Yea. The ISS is artficial and has nothing to do with the universe as the natural environment, because it has its own artificial environment.
Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The “island” culture resists the “ocean” nature as long as possible. So do humans.
Government restricts freedom.
Not always and not necessarily. It can, but doesn’t have to restrict freedom. Freedom for the one is unfreedom for the other one. Governments can make laws for both freedom and unfreedom. It depends on whom they obey.
Liberalism (pro-freedom), by definition, is anti-government.
Anarchy is anti-government. Liberalism (pro-freedom) isn’t always and necessarily anti-government. Laws can be made for freedom and can be made for anti-freedom.
Arminius:@ Serendipper.
Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?
I was talking about the metaphor "‘islands’ in the ‘ocean’ nature“. The ISS, for example, is such an "‘island’ in the ‘ocean’ nature“. This “island” is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).
Yea. The ISS is artficial and has nothing to do with the universe as the natural environment, because it has its own artificial environment.
surreptitious75: Seren:Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone toolsWhatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they wereOf course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The “Island” culture resists the “ocean” nature as long as possible. So do humans.
Exactly.
And this “island” (=> culture) can be so isolated that it is just deadly to connect with the “ocean” (=> nature). Think of the astronauts, the ISS and other “islands”.
[tab]
[/tab] Urwrongx1000:Government restricts freedom.
Not always and not necessarily. It can, but doesn’t have to restrict freedom. Freedom for the one is unfreedom for the other one. Governments can make laws for both freedom and unfreedom. It depends on whom they obey.
Urwrongx1000:Liberalism (pro-freedom), by definition, is anti-government.
Anarchy is anti-government. Liberalism (pro-freedom) isn’t always and necessarily anti-government. Laws can be made for freedom and can be made for anti-freedom.
Yes.
Liberalism may be a precursor for anarchy, but it is not identical with it. Liberalism can even have many rules. Socialism can have merely few rules. It is just a stereotype to say that “liberalism is always against laws and socialism is always for laws”, although this stereotype is often correct, but just not always.
Serendipper:Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal’s meal rather than the richest man on earth.
Serendipper:He is not the richest man on earth.
You’re going to point that out like it matters to the discussion?
Did I or did you ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678184#p2678143 ) mention his name in a discussion where he has nothing to do with?
Serendipper:He has often been the richest man and could be again soon.
In 2008, he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world.
That does not mean that he was or has often been or is the richest man on earth.
Total misdirection and a red herring. You may as well be complaining about a spelling error.
Claim: Warren Buffett rose to the top by natural selection in an artificial environment.
Rebuttal: He is not on top.
Like really? That is your rebuttal?
Does everyone here seize upon trivialities to win debates?
Serendipper:Believe me, I get your point, but I’m arguing that whatever humans do can be considered natural and that the distinction between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.
Serendipper:Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.
When I asked you to believe me, it was my saying that I understand what you are trying to convey, which is asking you to believe a fact about myself on my authority. When you asked me to believe you, you’re asking me to believe a fact about reality on your authority. Quite different.
You did not ask me, and I did not ask you.
There was no question mark at all.
I pointed out a false equivocation and your defense is a lack of question mark?
Serendipper:So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.
Serendipper:But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.
Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?
Have you not read my posts?
After this series of displays, I don’t see a reason to.
Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits (FALSE, the Soviet Union is not an example for all other examples)
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong).
history has shown that your statement is wrong
- You have no proof.
- My definitions do not depend on proof. I conjured them into existence.
So even if you did manage to comb through history and find an example of so-called “communism” that wasn’t real communism as some sort of proof, it wouldn’t mean poop. That leaves you sticking your fingers in your ears screaming “you’re wrong”. So
Seren:Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone toolsWhatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were
Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?
If you came into it, from where did you come?
If you came out of it, how are you not natural?
surreptitious75: Seren:Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone toolsWhatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they wereOf course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The “Island” culture restists the “ocean” nature as long as possible. So do humans.
Same questions to you:
Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?
If you came into it, from where did you come?
If you came out of it, how are you not natural?
Total misdirection and a red herring. You may as well be complaining about a spelling error.
Claim: Warren Buffett rose to the top by natural selection in an artificial environment.
Rebuttal: He is not on top.Like really? That is your rebuttal?
Does everyone here seize upon trivialities to win debates?
You were the first one who mentioned that name here in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678184#p2678143 ).
Also, you have no proof at all for your statement. Mentioning Forbes is no proof.
I pointed out a false equivocation and your defense is a lack of question mark?
My defense? I have posted a lot of posts here. And your problem is that I have mentioned the lack of a question mark?
You pointed out nothing. You were talking about questions that were no questions at all.
If you do not want any discussion in this thread, then just post in another thread. You are always circumventing important statements of other posters and focussing on irrelevances.
So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.
But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.
Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?
[/quote[quote=“Serendipper”]Have you not read my posts?
After this series of displays, I don’t see a reason to.
[/quote]
You don’t see a reason to not have read my posts? What is your first language?
Serendipper:Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits (FALSE, the Soviet Union is not an example for all other examples)
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong).
You said: “Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits” ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).
You said: “Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits” ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).
You said: “Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits” ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).
You said: “Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits” ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).
You really said that ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ). And that is 100% nonsense!
history has shown that your statement is wrong
- You have no proof.
- My definitions do not depend on proof. I conjured them into existence.
So even if you did manage to comb through history and find an example of so-called “communism” that wasn’t real communism as some sort of proof, it wouldn’t mean poop. That leaves you sticking your fingers in your ears screaming “you’re wrong”. So
You are the one who has absolutely no proof and absolutely no idea.
China’s current government as a communistic government does not control 100% of means of production and not keep 100% of profits.
The fascistic governments did not control 100% of means of production and not keep <100% of profits.
The socialistic governments did and do not control 100% of means of production and not keep <100% of profits.
The capitalistic governments do not control 0% of means of production and not keep 0% of profits.
Alf:Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The “Island” culture restists the “ocean” nature as long as possible. So do humans.
Same questions to you:
Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?
If you came into it, from where did you come?
If you came out of it, how are you not natural?
If there is an universe, there can, but doesn’t have to be a planet too.
If there is an ocean, there can, but doesn’t have to be an island too.
Smaller systems have their own rules. Not all, but most of this rules are subordinated to the larger system. The not subordinated rules of the smaller system temporarily circumvent, resist, contradict the rules of its superordinated larger system. That’s evident and can be observed almost everywhere.