barn

Hi @Wuzzums Please don’t take it as an offence when I say from my perspective the way you described your annoyance in a passive aggressive way is hilarious and entertaining. Almost to the point of good comedy-mockery, you've got a witty delivery for sure. I can see your points being in the debate, on the overall however I disagree. (maybe those things didn't bother you as much. They did crank me up more, regardless the debate being taxing at times but reeeeally instructive for insights into hard-core determinism.) Is it true that Stefan Molyneux praised the caller quite a few times too? (more specifically where 'caloric investment - brain...') Did the caller act in the debate, throughout, with intellectual integrity, honesty? Would you say that the caller updated his principles when a superior argument was presented? Would you say that the caller was trying to understand and follow Stefan Molyneux's argumentation just as much (or close to it) as he did with the caller's? Respectfully, Barnsley

146. Paolo Nutini - Iron Sky (Abbey Road live) 147. Xtc - Dear God post script (Imperfect, 'tis true)

Hi @Loz I think you'll find this interview highly correlated with your area of focus. It is the talk between Jordan B Peterson & Dr. Jonathan Haidt, hopefully this link'll take you there.

I'm glad it did, good for you. The more reason, you could consider expanding your knowledge of the real character, the person behind those ideas. Oh, and his MLM efforts too. If you were interested, of course.

Sorry to break it to you (risk associated with being a messenger)... ROBERT KIYOSAKI IS A SCAMMER... For your and others' sake, I highly recommend that you read up on his failures and miss-representations.

144. Fenomenon - Sleepy Meadows of Buxton (instr.) 145. The Mathew Herbert Big Band - Turning Pages

Well, I hope you find your answers. Have a good one! Barnsley

Sure. Have a good one! Barnsley

Currently, I'm open to several ways of communication: - another thread - pm / email - even smoke signals but I would advise against it as it not just credits the AGW movement but is gonna make me smell bad. ... I defer to you on this one.

No, thank you. I preferred that you answered all. Naturally, you don't have to.

Hello, That's possible. I think it is very useful. I encourage you to consider re-examining yours in order for a more accurate perception of reality. Because if I thought existence for concepts and physical objects was exactly the same... you, know. Not good. Oh, sure. I didn't say things don't exist. Or that I don't think of the word 'flock' when watching many birds joyfully scouting for a new place to gather... Say, I pointed at the ground with two sticks on top of each other. Is it a true statement to say : That’s a 'T'? (In Chinese it definitely isn't ) Maybe, soon you'll see too what I had tried to explain.

Hi Jsbrads, I agree, ... perhaps I should say there's absolutely no expectations or push from me (I don't intend to, if I do/did please let me know so I can review what I said/say) , also I can imagine how it might seem a whole bunch of composite things for you. I think, it's OK to see it as such,it can happen. Gotcha. I see no reason not to do so. In case you were interested (in the future, maybe, one day, if preferred) to discussing why I have my cognitive 'dissonance-y' sense tingling about how you describe your communicative ability, feel free to bring it up, enabling a conversation on it, eventually. I had thought it would benefit you doing so, perhaps I was wrong. Sure, no probs.

Hi thinkers and alike, (intentional, making a point = a "pinot") Deos the from dmelosih the viladity of na agrmunet, sohlud we in any csae dsiacrd the cnotnet's turth vlaeue ecnaesd wtihin if ohtreiswe the raesnonig is suond, lgoiacl? When does (if at all) the form matter? Can then any truth value change if the form it's presented in is changed? Or, is it just the perception of the truth-value that changes? Barnsley p.s. (personally I do not think, believe, see it being possible but only useful in some cases, and yes to the perception part)

Hi there, A Warm Welcome! Similar, perhaps. Very similar. A flock of bird doesn't exist neither, doesn't mean you can't see flocks of birds flying together. Numbers don't exist neither (in the same as a binocular does) but that doesn't mean their concept isn't useful when you want to compare sizes of bird groupings flying together. Government doesn't exist neither, though there are buildings claimed to be owned by it, laws created by the people who believe it's real... and so on.

Hi @SteveSmith Perhaps I'm not understanding you properly, could you elaborate?... When you say(after having quoted my entire post), a. Does that mean that you assumed, I didn't see any value in any of his ideas? b. What ideas of his do you like? Why? How are those ideas verified, do you think? c. Would you agree with what I have written about the major distinction regarding Anarchy? Also, d. Is it an accurate statement to say that what you are saying is a circular argument, self-justifying, doesn't provide a proof for the validity of the statement? Something like, (I'll be butchering your quote but with good intentions, for illustrative purposes only, hope you don't mind that. ) "I don't think, the existence of international flights has much to do with aviation or the needs of people to travel long distances in a short period of time. It's mostly a product of entrepreneurial efforts which helps us have access to more travel options with less money. Thus, advance in entrepreneurial efforts is increase in abundance of services, since we can have more international flights with less money!" Do you see, what I see? (i.e. - running is healthy, those who wish to be healthy should run.) e. Can circular arguments be proof of concepts, not self-serving by themselves? Barnsley p.s. Just for funsies, though many times my experience has been regarding Peter Joseph's explanation...

Think about riding a bicycle. Didn’t we learn to perform the individual steps, then meshing them together appropriately, leading up to finally pedalling around joyfully, not falling off? But the proof of concept goes even further, in social settings we could pass on this knowledge to those who needed it, unless we choose to not do so. Ramifications (each speaks of parenting): Those who’d never heard of bicycles will have a hard time grasping the description of how 'cycling' is achieved, feels...etc. Learning to do it on our own…even more illustrative... Having a highly experienced instructor vs. a saboteur. Living in a place where bicycles and roads for riding are abundant vs. in the mountains(no need,can’t) or low-tech civilization… Australian aboriginals (hard to implement, missing technological links). Compare what the first bicycles consisted of vs. today’s nano-carbon-electric-razor-coffee making rides with a ‘fluxus condensator’. p.s. (on a reality based note, not addressed to only you - if you don't, use a helmet when riding a bicycle and indicate before turning, please. Pretty please. )

142. Zero 7 - Futures 143. Butti 49 - Spiritual Rotations

Oh, sure. I'm among the first who enjoys a good DM twisting the plot, really allowing for the players to put to the ultimate test their grasp on what their character stands for in the given world, aiming to overgo the perceived boundaries for the unknown, in many cases directly inviting the risky and memorable... de-fi-ni-te-lly. I genuinely like the idea of a philosophical contemplation incorporated into risk-reward systems (if I'm properly grasping your proposed route), allowing for a deeper understanding of the lore, encouraging for a greater responsibility taking, more pronounced consequences (... I guess, that's where it'll lead to, ultimately. UPB in my perception tends to bring about something similar to the effects of Karma), less rinse-repeat, more 'what that'd mean, perhaps...' elements. Fantastic. I haven't said, should've... I like what you are (again, if I'm properly grasping it) setting out to work towards, here, in this thread specifically. (which is just my opinion, not an argument... hahaha) I guess, where I was coming from, was: a. inertia is of an essence in action (in-game), really important to facilitate immersion with a good flow (doesn't mean action heavy per se, instead a balanced story telling, players doing their thing 'enough' with sufficient 'time' for both. ) Therefore, a non-strangling adaptation of morals, somewhat streamlined assessment approach is more preferable to avoid getting bogged down in the menial. General rule of thumb, as I'm sure you'd agree, you'll always have people impatiently/in excitement waiting for 'their say'. So what, 'part-and-parcel', that's on the wayside. It's the long term where the system has to blend in, not adding +hrs into an already long game (some stories can last for months... and I'm being conservative ) b. You'll absolutely and for certain will need players who are more open minded to better able to implement morals, in general. It's possible to have players who don't give a dam about things like... um... what's right?... consequences?... (a certain Barbarian cast floats to mind...) what about those people? How will they be able to blend in with the more philosophical minded? Will they have to be sheperd, are they going to be a risk factor such as a posessed priest enacting its heiress's will? How's extra experience going to present a greater incentive than let's say a liquid magical armor for a thief, or following the path the guild expects the character to thread, if not risking exile? Xp isn't enough of an incentive imho. c. Isn't UPB already present in RPG, just as unexpected alternatives characters decide to contemplate as they get to know their limitations? Also, being in a party requires you to be considerate of the others, unless you have a death wish or don't mind your companions forgetting about your unique vulnerability before allocating their mps deploying defense barriers (ops, you just got revealed as the cloaking field isn't strong enough, extending out far enough and your companions chose to run, rather than take up the fight with the horde... I guess, karma's a b&tch for you today... would that be an appropriate way to pay-off absent mindedness in regards to UPB? I think so, but perhaps I'm too harsh... dunno)

140. Adam Hurst - Remaining 141. Tom Middleton - Return to Atlantis <bonus*, light stuff> Reggie Watts - Fuck Shit Stack Reggie Watts - Radiohead parody +do watch his poptech performance (naturally)

Double sorry for bringing this up, it's a question I have... Wouldn't the more UPB being implemented in D&D, the more 'Mickey' s being taken out'? i.e. Doom (vid. game) with peaceful conflict resolution, full UPB mode (?) : not one bullet fired, not once the knife being drawn, no 'stampy-stamp' on heads...

Hi thinkers and alike, So, after having seen the analysis and the video Freedomainradio has put out... I would like to add a few things. We all (might) remember vaguely how it all started and contrasting it with what is... For an even greater perspective, perhaps some might want to check the rather fitting video (also because it's layered)... Finally, for those who have not yet 'de-goolag'ed themselves, if desired... This is the easy part. Hope that helps. Barnsley p.s. (what happened to scroogle might happen to all and every service, ... unless it's supervised by government and joined corporate interests, as free competition is ONLY natural in the free-market.)

H.A.W. / 12. The Prodigy - Funky Shit

Hi there @JuliaS, (Not Canadian myself, sorry.) You could try meetup. com, if there's none maybe start one yourself. (face to face is much easier to see people for who they really are) Also, check out discord (voice) chats... though, don't know the name it's under... maybe someone will kindly drop a link here. (searching the forums might give you more info too) Barnsley

138. Kodo - "O-Daiko" 139. Steven Halpern - Dawn /still, it is... Just before, when darkness starts to break.../

Hello, This isn't an issue, but more of an observation that could potentially (and temporarily) be misleading to newcomers. I had noticed that when a member's nick is changed, it doesn't affect previous quotes, leaving the previous name in place while the link still leads to the newly chosen nick, the same account. Barnsley