are you kidding ?

maxx

I was not and am not limiting my ideas to a specific hierarchy so to speak. Just the post upon justice. I keep bringing up quantum mechanics because you keep bringing it up; or are you unaware of who Feynman was?@AlexOland

maxx

I’m not limiting my ideas to a specific hierarchy, just the post on justice and the reason I keep bringing up quantum mechanics is because you do or are you unaware of who Feynman was?@AlexOland

AlexOland

@maxx ;

"I was not and am not limiting my ideas to a specific hierarchy so to speak."

 You logic was that justice is a human concept therefore there cannot be true justice. This means that you do not agree with the ideas up the hierarchy and consider them "not true".

 " I keep bringing up quantum mechanics because you keep bringing it up; orate you unaware of who Feynman was?"

 I am aware of who Feynman is but the video that I linked has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Feynman talks about something entirely different there. How is that video relevant to quantum mechanics? And when have I brought up quantum mechanics aside from when I was talking about that other post?

maxx

my logic was justice is a human concept and can not be true justice?? how nice to put words into my mouth.  I never said or hinted anything about true justice. I said justice does not exist aside from being a human concept. you said you agreed with that; great. if you wish to argue and debate the rest of what you are are talking about, feel free to create a post upon those ideas. yes I understand you are just arguing the opposite stance just for the sake of debate, yet you totally are out of bounds with trying to tell me about unknown concepts can exist outside of human existence and that space and time may not exist. all you are doing is taking my statements and asking me how do I know without properly explaining how you know I am wrong.@AlexOland

AlexOland

"my logic was justice is a human concept and can not be true justice?? how nice to put words into my mouth.  I never said or hinted anything about true justice."

Your exact words: 'justice is a human concept. in reality, nature does not have a justice system, therefore there is no true justice.' Can you at least accept that you were wrong on this issue?

 "you said you agreed with that; great. if you wish to argue and debate the rest of what you are are talking about, feel free to create a post upon those ideas."

 But my objection was about something specific that you said on that specific post. How is this not a fit issue to have an argument about, under that post?

 " yes I understand you are just arguing the opposite stance just for the sake of debate"

 No, I have never said this. I told you countless times that my position is not to defend justice. My position was that your argument when disproving justice was flawed. That is why I freaked out when you said: "show me justice" because this meant that you did not understand anything I was talking about. (or rather, did not read)

 "trying to tell me about unknown concepts can exist outside of human existence and that space and time may not exist"

 I said that IF we were to follow your logic, then all human concepts would be not true. I did not say that space and time may not exist as a claim, I said that was the result we would logically arrive at if we were to follow your logic. 

 "all you are doing is taking my statements and asking me how do I know without properly explaining how you know I am wrong"

 All I said was that your logic while arriving that justice was not true, was flawed. You somehow missed this point which is why I was arguing in the first place. It was not a big deal, I even said that you made your case stronger afterwards. But you just did not understand what I was saying so the discussion just went on and on... And you still probably do not understand my position.

maxx

@AlexOland

maxx

@AlexOland perhaps i assumed you would understand when reading my original post was there is no true justice outside of the human realm in which i was through out the debate attempting to argue. again all you were doing was telling me i do no know.  yes it is up to you to prove me wrong not the other way. i stand by my statement that there is no justice outside of humans and until i am shown concrete evidence of the contrary then no amount of talking about concepts unknown and links  and the suggestions of me not understanding logic will not sway me. you have no concrete arguments as to show me where justice of any kind exists except with-in the realm of humans, do you?

AlexOland

@maxx

 "perhaps i assumed you would understand when reading my original post was there is no true justice outside of the human realm in which i was through out the debate attempting to argue."

 How can I know what you are arguing for if you cannot state what you are arguing for properly? " in reality, nature does not have a justice system, therefore there is no true justice." this is a sentence. Standing by itself. How was I supposed to understand something else by this? More importantly, why did not you say: "Oh, that was not what I meant!" after I made my case against you? Sorry, it just does not hold up. You have to admit at least making this mistake. 

 " again all you were doing was telling me i do no know.  yes it is up to you to prove me wrong not the other way. i stand by my statement that there is no justice outside of humans and until i am shown concrete evidence of the contrary"

 Yep, you still do not understand what my position is. Let me tell you again, for the tenth time (this could literally be the tenth time)! I am not claiming that justice exists. I am only claiming that you disproving of justice was flawed! Let's repeat again: I am not claiming that justice exists. I am only claiming that your disproving of justice was flawed!

 "no amount of talking about concepts unknown and links  and the suggestions of me not understanding logic will not sway me."

 Because you do not even understand what we are arguing about. I thought you did not understand the logic but what you were not understanding was the topic of the debate (even though I mentioned it countless times).

 "you have no concrete arguments as to show me where justice of any kind exists except with-in the realm of humans, do you?"

 THIS IS NOT MY CLAIM. I NEVER CLAIMED AND AM NOT CLAIMING THAT JUSTICE IS EXISTENT. I AM ONLY OBJECTING TO YOUR DISPROVING OF JUSTICE WHICH I THINK IS FLAWED. HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE IDEA. I TOLD YOU THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

maxx

@AlexOland I do not have to prove that it exists, you do. there is nothing flawed about me stating that since humans created the system of justice, then it does not exist outside of it, and you know it. how is it flawed? my argument is humans created the system of justice; therefore it dose not exist anywhere else/ I could have said humans created shoestrings and it does not exist anywhere else and you would have said ,my argument was flawed and then start talking about the idea of unknown shoe-strings and my logic was flawed because I do not know if shoes even exist so shoestrings can even have a reason for existence. give it a break. my argument was something created by humans; especially a concept of humans does not exist elsewhere. show me where that is flawed

AlexOland

@maxx ;

"I do not have to prove that it exists"

 Never claimed that you had to prove it exists.

---

"you do"

 I do not because I do not believe that it exists and I never claimed that it exists. Do you remember the part from my previous comment? This part:

THIS IS NOT MY CLAIM. I NEVER CLAIMED AND AM NOT CLAIMING THAT JUSTICE IS EXISTENT. I AM ONLY OBJECTING TO YOUR DISPROVING OF JUSTICE WHICH I THINK IS FLAWED. HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE IDEA. I TOLD YOU THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

 Maybe you just missed it? 

---

"now bug the off"

 What does that mean? 

maxx

@AlexOland I know that you constantly claimed that it does not exist and even that in a way you agree. you also stated that you are not debating the other side simply for the sake of the argument; therefore if you agreed and are not arguing the opposite side then why did you create the argument in the first place? a debate is 2 or more who discuss opposing views; one does not simply go through talking about an issue in an opposing side if one agrees with the topic. go back to the post  and you can see where your first few answers were hardly consistent with one who agrees with the topic

AlexOland

@maxx ;

"if you agreed and are not arguing the opposite side then why did you create the argument in the first place?"

 Because I disagreed with your logic under your main post which is this: "in reality, nature does not have a justice system, therefore there is no true justice.". I have said this to you countless times.

---

"one does not simply go through talking about an issue in an opposing side if one agrees with the topic."

 Opposing sides do not have to disagree on everything. We can both like chocolate milk but discuss whether Trump is an alien or not. Likewise, I agreed with you on one part of your argument but I disagreed with the other part. I have no idea how you cannot fathom this. It is a simple thing. You said something and I objected to that something. That does not mean that I oppose some other view, it means that I oppose the view that I objected to. For example when you say: "2+3=5 , the fact that I have a sister proves this equation." I can respond with: "Yes, 2+3 does indeed equal to 5. But how did you reach this conclusion from the fact that you have a sister? They have no corralation." 

---

"go back to the post  and you can see where your first few answers were hardly consistent with one who agrees with the topic"

 Well, this is from my second reply:

 ' I agree with you on this topic but I am just trying to say that you did not make an actual argument against the idea of "justice". '

 So I straight out say that I agree with you but my reply is somehow inconsistent with someone who agrees with you? Yeah. That is pretty nice. Also, the fact that you did not mention what those "first few answers" are is pretty nice too. (I am being sarcastic, if you can't tell)

 

maxx

@AlexOland how can you possibly disagree with my logic that there is no true justice outside of human existence if humans created justice? ( see above for you just stated that)

AlexOland

@maxx ;

 Finally you understand my position! After 20 or so comments...

 "in reality, nature does not have a justice system, therefore there is no true justice."

 The fact that something does not exist in nature (or rather the fact that it is unobservable in nature) does not prove that that something is not true. Is "pain" not true because we cannot observe it? And before you say: "We can observe pain, look at the neurons!" let me tell you that we do not observe "pain" itself there. We just observe that when "pain" happens, certain neurons go off. How do we know that "pain" happens? Because humans tell us that they are feeling "pain"! So the only evidence we have of this uncomfortable feeling "pain" is human testimony. 

 Can you observe consciousness? No. Does it mean that it is not true? No. 

 Can you observe pleasure? Can you observe mental images? Can you observe the idea of beauty? Yet none of these are "false"(not true). You may object to the idea of beauty so let me ask you something, do you have an idea of beauty in your mind even though it is an abstract one? It does not matter that the idea is not objective, it only matters that the idea is there because you are only making a comment on the abstraction of the "idea" itself, not what it entails.

 Now, if you are going to reject all of this, I will bring up that hierarchies of ideas argument. But I really do not think you will.   

maxx

@AlexOland oh for god sakes you are one of those types of people. I am sure glad that this conversation never happened,  one never knows about being able to step outside of reality and peer down upon it to see if things in the human realm actually exists; and then you tell me to stop bringing quantum mechanics up, yet here your are in a world of your own. no I can not observe pain any more than you can observe justice nor the reality of your argument. from your point of view one may as well say nothing exists; if so, then it is a waste of your time to reply for if nothing exist, then neither do you. after all, it is impossible to observe you; how do I know that you exist other than you telling me so? it is no wonder very few upon this site interact with you. oh and by the way, you totally ruined anyone else attempt to answer.  go ruin someone else's debate with your stupidity.

AlexOland

@maxx What? You have, again, failed to understand my argument. I am not saying that nothing exists or anything like that... I am saying that IF we were to follow your logic, THESE are the things that would happen... This logic is more commonly known as "Reductio ad absurdum". 

---

 "from your point of view one may as well say nothing exists"

 No. This is almost nearly the opposite of my point of view... Did you even understand what Feynman was saying in that video? 

---
 
"it is no wonder very few upon this site interact with you."

 First of all, this is an ad hominem. Second of all, it is not true. You are, again, showing your true colors. You are not able to make an argument nor are you able to understand what the other side's argument is. This is the first time I had this problem with anyone... No one I debated with were as thick-headed as you.

 And, I really do not like doing this but, look at the reactions that you have and look at the reactions that I have... more than half of them are negative in your case. Mentioning your points would be unfair as you are new but looking at someone's reactions is a good way to tell how they are interacting with the community.

---

 "oh and by the way, you totally ruined anyone else attempt to answer."

 No. They can just answer. I did not take that away from them. My only mistake is keeping this post up in the list by responding to you.

---

 "go ruin someone else's debate with your stupidity."

You are the one who is unable to understand a simple video. You are the one who fails to understands quantum mechanics. You are the one who acts like Deepak Chopra. And somehow I am ... ? I am done communicating with you. If anyone reads this, (I hope no one wastes their time with you like I did) they will see who did what. This is my curse. I can't stop debating with frauds. A christian who rejects evolution... A flat earther who believes he understands science... and now a Deepak Chopra clone who uses a twisted understanding - if we can even call that an understanding - of quantum mechanics to spew Bullsh*t. I can be talking about cows and you will still meantion "quantum mechanics" because you want to sound intelligent. 
 

Dee

@AlexOland

No worries Alex 

Dee

@Maxx

You say...... it is no wonder very few upon this site interact with you. oh and by the way, you totally ruined anyone else attempt to answer.  go ruin someone else's debate with your stupidity.

My reply .....There you go more evidence of what you constantly deny as in you launch into personal attacks where merely asked simple questions to clarify your position , it’s also most amusing you call @AlexOland yet he is the one who clearly is a very good debater while you are the complete opposite as you spew Deepak Chopra style gibberish , why do you go into a hissy fit when asked to defend your position? The answer is when you have no valid defence this is your usual lamentable defence as in accuse others of the very traits you display by the bucket load