Magnetic Synthesizer

No. None of them exclude the other. If its not just my opinion, it doesn't make it a fact or an opinion or stops it from being a fact or an opinion. The definition of opinion isn't ''A belief that is wrong''. If an opinion holds a truthful belief, it can still be an opinion. There are exceptions and I'm glad none have nit picked on it. but to further illustrate my view: Someone can state a 'fact', not believe in it and not consider it a fact. Wether the fact communicated by the message is a fact is independent of the person's mind (unless its a fact about the person's mind). When people state a fact and believe it to be a fact, they necesseraly hold the opinion that what their message refers to, is a fact. Therefore it is an opinion. It is simply an opinion communicated as what is commonly known as a ''statement of reality'', which doesn't change the reality of the world. The only thing it points at is probably that the person is assertive. But I would say that is wrong. Instead, It communicates that the person isn't unsure enough to take the extra time to spam the message with ''IMO''. Even my posts here are riddled with these wastes of time. I get the impression that these differences change dramatically how people process a message as if the epistemology was comepletely different, when in reality, the same components are at play. sometimes this doesn't apply. Where a difference in the form of a statement makes the difference between ''I recommended u do something'' and ''You made a decision according to my opinion'' according to social norms.

I think it's only necessary because -people might get offended if its not stated as an opinion -They might make a bigger deal of it if its either : - not mainstream OR - People are later convinced you were wrong. So I am annoyed at the realization that I better say IMO IMO IMO IMO all day UNLESS I am convinced that others will never collectively think I am wrong. That would be an easy answer if it was an opinion on something material (it almost is). It seems to be dealing more with abstract concepts of human communication. Could there be an objective right answer like in 2+2? If I establish the productivity ( and the value that productivity is based on) of my form of communication, I would argue that it is almost flawlessly superior. I would get rid for the use of a sophism that only has merit based on people's irrationality. IT is like tataulogy, except that if you don't use it you can suffer from negative consequences because everyone suddenly thinks differently if you don't say ''I think''. (not sure how that happens: Because they have this black and white attitude to information. They walk like omniscient gods and have the pretense that you are wrong until you prove them wrong if they disagree with you UNLESS you state the obvious) I think it is not just my opinion. I wouldn't be here or I would have presented this in a different manner: Stating that I am wrong and want help understanding where my reasoning fails. edit: I mean, I don't see your post challenging or placading my post. So I may be completly missing the link. Why? It does take extra saliva... what's the use? How is the statement better? Because I do think it can help ''challenging assumptions'' but only because the person won't consider it otherwise. I do think somethimes, menitoning IMO and etc, appeases people's irrational defences. I just need to check my opinion. Because If I think it is indeed ideal, I would act differently to promote that ideal (mostly in a subtle manner). And it would be stupid to do such efforts if I was wrong. I also think attention to this detail is due to my personal experience, I am ,say , more irritated by it. Would this be unique of me or something generally normal? I think there is a better way people should think and that it would avoid causing so much evil in the world if people would be wide skeptics instead of what they are now. This symptom reminds me of that reality.

I am proposing that idealy those words are useless and that currently that ideal is not present. I want to check my opinion. Because If I think it is indeed ideal, I would act differently to promote that ideal (mostly in a subtle manner). And it would be wasteful effort if I was wrong. I also think attention to this detail is due to my personal experience, I am ,say , more irritated by it. Would this be unique of me or something generally normal? I think there is a better way people should think and that it would avoid causing so much evil in the world if people would be wide skeptics instead of what they are now. This symptom reminds me of that reality. Conclusion: There is no difference in the information conveyed between a statement formulated as an opinion or as a fact. When someone conveys an 'opinion' or a 'fact', -The person conveys something he believes in. There's no differenes (besides the diplomatic) between someone saying: ''I think oranges are orange'' or ''Oranges are orange'' I'd rather developp this in a dialogue because I think its just obvious so I would like to see what isn't. People waste time with acronyms like IMO and crap While these terms are useless since if the person makes a statement of fact with certainty you already know he holds the opinion, and if he lies, it can happen regardless of the form used (in fact he'd use the factual form to be ''convincing''). Statements of sources and reliability of information on the other hand are much more useful. When you say somehting without mentioning source it is by default assumed it is what you think. Why does this matter to me? People treat these staments in different ways which most if not all are irrational and wasteful. I would even say damaging. (This originated form the below statement, this is almost a rant) The statement ''it is important to differentiate opinion from fact'' means either the person never realized there was a difference and believed eveyrthing said as fact. Now she is only half retarded. If I say Oranges are purple without mentioning ''IMO'' or ''I think'' does that change in any way the fucking reliability of the statement! maybe just a tiny little. Or B. the person always applied the same objective data processing (wide skepticism) but only now discovered there was a diplomatic meaning to it.

I want the definition of responability for the premis 8 you could just search it. you need the page? You can't help then leave instead of circle jerking. Well do you guys agree with the argument without even knowing the definition? I am appalled at your utter incompetency. You either help or you don't. you are neither nice nor helpfull. What is your point? that you are assholes ? This is in the UPB: the book sub-forum. Are you serious? You want context statement of internet, date, age, minute, second, color of text? Yeah I got this : 3 posts of nothing. Next time you find a question you don't understand, please get out, because the answers I seek come from people who are atleast able to know which book I am talking about. What are you even doing in this sub-forum?

Stealth anarchy, then when its declared, theres no state left anyway. Basicly cutitng government until its gone unde trthe guise of small governement, not ''gun du anarchy' U better hope somehting doesnt get in the way. robots, transhumanism, more tech of control. for exemple, self-sufficient tyrants with robot army state lol. Then there is the environement too, global warming, climate engineering.

Youtube: The Danger of being a Social parasite -States how some prevalent caracteristics are bad. FDR3005 Do You Hate The World? Then Stefan states how it provides stability and how if everyone was a revolutionist I'd be chaos. Bullshit! Revolutionists with dialogue and NAP would bring chaos!? Even if they wouldn't people don't revolution out of nowhere, they are usually motivated into doign so by a reason. Even riots have reasons. Aren't you sugercoating it Stefan? Oh but they are useful! It seems too Apologetic to me. Grossly apologetic. These people mock, prosecute, ostracize and take consent in assault/imprisonement. It is a subject that interests me since humans are the main focus and cause of our civilization. I would appreciate general comments (with a extra focus for a reply from Stefan) on how those 2 positions can coexist or how they are both hyperbolic on their end.

Not an argument and not intended to be one.

''PREMISE 8: INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS'' I cannot evaluate this premis if I do not know the used definition of the word responsible. The only thing I know is its a social opinion. (vague). Its not even remotely defined as to have logical components independent of people's opinion. Ok, thaught this was obvious: I am looking for help. TLDR: someone define me responsability

I think this is very bad if Stefan starts stating hypothesis as if they were facts. It looks like making stuff up to support your theory.

at 34: Stefan says ''Entire sections of the brain shut down'' uner state education ''never to light again'' Is there a source on this?

I think it would fail because most people are conditioned to reach for authority to help themsleves rather than take matters at hand if they are attacked. I think a government would re-establish if concrete exemple: a Prime Minister disassembles government from within. Then slashes the last aprt of government, and basicly goes home. Probably makes a statement lol.

I don't think it will ever overflow a sub-forum. It is dispersed throughout sub-forums and I wish I could find it in one place. Maybe fi there was an easier tag system.

LOL, last time there was an ''is'' it turned out to be N. I also thought it was N (was a demonstration). I re-did the quiz and got 100%, so there's that. It's not statist focused, this question happens to have 3 statements involving the state.

I have a few topics who fall in the category of considerations, predictions and questions about the future. Have you ever considered if such a sub-forum has traffic for it? I think its pretty precise.

That was my devil's advocacy for monarchy. Monarchy is moral. edit: I assume that communities evolved into the state. So the state never actually owned land that was originally bought or sold by a party that owns it legit according to ''-Obviously you cannot simply claim arbitrarily large tracts of land as your own property'' Every generation the gov simply inherits land that was 'illegal ownership' originaly.

Why do you all smile so often? Does it come natural or you ''force'' yourself sometimes?

Looks like I made a false assumption. I have my answer. No one but Mohammed saw the revelations.

The method of neuroscience (aka, recording brains) will replace the old methods of psychology. I think the method behind psychology is its essence and The thing that distinguishes it from neuroscience. Also Neuroscience can be more broad, and deal with things which are outside of psychology ( so theres that) My idea being, that if neuroscience is used to study psychology than it would replaces or updates everything theory in psychology. The change would be so big as to consider it a different era. Like Post-Neuroscience psychology and Pre-Neuroscience psychology. The way I see it, is that psychology is speculation compared with the reliability of neuroscientific data. I do think psychology is important. I think that 'recording of brains' should be implemented even faster and studies based on 'recoridng of brains' be given more attention. Since Neuroscience is more broad and not replacing the word psychology I agree, the way I framed it overlooked that the word 'neuroscience' is not ment to be a replacement of psychology. But with such sound experiments made in neuroscience which have psychological conclusions. Those studies and psychological mentions are then are called ''neuroscientific'' at the expense of being called psychology.

First week in college, Inauguration of the ''BS, sotry of my life'' folder. First specimen: online homework, zzzz. Atleast the teacher ain't the one who made this quiz. They must have some real deep philosophy of how something is good or bad. When something isn't defined fully, you... I know how this happens, and I am not the one to blame. I'm just crazy. This is very similar to a torment. aaaah! If they had premises on how something is good or bad already established in the context, then it could be a positive statement. But there is no such thing. Either I'm crazy or the the world is wrong, or I am: edition 21931823. I need help

Heard about this 6 months ago. Anyone who's in psychology instead of neuroscience is wasting their time.

I would have if I wanted to. Don't have the ambition. Heres one of the few reasons. I'm not good enough . Prefer text because its not under time pressure. Like, I don't even know where he found that ''social'' has the component ''consent'' to it. So Gov doesn't have a social function. I can't argue with that, I don't expect him to accept a new definition of the word. So I feel cut off from the dialogue, I'd be almost like watching the show without the thrill of being live. Also, everytime, I remember how someguy (from the god that was and wasnt there) was cut from the show and I condemn that. Stefan could have (among many things) decided to work the definitions of the words. He didnt do that. Dictonaries are too vague. If I bring my own version of the language he's not going to compromise, or even try to work with my limitations. Its completely one-sided, and I don't like that. So I won't be calling to rebute anything he says anytime soon. If Stefan said that he didn't want to spend time doing that, I wouldn't perceive it as a hostile act.

Stefan Molyneux, could you make a video on the truth about the Coran or write why it's not worth it? Would like a response. The reason this interests me is because Islam puts forward some superior (out of the 3 monotheistic religions) arguments of evidence like ''we got the original book'' and they seem more organized on epistemological matters. So of all religions I struck some dialogues with my Islamic friend. I wish I had it more settled (My judgement is based a lot on theory and subjectivity and not much on empiricism) but also, wish to know how such a religion can go so wide. I've been fascinated and engaged by The truth about George Washington and I would be thrilled to see a video of the same style on this. Anyway, I will come back to read relevant comments. I found the text in the Coran ''opposite of persuasion'', but I find it weak judgement to base it on the text especially since if the text said all the words I 'wanted to see' sociopathy style, It would have the opposite effect. It's kind of a 'big deal' if the evidence was still present today and miss it. I find it unsatisfying to judge it based on speculation and assumptions of ''how things work'', basicly, alternative explanations where it's a lie. I also find all monotheistic religions a-moral. It's basicly subjugation to a god which I consider Imoral. Its liek absolutist authoritarianism, I'm more compelled by anarchy unless I fully consent.

I hope it will, and if it does, it will help change the world. Because agnosticism gives way to reason. Atleast such grounds (the critical acknowledgements of limitations) are the grounds on which reason can emerge victorious. I also think Stefan Molyneux gives an unfair presentation of agnosticism, which is fine. I guess I am just bitter either because I once identified as one or because I didn't identify with any of the arguments presented ( so I dropped the presentation). Many rebutations are based on a level of precision of the vocabulary that many subjects don't take seriously enough. It is a precision that exceeds the one of everyday life where a lot of irrationality takes place which brings down the standards. I also wish Stefan was more available to explore other philosophies (systems of thought) when those give a visit. I'd rather prefer a comprehensive exploration of a reasoning I think is wrong than boring refutation. Anyway, ironicly this theme is the least interesting to me here. So much truth-of and data on child abuse and an-cap, fill in the holes which where previously filled with unsatisfying data (still are). When I found agnosticism it was one of the first positions which I was attracted to, except on the fact that you could know, you just can't make a non-refutable statement (unless you're right, in which case the empiricism needed to refute will never show). I always saw the term skeptics as arrogant people analogous to convinced preachers of mythologies. They had critical thought, but they would not apply it fairly with impartiality. The liberal would be skeptical of conservatives but not skeptical of hsi own shit. Skepticism seemed to me like a catch word used by minds to hide their own fantazy (self-propaganda) and giving them the illusion that they were somehow different because they had critical thinking (which was only used to reinforce their beliefs, not discern the truth with impartial readiness)

A4E, what was that something you were exposed to?

Hiddden auto-sufficient biosphere with life-support for humans in a mountain or in a military class submarine. If I had that option and to leave with highly skilled and nice people, I'd be gone before anything. I would be so happy!