. Yours probably are too. There’s only a handful of people who are followed and watched constantly. Those are people like celebrities. They have to deal with public image. I don’t.
Why not? What happens if I kill someone?
A is only A if there is someone to call it A who has the authority to make it A. Everything requires an observer. “A” requires a definition. Who makes that definition? What if my definition is different?
You feel sick?
Then as LS explained, you have nothing to stand on. On one hand you claim a state is needed. If there is no truth, then you should also claim a state is not needed, depending on your mood. You can’t hold to the claim that a state is needed if there is no truth. You can’t even claim that gravity exists or that you are actually eating food. Why are you even here on these forums debating if there is no truth?
I don’t know. I’m more worried about going to jail. I might feel sick though.
I only have my own experiences to stand on. But ultimately what matters is whether I can enforce my opinion or not. If I can’t then my opinion won’t matter. Not that enforcement will make me right or anything. But it won’t make me wrong either. Just effective.
Also, I experience gravity. I experience myself eating food. None of these experiences may be true. But to me they are. I act on those assumptions.
Well, once someone accepts the possibility that nothing is absolutely true, it can change the way they see the world. It certainly informs the way I see things. I will share it as best I can and ultimately others will judge whether their own experiences reflect a similar understanding of the concept of “truth.”
I do not understand. Please explain.
Really, the only reason you don’t go on a killing spree is because you are afraid of going to jail? That’s like saying without religion, people would go on a killing spree because they won’t fear going to hell anymore. Also, we know the fear of government does not stop people from killing other people. In fact, the organization that commits the most murder, by far, is the government.
Again, why are you here then since you cannot enforce your opinion on us? Not that I want you to leave.
The Law of the Land requires an enforcer. Right?
It doesn’t stop everyone from murdering people. There are no solutions. I’ll tell you what though. Before i ever consider doing anything illegal, I think long and hard about what the consequences may be if I get caught. That’s why I don’t do illegal things. Jail is no joke.
Just to chat mostly. I don’t really think too many people get their minds changed about things on the internet. I’ve certainly been influenced by others in internet chats. But a lot of what I think is based on my own experiences. I assume that others are the same. Odds are I’m not going to change their minds.
I don’t live in the United States, however, for the most part you, like myself, still aren’t anonymous. If you pay insurance, have a bank account, credit account, pay any bills, etc… you are being monitored… carefully. Which is most of the population, not just celebrities. There are very few people that live completely underground. Interestingly, even less so in the U.S., than here in Canada.
Not necessarily one enforcer though.
I do not understand how that follows from the questions I asked you to respond to.