Wow, given how stupid this video is I can see why you don't want to give me a link to where you supposedly spanked fringeelements. Seriously how is a religion within a state a state? How is a corporation a state? Can any of these things you list legally initiate force? You claim that anti-statists don't have evidence for their beliefs, but I'm half way through your video and so far there's been no evidence for anything. Seriously you don't even know your opponents arguments.
@newperve That you don't see how Religion and corporations are forms of state show that you don't understand the very argument that you are trying to present.
No evidence? LOL I payed sales tax today at the store. That is proof that the state exists. My burden of proof is met.
@SpamSpamNEggs I understand your argument, it's just not true. That someone uses force or fraud doesn't make them "the state", only if it attempts and to some extent suceeds in maintaining that they are the only ones allowed to iniitate force or commit fraud is something a state. The mafia, corporations and churches for instance never insisted that the government not be allowed to collect taxes by force so they are not states.
@newperve The government has never insisted that churches not be allowed to collect their taxes under threat of eternal torment (this is most decidedly a form of force), therefor the government is not a form of state.
Your logic, not mine.
Do you see the problem with your argument? It is your own argument that you don't understand. My argument is really really easy to understand.
@SpamSpamNEggs No actually it's not my logic it's your strawman. The churches aren't allowed to beat people up or troture them in the only real world there is, this one. They can claim that that people get beat up in some other place, but anyone actually getting beat up gets them arrested. The state even if god exists maintains it's geographical monopoly. Seriously idiot try harder.
@newperve The churches aren't allowed to beat people up.....LOL.....The Inquisition happened inside the sovereign state of Spain. The 2,4,5th crusades happened within the sovereign state of Jerusalem. More recently pedophile priests have been allowed to contiune operating in the US.
Let me guess these don't count because they are old, or don't involve guns, or the victims where children who don't count or Spain didn't exist durring the Spanish Inquisition......
@SpamSpamNEggs The inquisition didn't torture anyone, they had to call in the outside authorities to torture or execute, and they didn't like doing it because that meant giving someone else authority. The Crusades didn't happen within the borders of the Christian states, the whole point was to go somewhere that wasn't part of a Christian state and make it one. Now true that means that one state ignored the sovereignty of another, but that's what happens during war. Sorry you fail again.
@newperve The inquisition did torture, maim, inprison and all sorts of other nasty things. They didn't call in outside help.
Crusades 1,3,6,7 did not happen within christian nations. 2,4,5 did. You really need to learn more history, or are you just ignoring it because it is destroying your argument.
Nothing on the pedophile priests????? Don't have a snide remark to try and deflect that use of force?
@SpamSpamNEggs As usual you don't know what you're talking about. The inquisition called in the secular (i.e. non-church\) authorities when they wanted to use force. This is a fact, look it up. As usual you're totally wrong on all three crusades all of which were aimed at invading muslim-held lands. Seriously moron learn to wikipedia. The church has not denied the right of the state to try, convict, or even execute priests since, what Thomas a Beckert or something like that?
@newperve I do know what I'm talking about. Crusades 1,3,6,7 where to attack Muslim held lands. Crusades 2,4,5 where called to defend Jerusalem from invading armies. Crusades 2,4,5 where fought almost entire inside the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a sovern state, attacking armies of muslims that where trying to invade.
So, you admit that before, whenever, the church DID deny the rights of the government to try, convict......Thank you for proving my point in your own words.
@SpamSpamNEggs "The Fifth Crusade (1213–1221) was an attempt to reacquire Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land by first conquering the powerful Ayyubid state in Egypt." Learn to wikipedia bitch.
@newperve Well and truly irrelevant. I made a mistake as to the Crusades.
The point was to disprove your definition of state. To do that I need but ONE example. The Church operating it's own justice system within other sovereign states does that. You have admitted that the church did this. "The church as not denied the right of the state to try convict........since" In your own words.
@SpamSpamNEggs So in other words you haven' produced a single example of what you claim proves your point (the other two crusades also don't) but you still insist you've proved your point. Good one asshole. Yes the church operated it's own justice system way back, but you insisted modern pedophie priests, which were not part of that system and were subject to state law somehow proved your point. Once again you're being slippery and deceptive to avoid admitting you're wrong.
@newperve You are just denying the truth. You are placing an unreasonable burden of proof on me. Do you really think that NO priests where pedophiles 500 years ago? Do you really think that no priests killed, raped or robbed before the church stopped using it's force to stop the prosecution of clergy?
The fact that the church used force to enact justice within the "geographic monopoly on force" of some other state proves my point, not the pedophiles.
@SpamSpamNEggs What unreasonable burden? You've claimed examples and they don't apply so now you're claiming, what? That I have to assume you have an example, somewhere? I know for a fact that priests raped, robbed and murdered back then, that's why Thomas got killed. But you claimed pedophile priests prove your point. Unless your point is that it wasn't really a state 500 years ago it does not. If that is your point then fine, but you're moving the goalposts.
@newperve I've given examples. They do apply. You are requiring unreasonable proofs that they do apply.
The church had it's own courts, using force to inact justice within the boarders of other states. This proves my point.
My point is that by your definition states do not exist, and have never existed. Unless you want to say France, Spain and England are not states. Are you going to make the claim that the Monarchy of England is not a state?
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes it HAD it's own courts, it doesn't have them now. As I pointed out that is great if you want to argue that there wasn't a state in the 1500s, I might even agree. But what you're arguing is that there isn't a state NOW under my definition. This is what you always do, move the fucking goalposts again like I won't fucking notice. What the hell are you talking about? Why wouldn't France, England and Spain exist?
@newperve You just don't get it. The church operated these courts in every region of Europe from 400ish to 1700ish. I don't know the exact dates. If you are really going to agree that there where no states in Europe for more than 1200 years.....what the hell is a state, if the Monarchy of England during the 100 years war doesn't count!!!!!! Do you really think that King Louie III was not a head of state? Do you really think that Europe was statless for 1200 years?!?! You want to go back?!?!
@SpamSpamNEggs Yep, I'll agree we did not have states in the modern sense in that time. We had things that had many of the characteristics of a state and that behaved like a state towards most of the people within them. A state is exactly what I defined it as, an organisation that claims (relatively successfully) the monopoly of force in a given geographical area. My definition hasn't changed no matter how you try to drag in irrelevancies. Oh and BTW i don't believe you know the dates.
@newperve Your right I don't know the dates. That's why I said -ish and I don't know the dates. Great catch calling me out on not knowing the dates when I have already said that I don't know the dates. You ability to read is amazing.
At this point a reasonable person would admit that they where wrong. The governments of the dark ages where forms of state, and your definition is bad. That didn't happen.
Since the Dark ages was stateless, how was it better than now? Do you want to go back?
@SpamSpamNEggs As I pointed out we had things very like states. The vast majority of people behaved towards them as though they were states and the organisations behaved as states towards the vast majority of people. Why should I admit I am wrong when your original claim was that pedophile priests IN THE USA prove that states don't exist? The Dark Ages was not better than now, I never claimed it was. That doesn't mean that the fact that it wasn't better is due to statelessness.
@newperve Yes, thing so like states that every one else calls them states. They acted just like states. They where treated just like states. They looked just like states. The only way they where not states is they don't fit your definition that defines states out of existence.
My original claim was that government is not the only form of state. I really don't know why you are stuck on the pedophile priest, unless you are jealous of their time with small boys.
@SpamSpamNEggs Well no, they did not act just like states. States claim the right to the monopoly of force and that they can inflict this monopoly on anyone within their geographic regardless of whether or not they belong to another group. This is exactly what we have now so I'm not defining states out of existance. I am not stuck on pedophile priests, you brought it up despite it's total irrelevance and you keep trying to rescue your stupid example despite the fact it's totally irrelevant.
@newperve No, there is no geographic Monopoly on force. The exceptions are just more subtle today. You dismiss them simply saying "That doesn't count". You deny that the Spanish inquisition used force.
Pedophile priests is nothing but a distraction that caused you to admit the truth. You are the one that keeps bringing them up, thinking that they have something to do with the church courts of the dark ages.
@SpamSpamNEggs What truth did I admit? I simply said that states as we know them did not exist in a certain period. You are claiming that there is not a monopoly of force, but every example you gave is either bullshit or stopped applying centuries ago. Who is not subject to the state's monopoly of force now? You brought up pedophile priests and you're the one who brought in the church courts of the middle ages. This has nothing to do with whether there is a state now. God you're dishonest.
@newperve I'm not dishonest. I just have evidence that you are wrong. Since you can't admit to yourself that you are wrong, you see my truths as lies. This is where the problem lies in talking to you. It is not my presentation. It is not my evidence. It is not my arguments. It is your unsupportable beliefs of what a state is. You should watch "The bomb on the Brain" series by Stefbot. He does a very good job of explaining why you can't see the truth.
@SpamSpamNEggs You claim to have evidence, yet you've abandoned every example you gave. So where is the evidence? You argued pedophile priests in the US were evidence, then tried to use law that hadn't existed contemporaneously with the USA to support it. Really you should stop claiming that others can't see your evidence and actually present something that isn't total bullshit.
@newperve I have shown evidence. You just dismiss it since it does not agree with you. I have only abandoned 2 of 6 examples I gave. The pedophile priests being one of them, and that one that seems to be central to your dismisses of my evidence.
You have moved the goal posts by now insisting that only the modern US is "really" a state, historic states like France, England, and Spain don't count.
You are the one that is full of BS, denying everything to desperately cling to your faith.
@SpamSpamNEggs I didn't say that only the modern US is really a state, are you really so stupid you can't see that what I said about there not being states in the middle ages doesn't mean that Britain, France and Spain are now states? Or are you just being dishonest again? The examples you give are The Inquistion, which if you haven't abadoned it as disproof or modern states you really should, the crusades ditto, the pedophile priests and corporations, which you didn't even attempt to defend.
@newperve Correct I haven't even attempted to defend the pedophile priests. Will you drop that now?
You have moved the goal posts from "states" to "modern states" then.
The crusades, the Inquisition, the Church courts are all examples of how your definition does not work on historical states. You are denying that England France Spain and many other states did not exist between 400ish and 1700ish. Not talking about modern nations......though I fail to see the real difference.
@SpamSpamNEggs You did attempt to defend the pedophile priests, that's how we got onto modern vs medieval in the first place. You were moving the goalposts. What I say applies equally to ancient states like Rome as modern. I do not deny that England, France and Spain were not states between ~400 - 1700. I acknowledge that, this doesn't affect weither they are states now. I have already explained the difference, church law, which you brought up moron.
@newperve What I don't see is how stabbing someone for not paying taxes is different from stabbing someone for not paying taxes, regardless of what any one else is doing. Is getting stabbed twice for not paying your taxes better than only getting stabbed once?
Diplomatic immunity prevents national governments from arresting and trying people with that privilege. These people are tried in international courts. This is the same as Church courts. Is the US not a state?
@SpamSpamNEggs It's not about getting stabbed twice it's about whether a group other than the State can grant immunity from the laws of the State. Diplomats are granted immunity by the State recieving them, not by any other group. This can be waived by their State but if it is they can be tried in the recieveing State's court not international courts. Do you get ANYTHING right?.
@newperve Diplomatic immunity is a matter of international law established at the Vienna Conference of Diplomatic Relations in 1961. The ability for immunity to be waved is irrelevant since it can be upheld and the US is prevented by international law from arresting them. yes I do get things right. You are just trying really desperately to hold on to your religion of "anti-statism" that has no basis in reality.
@SpamSpamNEggs What is relevant is that nobody is immune from the state's laws that the state didn't specifically allow to be immune to the state's laws. You can't simply say "I'm a diplomat so you can't arrest me.", you have to get the State to approve you being a diplomat. Seriously you are so stupid, you think claiming that I'm the one holding on to an absurd belief is an argument, it's not. Grow up and admit you were wrong.
@newperve You have already agreed that the church courts of the dark ages make Europe stateless for more than 1200 years. These church courts did not allow just anyone to say I am clergy, you can't arrest me. You had to be recognized as clergy by the church to get this immunity. The same is true for diplomatic immunity. You must be recognized as "diplomat" by another nation or the UN to get diplomatic immunity.
@SpamSpamNEggs You need to be recognised as a diplomat by the state in question moron, that's the point I just made and you still don't get it. You can't get the immunity from a state unless that state agrees, that's a pretty simple point. How fucking simple does a concept have to get before you get it?
@newperve Nope, you are wrong. You can't see that you are wrong because it would destroy your definition of state. Diplomatic immunity is granted by the sending nation and the UN under the rules set forth in the Vienna Conference of Diplomatic Relations. Yes, nations can violate diplomatic immunity, but there are repercussions. The Nations of the dark ages could violate the church courts, but there where repercussions. Modern states obeying international law does not mean they agree with it
@SpamSpamNEggs Right, so you think that you can get diplomatic immunity in a state without having to get the state to OK it? So you are absolutely completely fucking ignorant of diplomatic procedure and that the recieveing state has to recognise both the diplomat and the sending state. Fuck off you ignorant lying, toadraping, inbred, supercillious, delusional, arrogant, shiteating, propagandist.
@newperve LOL I think you blew a fuse. Toad rape, inbreeding, and shit eating have nothing to do with diplomatic immunity or the nature and function of states in general. You really should see a doctor or something if you think there is a connection there, it's called delusional.
I'm sorry to shatter your world view, but when you hold a position as stupid as creationism, It needs to be shattered.
@SpamSpamNEggs Neither does anything you say have anything to do with the nature and function of states. Look you're a fucking moron and don't understand things even when I explain over and fucking over. Seriously how fucking simple does something for you to understand it? You don't "shatter" my worldview, you haven't even scratched it. You are the one making claims without evidence and then pretending to be smarter than people who actualy refer to relevant facts.
@newperve You have downgraded your arguments to ad homin attacks. You have coincided every point that I have really pushed, except the latest and I just haven't been pushing long enough to break you shell of anti-state dogma. If I keep pushing it's just a matter of time before you admit that the US does not fit your definition of "State".
I know I haven't shattered your world view, but that's because you are doing the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la
@SpamSpamNEggs I'm not using ad hom attacks, I'm just calling you a moron asshole. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a moron asshole, you're wrong because your theories have no basis in fact. Look, you're the one who claims the US isn't a state, not me. I admitted that prior to the end of church law technically many governments weren't states, you pretended that applied now because you're an asshole. That's all.
@newperve What I don't see is how stabbing someone for not paying taxes is different from stabbing someone for not paying taxes, regardless of what any one else is doing. Is getting stabbed twice for not paying your taxes better than only getting stabbed once?
Diplomatic immunity prevents national governments from arresting and trying people with that privilege. These people are tried in international courts. This is the same as Church courts. Is the US not a state?
evidence and theory go hand in hand, at least if you want to entertain a consistent version of the scientific method. evidence does not stand on its own, it is only useful insofar as it backs a particular theory, at least as far as explanations go.
what anti-statists have provided are theories as to the causes behind the world's problems. the evidence for such theories is in every day observations.
the real problem is that scientists refuse to entertain a consistent version of the SM.
and to call them "scientists" is to be very lenient on my part. they think how they were told to think b/c mainstream "science" is based upon faith in authority, not in rationality.
@junior00bacon00chee So, are you talking about statheists, in that they aren't using a consistent scientific method in regard to theories of anti-statism?
i am saying scientists as a whole do not use a consistent version of the scientific method, and this problem extends into many areas. economics is just one of those areas IMO.
"scientists as a whole do not use a consistent version of the scientific method"
How do you mean? Are you saying that they don't use the SM in all areas of their lives? Or that they don't use the Same SM in all areas of their lives?
i am saying that they don't define the terms of the SM consistently. for example, they'll use the term "hypothesis" to refer to both a prediction ("Y will be the outcome of X circumstances") and also a statement about what exists ("X exists"). that is just one example. i made a video called the "explanatory scientific method" where i lay out what i believe to be the one consistent version of the scientific method.
This is where you have statists postion wrong. We don't have faith in authority. We do see that people with guns will shoot us. That that power does exist whether we like it or not.
The men with guns are not an invisible sky daddy. They are MEN WITH GUNS.
Saying the men with guns won't shoot you because of the magical sky daddy called free market is theism.
i'm not sure what you are saying. there will always be power and people with guns....a stateless society will not eliminate such things. all it does is remove an unnecessary and backwards intervention, ie, the deliberate establishment of an entity which can extort to survive and which can almost entirely relieve itself of competition and liability.
o/c the free market is not the end all solution, it simply eliminates the endless problems caused directly by statism.
@junior00bacon00chee "there will always be power and people with guns....a stateless society will not eliminate such things."
I'm saying this is not a statless society, only a society with a different state. You will have all the same problems you have today with our current state to greater or lesser degrees. Business regulations my not be as hard, but the rape gangs would be much worse.
@SomethingSea1 How is anything bad under a state? You make all sorts of arguments to this end yourself. You are not proposing a stateless society, only a society under a different state.
That's a strange question. The basis of a State is taxation, which means that there are people who have their money being taken whether they consent to it or not, and that those who are representatives of The State, those who are getting the money, to the extent that they do not need to serve customers (lest they lose their money) is the extent to which they will not meet the demands of the customers.
@SomethingSea1 To have this you need to not have guys with guns. You need to not have any one willing to use force or fruad to get what they want. You would need to have no one sell them selves into slavery out of fear.
Back to Fring's video and state formation. (My theory of state formation) States predate humans. If you look at our closest relatives, great apes, they affectingly have states. The king ape takes what ever he wants and beats up any one that trys to stop him. contiuned.
It is not a land based system of government, but it would be real hard to not describe this as a simple form of state. This leads me to believe that stateism is a behavior that dates back to a common ancestor of both gorillas and humans. Statism is a by product of being a social ape. To end statism we need to stop being social or stop being apes.
"To not have taxation you need to not have guys with guns? What?"
Taxation is theft. If there are guys with guns, they will steal. The smart ones will steal small amount on a regular basis, so you keep producing stuff for them to steal. This sounds like taxes to me, men with guns stealing your stuff on a regular basis.
@junior00bacon00chee I believe you are referring to scientists in relation to schooling and gov't? Because that's the amount of this stuff that you're referring to is coming from, much like how the free market is blamed for actions of The State.
just try to look up the definitions for words like "hypothesis," or "theory," and see how many different things you come up with. is a hypothesis where you say "X exists" and define what you mean, or is a hypothesis a prediction? is a theory where you say "X does this," or is it just another type of hypothesis when scientists, by consensus, say it has been elevated to such a status? if so how are the criteria for such an elevation established? as of now it's all based upon their authority.
"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."
"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts."
You propose a hypothesis, and if it is shown to be repeatable and works, it's a theory. If the prediction is wrong, adjustment is needed, and the hypothesis is revised.
you are using two different definitions of hypothesis here. on one hand you give the wiki defn, which is that it is a proposed explanation. on the other hand, you say it's a prediction which can be tested. those are two radically different things.
also, when something becomes a theory depends upon a show of hands basically. under my version of the SM a hypothesis never becomes a theory, and a theory never becomes a fact. they are always and everywhere distinct things.
my main point is that there is a stark difference between explanation and prediction, yet scientists continually confuse them. for example, einstein's general relativity predicts that galaxies should be flying apart, but clearly they aren't. so, instead of that disproving his predictive equation, they simply hypothesized the existence of "dark matter." they also think that getting the numbers right means the physical interpretation for the equation is "proven."
my proposed version of the SM is very simple and straightforward, and in no way does it depend upon arbitrary empirical standards set up by people with white coats and pieces of paper. basically i'm proposing that the SM is basically just a list of things which are logically necessary in order to have what can be called an explanation. i don't reject predictive/inductive type reasoning, but i think people should recognize that it is very different from explanation.
@junior00bacon00chee Pick a word at random. Any word. Now look it up. You will most likely have at least 2 definitions as dissimilar as the ones Sea gave for theory. If it fits either definition it is a theory. English is a very bad language with words meaning many things.
Galaxies are flying apart at speeds that are truly inconceivable, so that example doesn't work.
We really don't need uneducated boobs trying to muck with the basis of the scientific method and feeding the creationist tro
would you agree that it is imperative to use definitions consistently in science? that is what separates scientific language from colloquial speech. therefore, the term "theory" must be defined consistently, not with multiple meanings.
and GR says the galaxies themselves should rip apart, so it wasn't a statement about relationships between galaxies.
and until someone can respond to my criticisms i will continue to make them, and appeals to authority are unacceptable.
youtube atheists have become so focused on the crusade to defeat creationism that they are unwilling to debate the scientific method. apparently we must all just go along with whatever scientists tell us and have uniformity so we can beat the creationists. i think it's totally against the alleged principles of those who claim to be rationalists.
and what makes someone "educated?" b/c they believe w/e they are told and can pass the test? give me a fucking break.
@junior00bacon00chee What makes someone educated is a deeper understanding of the world around them. You obviously lack this. You have seen a shadow on the surface of science and are convinced that it is a gaping chasm. There is no problem with the scientific method. There is no problem with the words hypothesis or theory. The problem is that you do not understand. You are uneducated. You don't need a magical piece of paper to be educated. Pick up a book and read.
@SpamSpamNEggs He is arguing against compulsory schooling and the insanity that is gov't-driven education. The problem here is the conflation of that with ALL science. He's entirely right about the gov't aspects. Where he's dead wrong is about the method itself. SCIENTISTS might be not actually using the method, OR he's not understanding them and thinks they're not using it (or not using it right). Frankly, I'm perplexed as to this conspiratorial, nearly-creationist, thinking. wtf JBC?
typical response. you have not attempted to respond to my criticisms, but instead have chosen to engage in mere hand waving. "you are uneducated, you do not understand, blah blah blah" as if simply saying that makes it so, so you are above having to respond to my lowly criticisms.
it's really sad to see atheists totally unwilling to be challenged on the SM. would you like to pull your diapers up and see if you can respond to my criticisms? or should i expect more hand waving?
@junior00bacon00chee You ARE NOT worth a real response. I'm not sure if I should continue with hand waving or switch to insults and personal attacks. The hand waving is less likely to damage my reputation with others, but insults and personal attacks are much more fun.
Your thoughts on how to get rid of you insainly stupid comments?
you are apparently unwilling to discuss something directly relevant to what you have said in your own video. moreover, i was civil until you started with the personal attacks. none of this reflects very well on your alleged reputation.
and you know there is a "remove" button for comments, but i suppose you wouldn't want to hurt your "reputation." i would still be down for a civil discussion, but i guess you already know that i'm not worth it without even understanding my positions.
again, this all boils down to prediction vs. explanation. testing is necessary only if you think that the SM is all about prediction. testing is not required for explanations however, although it can be useful in generating support for a theory. one can provide explanations in any field of science without ever doing a single test. this obsession with tests is a result of science being focused on prediction rather than explanation.
i do have beef with scientists, but the problem is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the SM, so it is absolutely necessary for me to talk about the SM.
"on one hand you give the wiki defn, which is that it is a proposed explanation. on the other hand, you say it's a prediction which can be tested."
'Prediction which can be tested" and "proposed explanation for a phenomenon" is the same thing. A proposed explanation for a phenomenon is useless if it can't be tested.
No. Either it is replicated with the method given via the proposed explanation, or it isn't. Gravity and electricity isn't dependent on voting. Physics remains the same. The model itself will, necessarily, lack full comprehension, and exceptions will be found. Those exceptions are the basis to improve the necessarily faulty model, because we go from ignorance to knowledge (via experimentation and what it shows to be the case).
when does something move from a hypothesis to a theory in the current paradigm? consensus. when does something move from a theory to a fact? consensus. how are standards of empiricism determined? consensus.
yes testing adds some degree of objectivity as far as prediction goes, but why then hasn't einstein's GR been disconfirmed given the observation that galaxies aren't ripping apart? b/c scientists say so and anyone who questions it is a layman or a kook or both.
okay, let's take an example. every time i drop an apple, it falls to the earth. so, based upon that pattern recognition, i predict that when i release objects they will fall to the earth. then i can test that by dropping things. however, that does absolutely nothing to explain WHY things fall to the earth. in order to explain my observations i'd have to tell you the physical mechanism behind gravity. explanation and prediction are totally different.
they use terms like "hypothesis" and "theory" inconsistently. they claim to have proven the existence of things which they can't even define, like "warped space." when a problem pops up with a well accepted predictive "theory" they just invent some undefinable nonsense to keep it alive, like "dark matter" or "dark energy." honestly i can't believe that rational people take some of this shit seriously. only a consistent version of the SM can prevent this bullshit.
Wow, given how stupid this video is I can see why you don't want to give me a link to where you supposedly spanked fringeelements. Seriously how is a religion within a state a state? How is a corporation a state? Can any of these things you list legally initiate force? You claim that anti-statists don't have evidence for their beliefs, but I'm half way through your video and so far there's been no evidence for anything. Seriously you don't even know your opponents arguments.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve That you don't see how Religion and corporations are forms of state show that you don't understand the very argument that you are trying to present.
No evidence? LOL I payed sales tax today at the store. That is proof that the state exists. My burden of proof is met.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I understand your argument, it's just not true. That someone uses force or fraud doesn't make them "the state", only if it attempts and to some extent suceeds in maintaining that they are the only ones allowed to iniitate force or commit fraud is something a state. The mafia, corporations and churches for instance never insisted that the government not be allowed to collect taxes by force so they are not states.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve The government has never insisted that churches not be allowed to collect their taxes under threat of eternal torment (this is most decidedly a form of force), therefor the government is not a form of state.
Your logic, not mine.
Do you see the problem with your argument? It is your own argument that you don't understand. My argument is really really easy to understand.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs No actually it's not my logic it's your strawman. The churches aren't allowed to beat people up or troture them in the only real world there is, this one. They can claim that that people get beat up in some other place, but anyone actually getting beat up gets them arrested. The state even if god exists maintains it's geographical monopoly. Seriously idiot try harder.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve The churches aren't allowed to beat people up.....LOL.....The Inquisition happened inside the sovereign state of Spain. The 2,4,5th crusades happened within the sovereign state of Jerusalem. More recently pedophile priests have been allowed to contiune operating in the US.
Let me guess these don't count because they are old, or don't involve guns, or the victims where children who don't count or Spain didn't exist durring the Spanish Inquisition......
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs The inquisition didn't torture anyone, they had to call in the outside authorities to torture or execute, and they didn't like doing it because that meant giving someone else authority. The Crusades didn't happen within the borders of the Christian states, the whole point was to go somewhere that wasn't part of a Christian state and make it one. Now true that means that one state ignored the sovereignty of another, but that's what happens during war. Sorry you fail again.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve The inquisition did torture, maim, inprison and all sorts of other nasty things. They didn't call in outside help.
Crusades 1,3,6,7 did not happen within christian nations. 2,4,5 did. You really need to learn more history, or are you just ignoring it because it is destroying your argument.
Nothing on the pedophile priests????? Don't have a snide remark to try and deflect that use of force?
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs As usual you don't know what you're talking about. The inquisition called in the secular (i.e. non-church\) authorities when they wanted to use force. This is a fact, look it up. As usual you're totally wrong on all three crusades all of which were aimed at invading muslim-held lands. Seriously moron learn to wikipedia. The church has not denied the right of the state to try, convict, or even execute priests since, what Thomas a Beckert or something like that?
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve I do know what I'm talking about. Crusades 1,3,6,7 where to attack Muslim held lands. Crusades 2,4,5 where called to defend Jerusalem from invading armies. Crusades 2,4,5 where fought almost entire inside the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a sovern state, attacking armies of muslims that where trying to invade.
So, you admit that before, whenever, the church DID deny the rights of the government to try, convict......Thank you for proving my point in your own words.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "The Fifth Crusade (1213–1221) was an attempt to reacquire Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land by first conquering the powerful Ayyubid state in Egypt." Learn to wikipedia bitch.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve Well and truly irrelevant. I made a mistake as to the Crusades.
The point was to disprove your definition of state. To do that I need but ONE example. The Church operating it's own justice system within other sovereign states does that. You have admitted that the church did this. "The church as not denied the right of the state to try convict........since" In your own words.
Get a better definition of state.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs So in other words you haven' produced a single example of what you claim proves your point (the other two crusades also don't) but you still insist you've proved your point. Good one asshole. Yes the church operated it's own justice system way back, but you insisted modern pedophie priests, which were not part of that system and were subject to state law somehow proved your point. Once again you're being slippery and deceptive to avoid admitting you're wrong.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve You are just denying the truth. You are placing an unreasonable burden of proof on me. Do you really think that NO priests where pedophiles 500 years ago? Do you really think that no priests killed, raped or robbed before the church stopped using it's force to stop the prosecution of clergy?
The fact that the church used force to enact justice within the "geographic monopoly on force" of some other state proves my point, not the pedophiles.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs What unreasonable burden? You've claimed examples and they don't apply so now you're claiming, what? That I have to assume you have an example, somewhere? I know for a fact that priests raped, robbed and murdered back then, that's why Thomas got killed. But you claimed pedophile priests prove your point. Unless your point is that it wasn't really a state 500 years ago it does not. If that is your point then fine, but you're moving the goalposts.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve I've given examples. They do apply. You are requiring unreasonable proofs that they do apply.
The church had it's own courts, using force to inact justice within the boarders of other states. This proves my point.
My point is that by your definition states do not exist, and have never existed. Unless you want to say France, Spain and England are not states. Are you going to make the claim that the Monarchy of England is not a state?
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes it HAD it's own courts, it doesn't have them now. As I pointed out that is great if you want to argue that there wasn't a state in the 1500s, I might even agree. But what you're arguing is that there isn't a state NOW under my definition. This is what you always do, move the fucking goalposts again like I won't fucking notice. What the hell are you talking about? Why wouldn't France, England and Spain exist?
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve You just don't get it. The church operated these courts in every region of Europe from 400ish to 1700ish. I don't know the exact dates. If you are really going to agree that there where no states in Europe for more than 1200 years.....what the hell is a state, if the Monarchy of England during the 100 years war doesn't count!!!!!! Do you really think that King Louie III was not a head of state? Do you really think that Europe was statless for 1200 years?!?! You want to go back?!?!
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Yep, I'll agree we did not have states in the modern sense in that time. We had things that had many of the characteristics of a state and that behaved like a state towards most of the people within them. A state is exactly what I defined it as, an organisation that claims (relatively successfully) the monopoly of force in a given geographical area. My definition hasn't changed no matter how you try to drag in irrelevancies. Oh and BTW i don't believe you know the dates.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve Your right I don't know the dates. That's why I said -ish and I don't know the dates. Great catch calling me out on not knowing the dates when I have already said that I don't know the dates. You ability to read is amazing.
At this point a reasonable person would admit that they where wrong. The governments of the dark ages where forms of state, and your definition is bad. That didn't happen.
Since the Dark ages was stateless, how was it better than now? Do you want to go back?
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs As I pointed out we had things very like states. The vast majority of people behaved towards them as though they were states and the organisations behaved as states towards the vast majority of people. Why should I admit I am wrong when your original claim was that pedophile priests IN THE USA prove that states don't exist? The Dark Ages was not better than now, I never claimed it was. That doesn't mean that the fact that it wasn't better is due to statelessness.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve Yes, thing so like states that every one else calls them states. They acted just like states. They where treated just like states. They looked just like states. The only way they where not states is they don't fit your definition that defines states out of existence.
My original claim was that government is not the only form of state. I really don't know why you are stuck on the pedophile priest, unless you are jealous of their time with small boys.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Well no, they did not act just like states. States claim the right to the monopoly of force and that they can inflict this monopoly on anyone within their geographic regardless of whether or not they belong to another group. This is exactly what we have now so I'm not defining states out of existance. I am not stuck on pedophile priests, you brought it up despite it's total irrelevance and you keep trying to rescue your stupid example despite the fact it's totally irrelevant.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve No, there is no geographic Monopoly on force. The exceptions are just more subtle today. You dismiss them simply saying "That doesn't count". You deny that the Spanish inquisition used force.
Pedophile priests is nothing but a distraction that caused you to admit the truth. You are the one that keeps bringing them up, thinking that they have something to do with the church courts of the dark ages.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs What truth did I admit? I simply said that states as we know them did not exist in a certain period. You are claiming that there is not a monopoly of force, but every example you gave is either bullshit or stopped applying centuries ago. Who is not subject to the state's monopoly of force now? You brought up pedophile priests and you're the one who brought in the church courts of the middle ages. This has nothing to do with whether there is a state now. God you're dishonest.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve I'm not dishonest. I just have evidence that you are wrong. Since you can't admit to yourself that you are wrong, you see my truths as lies. This is where the problem lies in talking to you. It is not my presentation. It is not my evidence. It is not my arguments. It is your unsupportable beliefs of what a state is. You should watch "The bomb on the Brain" series by Stefbot. He does a very good job of explaining why you can't see the truth.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You claim to have evidence, yet you've abandoned every example you gave. So where is the evidence? You argued pedophile priests in the US were evidence, then tried to use law that hadn't existed contemporaneously with the USA to support it. Really you should stop claiming that others can't see your evidence and actually present something that isn't total bullshit.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve I have shown evidence. You just dismiss it since it does not agree with you. I have only abandoned 2 of 6 examples I gave. The pedophile priests being one of them, and that one that seems to be central to your dismisses of my evidence.
You have moved the goal posts by now insisting that only the modern US is "really" a state, historic states like France, England, and Spain don't count.
You are the one that is full of BS, denying everything to desperately cling to your faith.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I didn't say that only the modern US is really a state, are you really so stupid you can't see that what I said about there not being states in the middle ages doesn't mean that Britain, France and Spain are now states? Or are you just being dishonest again? The examples you give are The Inquistion, which if you haven't abadoned it as disproof or modern states you really should, the crusades ditto, the pedophile priests and corporations, which you didn't even attempt to defend.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve Correct I haven't even attempted to defend the pedophile priests. Will you drop that now?
You have moved the goal posts from "states" to "modern states" then.
The crusades, the Inquisition, the Church courts are all examples of how your definition does not work on historical states. You are denying that England France Spain and many other states did not exist between 400ish and 1700ish. Not talking about modern nations......though I fail to see the real difference.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You did attempt to defend the pedophile priests, that's how we got onto modern vs medieval in the first place. You were moving the goalposts. What I say applies equally to ancient states like Rome as modern. I do not deny that England, France and Spain were not states between ~400 - 1700. I acknowledge that, this doesn't affect weither they are states now. I have already explained the difference, church law, which you brought up moron.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve What I don't see is how stabbing someone for not paying taxes is different from stabbing someone for not paying taxes, regardless of what any one else is doing. Is getting stabbed twice for not paying your taxes better than only getting stabbed once?
Diplomatic immunity prevents national governments from arresting and trying people with that privilege. These people are tried in international courts. This is the same as Church courts. Is the US not a state?
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs It's not about getting stabbed twice it's about whether a group other than the State can grant immunity from the laws of the State. Diplomats are granted immunity by the State recieving them, not by any other group. This can be waived by their State but if it is they can be tried in the recieveing State's court not international courts. Do you get ANYTHING right?.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve Diplomatic immunity is a matter of international law established at the Vienna Conference of Diplomatic Relations in 1961. The ability for immunity to be waved is irrelevant since it can be upheld and the US is prevented by international law from arresting them. yes I do get things right. You are just trying really desperately to hold on to your religion of "anti-statism" that has no basis in reality.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs What is relevant is that nobody is immune from the state's laws that the state didn't specifically allow to be immune to the state's laws. You can't simply say "I'm a diplomat so you can't arrest me.", you have to get the State to approve you being a diplomat. Seriously you are so stupid, you think claiming that I'm the one holding on to an absurd belief is an argument, it's not. Grow up and admit you were wrong.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve You have already agreed that the church courts of the dark ages make Europe stateless for more than 1200 years. These church courts did not allow just anyone to say I am clergy, you can't arrest me. You had to be recognized as clergy by the church to get this immunity. The same is true for diplomatic immunity. You must be recognized as "diplomat" by another nation or the UN to get diplomatic immunity.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You need to be recognised as a diplomat by the state in question moron, that's the point I just made and you still don't get it. You can't get the immunity from a state unless that state agrees, that's a pretty simple point. How fucking simple does a concept have to get before you get it?
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve Nope, you are wrong. You can't see that you are wrong because it would destroy your definition of state. Diplomatic immunity is granted by the sending nation and the UN under the rules set forth in the Vienna Conference of Diplomatic Relations. Yes, nations can violate diplomatic immunity, but there are repercussions. The Nations of the dark ages could violate the church courts, but there where repercussions. Modern states obeying international law does not mean they agree with it
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Right, so you think that you can get diplomatic immunity in a state without having to get the state to OK it? So you are absolutely completely fucking ignorant of diplomatic procedure and that the recieveing state has to recognise both the diplomat and the sending state. Fuck off you ignorant lying, toadraping, inbred, supercillious, delusional, arrogant, shiteating, propagandist.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve LOL I think you blew a fuse. Toad rape, inbreeding, and shit eating have nothing to do with diplomatic immunity or the nature and function of states in general. You really should see a doctor or something if you think there is a connection there, it's called delusional.
I'm sorry to shatter your world view, but when you hold a position as stupid as creationism, It needs to be shattered.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Neither does anything you say have anything to do with the nature and function of states. Look you're a fucking moron and don't understand things even when I explain over and fucking over. Seriously how fucking simple does something for you to understand it? You don't "shatter" my worldview, you haven't even scratched it. You are the one making claims without evidence and then pretending to be smarter than people who actualy refer to relevant facts.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve You have downgraded your arguments to ad homin attacks. You have coincided every point that I have really pushed, except the latest and I just haven't been pushing long enough to break you shell of anti-state dogma. If I keep pushing it's just a matter of time before you admit that the US does not fit your definition of "State".
I know I haven't shattered your world view, but that's because you are doing the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I'm not using ad hom attacks, I'm just calling you a moron asshole. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a moron asshole, you're wrong because your theories have no basis in fact. Look, you're the one who claims the US isn't a state, not me. I admitted that prior to the end of church law technically many governments weren't states, you pretended that applied now because you're an asshole. That's all.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve What I don't see is how stabbing someone for not paying taxes is different from stabbing someone for not paying taxes, regardless of what any one else is doing. Is getting stabbed twice for not paying your taxes better than only getting stabbed once?
Diplomatic immunity prevents national governments from arresting and trying people with that privilege. These people are tried in international courts. This is the same as Church courts. Is the US not a state?
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
evidence and theory go hand in hand, at least if you want to entertain a consistent version of the scientific method. evidence does not stand on its own, it is only useful insofar as it backs a particular theory, at least as far as explanations go.
what anti-statists have provided are theories as to the causes behind the world's problems. the evidence for such theories is in every day observations.
the real problem is that scientists refuse to entertain a consistent version of the SM.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@jbc
and to call them "scientists" is to be very lenient on my part. they think how they were told to think b/c mainstream "science" is based upon faith in authority, not in rationality.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee So, are you talking about statheists, in that they aren't using a consistent scientific method in regard to theories of anti-statism?
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
i am saying scientists as a whole do not use a consistent version of the scientific method, and this problem extends into many areas. economics is just one of those areas IMO.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"scientists as a whole do not use a consistent version of the scientific method"
How do you mean? Are you saying that they don't use the SM in all areas of their lives? Or that they don't use the Same SM in all areas of their lives?
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
i am saying that they don't define the terms of the SM consistently. for example, they'll use the term "hypothesis" to refer to both a prediction ("Y will be the outcome of X circumstances") and also a statement about what exists ("X exists"). that is just one example. i made a video called the "explanatory scientific method" where i lay out what i believe to be the one consistent version of the scientific method.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
This is where you have statists postion wrong. We don't have faith in authority. We do see that people with guns will shoot us. That that power does exist whether we like it or not.
The men with guns are not an invisible sky daddy. They are MEN WITH GUNS.
Saying the men with guns won't shoot you because of the magical sky daddy called free market is theism.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
i'm not sure what you are saying. there will always be power and people with guns....a stateless society will not eliminate such things. all it does is remove an unnecessary and backwards intervention, ie, the deliberate establishment of an entity which can extort to survive and which can almost entirely relieve itself of competition and liability.
o/c the free market is not the end all solution, it simply eliminates the endless problems caused directly by statism.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee "there will always be power and people with guns....a stateless society will not eliminate such things."
I'm saying this is not a statless society, only a society with a different state. You will have all the same problems you have today with our current state to greater or lesser degrees. Business regulations my not be as hard, but the rape gangs would be much worse.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "but the rape gangs would be much worse."
Explain.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1 How is anything bad under a state? You make all sorts of arguments to this end yourself. You are not proposing a stateless society, only a society under a different state.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
"How is anything bad under a state?"
That's a strange question. The basis of a State is taxation, which means that there are people who have their money being taken whether they consent to it or not, and that those who are representatives of The State, those who are getting the money, to the extent that they do not need to serve customers (lest they lose their money) is the extent to which they will not meet the demands of the customers.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
I'm simply proposing the lack of this. To have there be a direct correlation between what is given and what is gotten. Voluntary interactions.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1 To have this you need to not have guys with guns. You need to not have any one willing to use force or fruad to get what they want. You would need to have no one sell them selves into slavery out of fear.
Back to Fring's video and state formation. (My theory of state formation) States predate humans. If you look at our closest relatives, great apes, they affectingly have states. The king ape takes what ever he wants and beats up any one that trys to stop him. contiuned.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
It is not a land based system of government, but it would be real hard to not describe this as a simple form of state. This leads me to believe that stateism is a behavior that dates back to a common ancestor of both gorillas and humans. Statism is a by product of being a social ape. To end statism we need to stop being social or stop being apes.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
"States predate humans."
"The king ape takes what ever he wants and beats up any one that trys to stop him."
"not a land based"
"Statism is a by product of being a social ape. To end statism we need to stop being social or stop being apes."
Hm... I'm going to think about this for a bit. I'll probably make a video and link it here.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
"To have this you need to not have guys with guns."
To not have taxation you need to not have guys with guns? What?
"You need to not have any one willing to use force or fruad to get what they want."
I'm not talking about a lack of violence or coercion. A lack of belief... (blah de blah de blah).
"You would need to have no one sell them selves into slavery out of fear."
...wtf? That's not possible. Voluntary slavery is not slavery. Then again, I saw a square circle yesterday.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
"To not have taxation you need to not have guys with guns? What?"
Taxation is theft. If there are guys with guns, they will steal. The smart ones will steal small amount on a regular basis, so you keep producing stuff for them to steal. This sounds like taxes to me, men with guns stealing your stuff on a regular basis.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs btw I accidentally thumbed your comment down. I wish the thumbs down wasn't right next to the reply button.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
"We don't have faith in authority."
You do by proxy. Taxation is a necessary evil. (watch some fringe videos for more on that)
As well, how does giving a bunch of men guns solve anything? They already have the guns. Fuck your opinion.
"Saying the men with guns won't shoot you because of the magical sky daddy called free market is theism."
What the fuck? The ENTIRE POINT of all of this is that THEY WILL shoot you if you resist!
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee I believe you are referring to scientists in relation to schooling and gov't? Because that's the amount of this stuff that you're referring to is coming from, much like how the free market is blamed for actions of The State.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"the real problem is that scientists refuse to entertain a consistent version of the SM."
SM = ?
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
"scientists refuse to entertain a consistent version of the SM."
What do you mean?
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SS
just try to look up the definitions for words like "hypothesis," or "theory," and see how many different things you come up with. is a hypothesis where you say "X exists" and define what you mean, or is a hypothesis a prediction? is a theory where you say "X does this," or is it just another type of hypothesis when scientists, by consensus, say it has been elevated to such a status? if so how are the criteria for such an elevation established? as of now it's all based upon their authority.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
From wiki:
"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."
"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts."
You propose a hypothesis, and if it is shown to be repeatable and works, it's a theory. If the prediction is wrong, adjustment is needed, and the hypothesis is revised.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
you are using two different definitions of hypothesis here. on one hand you give the wiki defn, which is that it is a proposed explanation. on the other hand, you say it's a prediction which can be tested. those are two radically different things.
also, when something becomes a theory depends upon a show of hands basically. under my version of the SM a hypothesis never becomes a theory, and a theory never becomes a fact. they are always and everywhere distinct things.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
my main point is that there is a stark difference between explanation and prediction, yet scientists continually confuse them. for example, einstein's general relativity predicts that galaxies should be flying apart, but clearly they aren't. so, instead of that disproving his predictive equation, they simply hypothesized the existence of "dark matter." they also think that getting the numbers right means the physical interpretation for the equation is "proven."
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
my proposed version of the SM is very simple and straightforward, and in no way does it depend upon arbitrary empirical standards set up by people with white coats and pieces of paper. basically i'm proposing that the SM is basically just a list of things which are logically necessary in order to have what can be called an explanation. i don't reject predictive/inductive type reasoning, but i think people should recognize that it is very different from explanation.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Pick a word at random. Any word. Now look it up. You will most likely have at least 2 definitions as dissimilar as the ones Sea gave for theory. If it fits either definition it is a theory. English is a very bad language with words meaning many things.
Galaxies are flying apart at speeds that are truly inconceivable, so that example doesn't work.
We really don't need uneducated boobs trying to muck with the basis of the scientific method and feeding the creationist tro
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
would you agree that it is imperative to use definitions consistently in science? that is what separates scientific language from colloquial speech. therefore, the term "theory" must be defined consistently, not with multiple meanings.
and GR says the galaxies themselves should rip apart, so it wasn't a statement about relationships between galaxies.
and until someone can respond to my criticisms i will continue to make them, and appeals to authority are unacceptable.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
youtube atheists have become so focused on the crusade to defeat creationism that they are unwilling to debate the scientific method. apparently we must all just go along with whatever scientists tell us and have uniformity so we can beat the creationists. i think it's totally against the alleged principles of those who claim to be rationalists.
and what makes someone "educated?" b/c they believe w/e they are told and can pass the test? give me a fucking break.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee What makes someone educated is a deeper understanding of the world around them. You obviously lack this. You have seen a shadow on the surface of science and are convinced that it is a gaping chasm. There is no problem with the scientific method. There is no problem with the words hypothesis or theory. The problem is that you do not understand. You are uneducated. You don't need a magical piece of paper to be educated. Pick up a book and read.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs He is arguing against compulsory schooling and the insanity that is gov't-driven education. The problem here is the conflation of that with ALL science. He's entirely right about the gov't aspects. Where he's dead wrong is about the method itself. SCIENTISTS might be not actually using the method, OR he's not understanding them and thinks they're not using it (or not using it right). Frankly, I'm perplexed as to this conspiratorial, nearly-creationist, thinking. wtf JBC?
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
typical response. you have not attempted to respond to my criticisms, but instead have chosen to engage in mere hand waving. "you are uneducated, you do not understand, blah blah blah" as if simply saying that makes it so, so you are above having to respond to my lowly criticisms.
it's really sad to see atheists totally unwilling to be challenged on the SM. would you like to pull your diapers up and see if you can respond to my criticisms? or should i expect more hand waving?
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee You ARE NOT worth a real response. I'm not sure if I should continue with hand waving or switch to insults and personal attacks. The hand waving is less likely to damage my reputation with others, but insults and personal attacks are much more fun.
Your thoughts on how to get rid of you insainly stupid comments?
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@Spam
you are apparently unwilling to discuss something directly relevant to what you have said in your own video. moreover, i was civil until you started with the personal attacks. none of this reflects very well on your alleged reputation.
and you know there is a "remove" button for comments, but i suppose you wouldn't want to hurt your "reputation." i would still be down for a civil discussion, but i guess you already know that i'm not worth it without even understanding my positions.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee watch?v=As_jQVQEgtM
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"proposing that the SM is basically just a list of things which are logically necessary in order to have what can be called an explanation."
The basis of the scientific method is testing. If you don't have that, it's not a method.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
again, this all boils down to prediction vs. explanation. testing is necessary only if you think that the SM is all about prediction. testing is not required for explanations however, although it can be useful in generating support for a theory. one can provide explanations in any field of science without ever doing a single test. this obsession with tests is a result of science being focused on prediction rather than explanation.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"my main point is that there is a stark difference between explanation and prediction, yet scientists continually confuse them."
Sounds like you have a beef with scientists. Then talk about scientists, not the SM.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
i do have beef with scientists, but the problem is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the SM, so it is absolutely necessary for me to talk about the SM.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@junior00bacon00chee
"on one hand you give the wiki defn, which is that it is a proposed explanation. on the other hand, you say it's a prediction which can be tested."
'Prediction which can be tested" and "proposed explanation for a phenomenon" is the same thing. A proposed explanation for a phenomenon is useless if it can't be tested.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"depends upon a show of hands basically."
No. Either it is replicated with the method given via the proposed explanation, or it isn't. Gravity and electricity isn't dependent on voting. Physics remains the same. The model itself will, necessarily, lack full comprehension, and exceptions will be found. Those exceptions are the basis to improve the necessarily faulty model, because we go from ignorance to knowledge (via experimentation and what it shows to be the case).
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
when does something move from a hypothesis to a theory in the current paradigm? consensus. when does something move from a theory to a fact? consensus. how are standards of empiricism determined? consensus.
yes testing adds some degree of objectivity as far as prediction goes, but why then hasn't einstein's GR been disconfirmed given the observation that galaxies aren't ripping apart? b/c scientists say so and anyone who questions it is a layman or a kook or both.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
okay, let's take an example. every time i drop an apple, it falls to the earth. so, based upon that pattern recognition, i predict that when i release objects they will fall to the earth. then i can test that by dropping things. however, that does absolutely nothing to explain WHY things fall to the earth. in order to explain my observations i'd have to tell you the physical mechanism behind gravity. explanation and prediction are totally different.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
they use terms like "hypothesis" and "theory" inconsistently. they claim to have proven the existence of things which they can't even define, like "warped space." when a problem pops up with a well accepted predictive "theory" they just invent some undefinable nonsense to keep it alive, like "dark matter" or "dark energy." honestly i can't believe that rational people take some of this shit seriously. only a consistent version of the SM can prevent this bullshit.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1
scientific method.
junior00bacon00chee 7 months ago