Five million man: proofs of key problems

[Left Coast]

Good, then stop claiming a "we" that is not there.

The we is there. I just went over this.

For the purpose of your "we" I am one of "them", because I am a high functioning autist. And yes, IFF you are functionally a normie, then you won't notice, how normies harm those, who are neuro-diverse. I don't know if you are a normie, but you use a "we" like all other limited social groups, whether it be culture/sub-culture/ideology/philosophy and even science.

I told you, mikkel, "we" just means more than one person, collectively. If more than one person does something, in English we can say "they do _____." If I'm part of the group doing it, I can say, "we do _______." This has nothing to do with being neurotypical or not, it's just grammar. I meant no offense to you if any was taken.

So in short, when you subjectively go "we", I go "them". Now that is a fact, which you can observe using science. So yes, I am a social warrior and I fight the privilege in the "we".

When I've said "we" in this thread, I didn't literally mean, "you and me." I meant people generally speaking, of whom I am one.

I realize as an autistic person you may feel unique or like you don't "belong" in some way, and I'm sorry for that. That was the farthest thing from my mind in this conversation, or any of our other conversations.

 

[questfortruth]

No, another behavior than yours is just that - another behavior. You are not unique in that you in the end claim Objective Authority to judge your own and other humans different behavior.

The laws of Physics rule over Nature.
The laws of God (the objective moral) rule over society.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The we is there. I just went over this.



I told you, mikkel, "we" just means more than one person, collectively. If more than one person does something, in English we can say "they do _____." If I'm part of the group doing it, I can say, "we do _______." This has nothing to do with being neurotypical or not, it's just grammar. I meant no offense to you if any was taken.



When I've said "we" in this thread, I didn't literally mean, "you and me." I meant people generally speaking, of whom I am one.

I realize as an autistic person you may feel unique or like you don't "belong" in some way, and I'm sorry for that. That was the farthest thing from my mind in this conversation, or any of our other conversations.

Thank you for your honest and good answer.

Now let us look closer at the category of harm.
The problem with harm is that it is not like gravity. In the absurd sense one human's good is another human's bad. I know this, because I had to learn it the hard way.
My wife is a social worker Scandinavian style and I have read all her books. Further I have been subject to the work of social workers, psychologist, psychiatrists and so on. And yes, some of them has caused me discomfort because they based their behavior on a "we", than didn't apply to me.
It doesn't stop there, the Internet is great if you have learned the basic skill of critical thinking to learn more. And I have really tried to be like that "we" and ground it with reason, evidence, rationality, objectivity and what not. I can't. I can fake it for some limited time, but it ends up causing me discomfort to act like a normie.

So that is where your "we" end. In general it works, but if you go closer it break downs. How - because we as social animals are individuals, who rely on groups of individuals. And because I am an Aspie, I am still a human, but I don't function as a normie in some sense for good and bad. Or indeed harm.

Love
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The laws of Physics rule over Nature.
The laws of God (the objective moral) rule over society.

Says you. I still do it differently. That is in effect that falsification of your claim to objectivity. It is not objective, because I can do it subjectively differently.

 

[questfortruth]

Says you. I still do it differently. That is in effect that falsification of your claim to objectivity. It is not objective, because I can do it subjectively differently.

Because there is not one, but two spirits (God is Spirit), one tells you to sin, other - to obey commandments.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because there is not one, but two spirits (God is Spirit), one tells you to sin, other - to obey commandments.

And again I use a test and turn it into something falsifiable: Can I subjectively do God differently than you and yet feel as certain as you do. Yes, I can. Thus it is for this world we share subjective in both cases.

 

[questfortruth]

And again I use a test and turn it into something falsifiable: Can I subjectively do God differently than you and yet feel as certain as you do. Yes, I can. Thus it is for this world we share subjective in both cases.

If there is no objectivity, then is it objective? Is it objective truth, that there are no objectives?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If there is no objectivity, then is it objective? Is it objective truth, that there are no objectives?

I didn't say there was no objectivity. It is there but it is limited.

 

[questfortruth]

I didn't say there was no objectivity. It is there but it is limited.

1. God's opinion is objective truth, God is not limited.
2. Bob thinks, that milk is tastier than butter. It is his subjective opinion. But God's objective opinion is the following: "according to Bob the milk is tastier than butter."

 

[Left Coast]

Thank you for your honest and good answer.

Now let us look closer at the category of harm.
The problem with harm is that it is not like gravity. In the absurd sense one human's good is another human's bad. I know this, because I had to learn it the hard way.
My wife is a social worker Scandinavian style and I have read all her books. Further I have been subject to the work of social workers, psychologist, psychiatrists and so on. And yes, some of them has caused me discomfort because they based their behavior on a "we", than didn't apply to me.

The fact that some action that benefited others caused you harm, doesn't mean that we can't speak at all of what causes harm and what doesn't. Nor does it mean that we can't measure harm objectively. In fact, much science is dedicated to therapies specifically intended to help people with autism spectrum disorders.

It doesn't stop there, the Internet is great if you have learned the basic skill of critical thinking to learn more. And I have really tried to be like that "we" and ground it with reason, evidence, rationality, objectivity and what not. I can't. I can fake it for some limited time, but it ends up causing me discomfort to act like a normie.

I can understand that, and I don't expect you at all to act like a "normie." All I'm saying is that help and harm are useful, objectively measurable ways of defining what is or isn't good. The fact that such things can be complicated and nuanced doesn't mean there's no way they can empirically analyzed.

 

[Polymath257]

What about my CV above?

Your CV is irrelevant given the stuff you produce. Your past achievements don't validate your current claims.

 

[questfortruth]

Your CV is irrelevant

Is it a kind of Nihilism to nihilate my glorious past?

 

[Polymath257]

Is it a kind of Nihilism to nihilate my glorious past?

Not annihilating your past. It just doesn't predict your future.

 

[Kenny]

Y

When does religion change?

When man tries to add to what is written.

 

[columbus]

When man tries to add to what is written.

Like when Jesus, the Gospel authors, and Paul produced a bunch of new stuff?
Tom

 

[Kenny]

Like when Jesus, the Gospel authors, and Paul produced a bunch of new stuff?
Tom

No, like when Jesus, the gospel authors, and Paul corrected what man had added You just thought that what was there at that time was pure and needed no correction

 

[columbus]

No, like when Jesus, the gospel authors, and Paul corrected what man had added You just thought that what was there at that time was pure and needed no correction

What man had added to what?
Scripture?

If the Original Testament was corrupted by people like Moses, why did Christian bishops canonize it?
Tom

 

[Kenny]

What man had added to what?
Scripture?

If the Original Testament was corrupted by people like Moses, why did Christian bishops canonize it?
Tom

No.. I mean something like, Matt 5:

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

They had added to scripture by saying "swear by..." but that wasn't God's word.

Or:

6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.