Youtube comments of Hakan Karaağaç (@TheReaper569).
-
4300
-
3100
-
2800
-
961
-
845
-
577
-
534
-
478
-
468
-
404
-
403
-
402
-
378
-
378
-
354
-
352
-
347
-
346
-
276
-
208
-
153
-
153
-
151
-
141
-
135
-
130
-
122
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
116
-
106
-
105
-
103
-
101
-
100
-
89
-
88
-
81
-
79
-
75
-
66
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
50
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Tim diversity in protocol is a bad thing. İf it happens spontoniously, sure but if its desired it requires social engineering to bring that desired outcome, WHICH IS BAD.
Tim equity is not a good thing., people arent equal, in start, in physiology and psychology.
Tim progressive tax is not a good thing, just because rich people have more money after subsistence, doesnt mean taxing them wouldnt ruin the incentive to create more wealth. The way is to let them do it.
Tim.. capitalism going out of control, is a myth. There are no group of people actually trying to gain control in free sociaty, that is what happens in statism. Capitalism is not a system, it is an interpitation of life.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@prashanthb6521 things are not as simple as you understand form a wall of text in a white screen. Obviously reading a comment leads to assumption that people know less than they actualy do. Give the benefit of the doubt.
" There are well documented historical accounts of India's economic might"
-i didnt say india was economically poor, it was simply in efficient in comparison to industry, that is was traditional hand craft. And that tradition dates back hundreds of years so no wonder people got good at it, thus explaining the quality of indian silk and wool, while i previously explained the quantity part.
"And you dont know this....according to geopolitics...every developed society falls prey to invading barbarians. Because the natives become complacent. This is a repeating pattern everywhere."
-This pattern was described by an islamic historian whose name i forgot but his book got a showcase right in this channel, i knew it before i met here so when your basis of knowledge is a series of youtube videos dont make assumptions, you look stupid. As to the idea, i m not certain that historical patterns if there is any can be degenerated to win and conquer, live rich and wealthy due to wealth gained, get decadent and degenerate in rich life and get conquered by someone else. Im sure history is a bit more complicated than what a medieval historian thought it to be, that its more than strong man create good times lines of thinking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
HarrisL2 one is a harsh truth, other is a wishfull thinking uplifting scenario? life after death? why would atheists deny that?
i wouldnt mean to insult normaly but only the stupidest of people defened their belief like this, and i did see quite good defenses.
My friend said emma watson will your girlfriend right at january 1 2015. nice thing to have? yes. does it make it true? no.
Defending an idea becouse it sounds better is one of the dumbest things that can be said.and i am sorry here but i just cant run skip fear what keeps you believing in. this is the second dumbest thing that can be said, and you said it. its nice? i belive its true without good reason. opposite is bad? i belive its true becouse i am afraid.
I will be forgiving a bit and take a stop in bashing your head with your own words, and say: Well atheism sucks.. it does .. its a lose lose scenario. you are right, you meet non existance, you are wrong, you meet eternal fire. However if every person would be as easy as to maniplate as you are with simple offering of gifts with no real evidence that will happen, and the aweful eternal punishment becouse you are one of the gods superior creations from all other mindless sheeps that follow unconditionaliy and have the capability of thinking, doubting, being sceptiacal.
I do admire your avaliablity for open minded reasoning to understand evolution. and i will not attack you on choosing to belive ,god might have a hand in our life as we have quite a lot of "luck" as planets position and process of evolution, after all the same "its just too many lucky scenarios one after other. i cant just accept that" idea was in my head when i belived in superstitious beliefs. but rejecting a god is simple; yes you have a lot of unanswered questions. gues what you had a lot more unanswered questions in the past now science has answered them, no one is taking the praise in them but instead hold on to the yet unanswered ones. when those are also answered religion will switch to a new question. How ever where will you jump to grasp when there are no more questions left that would involve possbility of a god?
2
-
i really have big doubts about infinite univese.. the common talk about physics ruined the meaning of the word infinite anyway, now anyone can use at as the meaning of really big... really big then is the universe? yes.. infinite in the true sense of the word? i have strong doubts.. about the expantion.. you are thinking that if the universe in infinite therefore no imaginable borders, how can it expand? this is very due to limit of your imagination.. space doesnt really have to expand into anything bigger, it can expand into itself. chew a gum for example. take it out, make it a disk, hold it at its outher edges and press it in the middle, if you can do it right, you will see outer parts stays the same while the inner part gets thinner, meaning it expands. but i find it very doubtfull the universe is infinite, so according to my opinion, a better example can be a balooon, as it expands when you blow air in it. it expands, things get farther away and it gets thiner.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@otomackena7610 This is really strange because then we are in agreement. They did try to expand their colonial holdings in india but failed and english succeeded. Dont make that follow with " dont make up stuff" because no one did. Yes indian economy was "good" even in ancient times, however as there was no unifying body there was no manifestation of that economic power. Same thing with a twist can be said about china, china was doing quite good, but they also succeeded to unify china in one kingdom, in the 15-16 centuries their economy would rival europe combined as well, it is then denegrated that china being a colony or vassal in practical terms destroyed it as the same argument "drain theory" is made for india, i dont buy that its that simple. In china's case the emperor fearing a rise of a faction that he is not allied with, the merchants just banned all out bound international sea trade and exploration where as prior they would have massive fleets of 300 ships and explore africa, east indies, india, japan, sibiria, madagascar.
So i think there was a failure on the part of india as well when that great economy was in the same age as that there was nothing but celtic and britonic tribes in the UK, centuries later it was the oppossite. Tribes were warring for dominance while British empire was on the steps of world domination. I see the same with other nations that were colonised as well. They failed themselves way before any european came to them. As the saying goes a great nation cannot be conquered from outside until it is conquered within.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
hello, i am turkish its fascinating that you invented a whole saying for it in language. We call it devşirme. You "devşir" foreign children to make an elite force. Some of the children even rose to highest political and military offices in ottoman beurocracy by the way. Ibrahim pasha, the right hand man and childhood friend of suleiman the magnificant the lawgiver, was a devşirme. He wasnt turkish and he had so much influence , he was basicly everything you can be in the state except sultann, because that would require you to be in family. its recorded that suleiman said to him " you are in highest position of our empire, the next step is being an ottoman (family dynasty)"
Sultan had him killed fearing that his influence growing too much and that his mistress "hürrem sultan" constantly telling him ibrahim plots againts him.
Hürrem sultan was really a legendary woman btw, she basicly ruled the inner palace politics. if you wanted a problem solved, or anyone appointed, you will see her, she will see sultan and its done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
scottyy888 if you could stop adding your plhlopsopy to science as the source , it would be great. today we know 4 fundamental forces in nature, gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces. at the instance of the big bang our tool break down, since natural laws started behaving properly by 10^-9 seconds to big bang, before that, its fully quantum mechanics, to get a better understanding for that and to prove "nope, there isnt any god here either, just like 99999 things we proved where before it was thought to be god. when will you learn?" we need a unified theory for relativity and quantum mechanics.
--to Anotino here, we actualy know how earth , the sun started rotating pretty much everything else, its simple phsics, gravity coues things to fall toward the center of mass, how ever everything doesnt just start faling 90 degree angle, instead all materials affected by gravity tend to form a disk that is a bit 2D ish. watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM watch this for more info
1
-
1
-
Antonio Tunjic your beliefs doesnt matter here, we know dark matter exists, we know its helping gravity a big deal (gravity alone doesnt have enough power to keep the galaxies together, we have observed dark matter as its affects on lights paths being bent,so it there, deal with that) and we know it takes a big chunk in the universe as volume, there will be a better explanation, dark matter is the answer, we just dont know what it is , what are its compounds, in fact we know nothing about dark matter and dark energy, other then they exist,(observerable) in time we could even change their name, since they are called dark becouse scientists like to call things dark when they dont know about them. Gravity comes from mass thats all that is, (that alone doesnt seem right.. what?) the further you go to the question the further you walk out of science, just know that, why are we alive? why is the universe is there? why is gravity there? these are questions that hold no value to science, they fall to phlipsophy and i prefer you keep it out of science.to science, some things are just there. for the last question, the sun before it was there, doesnt mean there was nothing, we know there were gas clouds ,remnants of stars died long before called nebulas, gas and dust means particules, of course it isnt in complete entropy so some particules can be bigger then others (like when you grap a chunk of dirst and see small sand and bigger rocks) bigger chunks had more mass its so tiny but enough to bring down smaller particules close by, as they get closer bigger mass is generated, and they are attracted to other bigger mass clusters, in time they all merge in the form of a proto planetary disk, and appereantly you know the rest.
1
-
scottyy888 motion happens rules demand them to be, as a rock tilted over the edge, laws of physics will make that rock fall, or laws of chemistery, provided the right conditions and 2 elements can be combined into a molecule. i dont see how this is the result of an intelligence, if so , pretty pathetic one to be a supperior intelligence and eternal being actualy giving a damn about all these. even if thats not the point claming that these are the results of an external intelligence falls to your philopsophical thinking, (a remakrable piece of illogic is required to think this way) there isnt any science in it. keep it out of science." (and in fact the source also has to be eternal otherwise nothing would exist right now. Non-existence cannot make existence, but that's another subject.)" this whole part is entire wrong. according to this theory what we call pottential energy doesnt exist. (would be a laughable example of logic) not everything requires an external push, just like entropy and just becouse a question is valid to grammar doesnt mean its valid to science,why are you alive,what is your purpose and lifes purpose, why is gravity there..? there is nothing scientific in these, also we never said it came from nothing or non existence, its just false interpitation of religious peoples way of mocking atheism becouse showing the intellect and admitting that it is unknown. we are going to get that answer though, its going to be very fun to bash people with that.if you need one more thing that proves you wrong on it; newstons laws of motion applies to modern physics and "mostly" to the standart model however modern physics has little no to aplication in quantum physics. thing happen and are unpredictiable (for now maybe) particules often bypass physics and dissappear from somewhere and appear out of nowhere. until we have more legimate answers, "we dont know ,but we are working on it" cliche answer aplies for everything, while we are at it, here is a list of things people always claimed that was the result of an higher intelligence and was strongly proven otherwise by science, and its god damn long list. (although people cant deal with that and go to state of deniel for some examples) historical evidence says it is very likely that religion will fail again in todays claims. why show the arrogance of thinking a higher intelligence has any buissness with such lowly inferior beings. let alone showing the illogic that, its very likely to be proven otherwise but ill just make faith propoganda and a wittsy fashion hoping people will fall for the joke that it is science.
get it allready? stubbornness only humiliates its owner,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
scottyy888 here are some answers, may not be the full answers yu are lookng for ,largely becouse hugely unknown, or i just dont have an opinion on the topc;
1: our tools break down at the instance of the big bang, we can safely gather data to that instance, we know anti matter had a huge rule to firstly destabilize the universe while it was just so tiny) so we dont know yet about the universe before big bang , the big crunch/big bounce theory states that the universe went trough a big crunch allready many times before. but im not really fond of that theroy so , we dont know, i dont have an opinion
2:as mentioned before, antimatter and matter both were together, i think first ant matter -matter collusion startred it, (opinion, not knowledge, becouse question needs knowledge about the instance of bigbang and before)
3:i did stated that i dont belive nothing came to being by nothing happening to nothing, as almost all atheists, we know the universe being so small and containing everything in the universe we se today, and everything we are not seeing( unstable quark cominations to hadrons, a lot of antimatter and so on ) i dont tihnk its posible to have nothing existing at one point, also i have no knowledge prior to big bang same as everyone, i never realy liked the idea that something can be eternal,even if relative age and its state before a certain event is largely unknown, never really so fond of eternity. i would say, i dont know, but i think not.
4:your , my and my cats existance is proof that atoms can form that way, as you can see different animals , plants, bacteria,viruses and others, life can form in all shapes and sizes (almost) , life on earth is carbon based, and the thing so special about carbon is that it can make bonds with a lot of other elements in almost all shapes of bonds. i wouldnt say non living particules came together and came alive and move.. thats not logical and is false, as you know we are intelligent thinking organisms, the cells that make us are also alive, but not intelligent nor thinking. (how does that happen...?) cells are also made of smaller organic material but in the end all comes to atoms that form the organic materials atoms arent alive, not intelligent, but they are with energy same as cells and us so you dont realy need to have all traits in all particules to make a combination that has the traits you know, cells dont think, you do, atoms arent alive cells are (on detail i really dont know much here but i think you get the main idea,)
5: again nothing dont become something. to get some , you have to give some away, think of the laws of physics and chemistery as trade deals, and think of high school chemistary, you put coal heat and oxygen to get fire, that produces CO2 waste, letsay the universe we live in is all CO2, in this example its clear that there was coal and heat and oxygen, but we are beings in the universe full of co 2, we wouldnt know about it unless we have highly advanced technology that would allow us the see before big bang (in this example, the first spark of fire).
i hope i answered all in somewhat sufficant amount, and i hope that i said enough to break this "oh look atheists belive nothing happened to nothing and nothiing expanded into nothing for no reason... etc"idea.. the logic here is to answer to "we dont know" with " oh you dont know, that means you belive nothing happened" isnt it clear that this idea is stupid?
1
-
scottyy888 yes i saw this explanation before, that comes with our lack of knowledge here, either it was in motion , or it was still, both sceniros creates a paradoxal problem, but i think you missed something; " ...If it was still it would have remained still,... " things that stand still or has no chance of reacting with each other in classical wisdom, doesnt really mean they cant, what we know as "quantum tunneling" clearly states particules that has remotely a chance of being together or reacting to each other, can be together or react, as i mentioned before the weird nature of quantum physics, although the nature of big bang still remains unknown it is clear that god wont be here either, (explained above) and here ;", if it was in motion then something had to cause the motion" not necessarily, we know that every particule ever in existance, has some vibrates, always.. ever we see no stop to this, looking at what we are seeing, the vibration was there even in the big bang as well. several theories take this vibration to a higher level, and claim (in a multiversal hypserspace) universe also vibrates, and everything in the universe, including laws of physics are the players in the musical band of the vibration (if we give an example as music) - i think - vibration was always there, to big bang and perhaps beyond. so claims that either there was no motion and god started it or there was motion but god still started it really isnt as strong as you think, howeve, i am thrilled that i get to chance to debate such facinating topics with someone who disagrees but knows enough about science to see (at least her) big bang is true, this feels like a treasure after weeks of creationist fanatics rages. final note, please excuse for the constant replies of long literature, i really dont know a shorter way to explain this, english is not my prime language so cant put it in a more shorter term, i hope you understand.
1
-
scottyy888 answering the question why the vibration was there, is like answering the question why the gravity is there, unless i am wrong and vibration had a cause, science really has nothing to do with these questions here since they fall to philosophy as with the rest of the questions, same answer i used to the questions you asked before which were pretty much the same thing, so before we get repetitive: i get it , you want to repeat the questions , is it eternal or it had a cause until we admit to something we dont know yet, (or anything that can be considered related to god which will probably make you really happy) which in your thinking both scenios lead to a creator so win win right? well ahh. no, i suppose if you are doing the repetetation its only fair if i get to do so as well, remember the historical examples i mentioned, i am pretty certain that this exact scenario applies to lightning storms, fits just so perfectly, do lightning just appear out of nowhere but something must have caused it? or they are always there but something triggers them? year 1014: option A, god, option B god, atheistic response: we dont know yet but are working on it,
somewhere in between: huh! we got it, told you so
year 2014 option A, god, option B god, atheistic response: we dont know yet, we are working on it, (if you insist that this is not the same thing, even though it is, remember that you are trying to lead us the idea of god so remember that this idea leads to somewhere else) now come to think of it , this scenario is so original and generic, it has a huge list of things that it can perpefctly fit in, the list appears to be exacly the list i mentined before, what a coincidence!
regardless if i give any answer, either i claim to have knowledge i dont have , or it will be just my opinion, both has no place in science, which is what you are doing.
1
-
1
-
scottyy888 and thats how you went nuts."You made a lot of unscientific speculations about time" your knowledge is limited to 30 years ago, you dont get to make accusations, unless you think irony doesnt matter "referencing black holes and the big bang (two things which have never even been witnessed by man) as your backup" finaly got you to admit the state of denial you are in "time entirely stops making any sense at the instance of the big bang" how could you possibly know what happened at the "INSTANCE" of what supposedly happened billions of years ago" unless you forgot how to read or just got 100 levels up in stupid, time is one of tools in understanding like laws of physics, so explanation for dummies would say, time stops making senes doesnt mean i said what i knew what happened at the instance, it means this is one of the reasons why we dont know yet. mixing meanings much? " Saying "time stops making sense" doesn't defy the fact that the "bang" still went "bang" and therefore is causal, so something had to precede it." big bang wasnt even a bang... rapid infalation doesnt mean explosion. fact check fail. " but for there to be space there has to be motion" talking about specilations... right? irony agan. "you cant separate them." ever heared of something.. event horizon? oh wait i forgot you defy we have observed black holes, ( i "speculate" you are going to make defence that you cant observe black holes, well we can, just not directly, i shouldnt be explanining something so simple) "There's no reason for me to stop repeating anything because everything I've been saying has been from a scientific standpoint and not speculation. So why stop? That would be willful ignorance." the last part is a pathetic defence for self repetitive behaviour, and its nothing to be admired, even for a mind that always finds a tiny hole to ask there has to be someone who started it. like who delivered the deal. gee i stoped counting after 8 statements that are wrong perhaps its time to really specualte, i speculate that you will (as expected) go in with huge defensive comments and another examplary performance of denial that you were wrong (just like your speculation of time) however, i wont be here for that, becouse it is my time to say BİNGO. 8 (9?) wrong statements, speculations of accusing me for making speculations and being unscientific, and clamining you are scientific by making your speculations. the never ending loophole , although very lowly response to continue such argument since you think self repeating is nothing wrong so please go head, ill take my time and say "So why stop? That would be willful ignorance." actualy not stopping would be the ignorance, just becouse you have an excuse for self repeat doesnt mean its anything good, well this got another long response, since your argument fell a long way down, ill see my self to the door. at leats i got you out of (again self repeating) cycle of endless questions all leading to same creator way. which was your plan but i made you break out of it. win win?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
willieofroanoke thank you for being the example of a stupid who is stupid enough to think he is smart enough to educate people: here are some real info, read carefully i wont be here to read your sorry excuse of defence.
Singularity in big bang theory clearly indicates your knowledge about it is limited to 1990s, get educated to modern standards. the next paragraph has nothing to do with science bur language, so no point but mindless talk to show people how smart you are, and trying that hard is showing people the how opposite to exacly that you wanted to show people.
"Both physics and mathematics have distorted the meaning to also mean a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter becomes infinitely dense."
no one in existance ever said matter went infinitely dense, or ever said about infinity distorting science. im guessing you will come here about a weird quote from someone possiblly someone like einstein or hawkings, who are people who didnt say 90 % of the shit people say they did, or didnt mean what they said. but people were too stupid to realize so they decided to use them as quotes.
"When does both physics and mathematics use the words singularity and infinite in equations and theories?"
- in math people dont usualy use words, so your whole statement is false to begin with, but in modern science they are not used anyway, so this has got to be the greatest "fuck you" someone said to himself
"Of course nobody begins a theory by starting out saying "we don't know", so they substitute the truth with these two words and we come full circle."
science and atheism clearly admits to what they dont know, we say things when it is a theory worth mentioning, a good guess on how things happened, or we say it when we dont know, false claims to know is exacly what religion is doing , but minus the admitting we truely dont know but, science says, its a good theory but we dont know for sure, where religion says it is this, and we know it for sure, and thats why you get to claim things that science knows nothing, just becouse religion is too lowly to admit they dont know. irony and superstition at finest in you.
"Science does NOT know how the universe began. Rather than admitting as much, they plug the theory with a Singularity of infinite mass and a size that can't be measured and to be more precise isn't possible to be calculated."
we dont know how, but we have basic idea of big bang from when it was a theory when more recent discoveries of realitivity and expanding universe , prooved the claims of the theory, so we accepted as truth. again you are so fund of using singulairty and infinite mass and size, which are knowledge from 90s to cover your own ignorance, the whole big bang theory is the idea that universe is NOT infinite in anyway, but you think using the infinite word is a good idea to accuse it. what an idiotic way to do that.
"If science starts a theory with a deliberate lie, why would you believe anything that follows?"
it is so nice that if you replace the word science with reliigon it fits perfecty to that sentence, maybe its a random luck that you used this exact sentence, or maybe even your own sub conciousness is trying to say something.
" but science falls flat on it's face in explaining origins, simply skipping that and pretending their magic singularity was just there to begin with, which makes no sense since most every article written on the Big Bang suggests that this magic Singularity is the cause of time, space, everything, with nothing, not even a single particle being before."
becouse all estimations today proved big bang as true, we dont know how or why in big bang, but we know it is there, you are going to argue how that happens, just the same way we know someone as stupid as you can be the product of millions of years of evolution selecting the more intelligent. we dont know how, or why, but we know you are (unfortunatily) here to say the stuff you are saying.
"with nothing, not even a single particle being before." actualy even in the 90s science said particles were there in the big bangs origin, not nothing,but as someone who got his info form that era you clearly failed to do that properly.
how in the world can someone be like this? its irritating. and an insult to whole species.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i dont agree with ludite philosophy.. Technology brought tools and information, not change, people accepting it and using it as a subsidy to reality brought the actual change. I dont believe its right to blame technology for this. I dont blame alcohol for alcoholics i don blame drugs for addics, i blame addics for being addicted, PEOPLE HAVE RESPONSIBLITY, NOT ITEMS AND TOOLS.
Guns dont kill people, people do.
Technology doesnt bring ruin to your life, your irresponsible use *DO*.
I am particulerly againts this because this line of tninking leads to solutions like prohibiton and war on drugs, it didnt work, we know it did not, but it will not matter once this new luditism creates a mind set that its not peoples fault, but technology's.
We as people like to think that problems are caused by others and other things, not us, We all do it, We all hate being the person who is responsible. It sucks i know i have it too. But we must face it. We are our own downfall, not the tools we misused.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your insight into pareto is dissapointly limited.
Sure the basic outset is true but you fail to notice that that small top, where resources are accumulated, are not static, check top 10% or 1% of the population or the stock market, corporation shares, you will see top positions shift rapidly. often between people with differing interests, preventing natural cabal of elites agreeing on world domination despite what conspiracies would ave you believe.
"Even the very basics of economics follow the idea of that demand precedes the supply, "
-except in cases where supply creates demand.. if we are to teach basics to another perhaps it should be the other way arround?
Lets tlak about failsafes shal we , it is proven time and tme again that so called fail safes like minimum wage laws, anti trust, social security, retirement benefits, diversity quotas and what not did anything except the desired affect. Listening to lectures of thomals sowell or milton friedman will better help you understand this, goverment is people, and are just as fallable as any other, perhaps even more so lookign at the number of ways goverment fucks up everything.
"Also free market is not very good at dealing with long term issues like climate change or geopolitcal conflict"
Actualy it is, you should read on transiiton from coal to oil, or how farmers of far east got to use solar energy.
1
-
Actualy no, Friedman was criticized for precicely not holding that view, people who think like you say friedman thinks are anarcho capitalists, Friedman is a minarchist, he believes that there should be a state to govern and protect the market, he also supports some goverment welfare programs, very rarely but it does happen, he is the one who proposed the idea of negative income tax. Welfare for people who were making money but not enough to take care of the entire family, like family with 3 kids, he proposed that goverment can fill in the gap, like a subsidy to keep them well off.
On part of recession i make no comment because i am kind of in between between camps of goverment fixes it and goverment makes it worse. friedman is of the camp that say goverment makes things worse. Peter shicfh and others believe that goverment caused it in the first place but i wont go as far.
On f-35 its actualy the best f-plane on the planet, of course it had huge set backs but its a prototype, what public doesnt know is that its expected to fail from a prototype thats why its a prototype. Lockheed after fixing them presented a new generation fighter plane, and thats that.
What is hard is that the politicians are not military man nor engineers, so they dont understand it and just repeated after the public outcry, im glad that they were ignored because now its the best goddamn plane on the planet. What you also dont know is that corporations or private buisness has no corruption, they dont need to have it so they dont, corruption comes into place when they need the approval of some politician for licence and contract, than bribes are necessary, so they have it. Politicians are corrupt because the system they are in benefits ALL in the buisness to have corrupt politicans and we cant really use them to fight corruption now can we? Because while public calls it figh corruption, it would be in reality eliminating compettion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter Lamont Thank you.. its not everyday on the internet do people admit when they are wrong. and here is a more formal reply.
""Any philosophy or ideology that wants you to believe in it's truth above all else is not reason but madness. Any decent philosopher trying to enlighten you will give you the tools to find your own answers rather than lead you down a set path.""
-This objective reality doesnt exist, its up to you its whatever you want, is the troubling idealogy of the world. Not only it is irrational but because it can simply be used to dismantle everything you dont like to engineer your sociaty. Look at the world today, gender doesnt exist, borders doesnt exist meritocracy doesnt exist.. etc. Because it gives power to people to form whatever narrative they would want without relying on logical consistency is what makes it dangerous.
if two people are at a disagreement, reality is our final arbitor. Objective reality exists and it is independent of your conciousness. Mind is a tool to understand reality, not to warp it --john galt.
""The truth is that if she was right it would be obvious.""
-Not necessarely, since when truths were easy to come by? Only when do you deny there is a objective reality, do you get to make up truths for your benefit. In objectivism, you pursue truths that are worth fighting for, because truths you fight for support your right to exist as an individual.
"Indeed, this is a silly thing to say. Not everything that is right is obvious. Usually(not always) what is right is simple, however, and is usually very difficult to figure out. I would not call the implications of the theory of relativity simple, yet the theory itself actually is very simple. Yet arriving at it took several thousand years of work. Just as an example"
--Correct, but a simple right thing to first assume as axiom would be reality is it not? It is the most basic assumption of science. It allowed us to create. Now it is undermined because parasites can earn the same without deserving it.
"" Politics isn't objective and it isn't binary. Why else would I be able completely support the arguments made by Marx but not the solutions?"
Indeed... This is the denial before rebranding stage. Right before she wants "anarcho-syndicatism" with eggs on top because it hasn't been tried yet. The results of politics are real, and very very objective. Ask a Cambodian how many people are missing from their family reunion. The answer will be about 1 in 4 on average.""
--ı dont exactly know where is this from but ayn rand is no anarchist of any kind. She is complete laissez faire. Not anarchy. Big difference is that there is, and should be a government. On marx, i personally neither like his ideas nor his solutions. I think that counting the times he was wrong he was an idiot that should have been forgotten.
"" Because I believe that we need better solutions. I don't believe in capitalism, but I wouldn't replace it until we can find a better way. And we haven't yet. Because we don't try enough.""
--This could be an earlier quote. In early works of ayn rand like we the living and fountainhead, there is a softer tone on capitalism and individualism, only in her magum opus atlas shrugged, she assumes a direct and sure and uncomprimising tone that capitalism is not only the best way. it is the only way.
"I say we try very very hard. In fact, I'd say we as humans have done a fine job of survival in general. Our ability to produce the means for survival and even luxury far outstrip all other species combined. The best system objectively(by wealth produced) have been capital countries. Interestingly, as entitlements grow, there is a corresponding downturn in GDP growth. This is an objective result of theft from the productive. They grow slower when you steal half their stuff every year. Much slower."
--i agree completely, and judging from her work i think she reached the same conclusion as you did.
"It's the only one that even remotely incentivizes people to work...aside from a whip. Which Cambodia employed. You know another colony that started out with pure marxism? Jamestown USA. That's right our first lovely colony. All people would grow food and put it into a common store for everyone. Half of them starved to death. Apparently, people won't even make enough for themselves without incentive...which is chilling."
--I didnt know this, when i read about this like several years back, i think from wiki they cite other facts like unfertile soil and hostile wildlife and natives etc. Could be the marxists trying to downplay their role. Does this make john smith the first communist dictator?
"" And Ayn Rand was wrong. Her theories are bad because they require too much ideology purity. Just like hardliners in communism. She's for the free market regardless if it's hurting people.""
-Again your answer is right to this, people often cite hank rearden or likes to show that ayn rand only promotes "ideologicly pure" individuals, that is not the case. In later chapters she points out a simple factory worker, and a shop keeper girl and other simple folk. They dont have to believe in anything, by just getting up and going to work they do all they can and all it is required of them to make a functioning sociaty.
as a side note, that Dr Robert Stadler, was an interesthing character. you quoted. There are actual marxists and actual thiefs and resetnful people that just want to destroy everything in the books. But Robert Stadler is shown as the worst of them all, because he is intelligent and he is aware of what he has done. He sides with thieves and parasites. He knows what he has done and he did it. He sold his soul willingly. He gets a very bad ending right after it is revealed that stadler, who willingly allowed all of this happen, not those who actualy changed the world for the worse is more responsible than all.
...the sound of glass breaking to pieces everywhere and the entire farmhouse lifting up in air before crushing down in great force was the end of what had been a great mind.
1
-
" How do you enforce equality? That is the ultimate question to ask any communist."
-Well if they have no ready answers and only follow the writing of marx blindly, they would say "dictatorship of the proleteriat"
Which is stupid because... yes IT HAS BEEN TRIED. In early times of spanish civil war, after the reds took over some cities they would oust all churches and land and buisness owners and install a workers comittee to oversee the work and keep production. As is the idea of dictatorship of workers, this comittee was solely in charge. Again in early days there were so much loot that excess was put in cafes and markets and used as stores and dsitributed as needs arise, it was great that everyone thought the perfect utopia the soviet union missed was coming true. People were in streets and cafes talking and singing about glorious revolution, it was the time that george orwell was there so he wrote what he saw, how great it was. He missed of course how it was all going to come crushing down. People mistook loot with production. Money was abolished and you were simply given a ticket that could be used for days need of nourishment. People went to factories to work there, only to see without their bosses no one knew what to do, The comittees installed overseers to act as DE FACTO bosses because they just kicked out the previous one. (ironic) and that these new bosses were put in charge for political influence and connections in comitee, and not expertise. Times later there was nothing left to loot, all stores were empty and people were broken and that revolution was no arround that orwell saw. Workers ran from their stations to hiding, runnign to ... Yes nationalist spain, those dirty capitalist fascists had food and jobs. Some of the workers stayed and formed resistance groups, im not kidding workers finaly ROSE UP as communista always wanted.. But they rose up againts the communists. A general working for franco noted after taking madrid that it seemed they had many invisible allies working in madrid to undermine the defences.
Thanks for the notes from colonial time. My knowledge from the era is limited but now i rememberd what i read from brilliant book, why nations fail. Virginia company tried literaly every form of government and economic model that wouls keep the colony integrated and not able to break free and still produce enough to make profits. "Only after exhausting all other options, principles of free markets and inclusive institutions were accepted and only after that the colony was a sucsess".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Compare colonial botswana, rhodesia, south africa, rwanda, and many other places. İt is always the same concluon.
Africa DEGRAGED after decolonization.
Unimportant side note, far east, did not degrade after decolonization. Endonezia, malezia, singapore, china and japan did not return to the stone age, after the western powers left or kicked out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Malphorus why do you think that BLM is where it is today because of capitalism.
We have been eroding and killing capitalism since 1929. Replacing with social welfare statism. if you look at the data, black people did so much better pre 1970 war on poverty programs, black household income was higher, instable black family was a myth, black marriage was just as stable. Thomas sowell does a phenomenal job explaining this go check it out.
Rest of what you said i agree, i just dont think with data that it can be attributed to capitalism. There was a time when black people - before all empowering and diversity quotas-- did much better than all of the american ethnicities in terms of yearly growth, growth out of poverty, raise of household income.. ETC. After the programs they fell to the least. In fact the irish, almost the second most hated group and facing constant racism did so much better than blacks, surprisingly the programs then and programs today dont speak of irish as a under privilidged minority, but blacks browns and asiens are..
But we realised that while programs were in place for blacks and browns, they were still doing worse and while there was no program asians were doing so much better even more than whites, so we "fixed the problem" with classifying asians as privilidge groups next to whites. Modern left litteraly cant see they condem people they want to help to poverty, and uplift people they want to hold back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let me point a few things out.
1: no evidence.
2:They would not have to be, common low level workers exist, even in nuclear plants.
3:all small tracks can be destroyed in minutes by a blizzard. - also you can run barefoot in snow, i know. Somone would have should have, you do a lot of assuming here with nothing to show but assuming they were acting logically , they were not, Panic survival mode sets in. In that mentality you can do anything. I do say anything, i know stories of people drowning together in sea, drowning and pushing their brothers and sisters to the bottom just to get a single breath. Why cut tent? they mistook avelanche. Esy.
4: Yes it can, it wasnt 15 feet, but most of the snow behind the snow barrier also came down. You can do it easily. Angles are good enough you can. Press an egg from the top, it stands, press from sides it cracks.
I mean come on... You guys are so gulliable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1