Donnadogsoth

Join the Kurds and fight ISIS! I've read of a few Westerners doing this. It's certainly a positive thing to kill as many terrorists as possible, and everyone who matters will love you for it.

Your insinuation is wrong, because rape is caused by Patriarchy, which the State is part of.

The West vis a vis the Islamic invasion in a nutshell:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Of course as we both know the Muslims have no free will and can't help but slaughter Frenchmen.

Je suis Europa. What will it take to get her to defend herself?

You're correct in both examples, except you do not account for the significance of will. It is your will to murder me and that makes you guilty. That the universe complies with your will is secondary to that fact, even though my actual murder will be of significance. I will to type the word “MONAD” and two things happen. One, it appears, as if by my action, on the computer screen before me. Two, it appears, as if by my action, on the computer screen before you. In your case, your sensorium is responding to your mind's interface with the universe as a whole, and the universe decides in those terms to have the word MONAD appear before you. The same with my case.

You're not referring to idealism but to omnipotent solipsism, which of course would give me no reason to prove anything to you as you wouldn't exist. The interface is governed lawfully according to the pre-established harmony, where my will appears to affect your mind but in fact it is your mind affecting itself in terms of relationship with the universe as a whole. It is only by convenient convention that we say that monad A affects monad B. Both are regulated primarily in terms of their relationship to the universe as a whole. Example: You cut a pear with a knife. The knife (your will) moves downward, and the pear (another monad) divides itself. Strictly speaking, the knife did not cause the pear to divide, the knife-stroke and the pear's division happen simultaneously in accord with pre-established harmony.

Which of course I didn't say. You are a monad, a mind encompassing its own physical phenomena, lawfully of course.

Take the matter up with the materialists. It's the logical endpoint of materialists' argument, and detonates on them taking their philosophy with it. If you are a materialist, then you are detonated along with it. If you are not a materialist, then you must either be a solipsist, or else an idealist like myself. You also misunderstand the scope of idealism. My mind encompasses ALL physical phenomena, and interfaces with ALL monads/principles. So when a machine alters my brain, it is me altering myself. There may be another monad involved, acting in pre-established harmony, but the “matter” of my “material brain” is all me. I am altering myself, as it were.

I don't know how many Christians think this, but it occurred to me that God could break my arm any time He wished to. I wouldn't even have to suffer a mechanical situation such as falling down stairs as his justification for breaking it, he could just break it miraculously. The only recourse for the Christian, qua Christian, is faith in his character as a rational Being--that all happens under the principle of sufficient reason; humility before his power; obedience to his commandments; and keeping calm and carrying on.

iro = in regards of? Also, if one's brain is merely an agglomerate of fundamental particles of matter, which move each in obedience to immutable physical laws, then all states of one's brain are also merely in obedience to physical laws, and have therefore no necessary relation to the truth. Ergo, one's confidence level in the truths revealed by one's brain should be 0.

The better question is, what percentage of the population agrees we should prosecute climate-hysteria Green groups as a threat to humanity? ”Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth’s climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.” ... ”But the Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.” A RESOLUTION TO DEFEND THE LIVES OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE: We Say NO to the Paris COP21 CO2 Reduction Scheme http://larouchepub.com/other/2015/4244resolution_co2.html

[pukes]

If religion overlaps with conservatism, maybe all those religious-conservative kids are saving up their altruism for when they get older. Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

Really, the sense-datum I get I call "computer" is substance? What if I take my hands off the keyboard, so I can't feel it, and I close my eyes, so I can't see it? Where is its substance then? In other words, how is it our senses are telling us reality, when all we know from our senses is sense-data? The "real" apple behind the subjective sense-impressions is not red, is it? What would such a trait of "redness" mean outside of a subjective perception of redness? When we're not looking at the red apple, and therefore not registering redness, what colour is the apple? Does it have a redness to it that transcends sense-data? What would that even mean? If a bee looks at the apple and sees it a different colour in the UV range, does that mean the apple is ultraviolet? And if I and the bee look at the apple at the same time, is the apple both red and ultraviolet at the same time?

If sense-data aren't substances, what is? If principles aren't substances, what is?

Lots of people use illegal drugs, dsayers. Someone is going to those raves--are they still called raves? I'll admit the article lacks quantification, but nevertheless, it fits the spirit of the times that these things happen. Tangentially, what are your thoughts about spree killers? Should their identities be concealed to deprive them of their desired infamy?

I read a short story in my youth, about a future world where everything came with a warning label, and nobody ate natural food anymore. The popular aphrodisiac was called Glosex, which could lead to sudden death. It was common in this world not to have sex without Glosex; presumably people were impotent without it, or/and addicted to its high. That's what I thought of when I heard the term "chemsex." As funny sex and funny drugs pierce ever deeper into the culture, reaching the culture's arteries, I can't help but think that we're heading towards a Glosex world where these drugs are legalised and normalised and accepted as part of the Futuristic Experience. Chemsex: the alarming new trend of 72 hour drug-fuelled sex sessionshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11972817/Chemsex-the-alarming-new-trend-of-72-hour-drug-fuelled-sex-sessions.html

Thanks for this video, jgib--good. Noam Chomsky was asked about pornography once and he said it should be banned, saying "It's not what human beings are." What I don't understand is how any prostitution can be prosecuted at all. Why wouldn't the prostitute or john simply set up a camera to film the proceedings and, if accosted by the authorities, simply shrug and say, "We're filming a porno"?

Now you've got it. If you have no theory of substance, of what substance actually is, and are navigating life purely on the belief that your sense-impressions are all there is, then you have no reason to believe I am a monad like yourself, and you've locked yourself into a prison of solipsism, bereft of all principle-as-substance.

You say "why things fall" but what "things" are you talking about, really? A red delicious falling from its tree is something you observe, but as you can easily determine by closing your eyes, the redness, the contours, the shininess, the stem, and so forth are all sensory qualities that have no existence outside of the senses. So outside those senses' reports, what is the apple? What is behind the velvet curtain of the senses that causes these things to happen inside our sensoria? The answer is that the principle in the mind, and the principle outside of the mind, are the same thing. That the concept, when grasped, puts us in direct contact with the substance or efficient cause of that principle. We can add a third layer and say there is a description of that principle which we can transmit to others, but that's just a description. The discovery of the principle or the principle discovered, is the human mind contacting truth, or a shard of truth. Without this there is really nothingness, because there is no substance to the universe, just an inexplicable and ever-changing sensory pattern which disappears whenever we close our eyes or stop our ears.

Here is a good introduction by Professor Janice Fiamengo to the misandric, unequal, and anti-rational feminist dogma increasingly dominant--approaching total dominance--in the modern University. When you're watching it, try to imagine the bitterness this dogma's dominance is going to "engender" in both sexes. Why I Am An Anti-Feminist - The Fiamengo File, Episode 1

We have been talking about knowledge of principle, but have shifted to substance. What are principles principles of? Either they are descriptions of substance, of substantiality, of actual interactive, event-generating "stuff" as opposed to the merely conceptual, or they are substance or efficient cause. You seem to be opposed to the idea that principle are anything other than descriptions, but to this I put you, if principles are not really substantial, are not the "gold" backing the interactions we find with our senses, then what is? The Kantian Noumenon?

We face the Void. What is substance? Don't say sense-data, sense-data is not substance and is demonstrably untrue, in the same way that the shadows cast by fire behind multiple overlapping objects are untrue.