Interesting analogy by Taleb (1 Viewer)

[Nenz]

History?

History tells us wars are fought due to economic concerns, proven by the statements of people from Paul Wolfowitz to Adolf Hitler.

With a war RIGHT NOW being fought for oil, in Iraq, you must be one delusional human being to deny these facts.

But what do you care, you're going to hell anyway.

Lol you just read that in some liberal news paper now you're throwing it around. Its pretty obvious a grab for oil has been deemed a failure and therefore is not looked upon by leading nations as a good idea, on the contrary, look how its affected the US so negatively.
A lot has changed since 2003, but you had your head up your arse so i don't blame you for not noticing.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

Lol you just read that in some liberal news paper now you're throwing it around. Its pretty obvious a grab for oil has been deemed a failure and therefore is not looked upon by leading nations as a good idea, on the contrary, look how its affected the US so negatively.
A lot has changed since 2003, but you had your head up your arse so i don't blame you for not noticing.

Sorry mods, but this guy is truly retarded.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/aboutoil.htm

Liberal newspapers or not, the war on Iraq was all about oil and you're still going to hell.

 

[bianconero]

To say the war in Iraq was a war about oil is an oversimplification of the reality: part of the reason, yes, but only just a part.

 

[Bjerknes]

To say the war in Iraq was a war about oil is an oversimplification of the reality: part of the reason, yes, but only just a part.

So what was it about then?

The United States trying to "free" the Iraqi people from Saddam?

Perhaps it was also invented to wage a war against Islam, but you wouldn't want to admit that either.

Some people are simply delusional I suppose.

 

[bianconero]

So what was it about then?

The United States trying to "free" the Iraqi people from Saddam?

Perhaps it was also invented to wage a war against Islam, but you wouldn't want to admit that either.

Some people are simply delusional I suppose.

Look you like to see things in Black and White (maybe that's why you picked Juventus to support from all those you could have) either it is or isn't, you're right (Baa) or you're a retard.
You think you are in the right, therefore, ipso facto everyone must agree to your very narrow, one might even say blinkered point of views.

The reality of reality is that it can not be packaged neatly for a presentation, or an essay assignment. Politicians, the media, society all want us to be feed information and eat it without considering the possiblity of the subjectivity of it's source.

 

[Bjerknes]

Look you like to see things in Black and White (maybe that's why you picked Juventus to support from all those you could have) either it is or isn't, you're right (Baa) or you're a retard.
You think you are in the right, therefore, ipso facto everyone must agree to your very narrow, one might even say blinkered point of views.

The reality of reality is that it can not be packaged neatly for a presentation, or an essay assignment. Politicians, the media, society all want us to be feed information and eat it without considering the possiblity of the subjectivity of it's source.

Okay, but your incessant rambling doesn't make any sense considering the media in the US doesn't even discuss the possibility that the war is all about oil. It's all taboo.

And even when orchestrators such as Wolfowitz and Greenspan admit it, people like you dismiss the fact like it did not even occur.

So what was the war all about then?

 

[bianconero]

To say the war in Iraq was a war about oil is an oversimplification of the reality: part of the reason, yes, but only just a part.

Is this where I stated it was not about oil: if so I believe trying to have a rational interaction with you is conterproductive.

In other words, which you might understand: Baa, baa!

 

[Bjerknes]

Is this where I stated it was not about oil: if so I believe trying to have a rational interaction with you is conterproductive.

In other words, which you might understand: Baa, baa!

You never produce any real arguments.

 

[bianconero]

You never produce any real arguments.

I'll try to find something on You Tube for you.

 

[Martin]

When the Aztecs thought sacrificing people was okay, Jews condemned these actions back then.

I disagree. Ethics is not an evolving standard. While in America black people were discriminated against, in many ither regions in the world, they were not. The same applies to homosexual rights. No standard is rising, man has always had moral values since the beggining if time. Some cultures ignored these values while others didn't. The point is, they aren't just values that develop with time to increase the quality of our society. They were values that were always held by man, only now they are more universal because of the media etc...

In Saudi Arabia, women are still denied any women rights. they are not allowed to obtain a driver's license for example. An example of how ethics vary by cultures, not time.

Ethics evolve in civilizations, not globally over time. The Aztecs may have thought human sacrifice is perfectly cool, while the Jews thousands of kilometers away, who'd never met them, might condemn it. Just in the way that Saudi Arabia will probably catch up with us one day on gender equality, but it's up to them to do it, it's not a global covenant that comes out of the blue.

 

[Salvo]

So what was it about then?

The United States trying to "free" the Iraqi people from Saddam?


Perhaps it was also invented to wage a war against Islam, but you wouldn't want to admit that either.


Some people are simply delusional I suppose.

i have to agree its all about the oil these days. america where looking for an excuse to get in their and they got the supposed war on "terror"

god it wouldnt suprise me if osama was having dinner with george w at least once a week lol i think its all a big conspiracy TBH

 

[Martin]

You can be as confident about as you like. You still cannot prove it.

I agree, it was part of evolution. The Moral Law was passed from generation to generation. The ability to distinguish right from wrong is based upon pure impulse, this suggests dive intervention. There is a Moral Law that we follow, something we go by to determine what is right and wrong. It is of our very nature. I am very tired right now and I will support this argument strongly some other time. Right now, I need to hit the sack because it's 5 a.m over here.

Good night, or morning.

This standard of proof you've invented now doesn't exist. You're now saying you can't prove laws of physics either. Well there is no stronger form of proof. So all you're doing now is playing with words, rejecting a definition of proof that everyone else accepts.

You really don't understand evolution, man. And that's too bad, because it's a simple idea.

 

[Salvo]

come on why else would america be there? what to kill for fun? war against terror? more terrorists are coming out of other countries any way not iraq.....

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

Well, in a sense don't atheists already have faith? I mean, atheists don't believe in god and refute the fact that a creator exists. Does that not require a form of faith?

it requires an understand that god just don't matter much because he just don't do much

 

[rounder]

Ethics evolve in civilizations, not globally over time. The Aztecs may have thought human sacrifice is perfectly cool, while the Jews thousands of kilometers away, who'd never met them, might condemn it. Just in the way that Saudi Arabia will probably catch up with us one day on gender equality, but it's up to them to do it, it's not a global covenant that comes out of the blue.

Where did this sense of morality originate from? Why does man posess this sense of knowing right from wrong? It is not so he can have a better quality of life or improve society the way you argued but because more often than not, he is sacrficing a better quality life and society so he could simply do what is morally right.

Consider this. Factories that produce clothing in the far east use children for child labour, these children work for peanuts and these factories produce enormous amounts of profit because of this reason. Nowadays, companies will refuse to abuse children in this way simply because it is immoral. They know it is wrong, even if no one found out, and these children were making enough money to live and were therefore content because they lack the knowledge of the possibility of a better life, the owners of these factories will still refuse to use child labour because of the Moral Law.

This standard of proof you've invented now doesn't exist. You're now saying you can't prove laws of physics either. Well there is no stronger form of proof. So all you're doing now is playing with words, rejecting a definition of proof that everyone else accepts.

You really don't understand evolution, man. And that's too bad, because it's a simple idea.

I believe in evolution, I don't believe it can be accounted for when talking about Morality. I think this subject is far more complex than evolution for since the beggining of mankind, we have posessed this sense of knowing right from wrong. Our Moral sense never evolved to begin with therefore you cannot call this evolution.

 

[Martin]

Where did this sense of morality originate from? Why does man posess this sense of knowing right from wrong? It is not so he can have a better quality of life or improve society the way you argued but because more often than not, he is sacrficing a better quality life and society so he could simply do what is morally right.

Consider this. Factories that produce clothing in the far east use children for child labour, these children work for peanuts and these factories produce enormous amounts of profit because of this reason. Nowadays, companies will refuse to abuse children in this way simply because it is immoral. They know it is wrong, even if no one found out, and these children were making enough money to live and were therefore content because they lack the knowledge of the possibility of a better life, the owners of these factories will still refuse to use child labour because of the Moral Law.

Newsflash. The owners of these factories, or the conglomerates that employ the factories, are either Western or schooled in the Western tradition. The fact that we reject child labor, even if we are to assume that these people don't know any better, it's because we in the West are applying our own standards to the practices over there.

I think this subject is far more complex than evolution for since the beggining of mankind, we have posessed this sense of knowing right from wrong. Our Moral sense never evolved to begin with therefore you cannot call this evolution.

Who is "we"? Are you 100,000 years old by any chance? You don't know anything about the ethical standards of earliest individuals in the human species. Once again you are making assumptions you can't back up.

Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago

-wikipedia

 

[rounder]

Newsflash. The owners of these factories, or the conglomerates that employ the factories, are either Western or schooled in the Western tradition. The fact that we reject child labor, even if we are to assume that these people don't know any better, it's because we in the West are applying our own standards to the practices over there.



Who is "we"? Are you 100,000 years old by any chance? You don't know anything about the ethical standards of earliest individuals in the human species. Once again you are making assumptions you can't back up.


-wikipedia

Are you saying that if this owner came from the east he would not realize it was morally wrong to use child labour? Bullshit. Morality is universal, it does not matter if you were raised in Ireland, Cameroon, South Africa, America, Cambodia, or South Korea, you will inherently posess a sense of morality.


No, but here is a statement that proves my point. "If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the Encylopedia of Religion and Ethics, he will soon discover the massive unanimity of the practical reason in man. From the babylonian hymn to Samos, from the laws of Manu, the Book of the Dead, the Analects, the Stoics, the Platonists, from Australian aborgines and Redskins, he will collect the same trimuphantly monotonous denunciations of oppresion, murder, treachery, and falsehood, the same injuctures of kindness to aged, the young, and the weak, of almsgiving and impartiality and honesty". C. S. Lewis.

 

[Nenz]

Sorry mods, but this guy is truly retarded.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/aboutoil.htm

Liberal newspapers or not, the war on Iraq was all about oil and you're still going to hell.

Don't misread somebodies post and then call them a retard. lol

I never said the Iraq war wasn't a grab for oil. But what is clear is that they failed miserably and came out worse off for entering the invasion of Iraq. You still, after this, maintain that leading countries will dumb enough to make the same mistakes? Give me a break. Not even the US is dumb enough to repeat their exact same mistakes twice .
There is no chance in hell that your prediction on WWIII is even near to correct because of two things. The rising in popularity of renewable resources, and that reminder we call history that will deter any nation to make the same mistake the US made in their grab for oil in 2003.

Now take a second Andy. No, take an hour. Cause with your intellect it might take you that long to figure out what i just wrote even though i've repeated myself 2 or 3 times on this point.

 

[Nenz]

To say the war in Iraq was a war about oil is an oversimplification of the reality: part of the reason, yes, but only just a part.

Exactly. One of the bigger more obvious reasons it that this was just a case of modern day imperialism.
The US attempted to enhance their geopolitical position in the middle east. While tensions with Iran grew along with anti-US sentiment throughout the middle east, strategically they need another ally other than Israel. If the US were to train and fund the Iraqi army they could then quell Iran's strangle hold on the middle east. Not that I think it would help their cause so much anyway.

 

[rounder]

So 1+1 does not equal 2?

The limit of n/1 as n approaches zero is not zero?

How does that work?

point 1.
I thought about this subject further, and he may be referring to "infinity" when talking about mathematics. We cannot prove inifinity exists, we simply know it exists. I guess that's what he meant although I'm not entirely sure.


point 2.
As for physics, I will give you two examples that cannot be scientifically proven.
One of which is the famous theory of relativity, it cannot be proven. It is an accepted theory but it is not scientifically proven. Scientists have conducted many experiments to try and prove this theory but they have failed. Another example is flux, you cannot prove it exists but we use it to derive equations such as Kq/d^2.