Will Torbald

There's no reason to believe IQ and appreciation for fine art isn't correlated. The democratization of the means of art production has enabled masses of previously unqualified people to produce 'art', and the profit motive of selling them to more masses of untrained consumers drives the cultural force to abstain from any quality standard.

In a world with nuclear enemies, chemical and biological weapons, and radical ideologies - all a stateless society will achieve is become a sitting duck to be conquered by muslims/third world populations or destroyed altogether out of malice. Before that happens, wealth and prosperity will always create jealousy and resentment from the local losers - so dealing with them and their efforts to redistribute the wealth will have to be met by force - and if you need force anyway, that's an ironic way of saying that you can't get rid of it, just alter its name and shape.

Wew lad.

If the solution is more socialism, you know why they're doing it. The general population will be lullabied into their own demise with cultural marxism in exchange for political marxism.

First of all, I'd like to make a tangential comment about your rhetorical skills. I like how you mix argument and rhetoric with good rhythm almost mixing both to make them seem as one. It's fun to read. Almost like a shrink too, since apparently I am insane now. Now then, on the comparison with the scientific method- So what? The difference is that the scientific method also tells you why it is necessary to use if you want to provide empirical knowledge, testable premises, reliable conclusions, experimental data - the whole enchilada. It tells you why its premises (simple ones like an objective world, sense data, and a consistent universe in time) are taken, but no more premises than necessary are made. UPB on the other hand mixes necessary assumptions with conclussion-forcing assumptions. The kind of assumptions you would need in order to get just the right end result, but that upon examination those assumptions have not shown to be necessary nor justified. So I ask, what is UPB necessary for? It is clear what the SM is for. But here there is a circular logic loop: What is UPB for? To be virtuous, as you say. How is virtue defined as? As following UPB. This is evidently a problem. All I can tell is that UPB is necessary for debate. I don't know for what much else, as in, adopting UPB would be an aesthetic choice - not a moral, nor necessary one. You adopt it outside of debate because you want to, or like to, or perhaps can't see the difference between life and a debate like another person admitted. Truth is better than falsehood - FOR A DEBATE is what I would add. FOR LIFE, THE WORLD, SOCIETY AT LARGE, THE BIG PICTURE - It's not. And morality, if it's for anything, it's for life. For those things. Ethics are particular rules of conduct in a particular moment. The ethics of debate. The ethics of olympian fencing. The ethics of fancy dinners at a restaurant. These are understood to be particulars, and well defined for the situation. The idea that the particular ethics of debate must deterministically follow into the ethics of life, moral principles, has not been justified. That's what I asked for. Why would you do it? And please, without circular reasoning this time. "The only way we know a moral rule genuinely is universal is if you can make an argument that it is and the only way a string of words counts as an argument is if it adheres to the rules of debate." The problem with this is that all arguments are contingent on the premises, and those premises must be falsifiable to begin with. When you make your argument for your moral rule - and validate it with the premises of debate you are forgetting that the premises of debate are not the premises of reality. Debate is not the real world. Let me say that again. Debate is not the real world. Before I argued with someone who thought debate = life. Now I am arguing with something who thinks debate = reality. No. Debates have premises that contextualize it, but can't be justified as true or necessary. For example, you make the assumption that I am not insane when you argue with me, because if you didn't, you'd be arguing with someone incapable of understanding or making sense of your logic. So it would be pointless. Maybe I really am insane in the real world, in reality, but for the sake of debate you asume I am not. This is the thing. What we assume for the sake of convenience is not what defines reality. Truly "universal" moral rules must live in reality, not in a debate. To wrap this up back to the scientific method, for UPB to be truly at the standard of science, it would not make any assumption beyond the assumptions of the scientific method - with which we define a standard reality base. Fewer assumptions like the three I mentioned earlier would run into solipsistic problems, so we must make them in order to contextualize reality. But UPB makes a gajillion more assumptions than that, overcomplicating things to the point where saying that it is attempting to force a conclussion (say, an anarchist agenda perhaps, maybe) isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Quote: "I was going to answer your question but then realized this isitn fruitful for me anymore. I dont think i can change your mind on this or explain it any better. And i also see you have now twisted or heavily misunderstood what i was saying about the belief in god and about honesty and confrontation. Either way i do not feel like continuing this discussion anymore." This isn't an effort to keep you on the discussion, but a way to clear up the dust and tie lose ends on my part. What I find telling is the part where you say "I don't think I change your mind". I don't think this is productive mindset to have for the purposes of philosophy. If we want to know the truth, and what's right or wrong, working together is a way to help each other - not to change each other. I was not frustrated I didn't change your mind because I didn't expect to do it. I wanted to have other people see this theory because I think it is a massive hole in something that is central to the ideas propagated by FDR. Stefan has always said that if he's wrong, he'd like to know. If I'm wrong in this theory, I too want to know. But what I got so far is arguments that are only repeating what I said wasn't right (the debate/life continuum is unjustified) or reiterations of unsubstantiated projections made (if you move, you accept property rights). I said that the point of accepting all those ideas are in order to contextualize a debate, but that outside of it they have no jurisdiction. I made a clear challenge for falsification, and /no one/ has attempted to make one direct argument for it. The thread has many views, and I can assume that people either don't know what I'm talking about, or they know, but have no answer. Either way it's embarrassing. Lastly, taking an argument apart is what debate does. You thought that by making a case about how people believing in god and acting religiously as an example of logical behavior, you would've been able to counter me. Well, assuming a premise out of nothing (god exists) and following the consequences to it's conclusions isn't logical - the reason for this is that simply assuming premises doesn't make you a philosopher. The real meat and bones of logic is justifying and proving your initial assumptions the most you can possibly can. Some assumptions like "the world is real and I am not dreaming" are 'necessary' but other more complex assumptions like "people are responsible for their actions" are so complicated and actually falsifiable propositions that assuming them without evidence, and only for the sake of convenience for debate, is on the level of assuming that the Abrahamic deity is real for the pragmatism and commodity of having an easy moral guide in the form of the bible and the church - and many people do that. Some smart people even, confessing quite honestly, that believing in god gives them moral comfort. So what? It's still illogical to assume a premise out of thin air for no necessary purpose.

What you call "exercise self ownership" is just "moving". What you call "logic" is just "thinking". When a lion moves to catch a prey, are you saying the lion is exercising self ownership of his paws? This is a philosophical language that has no meaning in the real world. To live I have to move to get something to eat. That's all you're really saying, and none of this is morally relevant. I don't know why you bring god as an example of how humans are logical given how gods are illogical all the way down. It's instead an example of how humans live illogically perfectly fine. - Life doesn't require you to be honest or confrontational, yet that is what debate asks of you - So when you don't like the rules of debate you can dismiss them, but when you do think they are benefitial to your purposes, then life is a debate again. That is not consistent.

1- There are the rules of nature, in the area of physics, which we call the laws of physics. When I said that the world doesn't have rules I meant that the world doesn't tell you how to live your life in any moralistic sense. There is no stone tablet that tells you how to organize society, the correct way to be a parent, or whether homosexuality is a good thing or not. When you conflate the logic of philosophy with the rules we project onto ourselves in order to have a debate, that's where we find confusion. I don't mean to say that logic can't be derived (I think you meant derived, not deprived) from the world, but that logic isn't a rule. It's only a way of thinking. Incidentally, the consistency of matter is only an effect we experience at this level, but on the quantum level we would not follow the same rules of logic. Matter, at the most fundamental level, isn't "logical" in the way we are familiar with. This means that logic is only a system of thought, not a fundamental aspect of the universe, since the universe has a realm in which logic ceases to accurately explain the universe. 2- By "behaving logically" I mean that in life, whatever we have decided is logical behavior is not relevant to life's purposes. From the most brutally sincere point of view, illogical behavior is how we have evolved and survived for millions of years, and we still continue not being logical beings. Insisting that we must is only an assertion. UPB wants to be logical and judges you accordingly - but only if you believe in the assumptions. Which are not selected logically, but pragmatically. 3- The consistency argument you're making, if I understand it correctly, is this: Matter is consistent. Logic is consistent. We are debating. We must consistently apply the rules of debate when we're not debating in order to be consistent. We must be consistent. Therefore, you must assume the premises of debate when we're not debating, otherwise we're not consistent. My rebuttal is this: If we were playing chess, should we also consistently apply the rules of chess outside of it? If you are so insistent on applying debate rules to the world, why aren't you telling children that Santa Claus isn't real? Why aren't you interrupting Mass at church since they are not being logical? I thought you wanted to be consistent? - the answer: because you also already do not treat life as if it were a debate. - I don't think this has become a waste of time. I can relate to your frustration, but it's been productive for me at least. I wouldn't want to call without ironing out the argument, or having a clever member of the forum making me notice something I didn't. I mean, it's a really basic refutation "Life is not a debate" and it almost seems silly that someone would have overlooked it. I wonder why, if it's so simple, people still insist on it?

1- Here again you are making the same pattern that I am arguing against. The assumptions of property rights are taken for a debate, but aren't necessary outside of it. The concept of self ownership presumes dualism. It presumes there is a you different from your body that owns the body. In reality, outside of those assumptions and from a monist perspective, you are the body itself. If you wanted to say that you own your body because you are the body, you can say that a coffee mug owns itself because it is the coffee mug and nobody can own mugs because they own themselves. A robot with a sufficiently advanced AI would own itself because it can move on its own. Is that a self owned being with property rights too? No, it's a machine. We are nothing but the body, and we can own other things through our actions, but to be anally retentive about an assumption of debate to make it mean the same in the real world is another example of game/life continuum that I talked in the last part - the one you didn't comment about. I wonder why you don't want to even adress it. We can keep debating because I make those assumptions as a requirement for debate, but I don't need to continue making them outside of it. 2- "deprived from human social consensus" - what does that even mean? Aren't the rules of chess a social construct, mutually agreed upon? They evolved through time from earlier versions. If we wanted we could play chess under different rules too. There's someone who invented "Chess 2" with the same board and pieces. Logic is something we assume to be philosophical about life, but life can function perfectly well without logic. There is no demand from life to treat it as if it were a logical debate - still doesn't falsify my argument. I made a clear statement at the end of how you can prove me wrong. All you've done is assert the claim over and over.

This line of thinking, the "actions are assertions of the principles" is not something I concur with. Property rights, self ownership, consistency, these are all descriptions of something only from a particular point of view - but that point of view is one that hasn't been resolved through proof, only assumed initially by choice. One trick you use is to say "well, aren't you moving your body? then you agree with property rights checkmate lol" and that is nonsense. Even Stefan made a video about how the whole concept of "rights" is not philosophically accurate. Nor is it materially evident. It is accurate to say instead that the principles you project onto my actions exist only in your projections, not in my actions. On the debate side, you made two comments "i dont see anythign disconnecting debate from the rest of our lives" and "Do you stop using principles and acting accoring to them outside of debates?" - and well, they're not arguments. In one you express disbelief, and in the other a rhetorical question. It is up to you to make positive claims backed by positive evidence that life and debate are one in the same - and that argument must be exclusive to debate, otherwise I could use it for, say videogame/life continuum where I could claim that the rules of Grand Theft Auto apply in the real world too. As I see it, the projection of principles and the idea of a debate/life continuum are linked together from on tying force: the inability to separate game from reality. We don't live in a world with rules. All the rules are projected from our minds into the world, including the rules of debate. They are only assumptions taken to participate in a mental sport. Tennis is a ball sport. Chess is a board sport. But we don't have tennis/life continuum, or chess/life continuum. Oh boy, you don't get it. I said that this isn't an argument against morality/ethics. It is only an argument against UPB as a system of morality/ethics. I do not invalidate any moral argumentation or ethical behavior in any way whatsoever. You are equating UPB with Morality as if they were one and the same thing. UPB is only one invented way of thinking about ethics, not ethics itself. And I stress the "invented" part because UPB uses initial assumptions that are forcefully chosen without justification outside of a debate - the crux of my argument in the first place. It was not "discovered". In the last part you made the argument that I said people would make, that you have to follow UPB in order to be moral, and I explained how that is a bad argument. "Use my system of ethics or you're immoral according to my system of ethics" is the same thing religions do, and it's sophistry. Also, "have to do" and "should do" are the same thing.

1- I think making a distinction between would we/should we is trivial. The intention of the question remains the same. I'll rewrite it without those two words so that you may understand it better: Why are you demanding me to take the assumptions required for a debate into life at large when it isn't a debate? Debate is a bubble in time, an artificial construct required to elucidate philosophical questions. It's not been shown why those rules have to be applied in a non-debate environment. 2- My definition is the standard definition. I don't want to deviate the subject into that area. I don't know what you are afraid of.

It's not hypocritical to make assumptions for the sake of debate knowing that they are not assumptions required for life, nor are they proven statements to be taken seriously from a scientific point of view. I adressed this.

If you accept the premises, the conclusions follow necessarily. That is the basis of all rational argument. In all UPB debates, the defense side invokes the premises of debate and declares that from the assumptions, the plaintiff must have already accepted the outcome. However, the problem of applicability of the initial assumptions isn't solved. Why would we apply the rules of debate to life at large? Debate is debate, chess is chess, tennis is tennis. If someone wanted to skip ahead in line over the chess rule that whites go before blacks, we'd think he's a little mental. If someone wanted to justify abolishing the state because the rules of debate say so, we'd think he's a philosopher instead. I fully acknowledge that right now I am using the assumptions of UPB for the sake of debate and argument. What I also realize is that I can also live without most of them and do just as well. And you might say "so what, so is the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true" - but no one is saying that you are immoral if you're not scientific. Scienstists don't go into churches to condemn the priests for talking about miracles. I also know that debate is a practice, not a reality. You go into the tennis court, you sit at the chess table, you talk at the debate square. But all those events are on/off bubbles that people turn in order to achieve a goal. If morality is for something, it's not to win a game, but for life. And life is not about truth, nor about winning, or being right, or being objective. The universe couldn't care less about those things. Life has existed without knowing any of those things, and will continue long after humans become extinct. This sounds fatalistic or nihilistic, perhaps, but this isn't an attempt to justify moral nihilism. Nor am I am a moral nihilist, just someone who questions why a moral system must insist on asserting that their rules must be universal when they are particular like the ones for chess or tennis are. If you wanted to live in this world with any sense of rationality, the assumptions: "We both exist" and "The senses have capacity for accuracy" are enough for all living forms. Language has a capacity for meaning is enough to initiate discourse and communication - good for human life. "Correction requires universal preferences" is a bit complicated. I would say it requires mutually agreed preference, as in to say that if you have agreed to debate, you also have agreed to be corrected. Yet in life people most certainly hate being corrected, nor do they want to change their opinions, so here we start seeing the deviation from the assumptions required for living and the ones taken for debating. No one needs corrections in their life, and the history of the world and religions show that sometimes the most succesful lives resist correction against all odds. "An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood" - I think this forces the conclusion since truth and falsehood are already objective claims to begin with. They include objectivity in their essence, so to speak. Maybe it's just meant to be redundant on purpose. Might as well be called "truth and falsehood exist" - but the following assumption "Truth is better than falsehood" doesn't really follow necessarily from any logical conclussion. It is only something agreed for a debate, yet life doesn't need it. I know you don't go around Christmas telling children that Santa doesn't exist because you're not a jerk - but you will insist that I have agreed that Truth Is Better Than Falsehood in this debate and in all the world for all past and future - so I hope next Christmas you start a worldwide campaign against Santa since you also agree that it is False, so you must fight against it. But no, it is just a debate rule in order to declare somebody the winner of it. I wouldn't really hold you accountable for your debate assumption in life because I know life is not a debate. Do you, though? Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes - or the debate is good assumption, since we're debating we must agree that it is good, otherwise we wouldn't do it. But so what? Why must I, in life, choose the best way at all? Maybe I prefer the least complicated one. Would that be wrong? Why? Maybe the best way isn't available and force is. Life is messy like that. "Individuals are responsible for their actions" - isn't that an entire separate moral debate? This is assuming the conclusion of the most important challenge in all of moral philosophy, and here it's just a given assumption because we are debating. The crux is proving that someone is responsible, not assuming it. And for the sake of the debate, sure, I can totally assume you are a responsible being in sentience of your mind - but I don't need to assume that outside of it. There are many degrees of determinism and kinds of determinism that are scientifically valid considerations that the premise of UPB being a scientific approach to ethics looks thin next to them. Even in a perfectly healthy looking person, how do you know his brain isn't hardwired for the decisions and preferences he takes? Or that he or she lacks a neurological structure for self control that others have? Or that even when it looks like self control, they lack a function to begin agressions? Someone would look very righteous and moral, but then they can't even think mordbidly. Would that be a good person if he's incapable of wrong? I don't like bringing even physical determinism since that would involve quantum mechanics and parallel universes, and I know those ideas are kind of unpopular in these debates. But for such a big assumption to make for the sake of debate, the justification of taking that into life at large is missing big time. The only thing done is saying that assuming the rules of debate must somehow imply that they are also rules you must follow at all times everywhere under all circumstances. Why? -Epilogue If you agree with me, then you probably realized that UPB isn't really derived from the observed and experienced requirements for life, but a position wholely assumed through initial preferences that are taken for the sake of forcing the conclusions they demand. In this sense, I would admit that the moral rules of UPB apply only during a debate, but not outside of it since UPB doesn't justify keeping those assumptions in life at large. The night is a jungle, and the assumptions you make about it shape the lenses you use to see the world. In one lense, something is moral. In another, it's immoral. But now what? If you still agree with me, you would say "but which moral system is the right one?" and I have my own thoughts about it, but that's not the point, and it would be for another thread. But if you were driving on a mountain, and I told you that the road you took leads to a precipice - would you stop, or would you tell me that you wouldn't turn back unless I told you what the right way to go is? I don't know for sure, but that's not as important as not falling off the mountain. Like any good scientific/rational proposition, I also include falsifiability. For me to be wrong, I would only need evidence that the assumptions of debate, and UPB, must be taken for life. That they are not optional assumptions, but that they have to be taken at all. If you say that they have to be taken in order to be moral, you are begging the question since you are defining morality through the conclusions of the assumptions, and that's just cheating. That which is moral or immoral changes sides when you switch to other systems, so why is this system necessary to assume in contrast to others?

Having Hillary Clinton as the worst candidate the democratic party has elected in decades doesn't help your case that they will never get a democrat again in the WH because Clinton won't run again. I don't even have hopes that Trump will make it on a 2nd term. Millenials in 4 years will vote 90% democrat, and they are grooming those 14 year olds for total social justice nuttery already in high schools. Demographics change. This was the last time Trump could have won ever.

If every black person in America became a race realist and started looking inwards for their shortcomings instead of blaming everyone else (including the liberal democrats, I'm looking at you Stefan) then that would be a giant step for peaceful relations - but it will never happen. It's important to care 'about that' because having the narrative that everybody is the same and equal and that all differences are due to social oppression do 'undermine the society' as you say. It's a neverending barrage of propaganda being fed to innocent people, white or black, that is highly problematic. Whites feeling guilt and blacks feeling anger. That doesn't happen here in south america where blacks, even if they do commit crimes in larger proportions, are not full of anger and hatred, nor are hispanic colonialists full of hispanic guilt. We also don't have 'american values' that are, let's face it, white people values. That works well for them, but not much for the rest of the world. Actually, it works well for asians and jews too since they are doing better than whites these days. I'm saying that society requires innovation and maintenance. Each generation is a reset from the last one, and birth rates aren't equal. At one point the minorities will out reproduce the high IQ people, and the whole system will implode as low IQ people don't innovate, don't invent, don't create wealth, they just suck resources, vote for more government programs, and want socialism.

Yeah well, that's what people are calling ze ebil colonialism these days. Very unpopular. Also tried before.

Maybe you really didn't have a question and your parents told you the truth.

You can teach violin to a jungle savage, but the savage will never invent a violin. And while an advanced civilization can try to educate, they can't change their biology. What's the point of quoting something said before the human genome was analyzed? Before studies of intelligence heritability showed it is predominantly genetic? Before unquestionably unbiased IQ tests show a constant average difference amongst all races? It's as outdated as talking about a flat earth in the 21st century.

Well, this point of view that you have comes with assumptions and predictions. That even though you can measure the IQ of a Haitian at 65, you can make him perform at the level of a 130 with enough Western Values and Capitalism and Education. That experiment has been tried multiple times, and it has failed. You really can't do it. The difference between an educated low IQ person, and a high IQ person is that the high IQ person can generate, create, and transmit knowledge. The low IQ can only receive it, but it doesn't have the capacity to create knowledge. Hope is an emotional appeal. I've tried passing through walls, and I just have to accept that the laws of physics prevent me from doing it. It doesn't mean it's "hopeless". It's just the way the world is.

"If you ignore all her red flags, then she's really great!" Well no s#!t Sherlock. The point is that if she can't be rational then she's really not special, isn't she? It's a big stereotype to say that women are emotional, and she's dead center on it. And I get that the usual college girl is a slut on the cock carousel, and you found a nice country girl, but that doesn't mean she's incorrigible. The thing you have to realize is that she will always be this way. See the future, 10, 20 years ahead. What will you do after you can't be yourself with her and intimate your true opinions? It will drive you mad.

Sorry to hear about your problems. My guess is that you started becoming aware of the subtle ways women control men after listening to Stef, and unconsciously began to deflect her mind control rays (metaphor) and she became confused and upset that what used to work with you, isn't working anymore. Then she noticed why, and blamed Stefan for your newfound immunity against her mental viruses (metaphor). If she keeps you away from philosophical thinking, you will revert to the easy to herd man she used to know. So it's not about Stefan, it's you who got a little too smart for her own comfort.

Define prejudice first and I will tell you what I believe. Anything else is just an excuse to shout "raayyycisss" like people can't have an objective view. I'm neither white nor jew, and from a third point of view, I see that there are valid complaints. Are there people who also on top of that make fun of jews, sure. That doesn't make the objections invalid. The myth of prejudice is to say that a dislike of a group must be the fault of a lack of thought or reason from the person making the complaint - and that is nothing but liberal drivel. You made the "I'm an individual and I don't complain" when I made an argument about groups. Don't bring anecdotal, individualistic drivel to a battle of collectives. How far are you into human biodiversity? Would you consider yourself a race realist? Have you wondered why Haiti looks like Africa instead of Berlin? The problem with BLM is that it is used a rhetorical weapon to stiffle dialog just as the word racist lost its edge. The moment you start bringing racial issues someone will interject "What, you don't think black lives matter?" and derail everything.

"Dormammu, I've come to make an argument"

1- The Fed was a voluntary act? Are you saying that with a straight face? - On the other institutions, jews have a way of infiltrating them slowly and taking over them. Just because you didn't steal a media company it makes right everything you do after it. Say, like having 24 hour liberal propaganda on every channel. I wonder why Europeans are so eager to become extinct? 2- I don't have any specific examples. It's such a broad point that it might as well mean nothing. You first have to justify having an occupied government by a foreign interest. The null position is that the native people of the country in a republic have self determination. Otherwise you're advocating de facto colonialism. But I guess you're fine with it if it's jewish. When whites do it oh no it's so baaad. 3- Because blacks are wrong in reality, not in your strawman. They blame whites (jews included, since they can't tell them apart) for all their problems. When in reality, blacks are incapable of succeeding in a free market competition with asians, whites, and jews because they are that much more intelligent and civilized. Whites don't say, instead, that jews took their wealth and that they were kangz. Whites say that jews are promoting the multiculturalism and globalism that is destroying their countries and culture. Big difference. Such weak sophistry, tbh. 4- Jews invented and propagated communism. Also, see who runs the central banks in those non jewish socialists countries. 5- What, the British Empire? A colony of the same people is not the same (canada, australia, new zealand, south africa). What kind of asinine objection is that? Well I guess the Indians loved it when white imperialists took over and never protested and asked for their independence. They should just see themselves as incompetent!