Quote from: Topcatyo;1530354Everyone should shut the fuck up you self-righteous egotistical pricks.
Fuck.

Cigar, Y/N?

Quote from: China Clock;1530346[flash]http://www.fhqhosting.com/ui/Offer.swf width=300 height=300[/flash]

Ye-ye, want a cigar, fine sir?

Da Comrade

Quote from: Topcatyo;1530354Everyone should shut the fuck up you self-righteous egotistical pricks.
Fuck.

No. Just because your willing to defend your ideas with words does not make you an egotistical prick, no matter how "messy" it seems to become. Your thread did not get de-railed, it turned serious, it turned into what these arguments are really over. And thats very evident because of how heated discussion turned throughout this thread. You dont have to post here anymore, so suck it up or go away.

Quote from: Maltese;1530271ignore him china, he's just a stereotype with delusional rationalizations based on a I'm a edgy teen philosophy with pre-atomic attitudes.

Just because you failed enormously with proving anything with logic and therefore the ONLY thing you have left to do is ignore me, doesn't mean everyone else has to be that stupid. And btw, if your going to be stupid enough to bring up such a ridiculous idea that any of my ideas are not scientific I seriously suggest you start looking at modern physics. Very very post-atomic physics at that (string theory, parallel universes THESE are the sciences I am dabbling in) . It is you who hold the pre-atomic ideas, fool.

China, I literally don't have time to repeat myself over and over again responding to each broken quote you've made. Here's what I'm going to tell you:

Whatever points you thought were most important, can you please repeat yourself. I'll respond to your second post, I didn't even bother with the first I only have an a half hour right now. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY:

USE LOGIC IN DEFENDING YOUR POINTS, WHICH YOU ARE FAILING TREMENDOUSLY. LOGIC. ALLOW ME TO DEFINE IT:

"convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts. "

This means that logic isn't just "what makes sense to you" It HAS TO BE a structure of words SO CLEAR that it DEFINES TRUTH. I've used logic to defend myself countlessly in this discussion and you countlessly NOT used logic to DEFEAT my logic which CAN NOT make sense. This is ridiculous, and I will refuse to continue this discussion if you refuse to take it seriously. This is why I'm so frustrated at this time. You pretend to know SO MUCH about philosophy and yet you can't even correctly have a philosophical argument. IF YOU SPEAK TRUTH, YOU SHOULD EASILY BE ABLE TO DEFEAT MY IDEAS WITH LOGIC. Simple, easy to understand, logic. And again I'll use the example of how logically History cannot explain an absolute truth:

What was is not what is

THIS IS A LOGICAL SENTENCE. Now since you apparently dont GET logic, allow me to logically explain what this example MEANS.

If there is an absolute truth, it is an absolute truth
IS refers to the present. If there is an absolute truth it is now.
The past is not now. The future is not now.
Therefore in terms of absolute truth (which all logic eventually SHOULD pertain to) The past & future is not. The past nor future is not truth.

And note here I have logically proven here with simple sentences what Science has already proven with extremely extremely complex math, that is the theory of relativity, so on. Time isn't real. And as far as I'm concerned we shouldn't be using something that is not real to define truth. We've all come to terms of this because all the math geniuses have been telling us so for decades now, but hardly anyone actually seems to understand what this means. And furthermore no one seems to understand they could have reached this conclusion themselves by just doing a TINY bit of logic as I did above.

Logic IS NOT a WORD GAME. It is taking meanings to their most simple fundamental roots in order to reveal truths. If you want me to take you seriously from now on, you'd better start defending yourself the right way because I'm sick of this shit. I'm not going to have you voice your opinion repeatedly blatantly ignoring logic if you can't disprove me with logic. And I'm not going to repeat the same logic repeatedly just to have it ignored whilst not disproved. And you know what, if you want to be taken seriously ANYWHERE with actual intellectual people you'd better know the same.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465How about "You are being decieved in favour of dogmatism/PR campaigns for political or religious purposes"? Researching and finding out other things about them is not being "ignorant", simply accept what is being fed to you is ignorant.

Sometimes you are fed correctly and sometimes incorrectly. "Finding other things" doesn't change this fact at all. You have found other things and say "therefore what they say is false." And even if your "findings" are true I still say "what they say is true, but some more truths have been left out."

Just because we're dealing with true/false scenarios does not in any way encourage one sided mind.
However you may have noticed that in the statement "what they say is true, but some more truths have been left out." some of the left out truths might contradict the truths they say. Because of this, and because of the fact that we can't possibly determine how true the things they say are compared to what was actually said you should see that Truly there is no way to determine how 'good' Jesus or any historical figure was. However you shouldn't be so quick to assume that just because of this Jesus and all historical figures are false. Which should be obvious. There is always underlying truth.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465Well let's see you prove that then.

I can not prove how any of these historical figures were. And neither can you because neither of us knew them ourselves. However, I can say that I've read all the bible, I'm currently reading the Quuran and the Dharmaa, and I plan on educating myself on all major relegions because it is extemely evident to me that all relegions have underlying truth (the good they preach) and are often compeltley misinterpretted by their own churches and organizations. Because of this I hold these writings on more sacred authority (coming from the relegious founders on not their churches) than the corrupted organizations that often preach them.

Because I have read the writings that are supposedly directly from these people, and what you said directly contradicts their writings, that is why I assumed you hardly know anything of what you speak. But all in all nothing can be proven here.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465WHOOOPS, strike one! I hope first grade goes well for you, learning to read and all that. I directly stated they were not connected and that he was put in the position he is in today a month after the Chinese invasion of Tibet. I just said what their system was, and that words are cheap, we simply do not know how he would rule Tibet, but it would most certainly be on Theocratic principles. Thus, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Secularism is superior as it keeps government out of non-government issues. I will not apologize for philosophies of the west much more well-founded in reality.

I'd appreciate if you'd keep your lame insults to yourself firstly. If your going to insult me, just please do a better job, because I doubt these make you look any stronger. No, amazingly I did not read that, so apparantly you edited and added it, or it somehow must have been deleted when I quoted your text. But you know, I don't care for your explanation anyways because its 100% opinion. 0% logic. And really, you shouldn't be upset at this. Reread what you just wrote if you dont beleive me. Its all opinion. Why do you continuously think your spineless opinion will persuade me. It will most of the time sadly, but not with me, not here.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465Obviously not well enough then, you arrogant, pompous, dickhead. You'd know that none of which I said was made up, but did infact occur. Sheesh.

Ready for me to expose your logical stupidity? Its actually extremely easy to do. Here goes.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465As for Jesus, I know my Bible. I can give you Biblical backing for those.
Death to non-Christians: Luke 19:27

Not Jesus.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465Some of the different contradictions: Matthew 5:43 - Luke 6:26, Exodus 33:11 - John 1:18, Mark 9:40 - Luke 11:23, Matthew 5:16 - Matthew 6:1, John 14:27 - Matthew 10:34, 2 Kings 2:11 - John 3:13.

Those aren't jesus

Quote from: China Clock;1529465Jesus states that non-Israelites are filthy dogs and it is not good to waste their metaphorical "bread" on them: Matthew 15:22-26.

Really? Because it seems to me Matthew states that.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465Entering the Kingdom of Heaven through the true path: Luke 10:25-28 - Luke 18:18-22.

Everything in the Old Testament is completely true and all those insane laws must be followed: Matthew 5:17-19.

The examples go on and on, but I guess the Bible is just a slanted conspiracy to make you look erroneus too.

If I said I took every word in the bible for truth THEN I'd be erroneus. But I didn't say anything remotely like that! In fact I didn't say anything like christianity is truth, relegion is truth or ANYTHING along those lines. What I said was and MEAN SPECIFICALLY is that there is only underlying truth WITHIN all of these things. And I KNOW we already covered this because you were accusing me of 'partial truths' before, which if anything you can rightfully accuse me of. ALL I MEANT WAS JESUS WAS TRULY A GOOD MAN. Which all of your random bible quotation which CANT prove anything about jesus anyways become meaningless ANYWAYS because pretty much ALL the rest of the bible other then what you quoted are mostly good things, where you had to go searching for BAD things in order to convince yourself.

Quote from: China Clock;1529465HOW DARE I? Way to tell me I don't have the right to not agree with you simply because you're 'offended'. Closeminded asshole.

Cool. Now I'll just repeat my actual quote instead of just rewording everything ve fucking said.

Quote from: SirClockHow dare you denounce things you could hardly dream of accomplishing yourself. What they've done has shaped basically ALL of world philosophy and morality with many others, and have no doubt had an effect on your own morals and philosophy.

Now remember, since your probably flustered at this point that if your going to respond to me let it be logically and with reason! Your sentences should be long and boring and simple like mine, but with reason, because this is how you use logic which should not be personalized in any way unlike your opinions.

Quote from: SirClock;1531374whole mess of bullshit

god, you're hilarious, you know that

I don't need to prove myself to you, I've already proven that ayn rand's philosophy requires people to be not self-interested, which is impossible, when people are freed from having to make moral choices, they won't be heroic enlightened geniuses that will bring us into a new age of enlightenment, it will bring us to the downfall of civilization.

now, prove that people aren't self interested

try it, I dare you.

Quote from: SirClock;1531374No. Just because your willing to defend your ideas with words does not make you an egotistical prick, no matter how "messy" it seems to become. Your thread did not get de-railed, it turned serious, it turned into what these arguments are really over. And thats very evident because of how heated discussion turned throughout this thread. You dont have to post here anymore, so suck it up or go away.

I don't mind the arguing, I'm saying that there's a more civilized way to argue one's case without saying "You're wrong you stupid dildo."

Quote from: Topcatyo;1531385I don't mind the arguing, I'm saying that there's a more civilized way to argue one's case without saying "You're wrong you stupid dildo."

I'm sorry, but he's an objectivist who seems to be unable to read.

so he's got some trouble understanding china's and my points.

Does anyone else find that objectivism always, ALWAYS seems to run parallel with art-deco motifs? A fad philosophy for a fad artistic movement.

Quote from: Snake Clock;1531437Does anyone else find that objectivism always, ALWAYS seems to run parallel with art-deco motifs? A fad philosophy for a fad artistic movement.

Quote from: SirClock;1531374Logic IS NOT a WORD GAME.


if you want to be taken seriously ANYWHERE with actual intellectual people

Irony.

Also, congratulations on "proving" the one fucking thing we weren't even discussing. Care to do that with your Objectivism (and not a game based on a word regarding the present to prove the present. Also, relativity is not the same thing as "does not exist"), which we have been requesting for ages?

QuoteSometimes you are fed correctly and sometimes incorrectly. "Finding other things" doesn't change this fact at all. You have found other things and say "therefore what they say is false." And even if your "findings" are true I still say "what they say is true, but some more truths have been left out."

..What? "Even if I'm fucking wrong I'm still right, because you're just not in my secret special knowing pedaestal where I can see non-existing additional truths which would explain away such bothersome things"? Let's take Mother Teresa's wasting of charity/stolen money (violent overtaxation of an oppressed people) and spending it on nunnaries, not charity, as clearly stated in the expenditure records of the damn church, the Catholic League openly states and so forth.. how does that support her 'greatness'? What additional truths are there to that? She lied to people who wanted to help empoverished people and stole their money for her own little projects of Christian worship.

Congratulations on being indoctrinated on her being an amazing example of pure good, and rejecting facts that say otherwise. Blame it on a conspiracy handing out false information about her, sure. You stated your opinion as fact, claiming this as some sort of evidence to prove a point.

QuoteJust because we're dealing with true/false scenarios does not in any way encourage one sided mind.
However you may have noticed that in the statement "what they say is true, but some more truths have been left out." some of the left out truths might contradict the truths they say. Because of this, and because of the fact that we can't possibly determine how true the things they say are compared to what was actually said you should see that Truly there is no way to determine how 'good' Jesus or any historical figure was. However you shouldn't be so quick to assume that just because of this Jesus and all historical figures are false. Which should be obvious. There is always underlying truth.

This bit is just complete gibberish, mixing together different sections of what's been said and responding to them as one, trying to use completely different sections to remove the criticism of others not related to them and thinking it would work.

QuoteI can not prove how any of these historical figures were. And neither can you because neither of us knew them ourselves. However, I can say that I've read all the bible, I'm currently reading the Quuran and the Dharmaa, and I plan on educating myself on all major relegions because it is extemely evident to me that all relegions have underlying truth (the good they preach) and are often compeltley misinterpretted by their own churches and organizations. Because of this I hold these writings on more sacred authority (coming from the relegious founders on not their churches) than the corrupted organizations that often preach them.

Once again: "Everyone except me is misunderstanding everything. Even their own things!!"

"Good they preach" is just that. Your personal opinion. A personal opinion I most likely would agree with (what of it is good within the philosophy, not intended towards the people in it), but that's just my own personal opinion.

QuoteBecause I have read the writings that are supposedly directly from these people, and what you said directly contradicts their writings, that is why I assumed you hardly know anything of what you speak. But all in all nothing can be proven here.

Practically nothing (or even "absolutely nothing") in the holy books actually come from it's founders, it's all written at a later date by several generations removed most of the time. Unless, ofcourse, you are once again deciding all on your own what actually happened and what didn't. What is actually the holy word and what is the word of man, etc. How very religious and illogical of you.

QuoteI'd appreciate if you'd keep your lame insults to yourself firstly. If your going to insult me, just please do a better job, because I doubt these make you look any stronger. No, amazingly I did not read that, so apparantly you edited and added it, or it somehow must have been deleted when I quoted your text. But you know, I don't care for your explanation anyways because its 100% opinion. 0% logic. And really, you shouldn't be upset at this. Reread what you just wrote if you dont beleive me. Its all opinion. Why do you continuously think your spineless opinion will persuade me. It will most of the time sadly, but not with me, not here.

"The Lamaist regimes were some of the most brutal feudal systems ever witnessed, now ofcourse he was put in place after the Chinese had begun the invasion so he can't be directly blamed for that." Was the absolutely first thing I said on it. Never edited. But then again, things must be conspiracies to make you look bad. (Note the word "directly" in this context would be because, should they be correct in their religion, which I without doubt think they are not: He would be the reincarnation of those same people who did do those things)

Ofcourse your opinion of them isn't opinion. My facts on them aren't as facty as your facts.

QuoteReady for me to expose your logical stupidity? Its actually extremely easy to do. Here goes.

Not Jesus.

Those aren't jesus

Really? Because it seems to me Matthew states that.

In case you haven't noticed: THERE ISN'T A FUCKING GOSPEL NAMED "JESUS", YOU ARE STATING THAT THE VIEW OF HIM IS FALSE, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT IS CLEARLY STATED DUE TO PERSONAL OPINION/PREFERENCE. YOU CANNOT CLAIM YOUR SECTIONS ARE TRUE AND MINE ARE FALSE "JUST BECAUSE".

Unless ofcourse you are stating that Jesus is a purely fictional character with made-up characteristics, and that said characterisitics are "truly good".

Oh look everyone, it's "John Galt"! That guy is truly good! "But prove that such people exist in reality" Well look no further citizen, there's John Galt! That proves it!

Quote*Skipping the nonsense to get to the point* ALL I MEANT WAS JESUS WAS TRULY A GOOD MAN. Which all of your random bible quotation which CANT prove anything about jesus anyways become meaningless ANYWAYS because pretty much ALL the rest of the bible other then what you quoted are mostly good things, where you had to go searching for BAD things in order to convince yourself.

Your bible quotations are inferior to my bible quotations, my karate is superior to your karate! Seriously..

All we have is the Biblical account. There isn't much of anything otherwise to prove these things transpired (Which once again isn't proof. But if you deny them as fact, like I do, then the next question is of course "did Jesus Christ really exist in that sense, given we don't have any other descriptions").

You're fucking kidding yourself and have never read the Bible even once if you believe the book is "mostly good things" and what not, aswell.

Quote from: Maltese;1531377god, you're hilarious, you know that

I don't need to prove myself to you, I've already proven that ayn rand's philosophy requires people to be not self-interested, which is impossible, when people are freed from having to make moral choices, they won't be heroic enlightened geniuses that will bring us into a new age of enlightenment, it will bring us to the downfall of civilization.

now, prove that people aren't self interested

try it, I dare you.

You dare me?
Dare me to prove people aren't self interested when WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS EXACT SAME POINT
AND FURTHERMORE I SAID PEOPLE SHOULD BE SELF INTERESTED?! I AGREE WITH AYN RAND IN THIS WAY, THATS WHAT THIS ENTIRE FUCKING DISCUSSION THUS FAR HAS BEEN
Your sitting here, thinking you made some great point when your DIRECTLY quoting the OPPOSITE of what I said... Clearly your definition of self-interest vs. mine is the issue here, not whether or not you believe it to be true. Because you already made it clear you believe people are self-interested, and I agreed. It is how you go about what self-interest REALLY IS.

First off I'll just say that you've proven nothing, because (this is the ten thousanth time now) you never used real logic to prove anything. WE ALREADY DECIDED EARLIER that all self interest is inevitably for the Form we know as happiness. Or as you put it:

                                                   Originally Posted by Maltese                        Happiness cannot be defined as anything other than a positive emotion
At which point I responded:

Quote from: SirClockRight, then what is positive emotion? I'm assuming since your done participating you'd say something like "general goodness" is the definition for happiness as it pertains to the whole of everything;
At which point I'd tell you then that Goodness or happiness then, truly is what is good for the whole of everything. And you'd probably then go "ah, well I knew that anyways!"
And then I'd just pop in a "So to truly being happy yourself is to be doing what is good for the whole of everything!"

So I guess now I'm trying to break this down into even simpler terms...

Self-interest is seeking happiness.
Happiness as it pertains to all things, is a general positive emotion
Therefore the realest form of happiness is a general positive emotion as it pertains to all things!
Logically true happiness must remain true for all things.
SO
Logically the way we defined self-interest in order for THAT to remain true for all things it TOO must be the interest of "general positive emotion" for all things.

So what I'm truly saying is yes! people ARE self interested! But it just so happens that if people are TRULY self interested they are interested not just in the individual but the whole. That is real self-interest. The word is deceiving in itself, but nevertheless I just used logic to show you its real meaning. If anything, this should lead you into questioning what is self, not whether this is true, for see that it is.

And honestly this SHOULD be comprehensible to you, because you should know that by only being interested in your own individual and nothing more you often DO NOT achieve happiness. Just pathetic alternatives people can be deceived into believing is happiness like money, possessions and fame. It SHOULD be obvious that to be truly happy you MUST go beyond the individual. And the point I'm making is that the word: self-interest DOES go beyond the individual as I already explained.

One of the first interests the individual can experience is the desire for happiness. But never forget true happiness MUST go beyond the experience of the individual!

Quote from: Maltese;1531387I'm sorry, but he's an objectivist who seems to be unable to read.

so he's got some trouble understanding china's and my points.

I'm not an objectivist and even you and china's points contradict each other every so often. You sir are a moron.

Quote from: SirClock;1531473Your a wacky kid, you know that? First off I'll just say that you've proven nothing, because (this is the ten thousanth time now) you never used real logic to prove anything. But furthermore I already DIRECTLY answered this philosophical argument earlier. Why are you bringing it back up? Why are you making me go back and quote what I already wrote? This is fucking annoying as hell YOU should be the one going back to what was already said considering your bringing up just that!

why do you do anything? self-interest, it's obvious, it's a priori, saying that man is heroic, that isn't a priori.

you didn't answer anything by the way, you merely said that it wasn't true then pulled out some examples of self-interested people.

self interest is the most normal thing in the world, and your favourite philosophy, objectivism, either denies the existence of self-interest, or denies the truth in that we have been self-interested, we are currently self-interested, and we will always be self-interested.

self-interest is the default action of any life on earth, a dog is loving because it knows you feed it, a fish runs away from a bigger fish because it doesn't want to be eaten. The only difference is that we've taken it to a I'm a edgy teen level of abstraction, we bunch together because we no longer see ourselves as individuals, we see ourselves as a whole, but to deny and fight against that, is to fight against culture, it's to fight against society, it's to fight against the very thing that made us the dominant lifeform on earth.

You did not prove that people aren't self-interested

and that's impossible, because self-interest is a priori

it's a priori, because you can look in yourself and see that you only do things because it benefits yourself or a facet of yourself in a cultural sense.

Quote from: SirClock;1531473Self-interest is seeking happiness.
Happiness as it pertains to all things, is a general positive emotion
Therefore the realest form of happiness is a general positive emotion as it pertains to all things!
Logically true happiness must remain true for all things.
SO
Logically the way we defined self-interest in order for THAT to remain true for all things it TOO must be the interest of "general positive emotion" for all things.

So what I'm truly saying is yes! people ARE self interested! But it just so happens that if people are TRULY self interested they are interested not just in the individual but the whole. That is real self-interest. The word is deceiving in itself, but nevertheless I just used logic to show you its real meaning. If anything, this should lead you into questioning what is self, not whether this is true, for see that it is.

THEN WHY ARE YOU AN OBJECTIVIST

objecitivism is to deny and break away from the whole, but the point of living in a society is to be part of the whole, if you rebel against everything, how the fuck are you contributing to anything.

Quote from: SirClock;1531473One of the first interests the individual can experience is the desire for happiness. But never forget true happiness MUST go beyond the experience of the individual!

Yeah, about that

True happiness comes from within, because happiness is a state of mind, to be happy is to believe that you are happy, because it's only a state of mind, there is no difference between true happiness and the belief that one is truly happy.

contributing to the greater whole will never bring you true happiness unless if you believe truly that it will

meaning that YOU are causing happiness, not the action of contribution

and you would know that if you studied Buddhism instead of Objecitivism

Ok China, I asked you to leave the lame insults out, and you havn't, which makes me angry. And I don't feel its fair to lamely insulted without giving out too many myself.  So I'll make my responses as harsh if not harsher then yours, because any anger I get you to feel you deserve, and I hope it eats you alive.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466Irony.

Also, congratulations on "proving" the one fucking thing we weren't even discussing. Care to do that with your Objectivism (and not a game based on a word regarding the present to prove the present. Also, relativity is not the same thing as "does not exist"), which we have been requesting for ages?

Hey fucktard, you were bringing your fucking warped views on history that you must have learned in highschool into this discussion. So I proved that history can prove ANYTHING. And now your saying we weren't DISCUSSING IT? Are you fucking deaf dumb and blind?! I mean jesus, if you don't can't pick up the connections ALL over this discussion its because your a fucking idiot! Not because its my fault for making them! As for your last sentence which is apparantly a question (it ends with ? after all) Isnt An actual fucking question so it doesn't make sense to me. Learn some fucking english.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466..What? "Even if I'm fucking wrong I'm still right, because you're just not in my secret special knowing pedaestal where I can see non-existing additional truths which would explain away such bothersome things"? Let's take Mother Teresa's wasting of charity/stolen money ... BLA BLA BLA MAKING MORE EXAMPLES FROM HISTORY THAT WAS ALREADY PROVEN TO BE USELESS IN DISCUSSING TRUTH BUT IM WAY TOO FUCKING I'm a edgy teen TO CORRECT MYSELF

I beleive the point wasn't if I'm wrong I'm right.
The point was I'm right.
And I dont HAVE to be on a special pedastal. I can just have a fucking BRAIN, that actually WORKS RIGHT, and thats the point I've been making this whole time.

Hey guys! I'm not better then any of you! You guys can figure all this shit out yourselves if you would just ACTUALLY THINK FOR ONCE

Quote from: China Clock;1531466Congratulations on being indoctrinated on her being an amazing example of pure good, and rejecting facts that say otherwise. Blame it on a conspiracy handing out false information about her, sure. You stated your opinion as fact, claiming this as some sort of evidence to prove a point.

And then INSTANTLY corrected myself you FUCKING TWAT. What, you just wanted to wait until now hoping I'd forget or something? Jesus your fucking low. And Also, I wasn't insinuating she was "pure good" thats your own fucking I'm a edgy teen insinuation. If you havn't noticed (you havn't) You've been doing this the ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466This bit is just complete gibberish, mixing together different sections of what's been said and responding to them as one, trying to use completely different sections to remove the criticism of others not related to them and thinking it would work.

Its not called mixing together different sections of whats been said and calling them one. Its PIECING together sections of whats been said and calling them one. And AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED AGAIN, THIS is how you find truth. Go tell Plato this is gibberish.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466Once again: "Everyone except me is misunderstanding everything. Even their own things!!"

Prove to me your above the same accusation.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466"Good they preach" is just that. Your personal opinion. A personal opinion I most likely would agree with (what of it is good within the philosophy, not intended towards the people in it), but that's just my own personal opinion.

Your right. I SAID THAT. BLATANTLY. IT IS MY OPINION. And I admitted it so you'd hopefully learn to stop BRINGING UP HISTORY TO PROVE TRUTH (go to the first thing I said, when I was telling you I think your a fucking retard for having me repeat myself so many times)

Oh, and it is also my opinion that I think your a fucking retard for suggesting that Ghandi, Dali Llama, Jesus AREN'T GOOD. When all I suggested is that THEY WERE. Read the Dharmma. Buddhism spells out the underlying truths better then any other relegion in my opinion. Of course, I doubt you ever WILL pick up the Dharmma because instead your going to find some quotation in history that exposes Buddha for being imperfect. OH WELL ZOINKERS NO! THEN EVERYTHING HE HAS SAID SURELY MUST BE TOTAL BULLSHIT. SAME WITH AYN RAND AMIRTIGHT?!

Quote from: China Clock;1531466Practically nothing (or even "absolutely nothing") in the holy books actually come from it's founders, it's all written at a later date by several generations removed most of the time. Unless, ofcourse, you are once again deciding all on your own what actually happened and what didn't. What is actually the holy word and what is the word of man, etc. How very religious and illogical of you.

Wow gee, thanks AGAIN for telling ME what I have ALREADY TOLD YOU. Fucking genius. All I have to say is that if you bring up historical figures again in trying to prove your points, your just the most hypocitical fucking idiot I have ever had the mispleasure of realizing your existance. (just so we know ahead of time)

Quote from: China Clock;1531466"The Lamaist regimes were some of the most brutal feudal systems ever witnessed, now ofcourse he was put in place after the Chinese had begun the invasion so he can't be directly blamed for that." Was the absolutely first thing I said on it. Never edited. But then again, things must be conspiracies to make you look bad. (Note the word "directly" in this context would be because, should they be correct in their religion, which I without doubt think they are not: He would be the reincarnation of those same people who did do those things)

OH GEE WIZ! Good thing I already got it out of my system right!

Quote from: China Clock;1531466Ofcourse your opinion of them isn't opinion. My facts on them aren't as facty as your facts.

You don't HAVE facts on them and neither do I. Fact is truth and we can not KNOW what REALLY DID HAPPEN. Your a moron for not realizing your own knowlege.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466In case you haven't noticed: THERE ISN'T A FUCKING GOSPEL NAMED "JESUS", YOU ARE STATING THAT THE VIEW OF HIM IS FALSE, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT IS CLEARLY STATED DUE TO PERSONAL OPINION/PREFERENCE. YOU CANNOT CLAIM YOUR SECTIONS ARE TRUE AND MINE ARE FALSE "JUST BECAUSE".

WHICH IS WHY I CORRECTED MYSELF LIKE... FUCKING 2 PAGES AGO WHILE YOU CONTINUOUSLY REBRING THEM UP. YOU DO NOT JESUS, NEITHER DO I. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466Your bible quotations are inferior to my bible quotations, my karate is superior to your karate! Seriously..

I never quoted the bible. Your karate is FUCKING I'm a edgy teen.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466All we have is the Biblical account. There isn't much of anything otherwise to prove these things transpired (Which once again isn't proof. But if you deny them as fact, like I do, then the next question is of course "did Jesus Christ really exist in that sense, given we don't have any other descriptions").

Good thing this is what you changed the ENTIRE FUCKING CONVERSATION INTO. I think you got the trend of this post, I'm not repeating it again.

Quote from: China Clock;1531466You're fucking kidding yourself and have never read the Bible even once if you believe the book is "mostly good things" and what not, aswell.

You're fucking kidding yourself if your still going to bring SUCH opinionated context after EVERYTHING I JUST SAID.

You know what, you are fucking kidding yourself. We're done. I've repeated myself enough times now, that to continue to converse here is just to guarantee to repeat myself infinitely. I prove myself with logic, you have failed for the last time at providing any. I'm done.

Anyone who has actually learned anything here and wishes to learn more can contact me on their own. Anyone who wishes to remain ignorant surely has the right to. Anyone who wants to continue this argument CAN USE simple, clear logic to prove their ideas and I will respond to them. I will respond to nothing else here. I will not literally waste my time here anymore.

Quote from: SirClock;1531499Ok China, I asked you to leave the lame insults out, and you havn't, which makes me angry. And I don't feel its fair to lamely insulted without giving out too many myself.  So I'll make my responses as harsh if not harsher then yours, because any anger I get you to feel you deserve, and I hope it eats you alive.

Lol. Right, you don't insult people, you're not honest enough for that. You continually do condescending, patronizing shit and act severly arrogant.

QuoteHey fucktard, you were bringing your fucking warped views on history that you must have learned in highschool into this discussion.

Oh, you mean the "completely accepted reality of history of everybody except the aggressive proponents of the same failed, useless, utopian-in-disguise" system that has been tried over and over. Maybe "highschool" got something right then.

QuoteSo I proved that history can prove ANYTHING. And now your saying we weren't DISCUSSING IT? Are you fucking deaf dumb and blind?! I mean jesus, if you don't can't pick up the connections ALL over this discussion its because your a fucking idiot! Not because its my fault for making them!

No, it wasn't. If you're saying nothing happened before the present, then you are -insane-. That was the only thing even worth bringing up to that. You didn't magically appear here, these past sentences did not write themselves in the "now", they were written before, etc. History is a reality, you cannot logically dispute that without being -insane-. The system was tried and it failed, that is a known reality.

But that wasn't the god damned point in question at all. That was Maltese bringing up time, I was simply on the Laissez Faire capitalistic system. You claimed it had nothing to do with Objectivism (which is nonsense, since it is a cornerstone of it).

QuoteAs for your last sentence which is apparantly a question (it ends with ? after all) Isnt An actual fucking question so it doesn't make sense to me. Learn some fucking english.

"Care to do that with Objectivism?" was the question, and that we have been requesting it for ages. It makes sense. I never nitpicked you countless grammatical errors and spelling errors (not mistakes, as they are always repeated without correct ones, like "relegion"). I only questioned grammatical use when it honestly didn't make sense, but obviously that has to be insults.

QuoteI beleive the point wasn't if I'm wrong I'm right.
The point was I'm right.
And I dont HAVE to be on a special pedastal. I can just have a fucking BRAIN, that actually WORKS RIGHT, and thats the point I've been making this whole time.

Hey guys! I'm not better then any of you! You guys can figure all this shit out yourselves if you would just ACTUALLY THINK FOR ONCE

Apologies, then. It did not come across in the way you worded it, considering it sounds like an insult and "you're just lying to me LA-LA-LA", as if I was merely buying into a conspiracy handing out said 'false' information as part of an agenda.

QuoteAnd then INSTANTLY corrected myself you FUCKING TWAT. What, you just wanted to wait until now hoping I'd forget or something? Jesus your fucking low. And Also, I wasn't insinuating she was "pure good" thats your own fucking I'm a edgy teen insinuation. If you havn't noticed (you havn't) You've been doing this the ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD.

"How can you possibly be so ignorant as to take examples of people we hold as most high moral role-models and denounce them?" Regarding examples of heroism incarnate, the examples of good and virtue. Still haven't seen much of "correcting yourself".

QuoteIts not called mixing together different sections of whats been said and calling them one. Its PIECING together sections of whats been said and calling them one. And AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED AGAIN, THIS is how you find truth. Go tell Plato this is gibberish.

If Plato was doing this, which I seriously fucking doubt lol, then yes, he would be gibberish. You can't take two completely different things and expect them not fitting together to disprove one of them like that.

QuoteProve to me your above the same accusation.

"it is extemely evident to me that all relegions have underlying truth and are often compeltley misinterpretted by their own churches"

FOR ONE EXAMPLE. Read your own posts, perhaps? You outright stated they are interpreting themselves wrong, whilst you are interpreting them 'correctly'.

QuoteYour right. I SAID THAT. BLATANTLY. IT IS MY OPINION. And I admitted it so you'd hopefully learn to stop BRINGING UP HISTORY TO PROVE TRUTH (go to the first thing I said, when I was telling you I think your a fucking retard for having me repeat myself so many times)

Completely misunderstanding it. You keep bringing up your empty, bullshit, term "underlying truth". AS IF IT WERE PROOF OF ANYTHING. When questioned on it, you retreat in the empty shell of the term proving itself so we are fools to question it (and stating everything is part of it, which too is empty). You claimed these religions have the underlying truth, meaning this would be your big shot of finally proving something about it.... but whoops... just opinion made to look like it's proving anything.

QuoteOh, and it is also my opinion that I think your a fucking retard for suggesting that Ghandi, Dali Llama, Jesus AREN'T GOOD. When all I suggested is that THEY WERE.

I never said Ghandi, Dalai Llama nor Jesus weren't good. All of the preceeding are quite good people (And Jesus in the context of his time. Today he'd be kindof a dick, for making his friends break down in tear after desperetly trying to fulfill some random whim of denying him, but failing last minute etc.). Just that, for example, the 'great liberator' Ghandi was very racist toward non-Indians. That doesn't denounce what he did, it's just a fact. It's still a good thing he did, and it was the norm at the time to have racist tendencies (IE: Not really morally superior, he was just a man, not "Mahatma").

Just the whole bringing people like Mother Teresa (which you conveniantly left out this one time on your list) are really poor examples of epitomes of good within humankind. That's what I said in my absolutely first post in response to that same thing.

QuoteRead the Dharmma. Buddhism spells out the underlying truths better then any other relegion in my opinion. Of course, I doubt you ever WILL pick up the Dharmma because instead your going to find some quotation in history that exposes Buddha for being imperfect. OH WELL ZOINKERS NO! THEN EVERYTHING HE HAS SAID SURELY MUST BE TOTAL BULLSHIT. SAME WITH AYN RAND AMIRTIGHT?!

Why would I do that towards Buddha? He made a philosophy (with spiritual elements, no doubt), not "The divine word of the Supreme Creator of the Universe whom governs our daily lives". By any stretch it is largely an atheistic religion at it's core. A simple search does say quite a bit, though:

"The primary sources of information regarding Siddhārtha Gautama's life are the Buddhist texts."

"The ancient Indians were generally not concerned with chronologies, being far more focused on philosophy. The Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Shakyamuni may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which substantial accounts exist. According to Michael Carrithers, there are good reasons to doubt the traditional account, though the outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true."

So, essentially, it was way way back and they weren't even concerned with recording things apart from those relevant to philosophy. Certainly he had human flaws too. It's not meant to -attack- these people, just some god damn critical thinking. You should try it every now and then.

But you're obviously just trying to be an "apologist" for yourself in these posts. Since it had nothing to do with the "philosophy" of the people. You stated them as examples for true examples of heroism and good amongst real people, providing clear flaws against them certainly has weight against that assertion.

QuoteWow gee, thanks AGAIN for telling ME what I have ALREADY TOLD YOU. Fucking genius. All I have to say is that if you bring up historical figures again in trying to prove your points, your just the most hypocitical fucking idiot I have ever had the mispleasure of realizing your existance. (just so we know ahead of time)

See above.

QuoteOH GEE WIZ! Good thing I already got it out of my system right!

..What? You just recently in the bit I quoted in that very message stated that I was being completely dishonest and editing my posts around to make you look bad.

"so apparantly you edited and added it". Retard.

QuoteYou don't HAVE facts on them and neither do I. Fact is truth and we can not KNOW what REALLY DID HAPPEN. Your a moron for not realizing your own knowlege.

You're a moron for not realizing it was just an attack on you, nothing less, nothing more. Because you certainly display your opinion as fact, without proving fucking -anything- of the central concepts you state as if though they're obvious. EXCEPT THEY ARE WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOU TO "PROVE YOUR BULLSHIT" THE ENTIRE THREAD.

QuoteWHICH IS WHY I CORRECTED MYSELF LIKE... FUCKING 2 PAGES AGO WHILE YOU CONTINUOUSLY REBRING THEM UP. YOU DO NOT JESUS, NEITHER DO I. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Rofl, no you didn't. You didn't fucking "correct yourself" anywhere. But sure, I accept your admittal of defeat.

QuoteI never quoted the bible. Your karate is FUCKING I'm a edgy teen.

Congratulations on yet again completely missing the point. You keep insisting on that everyone except YOU have completely misunderstood everything that's ever been fucking done. I was 'obviously' just misunderstanding that certain large chunks of the Bible, aswell as similar works, you don't agree with, since other things (supposedly, according to you) contradict it must be false. You can't decide what is "good" philosophically on your own.

Sometimes "good" is an absolute concept that is true, sometimes it's just opinion. Make up your mind.

QuoteGood thing this is what you changed the ENTIRE FUCKING CONVERSATION INTO. I think you got the trend of this post, I'm not repeating it again.

Me? Denial.

QuoteYou're fucking kidding yourself if your still going to bring SUCH opinionated context after EVERYTHING I JUST SAID.

It's not opinion. It's a -fact- that most of the Bible, yes that would be the book you're talking about and not abstract discussions of history, consists of mostly an angry, jealous and venegeful God and his supporters. Violence, death and trying to inspire fear for obediance for ridiculous notions. Or on the even more 'fun' side of the Biblical account there are massive lineages presented simply trying to explain their absolutely I'm a edgy teen ideas of how history happened (living untill 800 years old, stemming from two dirt people, how there's people all over etc. Everything.). Then there's the huge collection of magic tricks that have nothing to do with morality (which is neatly presented by our Happy ol' American foundingfather in "The Faith and Moral Teachings of Jesus Christ" which is an edited Bible to get rid of magic tricks and claims to divinity). All-in-all, it TRUTHFULLY isn't a lot of it.

QuoteYou know what, you are fucking kidding yourself. We're done. I've repeated myself enough times now, that to continue to converse here is just to guarantee to repeat myself infinitely. I prove myself with logic, you have failed for the last time at providing any. I'm done.

I accept your admission of defeat, considering you keep stating you "prove yourself with logic" without doing so on a single relevant point to Objectivism. Can't argue with something that isn't there.

QuoteAnyone who has actually learned anything here and wishes to learn more can contact me on their own. Anyone who wishes to remain ignorant surely has the right to. Anyone who wants to continue this argument CAN USE simple, clear logic to prove their ideas and I will respond to them. I will respond to nothing else here. I will not literally waste my time here anymore.

I'll stay "ignorant" by my own right then, thanks. I prefer having an open mind that doesn't have a compulsion to blather on about some abstract concept as absolute proof of a rejected and failed ideology.

Hey, wow! I like reading bullshit too!

This thread's pretty long. Is there someone actually arguing that Ayn Rand is a decent writer?

Please delete website now.