Autolykos, you ask a lot of questions instead of giving answers. Other people answered my question, why do you refuse to? Are you unable to answer it?
I can play your game, so how about this: answer my question as though it is both descriptive and normative.
We are waiting . . . yet again.
I don’t think a question can be both descriptive and normative, so I won’t answer it that way. Try again.
I’m not playing any games. I think your question is ambiguous and I’m asking for clarification.
You’re the retard who made a black or white distinction between humans and animals when they are part of the same kingdom. I properly classify us and the village idiot calls me a retard? Did Pythagoras tell you that in his brilliant discourse as well? Do you even know what ethos is, son?
Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be hand fed too much: Humans are animals, but not all animals are humans, so specify next time instead of generalizing. We’re not exactly talking about a stroll to the park in this thread, you know.
Who says you can’t define things in chaos? You seem to be confused. Simply because something is one way does not mean it has to stay that way. In essence, nothing is static. In essence, you need to study more before auditioning for your high school debate team next year.
Even your ad hominem arguments know that humans are animals. See how illogical retorts go nowhere? No you have thus learned, grasshoppa.
I’m not suggesting that a question can be both; that’s irrelevant, no red herrings here, mister. You resort to ambiguity for a straight forward question? This is baffling. How about this, since you’re a semantics relativist:
Give me your definition of the two types of questions in consideration, and then I will proceed with your little game if I so choose. . . .
You reply to the ad hominem but not your own claim that the universe is not ordered even though its order is mathematically calculable. Chaos is only an idea. And it is an idea that no one agrees on. You also did not reply to your obvious hypocricy in appealing to authorities either. Hmm…
What? Are you about to say that an argument can have conscious thoughts? o_O
My rhetoric could have been more precise, sure. Humans are differentiated between every other animal on Earth because we can perceive time.
You asked a fucking stupid question (which was answered by Hobbes and Locke 500 years ago. And even they were talking about chaos in relation to anarchy, not about the order of the universe).
You asked what was wrong with chaos? Let me ask you, what is wrong with math? Hmm? You cannot ask a normative question about something that has no normative value, dumbass. That is my assumption as to why auto is trolling you. (Talk about being spoon fed.)
I see no other way to parse this statement of yours:
Do you?
Obviously, if I thought the question was straightforward, I would’ve answered it already. You can claim that your question is straightforward all you want - I’m in no way obligated to agree with you.
I don’t feel insulted by being called a “semantics relativist”. I recognize the inherent arbitrariness of semantics, so I take you pointing that out as a compliment.
I define “descriptive question” as “a question about the nature of (part of) reality”, and “normative question” as “a question about what one expects of (part of) reality”.
LMAO I don’t think his momma tucked him in last night, so he’s grumpy today.
I don’t view Autolykos to be a troll . . . but I gather that many people on here gang up on him a lot of the time. I might disagree with the bloke but we don’t troll each other.
As for the Hobbes reference, people on here tend to simultaneously hate him and his work yet reference him at a moment’s notice. Why?
As for asking a stupid question . . . really mate, you take way to much seriously. Lighten up a bit. I didn’t ask a stupid question; you simply became touchy when I questioned why you resorted to proclaiming someone’s credibility to answer a question. How about resorting to reason and leaving the argumentative fallacies–particular ad hominem–for the midgets and other inferior life forms? I’m simply asking questions that come to mind; not such a bad thing to be honest.
I like Auto’s responses most of the time. My usage of ‘trolling’ wasn’t necessarily pejorative.
I realize this, however, I use the Establishment reasoning for all kinds of things. Z. Brzezinski is one of my ‘go to’ persons for debating politics at about any level. I use him (as I use Hobbes) because there are many who are in denial (or in Hobbsean case, ignorant) of what they are talking about.
Yes. You did. Just as Auto pointed out, you failed to clarify which of the two broadest categories of inquiry one can have. Are you talking about chaos as ‘a value system’ or chaos as a ‘feature of nature’. I answered as if you had asked about values and referenced Pythagoras due to his immense influence on Plato and hence the Catholic Church. Chaos was/is equated to anarchy which was a sin. I also pointed out that when discussing anarchy, Pythagoras said the same things that John Locke did (about morals), even though they view the concept of anarchy in a starkly opposite fashion. Chaos was a “sin” because nature is mathematically precise.
Do you see how that is a dumb question?
Also,
I think it may be of use as to seeing where the imperative to act within the Austrian framwork lies. If it is “nothing is more to me than myself” - which it is, it essentially states that one is automatically acting in an “anarchic” way, the consequences of which are “order” if we are to make sense of anything at all.
We name and make sense of things, because we act. The words come out because we act socially.
Logic and words always affirm the reality of action
[quoteuser=“triknighted”]
I understand. Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all?
[/quote]
Here, here! +1
Aristophenes seems to be suffering from acute Humanism. Do animals have a concept of time? LOL, never heard of “migratory species”, huh?
"God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:28
Compare that with the relative animism of the Greeks he claims to admire so.
I didn’t ask it, as far as I can see. I asked what is wrong with chaos, yes in a descriptive way. I just don’t like prefacing simple questions with stupid rules. It’s tedious, and most people on here are plenty intelligent enough to know what I’m asking. Why not answer the thing and if it’s not sufficient I can say so?!
As for the dumb question, again, I see where you wrote “What is wrong with math?” but even still, no, I don’t see how it’s dumb. Anyhow. . . .
Here, here! +1
Aristophenes seems to be suffering from acute Humanism. Do animals have a concept of time? LOL, never heard of “migratory species”, huh?
"God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:28
Compare that with the relative animism of the Greeks he claims to admire so.
[/quote]
God forbid someone state a fact for specificity. Might not want to, you’ll be acused of being a retard. Oh no! http://us12.memecdn.com/special-boy_c_221579.jpg
Migration, huh? Or hibernation? Those are examples of animals conceptually understanding time? Or are they habitual activities that animals unconscoiusly do (biological clocks)? There is a difference between biological clocks, like ‘hunger’ and ‘sleepy’, and conditioning.
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/dogs-perceive-time2.htm
morons…
So, humans get to define “time”, design the tests, and draw the conclusions? Doesn’t sound very objective…
What a weak ass response. Have another try.
I would just like to say that I think Aristophanes is largely right when it comes to animals and time. Some of you might find this interesting, it is from a while ago, but it’s entirely relevant:
The reason this is so interesting is because it was unheard of for another animal to really plan for the future. So, most animals don’t really have the same concept of time as humans, but it is entirely possible that there are some primates that do.
All I pointed out is that humans are animals. I didn’t say a damn thing about whether or not they can perceive time; frankly it’s completely irrelevant to whether or not animals are humans. That’s what I was pointing out, yet somehow Aristophanes thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a retard of some kind or another. Whatever, it doesn’t matter. Y’all need to get the focus back on chaos.
