Jot

On which website did you play?

Gomoku is solved for black on 13x13 or larger board, the winning strategy is called SW (sure win) and it never fails if you know all the variations, which are now that few trust me... By convention, good players do not SW one another, SW is only possible I believe if and only if black's second move is to place his second stone near his first one. Good players make their second move always in the 3x3 area that encapsulates the first stone but does not actually connect with it. Renju is the professional version of Gomoku, it has several restrictions for black which are believed to equal out the parties....I don't really like renju that much because it feels like you are playing a totally different game as black...

Is this Go? Also, are you a good player of renju/gomoku?

Joel?

Is this an article you wrote some time ago?

Why can't being forced to give blood to the baby be considered a remedy?

I used to watch his videos a year ago or so, overall good advice but there is something about his personality that has always put me off.

If he was 5-6 those same pieces of shit that were defending the baby would had been like "I was spanked and I turned out fine".

What if it is a private prison?

Are you sure you can imagine its existence? So if you can see it in your mind's eye what prevents you from drawing it on a paper and show it to us? What about the supposed logical paradoxes that people have been trying to solve for hundreds and thousands of years? Can you solve all of them with that system of logic of yours?

If there is a thing that Stefan never really persuaded me into accepting is his take on epistemology. This is one of the statements that confuses me the most. To me it doesn't make sense that the laws of logic should be derived from the behavior of matter and energy...the way I understand logic is that you could be able to create logical systems without any knowledge of the real world. Also, isn't logic supposed to apply to every scale in order to be universal? If at a quantum level logic doesn't apply, doesn't this mean it is invalid? Suppose I develop a math system that applies to big number operations but it does not work on small number operations...wouldn't this mean my math system is flawed?

I know that jail cannot own anything, I should have said the owner of the jail, probably. However in a state prison, who would be the owner anyways? Since you brought that apple scenario, I have a couple of questions...under which circumstances you can claim sth as your property given that you neither bought nor create that thing?

If you take it from the ground and put it in your pocket, the owner who bought and who lost it saw you picking it up from the ground and chased after you...can he claim that apple back from you?

UPB is a moral framework that is based on the laws of logic. There are many systems of logic, some of which are incompatible with each other. Classical logic has these tenants: Law of excluded middle and double negative elimination Law of noncontradiction, and the principle of explosion Monotonicity of entailment and idempotency of entailment Commutativity of conjunction De Morgan duality: every logical operator is dual to another Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whosenegation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", dialetheia, or nondualisms. UPB seems to only be valid under classical, bivalent models of logic. How do we know that systems of logic such as Dialetheism are invalid forms of reasoning?

Not fair. The shitter is not first inamates' property, it is jail's property. He did not create it nor did he buy it.

Is this from Do parents really love their children?

Salut.

That is a great article...thank you very much I'll need to check his other articles too as a result. Even though I agree with every point that the article makes...I am still having the difficulty of projection...if I am not missing something is virtually impossible to tell whether someone is a troll or he is a genuinely curious person...there is nothing that stops a troll from using the exact same language a genuine person is using...it might be possible face to face because of the sub-communications, but over text you are bound to project onto him...you can never know...am I right?

Because I want to know whether he is manipulative or unknowledgeable, there is a big difference between these two. I am actually more interested in this when it comes to online conversations since in real life it is much easier to read a person's intention.

Knowing them by their fruits is something that takes time...I am talking about someone that I have no previous knowledge of...

Interesting. What you just said provokes another question... How do we know we are not projecting when we say someone is using manipulative language? As far as I can see it we have no way to tell whether someone knows that what he is saying is false/inaccurate and still chooses to use these claims/words or that person is genuinely believing that what he says is true.

This means I don't understand UPB?

I am having trouble understanding this concept of manipulative language...I have never actually seen this phrase anywhere else but on this forum. To me it makes sense to refer to language as only inaccurate or accurate...I don't see how it can be anything but this... For example, if I say "That guy accused me of being closed minded...and I was in fact being close minded in the situation that person was referring to...this for me it is an example of inaccurate use of language since the word "accuse" implies that he had no basis for his assertion. Now...if I am not wrong some people on here would call this "manipulative language", but then what is the difference between "manipulative" and "inaccurate"?

Someone deserves a spanking... OP, do you have any idea who that might be? On a serious note...everytime you make and argument like this just replace "children" with "wife" and you might see why people here would be reluctant to engage with you in any empathetic way. The reason you should be against spanking is not because of spanking studies...it is because it is wrong.