Nippon

1. Every human being has a right to self-determination and control over his self and property.

If you don't agree with this, you won't agree with the fundamentals of anarchism.

If you do agree with this, if you want to live in a society that upholds these values, you are already an anarchist inside.

What is anarchy? Anarchy is the lack of state or any other structural system that strips the rights presented in 1. State, government, violates this fundamental moral value by essentially putting a gun against your head and forcing you to pay taxes. State violates your right to self-determination starting from the minute you are born to the world, it steals your property and forces an arbitrary allocation of resources that you rightfully own.

It pretends to pay you back by offering services like security and welfare. But you never asked for these services and if you did want them you could buy them yourself with the money you lost in taxes. Why do we need a government to decide for us how to best spend our income? We don't. Nobody knows what services you need better than you do.

"But who will deal justice if not the state?", you might ask. How does the state determine what is justifiable, how are laws passed? Isn't it so that these laws originate from the people, the moral values held by our society as a whole? It is not the government who decided that stealing or murdering is wrong, it was us. If these moral values originate from ourselves, not the government, wouldn't they be carried out by a society without a government? Once again, why do we need a government to regulate these laws, when laws and justice originate from us as a society? Why do we tolerate theft by the state if we think that stealing is wrong? Why do we tolerate any personal harm from the state, if we believe in the right to self-determination?

My argument is this:

If we, as a society, uphold the moral values presented in 1), there is no moral justification, no legitimacy and indeed no need for the existence of the state or any other structural violence machinery.

@Solo

I haven't scaped for 3 weeks, even though you mention me every weekend. I can't remember the last time MM had HF helping them F2P. You're alone down there, buddy.

1. MM

2. FI

3. FOE

4. TLP

5. EOP+LS

6. CP

7. Z

8. NME

9. IR

Gratz LS

EDIT: Solo, I don't think that anyone needs to point it out anymore. Think MM+HF.

EDIT2: I'm not associated with "elites" as you incorrectly assume, Cronic

Just a thought

We say it is wrong if someone murders a person. If there are 2 murderers committing the deed, do we deem it less wrong for each of those two murderers? No, rather we think it is even worse, because the fact that there were several people involved tells us that the act was planned. How is this different for 3 people, how is it different for a government and the society as a whole? Even if we don't feel personally guilty of the deed (perhaps because we did what we could to stop it, as we should as moral beings*), it should feel no less morally wrong than if we look at the path of thought that led us from one murderer to two murderers. What makes us different from the people living across our national boarder? Do we disagree that they have the same rights to self-determination and personal freedom?

*moral beings refers to the moral right to self-determination and personal freedom

Your sig is giving me epileptic seizures and I'm not even epileptic.

Science is the new religion.

Oh silly me, took me this long to find the actual IQ test in your starting post; how seriously people are willing to take a cross-sectional study that has no description of methodology or the data sets used.

I'm afraid PW didn't do so well on this :mellow:

That looks like a place that would be funkey irl

/int/, the home to all undisputable scientific facts

Can we really prove the existence of consciousness? Consciousness and mental activity is a process. Using EEG we have the ability to measure the electrical activity of this process. Something is there, but what is it? Well, the charge produced that makes these electrical signals are from billions of neurons in your brain. These neurons fire off to produce different thoughts and are different for every person. This is where our current understand stops, we don't know much else. Our brain tells us that we exist (cogito ergo sum) and that consciousness exists, but what scientific proof is there of this?

I take it that with scientific proof you mean empirical evidence? Very little. We haven't reached that stage, perhaps never will.

However, we can prove without doubt(or, as it turns out, with doubt) that consciousness exists, with logic.

We should perhaps start by defining consciousness, but this turns out to be a very complex task. I will simply assume that we share the same intuitive idea on the essential properties of consciousness.

Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. "I" thinks and exists, because if "I" didn't exist, it could not doubt its existence. We don't gain knowledge of the nature of "I", but it has the property of thinking, doubting its existence, which we attribute exclusively consciousness. What results is that what we think of as consciousness must exist. This fact is beyond any scientific proof, unquestionable.

I'll leave this here, but when I have time next week I'll go more into it. Perhaps this is worth another topic.

No.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-Carl Sagan

 

While there is no evidence that human consciousness would, in any form, live past our bodies, there is no evidence to suggest that it doesn't either. What is human consciousness, is it only matter or are there other forms of substance? Science has no answer as of yet, but it is at least entertaining to consider the possibility that there are.

 

Ah, the argument from ignorance. While scientist haven't disproved ghosts, they haven't yet disproved the invisible unicorn in my backyard either.

 

I'm all for entertaining possibilities, but ghosts are just plain nonsense.

 

I doubt you have any knowledge of this unicorn you speak of, but you propably do have knowledge of your existence and the existence of your consciousness. Science doesn't offer a complete, objective view on the origins of consciousness. Some argue it never will nor could. When it comes to consciousness, it isn't all that unreasonable to assume that all possibilities are still open. Even if you reject the idea of any substance other than matter, quantum physics show us that many unexpected things are possible even in the realm of matter. My hand is at the same time attached to my arm and on the other side of the universe. So is every electron to ever exist. Your intuition counts for very little in the world beneath what our eyes can see, the fundamental mechanics of the universe.

 

Your argument is very broad, and leaves the door wide open for my invisible unicorn.

 

Just because we can't prove something doesn't exists, doesn't mean it probably does. The philosophic burden of proof is on the individual making the unfalsifiable claims. In this case, ghosts of the supernatural phenomenon.

 

I never said that ghosts propably exist.

 

pos·si·ble/ˈpäsəbəl/

Adjective:

Able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.

Noun:

A person or thing that has the potential to become or do something.

Synonyms:

feasible - potential - probable - likely - contingent

I don't want to debate the existence of ghosts for exactly the same reasoning that you are using here. I haven't made any argument there except the same one that you used, that the existence or nonexistence of ghosts is an unfalsifiable claim. Consciousness is not. We can verify the existence of consciousness, so its nature, or at least the possibility of having information of its nature, is very much a debatable subject.

But if you're not interested in discussing that, we can end this here, because I have no desire to debate rhetorics.

No.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-Carl Sagan

 

While there is no evidence that human consciousness would, in any form, live past our bodies, there is no evidence to suggest that it doesn't either. What is human consciousness, is it only matter or are there other forms of substance? Science has no answer as of yet, but it is at least entertaining to consider the possibility that there are.

 

Ah, the argument from ignorance. While scientist haven't disproved ghosts, they haven't yet disproved the invisible unicorn in my backyard either.

 

I'm all for entertaining possibilities, but ghosts are just plain nonsense.

 

I doubt you have any knowledge of this unicorn you speak of, but you propably do have knowledge of your existence and the existence of your consciousness. Science doesn't offer a complete, objective view on the origins of consciousness. Some argue it never will nor could. When it comes to consciousness, it isn't all that unreasonable to assume that all possibilities are still open. Even if you reject the idea of any substance other than matter, quantum physics show us that many unexpected things are possible even in the realm of matter. My hand is at the same time attached to my arm and on the other side of the universe. So is every electron to ever exist. Your intuition counts for very little in the world beneath what our eyes can see, the fundamental mechanics of the universe.

 

Your argument is very broad, and leaves the door wide open for my invisible unicorn.

 

Just because we can't prove something doesn't exists, doesn't mean it probably does. The philosophic burden of proof is on the individual making the unfalsifiable claims. In this case, ghosts of the supernatural phenomenon.

I never said that ghosts propably exist.

On a scale from 1-100 I'd say I'm 95% sure ghosts don't exist, at least in the sense they are generally perceived, that is spirits with a human form of a kind.

I'm trying to guide the discussion into a more fruitful direction, to the nature of things that exist, that in fact exist with more precision than anything else; the nature of human consciousness. Because if we're here to discuss ghosts, what else would their essence be than that derived from human consciousness(soul, if you will), one of the most persistent mysteries in the universe? To have a discussion on ghosts we should therefore consider the origins and form of human consciousness. Where does consciousness come from? Does it consist of matter or another substance? Is there matter or another substance? Is consciousness a human-specific feature or can we find it elsewhere in nature?

No.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-Carl Sagan

 

While there is no evidence that human consciousness would, in any form, live past our bodies, there is no evidence to suggest that it doesn't either. What is human consciousness, is it only matter or are there other forms of substance? Science has no answer as of yet, but it is at least entertaining to consider the possibility that there are.

 

Ah, the argument from ignorance. While scientist haven't disproved ghosts, they haven't yet disproved the invisible unicorn in my backyard either.

 

I'm all for entertaining possibilities, but ghosts are just plain nonsense.

I doubt you have any knowledge of this unicorn you speak of, but you propably do have knowledge of your existence and the existence of your consciousness. Science doesn't offer a complete, objective view on the origins of consciousness. Some argue it never will nor could. When it comes to consciousness, it isn't all that unreasonable to assume that all possibilities are still open. Even if you reject the idea of any substance other than matter, quantum physics show us that many unexpected things are possible even in the realm of matter. My hand is at the same time attached to my arm and on the other side of the universe. So is every electron to ever exist. Your intuition counts for very little in the world beneath what our eyes can see, the fundamental mechanics of the universe.

Yet again, you're missing my point. I dissagreed with people thinking it's as addictive as ciggarettes, meth, heroine and such. I didn't dissagree that it isn't addictive at all; infact, it's as addictive as tv/sex/gambling (already mentioned).

 

In my opinion there are 2 sorts of addictivness; one where we can't live without substance/activity, and other one, where we can live normally without it - pot/tv/sex/gambling are those. the first ones are the ones that we basically get depressed, mad, we experience anxiety (spellcheck plz), nausiea, sickness, we're unstable etc (hard drugs and medications) if we stop the usage of them.

 

Everything we do is mostly addictive because we're partly addicted to it in some unique way. I know you're addicted in some way to pot if you stand in snow for 45 minutes waiting for your dealer (been there done that -.-) but that doesn't mean I couldn't live without it.

 

 

i also think more people should be involved in this debate, if i want to talk to nippon in person, i'd rather pm him on irc -.-

Let me quote

saying that pot is addictive is plain stupid, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be addicted to it.

It's not impossible for a heroin addict to quit using heroin either. In terms of addiction I'd say its a matter of degree. In south korea people have died playing starcraft while forgetting to eat and drink. Is that not addiction? You're right in that we can artificially create a division into two kinds of addiction, physical and social/mental one. But in effect, the mental/social one may have as devastating effects as the physical one. [to be continued when sober]

No.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-Carl Sagan

While there is no evidence that human consciousness would, in any form, live past our bodies, there is no evidence to suggest that it doesn't either. What is human consciousness, is it only matter or are there other forms of substance? Science has no answer as of yet, but it is at least entertaining to consider the possibility that there are.

On a scale from 1-100 I'd say I'm 95% sure ghosts don't exist, at least in the sense they are generally perceived, that is spirits with a human form of a kind. A much more likely possibility is that the substance that forms our mind and consciousness continues its existence in some form that interacts with the environment after we leave our bodies.

I believe this was already discussed on Davey's topic.

Nippon going hard as ****

 

and he's right, saying that pot is addictive is plain stupid, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be addicted to it. yes, some people will say they are (proven 1/10 people THINK that they are addicted to it), but if they opened their eyes they'd realise they can function just fine without smoking, that they won't have the after-effects of lowering or stopping the dosage of weed, they won't be depressed (unless they're mentally unstable wich means they shouldn't smoke something that effects your brain in good or bad way, at all; they should visit mental insitution lol).

 

non-smokers tend to think people are addicted, they often ask their smoking friends/relatives "why do you smoke so much/often, but you say you're not addicted to it?" - it's simple, people smoke it becase they enjoy it, because they WANT TO, not because their body or their brain forces them to take it. yes, there are people that smoke just to fit in their society or group of friends, but that's a whole different story.

 

Pot is addictive, I never said it isn't. I'd say that the addictive potential (for me) is somewhere between watching TV and having sex. I can live without pot, I think I could live without sex and I could definitely live without TV, but I tend to consume all of them in moderation.

 

there's more definitions of addiction in my opinion..i'm dissagreeing with people saying pot is as addictive as cocaine, heroine,meth, cigarettes....people saying that pot "addicts" can't live without the herb - they're wrong and i dissagree on that part and that is exactly what i was saying in my reply :)

 

yes, we can all live without pot, without sex and without tv, but if we call all those things addictive, then hey, 99% of stuff we do is addictive in some unique way. wich is true, but i wasn't talking about that.

Let's see what Wikipedia tells us about addiction

Addiction is defined as the continued use of a mood altering substance or behaviour despite adverse consequences. This can include, but is not limited to, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, exercise abuse, and gambling. Some defining characteristics of addiction include: impaired control over subtances/behaviour, preoccupation with substance/behaviour, continued use despite consequences, and denial.

Now, despite the fact that cannabis causes no physical addiction, I have no doubt in my mind that cannabis can be addictive, as can my other example behaviours. By definition, TV is addictive when you watch it too much, sex is addictive when it harms other areas in your life and pot is addictive, at the very least, when your life revolves around it. I've seen real life examples of all these addictions and they are, albeit not as severe as many substance addictions tend to be, very much as real as any substance addictions.

Did you actually make the decision to not use TS the whole trip or were you forced to do so under the circumstances? Gratz on your trip nevertheless.

Nippon going hard as ****

 

and he's right, saying that pot is addictive is plain stupid, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be addicted to it. yes, some people will say they are (proven 1/10 people THINK that they are addicted to it), but if they opened their eyes they'd realise they can function just fine without smoking, that they won't have the after-effects of lowering or stopping the dosage of weed, they won't be depressed (unless they're mentally unstable wich means they shouldn't smoke something that effects your brain in good or bad way, at all; they should visit mental insitution lol).

 

non-smokers tend to think people are addicted, they often ask their smoking friends/relatives "why do you smoke so much/often, but you say you're not addicted to it?" - it's simple, people smoke it becase they enjoy it, because they WANT TO, not because their body or their brain forces them to take it. yes, there are people that smoke just to fit in their society or group of friends, but that's a whole different story.

Pot is addictive, I never said it isn't. I'd say that the addictive potential (for me) is somewhere between watching TV and having sex. I can live without pot, I think I could live without sex and I could definitely live without TV, but I tend to consume all of them in moderation.

Nippon going hard in the debates forum like a champ.

Ya'll need to start posting more, PC debates forum was a lot more active :confused:

pot is addicting

Yes, in the same way as sugar or watching TV is addictive. Anything that feels good is addictive.

i laugh at anybody who tells me otherwise and will proceed to destroy them with my knowledge in this subject. Pot is addicting. Technically, you can overdose on pot but its a ridiculous amount that it's physically impossible to smoke all of that amount in 15 min span. Also, pot is damaging to your brain, contrary to popular opinion.

Nice evidence. Pot does not damage your brain. While some studies show a correlation between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms, there is no evidence of the causal relationship.

Pot does not cause lung cancer but does decrease lung capacity simply because you are inhaling burning substances which damage the cells of the lungs.

Which is why eating or vaporizing should be encouraged. First we have to get rid of all the gibberish propaganda.

Pot affects your memory.;

Show me a study that shows long term negative effects of cannabis use on memory. I'll save you the trouble, there aren't any. What most studies indicate is that both acute and chronic cannabis use have effects on your memory, but that these effects will gradually cease to exist some time after stopping the use of cannabis. Furthermore, chronic cannabis users show better results in motoric/memory tests than short-time users, indicating a way for the brain to compensate for dysfunctional neural pathways associated with the cronic use of cannabis.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3226/

http://www.psy-journal.com/article/S0165-1...0290-4/abstract

Substancial pot use over a long span of time can affect your moods greatly. So this does not mean pot is some consequence free drug that you should smoke everyday.

Yes, but when you quit smoking the effects aren't permanent, except for the possible effects that heavy smoking might've had to your life.

Hmm, anybody want to try to dispute any of the points Ive stated?

I believe I did.

everything goes black and you cease to exist

1. MM

2. FI

3. FOE

4. TLP

5. CP

6. NME

7. IR

8. EOP - Out of top 5 again after all these years. I wonder if their actions are affecting their gameplay.

Was great fun I missed having long fights like that. B)

 

Also LS+NIP+HF were at the fight towards the end killing both clans.

That's a lie. I didn't scape yesterday.

GJ FI.

 

 

 

Eruption of Pures vs Nippon

 

Not really worth calling it a fight considering we 1 banged pretty much their entire team in the space of 20 seconds, but meh was some nice rune loot for those involved

Idk what you're on. I spent my saturday in my bedroom with a lovely brunette. Lol runescape.