Jump to content

Sampson

Member
  • Post count

    1,116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Sampson last won the day on 12 April 2016

Sampson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

807 Very Good

About Sampson

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,689 profile views
  1. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    But leiscmac was arguing that we literally should be moving towards a Socialist society as humanity to stop humans dying out. Of course it's a redundant debate, anyone who still believes in Socialism and a majority public owned economy is nuts and definitely scary. The debate now is which few industries are worth putting into public control, not about putting the majority of it under control. Capitalism and an overwhelmingly privatised Economy has proven to be the only sensible way to run an Economy. The problem is that you still get people trying to whip up Socialist ideals like Corbyn and Sanders are playing the youth for fools by selling them some glorification of the public sector whole demonizing the private sector constantly. I know Corbyn won't turn us into a Socialist economy, of course he won't - but it's the way he keeps name dropping Socialism to young people who don't understand what it means and always demonizing the private sector without reproach which is what frightens me - there was a recent poll that more people under 29 in the US view the word "socialism" as a positive term than "capitalism". My worry is plenty of young people who don't really understand what Socialism (i.e. a majority public owned Economy) and Capitalism (i.e. a majority privately owned Economy) actually mean are rallying against Capitalism and rallying behind Socialism without really understanding what they mean - and I hope it doesn't lead to the same disasters in the 21st Century when everyone around to warn then of the socialist states if the 20th century are all dead. No I don't mean Communism - Communism is the stateless, moneyless society which Socialist states are supposed to evolve into, but never do. Southern Rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise is not making the country Socialist which is what leiscmac was calling for. "Socialist Capitalism?" Where have you got that term from? That's a complete oxymoran - an Economy cannot be both majority publically and privately owned.
  2. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Greed was far more relevant in Socialist countries as well as in Feudalist ones before Capitalist ones. The idea that greed has been created by Capitalism or would suddenly disappear in Socialist countries even though it's been tried countless times and never does is bizarre. You think there's no greed in the few remaining Socialist countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe? What does public ownership of industry and business have to do with reducing greed, ambition or the need to survive? It doesn't. The amount of war between or revolutions in Capitalist countries is tiny compared to the amount of wars between Socialist or Feudalist or Mercantalist countries. If you want to reduce people's want to kill each other you give them Economic growth and comfortable lives where people can all eat and cloth themselves and receive the fruits of their own labour. Socialist countries never do that because people are not allowed the fruits of their own labour because it has to be distributed equally through incredibly inefficient means. People who are trained to do the kind of horrible jobs that make society work - like cleaning and unlocking the sewers for example aren't going to become trained in that job and then do it "for the good of humanity" - it's nonsense. It's a utopian unworkable concept that makes absolutely no sense and the fact that people still stick by it after well over 100million deaths have been directly caused by it through famine and the ruthlessness of forced re-distribution of goods and services because they create this bizarre false equivilancy of public ownership of industry and the magical disappearance of greed and suddenly everyone will get along. It's the most frightening form of zealotry and idealoguery imaginable. Socialism is the biggest con in human history and the most evil and frightening one too. After the hundreds of millions of people suffering, after the hundred million+ direct deaths of their own people by Socialist regimes, after continuously keeping its people being unable to eat. I just cannot understand how anyone still thinks Socialism is a good idea or that it will somehow cause some utopian future for humanity and it will somehow rid the world of greed and competition and give every worker a faur shake. It Just boggles the mind.
  3. Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    But that is "evidence" changes from religion to religion. There is evidence which contradicts it in different religions. You cannot say that all the evidence which points to the external soul being only in humans because that simply isn't true. It is true of certain religions, but probably not even true of the majority of religions in history. Even if certain people of certain religions think the evidence shows that, there are plenty of religions which don't and the fact is - humans have thousands of religions to choose from. If they *choose* to believe in a specific religion which says humans or even just homo sapiens have external souls whereas other animals which have a sense of self and we share 97% DNA with don't, then yes, I absolutely would say there's a sense of human hubris there when there are plenty of religions with their own evidence to the contrary and they make that particular individual choice.
  4. Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    But what is this evidence you keep mentioning? And what do moral values have to do with external souls? Just seems to me like you keep repeating "I'm agnostic" to defend yourself against explaining the actual evidence as part of the debate - I'm not debating your belief system, it makes no difference to the questions I am asking and what you are defending - simple fact is: religious teachings aren't evidence for anything - there are religious teachings that atheists go to heaven and religious people don't, there are many anamalism religious teachings which say non-homo sapien animals have souls - some of which have dominated some of the biggest cultures in human history - including Ancient Egypt, Japanese Shinto, the Romans and 12th century Mogolia (the biggest country in human history). Why are they not considered evidence but Christian teachings are? Why is the modern religions popular in the UK considered evidence, but the modern religions popular in Japan and Mongolia aren't?
  5. Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    Why? There's plenty of genuine evidence that chimpanzees have a sense of self and they certainly recognise themselves in reflections. Why would they be exempt from that because of "evidence" (of which there is none) of eternal souls existing?
  6. Yeah. Old Labour (which Corbyn and MacDonnell model themselves after) always wanted out of the EU. Because it was some conglomerate of establishing an unbreakable capitalist system and making sure capitalism prospers in the non-Economic power countries of Europe while defeating socialism in those countries or something. That was always Tony Benn's line anyway. Corbyn campaigned against the EU for years too and it's always been pretty clear Corbyn still belongs to that idea at heart which is why he put up such a half-hearted campaign for remain even though his party made him for the remain line. Don't know why it would be surprising that Labour voters would vote leave. Pretty sure Corbyn and MacDonnell both wanted a leave vote really but were made to toe the line by their party.
  7. Calling....Huth and Dragovic

    Yeah call it what you want - 3-4-3, 5-2-3, 3-4-2-1 or 5-2-2-1 but basically this formation could be potentially really sexy. It's essentially what we played during the great escape but whereas Mahrez was behind Vardy and Ulloa then, you just bring back Ulloa's role to play alongside Mahrez rather than Vardy (and obviously Gray plays in that Ulloa role).
  8. Calling....Huth and Dragovic

    Play 3-4-2-1 like Spurs often do when they play Alli and Eriksen both behind Kane.
  9. Interesting how he talks about some of the bad eggs of the Sven era sapping away even his and the backroom staff's enthusiasm. I think it's what we all already knew and can probably take a good guess at who they were. A great man. Completely revolutionised our club from top to bottom twice.
  10. After life

    It is relevant though because humans are part of the same evolutionary chain as all those animals and we were once the same being as they are, for hundreds of millions or even billions of years in fact (depending on the animal). At what point did humans enter the after-life if other animals don't? And did the other species of humans like neanderthals, cro magnons and homo erectus enter the afterlife too or just home sapiens? Did all humans get to the afterlife or only the ones who experienced consciousness since the evolutionary genetic aberration of the brain 30,000 years ago? What about the homo sapiens in the previous 170,000 years? What about apes and chimpanzees who are closer to humans than mice are to rats - do they go to an after-life? It isn't jumping to silly conclusions or irrelevant, surely you have to ask these questions of you believe there has to be something more?
  11. RimWorld

    Superb game. Much more of a modern survival game though, even a bit classic roguelikr and Dwarf Fortress-y. It's probably one of the best games at creating organic storytelling through it's mechanics though.
  12. After life

    And as I've already said, it's not "disproving" anything or saying anything is impossible (and why should the burden of disproving something be on the non-believer anyway? Surely it should be the opposite? It is the believer in the afterlife who is making the logical jumps). But theory IS how you make best approximations. And I think you have a very naive view of what a "Scientific theory" is - gravity is a theory, electro-magnestism is a theory, atoms are a theory, evolution is a theory, quantum mechanics is a theory - but it doesn't mean that there isn't an almost certain chance that those things are objectively true. Who is doubting religious belief exists? I'm questioning why you think their existence means there is more reason to believe in an afterlife than not and are then dismissing any arguments on the other side as "tangent" and "the wrong tools" to make an informed judgements I don't understand how any of what you say leads you to believe that there's even less reason to believe an after-life isn't real. Of course it's impossible to know for certain from what we know at the moment, but there is an objective answer to that question and you can make informed judgements based on everything we know and there's plenty of reasons to make an informed judgement that the objective answer is more likely that there isn't an afterlife.
  13. After life

    So religious teachings are a reason to believe, but the laws of thermodynamics, energy, quantum mechanics and how consciousness work aren't? Why is religion fair game for exploring whether there's an afterlife but science isn't? I'm sure you can find plenty of books which say there is no afterlife and here's the reasons why quoting the laws of physics, thermodynamics and how consciousness works. Why are they not valid but the teachings of ancient Greek gods of Zeus and the teachings of Ghengis Khan's Mongolian shamanistic Tengrism or Chinese folk religions are?
  14. After life

    "flawed Science" maybe because we don't know everything *as of yet* but definitely not tangent and definitely not necessarily flawed in the future. It's perfectly logical to think that because we'd have to create entirely new laws on top of the laws of physics for it to happen and we'd have to completely dismiss our current laws of physics and our current understanding of what consciousness is that it's less likely an afterlife exists (again, not impossible, just less likely). It's not tangent at all to suggest that the matter and energy which make up your consciousness stay on Earth after death so how can that consciousness move on to another life or other universe? And if we can create consciousness in computers and robots in the future then that surely shows consciousness comes from our brain pattern in which case why is it at all likely to survive death once this pattern has been destroyed but the molecules which made it and their random spin still remain on Earth just no longer in the form of a neurological clump? Those are perfectly valid question which Science asks. Just because something is unknown does not mean we have to make huge logical leaps for it or that we can't deduce a more likely scenario or that it won't be known in the future. Again, ok ok dismiss Science and all of human knowledge and understanding if you must, but again - why do you think that means there's "even less" reasoning though? Why do you also keep avoiding this question?
  15. After life

    It shouldn't be disregarded at all. It's much more a valid explanation than any other we have - even if flawed on this topic it's the best we have to go on. There is concrete reasoning that the energy and matter which make up consciousness stay on Earth and are just transferred. And quantum mechanics shows this universe is a bunch of random decision making anyhow. Now of course that doesn't mean a copy of that consciousness can't be created in another universe or an afterlife but like anything - we make the best deduction from what we have and everything we know suggests it's more likely than not there isn't one. That doesn't mean there isn't one - just that it makes sense to think it's more likely that there isn't. I'm not arguing that it means that, i was arguing against you saying there is less reason to believe it when there are clearly more. Why is Science the wrong piece of equipment? The truth is we just don't know enough about consciousness or our brain structure the universe yet, that doesn't mean we won't in the future. Either way, why do you think there's "even less reason to think there isn't one" than there is one?
×