On 13/09/2022 5:13 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
>
> That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
> stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
> though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).

So there are limits to your generosity - meaning you pick and choose what's
good for you?

"Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not
to sacrifice himself." - A. Solzhenitsyn

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:27:19 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 13/09/2022 5:13 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >
> > That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
> > stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
> > though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).
>
> So there are limits to your generosity - meaning you pick and choose what's
> good for you?
>
> "Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not
> to sacrifice himself." - A. Solzhenitsyn

That is the wrong way around. The typing stuffed up again, have problems hitting keys even at times when I think I typed well.

Here DX, I'll clarify a bit:

That's what self centred selfish people say. Know enough of them, who I've got to help out
when they stuff up their lives. Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them, even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many) they usually don't care to help.

So, it really doesn't matter what these two say now, I've already put enough time into them. Besides, all their really smart clients can see what has been done. One of them, seems to
have genuine mistaken beliefs. What can I say, maybe they will learn that moral relativism is
not the only thing which isn't black and white, and come around to a deeper knowledge.

They probably could do with reviewing the levels of learning, which the higher education system as a based upon. This thinking is very undergrad and rigid, but even then they should have been shown how the higher level works.. But, this depends on country. At university
here, they Indicated a higher perception. I'm amazed at what they even teach high school kids these days. Stuff totally beyond high school in my day, and things beyond my technical degree (though a fair bit would be useless).

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:27:19 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:

Actually, take a look at this. This guy is an actual intellectual and scientist.
Take a look at this at time stamps (from the beginning).

1:02:05
1:03:20

Particularly 1:03:38-1:04:04

https://youtu.be/4j5S_-MCWq4

On 13/09/2022 8:27 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:27:19 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>> On 13/09/2022 5:13 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
>>> stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
>>> though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).
>>
>> So there are limits to your generosity - meaning you pick and choose what's
>> good for you?
>>
>> "Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not
>> to sacrifice himself." - A. Solzhenitsyn
>
> That is the wrong way around. The typing stuffed up again, have problems hitting keys even at times when I think I typed well.
>
> Here DX, I'll clarify a bit:
>
> That's what self centred selfish people say. Know enough of them, who I've got to help out
> when they stuff up their lives. Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them, even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many) they usually don't care to help.

You say you've had to help self-centered selfish people. There's a good deal of
self if not resentment in that statement. Is that help - or self weighing up who
got what?

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:13:26 AM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:52:45 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:22:06 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:53:49 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:37:12 PM UTC+2, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > He will never understand that. He sees himself as a victim. So you must be the aggressor. Bad aggressor, bad!
> > > > Yeah. Tell that to a moral relativist. He'll be really impressed.
> > > >
> > > > Hans Bezemer
> > > Do you people ever consider how delusional victimizers (and that tends to be what they are)
> > > speak?
> > >
> > > Very satisfied you know a foreign language and gramma, and look up definitions, or can wreck community benefit, and stroke your egos in appreciation. :!
> > >
> > > I've got other commitments I need to attend to rather than teach how to behave and think.
> > > Live on your selfingratiating, or be real men and help.
> > I think I'm a helpful person, but I won't subscribe to your rules. You do what you do best.
> > And you can judge me till eternity, I don't care. It's futile. I've always lived by my own rules and will
> > Continue to do so - no matter what anyone says.
> >
> > Hans Bezemer
> That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
> stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
> though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).
>
> Now, Hans, please go away and chuck your domineering fit somewhere else. You have had and
> continue to have, negliable benefit for people here. It's your fault you are in the wrong place
> and can't be bothered to correctly interpret things, and regard even absolute facts as
> relativistic. Which is not credible or scientific.

What would happen if everyone who Wayne told to go away, actually went away? I think he'd have no one left to talk to.

--

Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:02:24 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 13/09/2022 8:27 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:27:19 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >> On 13/09/2022 5:13 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
> >>> stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
> >>> though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).
> >>
> >> So there are limits to your generosity - meaning you pick and choose what's
> >> good for you?
> >>
> >> "Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not
> >> to sacrifice himself." - A. Solzhenitsyn
> >
> > That is the wrong way around. The typing stuffed up again, have problems hitting keys even at times when I think I typed well.
> >
> > Here DX, I'll clarify a bit:
> >
> > That's what self centred selfish people say. Know enough of them, who I've got to help out
> > when they stuff up their lives. Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them, even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many) they usually don't care to help.
> You say you've had to help self-centered selfish people. There's a good deal of
> self if not resentment in that statement. Is that help - or self weighing up who
> got what?

Strange! A summing up of fact and experience, in an academically contrasting manner (again, out of one of the academic levels). That I know what they are like and how obsessively self-centred they are. It doesn't matter how innocent you are, they don't want to help, but expect help when they keep recklessly stuffing up things. Some resentment, they often can't put in minimal effort, during the rarer times I need help. Anyway, woke with my eyes burning skfncsmt.lrtp.goimg on eitjbthis conversation.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:28:19 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:13:26 AM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:52:45 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:22:06 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:53:49 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:37:12 PM UTC+2, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > He will never understand that. He sees himself as a victim. So you must be the aggressor. Bad aggressor, bad!
> > > > > Yeah. Tell that to a moral relativist. He'll be really impressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hans Bezemer
> > > > Do you people ever consider how delusional victimizers (and that tends to be what they are)
> > > > speak?
> > > >
> > > > Very satisfied you know a foreign language and gramma, and look up definitions, or can wreck community benefit, and stroke your egos in appreciation. :!
> > > >
> > > > I've got other commitments I need to attend to rather than teach how to behave and think.
> > > > Live on your selfingratiating, or be real men and help.
> > > I think I'm a helpful person, but I won't subscribe to your rules. You do what you do best.
> > > And you can judge me till eternity, I don't care. It's futile. I've always lived by my own rules and will
> > > Continue to do so - no matter what anyone says.
> > >
> > > Hans Bezemer
> > That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
> > stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
> > though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).
> >
> > Now, Hans, please go away and chuck your domineering fit somewhere else. You have had and
> > continue to have, negliable benefit for people here. It's your fault you are in the wrong place
> > and can't be bothered to correctly interpret things, and regard even absolute facts as
> > relativistic. Which is not credible or scientific.
> What would happen if everyone who Wayne told to go away, actually went away? I think he'd have no one left to talk to.
>
> --
>
> ..(Lorem Ipsum)

'Party on dude!'. Proper people would start turning up, who were normally scared away by those couple of people, :)

No need for subversion there..

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:08:16 AM UTC+2, Fred J. Scipione wrote:
> In article <c9f97ad2-7a76-4e01...@googlegroups.com>,
> the.bee...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what
> it, what ever
> > > the eye of the observer is.
> > It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> > the radix.
> >
> Small point - is anyone aware of base '1' notation?
Yes - and it doesn't work for two reasons:
- first, the radix figure is NEVER part of the allowed figure set of that radix; 2 isn't part of binary (only 0 and 1),
8 isn't part of octal (0-7), A isn't part of decimal (0-9);
- second, the radix is always expressed as 10 under that radix (10 is 2 in binary, 8 in octal, 10 in decimal and 16 in hex).

So, radix 1 cannot contain a 1, only a zero. But it makes it also impossible to express 10 for
obvious reasons.

Radix 1? I don't think so.

Hans Bezemer

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:51:09 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:08:16 AM UTC+2, Fred J. Scipione wrote:
> > In article <c9f97ad2-7a76-4e01...@googlegroups.com>,
> > the.bee...@gmail.com says...
> > >
> > > > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what
> > it, what ever
> > > > the eye of the observer is.
> > > It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> > > the radix.
> > >
> > Small point - is anyone aware of base '1' notation?
> Yes - and it doesn't work for two reasons:
> - first, the radix figure is NEVER part of the allowed figure set of that radix; 2 isn't part of binary (only 0 and 1),
> 8 isn't part of octal (0-7), A isn't part of decimal (0-9);
> - second, the radix is always expressed as 10 under that radix (10 is 2 in binary, 8 in octal, 10 in decimal and 16 in hex).
>
> So, radix 1 cannot contain a 1, only a zero. But it makes it also impossible to express 10 for
> obvious reasons.
>
> Radix 1? I don't think so.
>
> Hans Bezemer

Somebody did a page showing two crossed out Roman groups of IIIII as 10.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:51:09 PM UTC-4, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:08:16 AM UTC+2, Fred J. Scipione wrote:
> > In article <c9f97ad2-7a76-4e01...@googlegroups.com>,
> > the.bee...@gmail.com says...
> > >
> > > > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what
> > it, what ever
> > > > the eye of the observer is.
> > > It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> > > the radix.
> > >
> > Small point - is anyone aware of base '1' notation?
> Yes - and it doesn't work for two reasons:
> - first, the radix figure is NEVER part of the allowed figure set of that radix; 2 isn't part of binary (only 0 and 1),
> 8 isn't part of octal (0-7), A isn't part of decimal (0-9);
> - second, the radix is always expressed as 10 under that radix (10 is 2 in binary, 8 in octal, 10 in decimal and 16 in hex).
>
> So, radix 1 cannot contain a 1, only a zero. But it makes it also impossible to express 10 for
> obvious reasons.
>
> Radix 1? I don't think so.
>
> Hans Bezemer

What I know is, there are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

--

Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 14/09/2022 8:33 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:02:24 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>> On 13/09/2022 8:27 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:27:19 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>>>> On 13/09/2022 5:13 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
>>>>> stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
>>>>> though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).
>>>>
>>>> So there are limits to your generosity - meaning you pick and choose what's
>>>> good for you?
>>>>
>>>> "Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not
>>>> to sacrifice himself." - A. Solzhenitsyn
>>>
>>> That is the wrong way around. The typing stuffed up again, have problems hitting keys even at times when I think I typed well.
>>>
>>> Here DX, I'll clarify a bit:
>>>
>>> That's what self centred selfish people say. Know enough of them, who I've got to help out
>>> when they stuff up their lives. Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them, even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many) they usually don't care to help.
>> You say you've had to help self-centered selfish people. There's a good deal of
>> self if not resentment in that statement. Is that help - or self weighing up who
>> got what?
>
> Strange! A summing up of fact and experience, in an academically contrasting manner (again, out of one of the academic levels). That I know what they are like and how obsessively self-centred they are. It doesn't matter how innocent you are, they don't want to help, but expect help when they keep recklessly stuffing up things. Some resentment, they often can't put in minimal effort, during the rarer times I need help. Anyway, woke with my eyes burning skfncsmt.lrtp.goimg on eitjbthis conversation.

Let them make their mistakes - what's it got to do with you? If it happens that you
need them and that's why you're helping then I'd say you're screwed.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:47:13 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 8:33 am, Wayne morellini wrote:

> Let them make their mistakes - what's it got to do with you? If it happens that you
> need them and that's why you're helping then I'd say you're screwed.

Well, you seem very active lately! Oh, I let them. They are not going listen, but they are going come to me for help and take up my time and energy. A lot to do with me unfortunately. Sorry, your last line in mistaken again. I help them because they need help. Believe me, it's not worth getting their help, but that's not the aim. Would be great if they thought the same way.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:31:48 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Somebody did a page showing two crossed out Roman groups of IIIII as 10.
That would be an X. And to come back to your point: 1+1=11 does not equal I+I=II

Different symbols.. You get I in radix 19, where "II" equals 522.

Hans Bezemer

On 14/09/2022 7:07 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:47:13 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 8:33 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
>
>> Let them make their mistakes - what's it got to do with you? If it happens that you
>> need them and that's why you're helping then I'd say you're screwed.
>
> Well, you seem very active lately!

It's not forth for a change :)

> Oh, I let them. They are not going listen, but they are going come to me for help and take up my time and energy. A lot to do with me unfortunately. Sorry, your last line in mistaken again. I help them because they need help. Believe me, it's not worth getting their help, but that's not the aim. Would be great if they thought the same way.
>

The test as to whether it's help is simple enough - does it help the
relation - or poison it. If the latter then better to not be involved.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:27:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them,
> even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life.

Transactional morality (also called: “Contractarianism”) is one of the more
pragmatic versions of ethical behavior. It goes like this: we agree not to kill
each other, so you are safe and I am safe. But also: you pay taxes, so you got
roads and they're maintained. It's not much about "caring", it's just agreeing on
some rules which benefit you and me.

It's basically VERY egotistical, because you agree on rules which limits your
freedom, but are on the other hand advantageous. WHAT these rules exactly
are, are not defined by contractarianism. Quite the contrary, contractarians
are skeptical of the possibility of grounding morality or political authority in
either divine will or some perfectionist ideal of the nature of humanity.

It's also exactly the opposite of your "absolute truths". It all in the things the two
parties want to agree upon.

> One of them, seems to have genuine mistaken beliefs. What can I say, maybe
> they will learn that moral relativism is not the only thing which isn't black and
> white, and come around to a deeper knowledge.
Beliefs are "positive attitudes to a proposition". I cannot deny to choose sides on
some highly arbitrary issues, since every person will have some basic values
which predispose them to prefer some points of view.

But the world is also full of "don't cares" - things that I do not value to choose sides.
Sometimes, because I lack the will power to dive into a matter to in order to make
a proper judgement, or because sometimes because I just don't have to, because
it's not gonna change my life.

What I DO value though are "justified positive attitudes to a proposition", which means
you just don't "believe" things, but enough proof, evidence or arguments are provided
in order to justify such an assumption.

I tend to "believe" general relativity, since I've gotten enough indications to assume its
validity. I tend not to "believe" in God, because such proof is lacking. That won't mean
I rule out His existence, because that's not how a Wittgensteinian works. But the probability
is low. The probability of a Biblical God is even lower IMHO, because of several (logical
and historical) inconsistencies.

If someone provides overwhelming proof that a "Big bang" did not happen, I'd probably
adopt it. That's how science works. It's not carved in stone.

Almost any human abstraction fails when confronted with the real world. Every categorization,
every definition, every model will eventually be confronted with a real world instance where
it doesn't really fit. That's what "fringe phenomena" and "anomalies" are for.

I came across a nice example recently, where people discussed the concept "women".
You can defines those as living persons "where the vast majority of cells lack a Y chromosome".
("Vast" is required, because some women may have Y-genotype cells after sharing a womb
with with a male twin or after a pregnancy with a male fetus).

But still it fails. There are persons composed of TWO sorts of cells, chimera. If the sex of
these cells differs, they are composed of about 50% male cells and 50% female cells. The
list of all(!) the persons of the world with this condition doesn't even fill a legal page, but
still (most of them have a DOI paper dedicated to them - that's how rare they are).

Does that make the definition useless? No. It will properly classify the vast majority of
cases. Also - there are so many exceptions to the natural classification system that
one could wonder why it is presented so definitively.

One can strike a line on a gradient from pure white to pure black almost anywhere -
and still have a solid reason to defend that choice. However, that doesn't mean that
the mere possibility that different choices can be made makes striking a particular line
a futile act. It may have a validity within a certain set of conditions and goals.

And if such a line has been struck, the conclusions drawn based on this line may be
completely valid and reproducible.

So don't talk to me about "shades of gray". I'm a biologist. I've seen plenty.

> This thinking is very undergrad and rigid, but even then they should have been shown
> how the higher level works.
Well, the proof that every dogmatic ethical system fails at some point is freshman year
stuff at the philosophy faculty. Yet you failed to prove having any knowledge of it.

Hans Bezemer

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:46:49 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:31:48 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Somebody did a page showing two crossed out Roman groups of IIIII as 10.
> That would be an X. And to come back to your point: 1+1=11 does not equal I+I=II
>
> Different symbols.. You get I in radix 19, where "II" equals 522.
>
> Hans Bezemer

My point was, that the absolute truth was that 1+1=2, not some other thing. The X is just a short form so you don't have to type IIIIIIIIII, or vIIIII.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 11:17:37 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 7:07 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:47:13 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >> On 14/09/2022 8:33 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >
> >> Let them make their mistakes - what's it got to do with you? If it happens that you
> >> need them and that's why you're helping then I'd say you're screwed.
> >
> > Well, you seem very active lately!
> It's not forth for a change :)
> > Oh, I let them. They are not going listen, but they are going come to me for help and take up my time and energy. A lot to do with me unfortunately. Sorry, your last line in mistaken again. I help them because they need help. Believe me, it's not worth getting their help, but that's not the aim. Would be great if they thought the same way.
> >
> The test as to whether it's help is simple enough - does it help the
> relation - or poison it. If the latter then better to not be involved.

Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.

Hans Bezemer

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:40:51 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> My point was, that the absolute truth was that 1+1=2, not some other thing. The X is just a short form so you don't have to type IIIIIIIIII, or vIIIII.
Sure, there were some alternative additive and subtractive forms, but NOTHING like that.
Do your research first before your spewing your nonsense on the Internet.

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:26:32 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:40:51 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > My point was, that the absolute truth was that 1+1=2, not some other thing. The X is just a short form so you don't have to type IIIIIIIIII, or vIIIII.
> Sure, there were some alternative additive and subtractive forms, but NOTHING like that.
> Do your research first before your spewing your nonsense on the Internet.
>
> Hans Bezemer

I was saying they used those systems instead, I didn't say they did in those systems. The likelihood is that they would have before those systems. If you show ten with your hands and fingers what do you do: IIIII IIIII

I think you should stop being malicious towards me and start reflecting on yourself instead.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
> I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
>
> Hans Bezemer

That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss. And don't really think very well. You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality. It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please. There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid. You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on. Get with the plan, or get please.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 11:45:49 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:27:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them,
> > even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life.
>
> Transactional morality (also called: “Contractarianism”) is one of the more
> pragmatic versions of ethical behavior. It goes like this: we agree not to kill
> each other, so you are safe and I am safe. But also: you pay taxes, so you got
> roads and they're maintained. It's not much about "caring", it's just agreeing on
> some rules which benefit you and me.

My goodness you get things a bit wrong don't you. That's not even the right category. One does other people well who are not being right, and even though one does what is right responsibly and well, the uncaring are just rude enough not to do well at all and not do the minimum. It's about responsibility to do right in your actions and care, which you could learn. If the person with the less need and more irresponsibility can not respect and do the minimum for the person with greatest need and responsibility and care, the person is a disrespectful jack ass. You clinical analysis based on reduced knowledge, and therefore reduced accommodation not actual real aspects, is wrong as usual. I don't really expect you to get everything right here,bit at least not to stop limit yourself from getting things right, and interfering with others and trying to stop them from being right. It's irresponsible.
...
> I tend to "believe" general relativity, since I've gotten enough indications to assume its
> validity. I tend not to "believe" in God, because such proof is lacking. That won't mean
> I rule out His existence, because that's not how a Wittgensteinian works. But the probability
> is low. The probability of a Biblical God is even lower IMHO, because of several (logical
> and historical) inconsistencies.

Here's a challenging well documented case. You would have to watch the whole video, and the whole series to pick up the account. The Mexican health department was documenting this from memory

https://youtu.be/0dUFAikPXLg

> If someone provides overwhelming proof that a "Big bang" did not happen, I'd probably
> adopt it. That's how science works. It's not carved in stone.

I thought I had one from the Spacetime channel around among the ones I have in this topic. There is also recently a lot of redshift/age is too great stuff going on from the James Webb.

https://youtu.be/DaouTS072ew

This guy is a bit interesting:

https://youtu.be/__0Y5SyEVUI

> Almost any human abstraction fails when confronted with the real world. Every categorization,
> every definition, every model will eventually be confronted with a real world instance where
> it doesn't really fit. That's what "fringe phenomena" and "anomalies" are for.

Just let me look:

https://youtu.be/AcYZ9rH_S9U

I don't know exactly what is in this one, but the guy on this channel is fairly evenly handed, the fish less so:

https://youtu.be/LQJs8BHtTXg

And this one is just for you Hans:

https://youtu.be/5sYk-7v74C8

> I came across a nice example recently, where people discussed the concept "women".
> You can defines those as living persons "where the vast majority of cells lack a Y chromosome".
> ("Vast" is required, because some women may have Y-genotype cells after sharing a womb
> with with a male twin or after a pregnancy with a male fetus).

They did believe it was also the genetic uptake from a male partners sperm long term.

> But still it fails. There are persons composed of TWO sorts of cells, chimera. If the sex of
> these cells differs, they are composed of about 50% male cells and 50% female cells. The
> list of all(!) the persons of the world with this condition doesn't even fill a legal page, but
> still (most of them have a DOI paper dedicated to them - that's how rare they are).

How is a male defined? I actually know a guy with an extra y.

> So don't talk to me about "shades of gray". I'm a biologist. I've seen plenty.
> > This thinking is very undergrad and rigid, but even then they should have been shown
> > how the higher level works.
> Well, the proof that every dogmatic ethical system fails at some point is freshman year
> stuff at the philosophy faculty. Yet you failed to prove having any knowledge of it.

How ridiculous. You basically have a dogmatic ethical system based on academia, which has mainly argued against over things and use itself as authority. But, you miss that, and can't see it. You also willfully missed many proofs, trying to smoother them with the wrong stuff. It's like a dogma cult.

Just because one has a philosophy or publishes, or is an academic, it does not prove one is right, and that includes rules of engagement. There has been a whole history of pushing false academic beliefs. The stupid just assume it's true, the wise see there is something wrong, question what is right, and live by what is right. Some situations are often strands of black and white, even dynamically shifting in and out of situations, which look grey, even shimmering grey, confusing people. Other situations might be people's shift preferences, wherever to buy flowers or not, what colour to buy today, is often a shifting personal choice with maybe no black or white compared to other days. It's all relative to contexts, sometimes that context is solid, sometimes not. The fact I use an example her, is not of itself proof or right example, but is used to reach down or across to people. A true thinker thinks about what the contexts are of what something means, without simple examples. So, when you say stuff, I'm examining the contexts of what it means and funding a lot of fault, but you are not, you are just quoting stuff without properly understanding. Anybody can squint their eye, and think something fits well enough, fooling themselves into the convenient answer, but will it ever be? That's true knowledge, to understand the difference and also be able to apply the former. When you get advanced enough, you can fill in left out information, and people do leave out information that others fill in. You might speak like Yoda, but to speak more fully is just eloquence (is that the right word) rather than skill of knowledge or thinking, but the simple love eloquence, but the skill in thinking love understand. Because, in ancient times the language was sophisticated enough that that word order did not even matter so much, or fill words, people know the context of what you are getting at. You sharpen your mind by practicing this. Unless you practice this, you will never grow as a thinker, but always be quoting adults, what they believed, right or wrong, not becoming an adult yourself. You obviously are intelligent, but practice contextual and conceptual (context being a localised concept) thinkiNg

Hans Bezemer a lot of misapplied stuff I' have deleted. Trying to reason with you has proven a waste of time. You don't listen to broader knowledge but hide yourself in other's opinions trying to strike people from there. Very uncool. Take the ego away. If you have a wife and kids, go ask them.

On 15/09/2022 10:30 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>> Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
>> I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
>>
>> Hans Bezemer
>
> That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss. And don't really think very well. You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality. It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please. There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid. You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on. Get with the plan, or get please.

What was the plan again? Ah, raising Forth from the dead. Good that you've
started with something small.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:02:44 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 15/09/2022 10:30 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>> Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
> >> I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
> >>
> >> Hans Bezemer
> >
> > That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss. And don't really think very well. You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality. It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please. There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid. You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on. Get with the plan, or get please.
> What was the plan again? Ah, raising Forth from the dead. Good that you've
> started with something small.

You are not very happy lately! You can do something yourself, every little bit helps? Expanding forth is a side benefit to you. As I've said, promoting reverse polish notation stack based processing. If you bothered to read it. You could use the language Joy if you want.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:30:56 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
> > I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
> >
> > Hans Bezemer
> That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss.
If you think that's an attack, you've never seen me attacking. This is just a friendly debate.

> And don't really think very well.
Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

> You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality.
Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

> It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please.
Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

> There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid.
Obviously you don't know it, otherwise you would have used it.

> You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on.
Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

> Get with the plan, or get please.
Which plan? Your "plan"? I don't think so.

Hans Bezemer