Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of Mayor Maximus
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mayor Maximus

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
The Polling Pit / Re: Are baths gay?
« on: January 20, 2009, 01:41:58 PM »
i like bathshowers

2
The Polling Pit / Re: Assassination
« on: September 13, 2008, 10:30:14 PM »
Yes, but only because I would like to be warned in the event of my own assassination attempt.

3
I am not advocating for the use of "fluff" language.  What I am saying is that a word is simply a bunch of letters that are put together to represent something in the real world so that other people that you want to communicate to can receive your message. 
So you hold your ground or go to battle against a popular "misconception" of a word's meaning and when you are done and that person finally understands what you mean, theeeeeen you have to begin the persuasion process.

It just sounds like a lot of trouble to go through every time you have that conversation... just to save a word

4
Very much agreed.  I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds.  The same should be said for the word "god".  Let that dirty old word die.

It's different though. Not believing in God is a much bigger bad than not believing in gooberment. Don't forget for one second that Ian is a propagandist and a pitch man for whatever "ism" he's selling. (Currently Free Marketeerism)

It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.

I do assume that he's using the pantheist deal to simply not be an ATHEIST due to the public negative opinion of said word. I've never been a fan of using soft language, and would much rather be as "in your face" as possible when it comes to vernacular. I don't say that I am a voluntaryist instead of an ANARCHO-CAPITALIST, just the same as I don't pussy out and call myself an agnostic (which these days has come to mean I'm an atheist but I don't want to fight with you*) instead of an ATHEIST.

If people see you as a good human being, it changes the perceptions of these words.  Running away from it doesn't interest me.

The FSP project people are jesus freaks?  Well maybe I won't be moving then...
Why the affinity for a word?  It's only a word and that is the nature of language; it evolves and words' meanings change.  Any attempt to try and salvage them is just as dumb as trying to save a political party.

I am pretty certain that he does believe the LoA thing.  Still not certain how this ties to Pantheism or if its the same thing or completely unrelated.

5

Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role.  Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction.  You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.

No one has suggested abdicating responsibility.  Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.

I still don't understand why you choose to use the word "god" when describing such beliefs.  Given the typical use of the word, and what it stands to mean to the majority of the population, I find it bewildering that you would attach it to yourself in any way. Albert Einstein often use the word "god" to mean the laws of nature and now many years later it is used by religious folk to as "evidence" to back up their creationist garbage. See Einstein believed in god, see see!

I don't mean this to be confrontational, I simply don't understand and would like to know your thought process behind it. If you would further explain what it is that you actually believe, maybe this thread could die with everyone's acceptance.
Very much agreed.  I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds.  The same should be said for the word "god".  Let that dirty old word die.

6
General / Re: LHC GO BOOM?
« on: September 11, 2008, 04:41:40 AM »
More importantly than the LHC experiments, we've finally gotten proof...


People who do actual work with their computers run Linux, and they think KDE 4 sucks enough to avoid using it.

What is considered 'actual work' on computers?

7
The Polling Pit / Re: Poll for white males
« on: September 10, 2008, 09:53:03 PM »
Race is not real.

Of course not.  Everybody knows that.  If people were physically different it would show up in scientific tests, DNA analysis, and there would be diseases specific to different ethnic backgrounds.   

I am glad we agree.

... Blah blah mehh!! im a little wiener pffffffffffffft pfffft

Really? That's quite an interesting and entertaining contribution to the thread.

I'm not sure Havoc, but Brasky might be making fun of you since the scientific things he mentions proves that race things can be isolated using certain technologies and studies. *shrugs*

Yea.. Or it might be that I'm an anthropologist and I'm pretty aware of the different aspects of the variation of our species.

Variation = Race.  Theres really no arguing that deviations of migration led to certain populaces acquiring traits from breeding, food sources, and disease where others weren't exposed to the same conditions.  While it may be noble to overlook such things and advance the argument these are minor evolutionary gene-based mutations in the larger aspect of the Human race, its a counterproductive argument on modern social terms, which is where this debate exists. 

Ironically, it could probably be successfully argued the most advanced of the species has the smallest migratory footprint, although that would tend to illuminate physical prowess versus mental creativity displayed by the desire to investigate and discover distant lands, spurned by an unwillingness to tolerate harsh environs.  LOL.  This is fun. 

First, I'd like to point out that this is very fun and probably the underlying reason why I first said race is not real.  

Race is a completely arbitrary human construct.  You cannot identify different "races" of people individually unless they carry many of the attributes of that socially encapsulated concept.  The problem is, as always, when you reach a gray area where a person has some of one encapsulated concept but not all or an assortment of many.  To iron these out we arbitrarily place lines along groups to identify them.  Those who carry a gene coding similar to their lineage of a certain area or environment are typically similar to one another, so they get placed in the same imposed grouping.  (Whether they feel they identify with this is irrelevant to our conversation).  One might call this "race", but this is only because that is the word someone has made up to classified people.

8
The Polling Pit / Re: Poll for white males
« on: September 10, 2008, 02:02:14 AM »
Race is not real.

Of course not.  Everybody knows that.  If people were physically different it would show up in scientific tests, DNA analysis, and there would be diseases specific to different ethnic backgrounds.   

I am glad we agree.

... Blah blah mehh!! im a little wiener pffffffffffffft pfffft

Really? That's quite an interesting and entertaining contribution to the thread.

I'm not sure Havoc, but Brasky might be making fun of you since the scientific things he mentions proves that race things can be isolated using certain technologies and studies. *shrugs*

Yea.. Or it might be that I'm an anthropologist and I'm pretty aware of the different aspects of the variation of our species.

9
The Polling Pit / Re: Poll for white males
« on: September 10, 2008, 01:15:13 AM »
Race is not real.

Of course not.  Everybody knows that.  If people were physically different it would show up in scientific tests, DNA analysis, and there would be diseases specific to different ethnic backgrounds.   

I am glad we agree.

... Blah blah mehh!! im a little wiener pffffffffffffft pfffft

Really? That's quite an interesting and entertaining contribution to the thread.

10
The Polling Pit / Re: Poll for white males
« on: September 09, 2008, 09:32:00 PM »
Race is not real.

Of course not.  Everybody knows that.  If people were physically different it would show up in scientific tests, DNA analysis, and there would be diseases specific to different ethnic backgrounds.   

I am glad we agree.

11
I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question.  In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans?  And what then exactly would constitute a decision? 

Probability can be measured as a wave of potentials. If I flip a coin onto my palm and cover it with my hand, the coin is on BOTH heads and tails at the same time (and one or the other, and neither!). All of these potentials can all be mapped as a wave. When I actually observe which side of the coin is facing up I collapse the wave function, and it becomes definite.

I don't know if other beings create different parallel universes because I was never anything but human. Decisions go on forever, because you make a decision to make a decision, and so on.

What is a 'decision'? Does it have to be a conscious thought or would these universes also be created (we can get to this one in a bit) by actions completed by memory or which are otherwise involuntary mechanisms within your body?

12
The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.

Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes? Theoretical physicists have the notion that every time you make a decision you create a parallel universe, one where the decision went to either reality. You would have a universe for every possible decision that can be made. There could even exist a universe where the South won the civil war.

If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.

I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question.  In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans?  And what then exactly would constitute a decision? 

13
The Polling Pit / Re: Poll for white males
« on: September 08, 2008, 03:22:04 AM »
Race is not real.

14

This can of worms has been opened a million times.  Religion is the absolute worst thing you can mix into government.  It tramples rights, instills fear, causes racism, stirs up anger, draws lines, and allows a candidate to shelter himself behind flimsy excuses. 

here here!  Religion is a socially driven form of exclusionary government.  It like a belief club that tells you what to think. 

So this is my new understanding of Pantheism and I'd like to know if I'm on the right page with Pantheists' general ideas.

Pantheism is just a way of semi-explaining that one does not believe in the traditional idea that most people attribute the word "God", and instead uses that name to identify the nameless 'order' that the completely interwoven universe is or may be following. 

15
Well i guess we aren't all as smart and talented as you.  Stop being a pompous ass for no reason.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 30 queries.