and who are you to say that im delusional? you believe that a large society can exist without a state. dream on dude.
Society is required before you can have a state, ergo of course it can exist without one. In fact, a State is a parasitic entity, itself. A rather devious one, as it takes over processes that the society would normally be able to handle itself. can you read dude? is it more clear to you what i wrote now? |
|
|
|
whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.
So what does that say about you? I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait. But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either. You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet. thats because i(and most of the society around me) don't see them as parasitic. So, you're delusional, instead of psychotic? That doesn't improve your case much. first, psychotic is not the same as psychopathic, go look it up. and who are you to say that im delusional? you believe that a large society can exist without a state. dream on dude. |
|
|
|
|
this is not mtgox fault. your transaction will eventually get confirmed.
|
|
|
|
whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.
So what does that say about you? I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait. But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either. You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet. thats because i(and most of the society around me) don't see them as parasitic. |
|
|
|
whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.
So what does that say about you? I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait. But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either. |
|
|
|
So now I'm curious: can empathy be taught, or must someone be equipped with it from day one? Is it an emotion, or a principle? Must we choose to be empathetic, or do we not have a choice but to be empathetic/unempathetic?
empathy is the ability to feel or share what others feel, and react on it. it can not be taught. sympathy is that ability to see what other feels, and react on it. it can be taught(does the person smile? yes: the person is happy. no: the person is unhappy). whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic. |
|
|
|
|
aaaxn have showed a single point of control, the 100 first SH. May i claim my reward now?
|
|
|
|
Only thing I've gathered from this thread is that people are bonkers all over the world.
Myrkul is... You just admitted that you are the crazy one, here.  it seems that im the only one questioning my own sanity... crazies will not do that, they will just assume that are right.  Questioning one's sanity, and admitting insanity are two different things. Were you sane, you might know the difference. A insane person would never admit insanity as it would be insane? |
|
|
|
Only thing I've gathered from this thread is that people are bonkers all over the world.
Myrkul is... You just admitted that you are the crazy one, here. it seems that im the only one questioning my own sanity... crazies will not do that, they will just assume that are right. |
|
|
|
Only thing I've gathered from this thread is that people are bonkers all over the world.
Myrkul is... |
|
|
|
and anyway, it is not a wise starting point under the assumption that i want it to continue.
True. But it is the most economical. You would eventually be stopped by the authorities anyway, and this way, you're only expending one bullet, and they don't have to expend any. It also saves everyone involved, yourself included, a great deal of time. So, by starting your killing spree with yourself, you save not only yourself, but your government, time and money. Just be sure to leave a detailed note, so that they know you saved them all that money. money is a social construct. but why would they be interested in holding green paper with numbers on? and for the people reading this thread thinking that i just went totally crazy: I did not, i have been that all along. But the discussion just wasn't interesting anymore me and blabla comes up with perfectly logical arguments myrkul et al. came up with some (halfway good) logic stuff that contradicted our findings. Then we started calling each others crazy. and now on just returning to the original thread "americans and stuff": so lets shoot all the people!!! |
|
|
|
yeah man, lets kill them all!
As long as you start with yourself. are you ordering me to begin killing people starting with myself? No, merely suggesting a wise starting point for the killing spree you stated you wished to go on. WE! that WE go on. Because it fun! and anyway, it is not a wise starting point under the assumption that i want it to continue. |
|
|
|
Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.
yes, but you can watch and enjoy.  Which would require that I enjoy what I'm seeing. Since I don't, that presents a problem. so you say that you lack the ability to enjoy things? or are you saying that determinism does not allow you to enjoy things? I'm saying this is not the sort of thing I am inclined to enjoy watching. oh, it does not matter... im a nihilist. So, just all around evil bastard, huh? yeah man, lets kill them all! As long as you start with yourself. are you ordering me to begin killing people starting with myself? |
|
|
|
Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.
yes, but you can watch and enjoy. Which would require that I enjoy what I'm seeing. Since I don't, that presents a problem. so you say that you lack the ability to enjoy things? or are you saying that determinism does not allow you to enjoy things? I'm saying this is not the sort of thing I am inclined to enjoy watching. oh, it does not matter... im a nihilist. So, just all around evil bastard, huh? yeah man, lets kill them all! |
|
|
|
Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.
yes, but you can watch and enjoy. Which would require that I enjoy what I'm seeing. Since I don't, that presents a problem. so you say that you lack the ability to enjoy things? or are you saying that determinism does not allow you to enjoy things? I'm saying this is not the sort of thing I am inclined to enjoy watching. oh, it does not matter... im a nihilist. |
|
|
|
Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.
yes, but you can watch and enjoy. Which would require that I enjoy what I'm seeing. Since I don't, that presents a problem. so you say that you lack the ability to enjoy things? or are you saying that determinism does not allow you to enjoy things? |
|
|
|
The bit where it's physically impossible to initiate anything because all 'actions' are forced reactions to the past. No forecasting required. Therefore, any kind of 'justice' would really be scapegoating (and therefore coercive) because it fails to take into account all of the historical factors that forced "bad" people to do whatever they did.
As I said, it is quite literally impossible to take into account all the historical factors. So what? If you believe that the world is deterministic, then you're obliged to accept that all actions are inevitable and therefore there's no such thing as 'aggression'. It doesn't matter if you don't know all the details. Does that make murder OK? Do we say that if someone murders someone else, "well, it was going to happen anyway" and shrug our shoulders? If so why and if not why not? Your answer will be quite illuminating I'm sure. do you realize that your shoulder shrugging is also a part of determinism? Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying. yes, but you can watch and enjoy. |
|
|
|
The bit where it's physically impossible to initiate anything because all 'actions' are forced reactions to the past. No forecasting required. Therefore, any kind of 'justice' would really be scapegoating (and therefore coercive) because it fails to take into account all of the historical factors that forced "bad" people to do whatever they did.
As I said, it is quite literally impossible to take into account all the historical factors. So what? If you believe that the world is deterministic, then you're obliged to accept that all actions are inevitable and therefore there's no such thing as 'aggression'. It doesn't matter if you don't know all the details. Does that make murder OK? Do we say that if someone murders someone else, "well, it was going to happen anyway" and shrug our shoulders? If so why and if not why not? Your answer will be quite illuminating I'm sure. do you realize that your shoulder shrugging is also a part of determinism? |
|
|
|
"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."
This is what the NAP says. "No person has the right to murder someone else unless that person is trying to murder someone."
This is not what the NAP says(even in the specific case). You are assuming that both the aggressor and the aggressee is accepting the NAP, which i tell you: they are not. In statist society, murder is allowed, too.
yes, under certain circumstances. |
|
|
|
I often say we when promoting an idea to the public, saying I creates an impression of ownership. My current understanding of Bitcoin is that Satoshi wants it to be a group effort that "we" develop.
this is not it! In academic paper people uses WE. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
