Jump to content

SPLIB

Member
  • Content Count

    1,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

207 profile views
  1. 1. Why doesn'r rhis gay site have greenies? 2. Can yu see this post, or am I being shadow banned, like on twitter?
  2. It’s not just Finland experiencing such problems with its socialist policies. Other Nordic countries, also touted by American socialists and communists as the model America should follow, are suffering similar economic burdens directly related to their socialist policies. The Washington Free Beacon continues: Just a few days before Finland’s government collapsed over its inability to foot the bill for its expansive socialist experiment, Sanders took to Twitter in an attempt to shame America. Indeed, Finland has long been a Bernie go-to for the glories of socialism. Last year, he enthusiastically gushed over Finland being the “happiest place in the world” because of all its “free” stuff. With the collapse of Finland’s government over its inability to financially support its massive socialist agenda, Bernie will undoubtedly do the same thing he always does when socialism (or communism) fails: ignore, obfuscate, and deflect. After all, for all his big, shiny promises of “free” everything for everyone, he still refuses to address how this largess will be paid for. When parliamentary governments dissolve - even over financeial matters, - only morons confute that with a financial "collapse." The truth is, Finland is one of the countries carrying Greece and Spain and other failing capitalist states. Finland is still Finland. And now, it's Finland during an election. Here are some facts, dimwit: https://www.naturalnews.com/036893_Finland_currency_crisis_Eurozone.html
  3. It's the best justice oney can buy. FBI is still on the case.
  4. Sorry, dude. There is no adult conversation to be had with scarred children, which is manifestly what faggots are. The very question itself testifies that they are off their rockers and just looking for a fight. They DEMAND we pretend getting on your knees and sucking dick is normal adult behavior. Trying to make sense of nonsense wastes brain cells.
  5. Your puerile insistence that a logical argument is mathematical is where the nonsense enters. The argument is not mathematical. It USES math, and extrapolates from there into the domains of logic of metaphysics. Creating a mathematical formula that proves a mathematical negative, then shouting triumphally, "See? There's no god!" is remeniscent of an ant crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his mind. Your argument is logical and metaphysical, not only mathematical. In the domain of logic, my usage is precise and correct. Proving a square root will always be irrational is not proving a negative in the logical sense of the word. Your own tautology states that numbers continue to come into existence forever - we would have to wait forever for "proof." Did it ever start? Wasn't this just a preening session?
  6. The same can be said of dirivatives. They are still a scam. I smell a naked emperor. That claim is more facile than factual, in both of its aspects. I saw a simpler version of this on Star Trek. In the end, Kirk had sex with an alien. Well, he kissed her on tv, which in the 60s meant sex, in much the same way "fella" meant MFer..Your heart would break if you knew what "pilgrim" meant. John Wayne was a potty mouth. You are welcome to think me beneath the challenge of the material, and I won't argue contrary - but that material simply does not disprove a creator. To prove the negative, one must present all the facts, and no one can. It's also a tad narcissistic. I don't understand what is difficult in my objection. Wittgenstein cautioned agaist affirmative claims. Goedel made such a claim - and worse, a claim to have proven a negative. That is one of the seven classic blunders - not least of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this: Never take the position of proving the negative. When one finds oneself insisting that one has proven a negative, the question one must ask is where one zigged, when one should have zagged. It is axiomatic that one cannot prove a negative. It is equally axiomatic that a fox can be too clever by half. Clever foxes find themselves trapped within tautologies, tickled by technologies, spellbound by their own soliloquys.
  7. But Godel defies Wittgenstein, as do you when you quote his theorum. I could as easily point out that a two dimensional creature's apprehension of a three dimensional phenomenon will only occur in two dimensions - and is therefore no accurate apprehension at all. You are extrapolating from limitations that one must assume to be universal, or the extrapolation falls apart. Wittgenstein gets it right, at least implicitly, because he keeps his mouth shut rather than postulating an unproven negative, as Godel does. The only thing we know is that we don't know - and Godel presumes to know, leveraging his weakness into ersatz prowess. He is - not to strain the adage - a puffed up smidgen of blowfish sh!t (no offense to his adherents). At the end of the day, you have Time's cover from 1966 and Godel's Theorum. Everyone is aware of late that the media are fake news - it's in all the papers. So Time is debunked through association and populist privilege. That only leaves Godel, whose yarmulke had a propeller on top. I am skeptical of your skeptics, sir. You are listening to the angel on the wrong shoulder.
  8. Yes, I misread your objection. Godel's Theorum can imply whatever it wants - a man has as much chance of opining correctly on the nature of life, universe and everything as a spider has of explaining yellow to a sophomore. The notion that all is meat simply does not resonate, and never has.
  9. Whereas the retarded conjobs are ape-trained to parrot hate toward her, I can ASSURE you that she troubles the democrat party leadership far, far, far more than she does these tards. Your party DESPISES liberals. That's why they stole the nomination from bernie and gave it to a died in the wool, proven neocon.
  10. Who siad it hadda be infinite?
  11. I am perplexed that you would think complexity mitigates more against design than it does against chance. Functionality in that face of complexity veritably yells design at the top of its lungs - and speaking of lungs, they seem designed.
  12. The decisions one should make with one's gut are at the level of instinct - "Go! Now!" - that sort of thing. The reason most of us listen to that voice is that those who don't were weeded out. The gut KNOWS, the brain thinks. If you think with your gut, or know with your brain, you're incorrect. The brain's job is to proceed upon assumptions, always open to abandon those assumptions if evidence for that avails. For this reason, the brain never truly "knows." The brain that "knows" is closed. The gut that "thinks" does not exist - thanks, evolution. As to all of this being a function of chance, I generally don't dispute faith based utterances. But I will make an exception, this time: I procede upon the assumption that the earth and consciousness are in fact products of design, though I make no claim of knowledge as to the designer. And I say assumption, rather than suspicion, because I find the evidence of deliberate design rather stronger than what might justify a mere hunch.
  13. It was in Agada Davida, baby. I agree that one does not gain height by shortening others (save relatively), but I defy you to deny that heels can't do the job, if only temporarily. And speaking of things temporal, we must suffer because we are in hell - or at least, hell's waiting room. When our table opens in Bogota, we'll get to Hades proper. Which for some reason brings to mind Splib's First Dictum: The earth is a spinning ball of sh!t, and all is corruption. The earth is designed to make fossils of the things it makes - integrate and exude, integrate again and exude again, using each re-integration to fuel the next diffusion. People observe and insist that "things" are "changing;" but the only proper read of events is that change - the one constant - is endlessly thinging. The earth is DESIGNED to turn everything into sh!t, and then turn sh!t into everything. That is why, when you observe that 90% of books, movies, friendships, restaurants, politics - everything, - is sh!t, this observation should put you at ease, knowing that things are NOT changing. Change is thinging - and thinging, and thinging, and thinging. That is how things you never heard of suddenly become a thing. The earth things them into exitence, and will reintegrate them in its time, as it will us. And that is Splib's First Dictum - a modest attempt by a man of moderate intellect to make sense of the world into which he was born. As to the lunar visitation, I was speaking tongue in cheek. I proclaim ignorance of whether we indeed visited the moon. I know we bombed it. Trusting Bush's manifest intellect and decency, I assume the moon deserved it. But whether we travelled there or staged it, I can only guess, since I did not directly observe it. For that matter, had I directly observed it, I would still be open to the idea that we never went there, since I also directly observed David Copperfield pulling a car out of his ass in a Las Vegas casino. The difference between me and any ordinary witness of good faith is that I know how untrustworthy my best and most rigorous testimony is, and the average sworn witness is deluded to think he apprehends reality. Our tiny brains are utterly beneath the task of living well. This goes as well for the Ashkenazi as it does for the Sub-Saharan African (and I hope you see what I did there). Once one accepts this, one is faced with the irrational option of surrender, or the rational option of reinvesting one's respect in the value of one's gut and heart - those other hosts of the sort of ganglia and neural pathways which by some mechanism give rise to cogitation. Splib's Second Theorum is that the brain thinks - and all of its thoughts are fleeting, because it forever gains new information against which to process previous judgments, which data it then uses to think again - and again, and again. That is why fashions change. That is why consensus reality shifts. That is why new laws are made and old ones struck down. That is why we had legal slavery, and don't. The heart and the gut are more constant than the ever changing, ever chauvinist brain. They are not hyperkinetic.They don't second guess. When the gut (rarely) speaks, it does so authoritatively - often as if life and death are in the balance. When the heart speaks, it speaks with one mind, in terms that not only define the issue, but the self. If a man would know himself, he must cease to think for some time, taming and putting in its place the noisy mind, teaching it to share and to listen. To be alive from the neck up is common. To be alive from the crown down requires integrating our three centers of intellect, such that they interact respectfully and automatically - the heart never taking on math and the brain never denying the gut's command to flee, even in the seeming absence of any detectable threat. When heart. mind and gut are in one accord, a man is ready to be civilized. Until then, you have to use the stick. And those two dictums are my only ones, so I hope you liked them. I spent a lot of time formulating those. My original dictums were, "Whatever makes you puke is bad," and "Women don't fart - all they eat is salad." Neither of those panned out. I hadda use Ipecac to get the cloying odor of my wife's bowel off my palate, destroying two dictums in a single desperate, but educational, purge.
×
×
  • Create New...