Daedthr

Hey, so I'm trying to get back into modding for Oblivion and Skyrim after not having done it for some time, and am no longer sure what version of nifskope people around here are using. I'm a blender 2.49b user and my natural inclination would be to use nifskope version 1.1.0 RC6 along with NifUtilsSuite, but I can no longer find a download for this version of nifskope so if anyones got one that would be great (all the sites I've looked on don't seem to have the .exe). Failing that, what version and setup are people using at the moment that can deal with both Oblivion and Skyirm .nifs? Thanks! EDIT: I'm dumb I already have Nifskope installed, ignore me!

SWBF2 hero assault online, made a thread earlier a couple of days ago about it cos we're trying to get more players.

Many of you will have played Star Wars Battlefront II (the 2006 game) avidly in your childhoods, the game was amazing and is something of a classic. But one aspect of the game that seems to have gone relatively under-the-radar was the Hero Assault gamemode playable on the Mos Eisley map. Now, SWBF2 can still be played online through Gameranger and there is a fairly good community that still plays it, but that is currently trying to expand, specifically we'd love for more players getting into Hero Assault, as this mode has huge competitive potential. Its pretty hard to give you a good idea of this potential as the mode isn't quite comparable to any other genres, I can only point you to some of the competitive hero assault videos on youtube, and say that the potential of this gamemode is - I believe - similar to the revival that Smash Melee experienced. Due in no small part to lazy devs, hero assault has an intricate series of mechanics and strategies that play out to create a very competitive and enjoyable gamemode. It'd be awesome to get people more involved in this, the mode has massive depth and if you're a competitive person whos willing to experience a massive learning curve you can easily get hooked, needless to say the best Hero Assault player has around 15,000 hours in the game. So anyone interested feel free to join our community discord, someone there will answer any questions you might have: https://discord.gg/DyWpW (For fair warning, this discord like most other gaming communities can get pretty edgy, there's a no porn rule though) If you wanna check out the game you buy it on Steam, its on sale fairly often, and to play online you simply download and install Gameranger from here: https://www.gameranger.com/ There's a guide if you need one here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=885995522 And to give you a taste of some epic Hero Assault gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lheIXQi5f50&t=128s (Vid is about 4 mins long but I skipped the first half and into for some of the good bits) Thanks and hope to hear from some of ya soon, it'd be awesome to revive this great game.

UKIP are a very odd party really. Before Farage, they were frankly racist, and even now I'm not entirely comfortable with some of their principles, but then part of it will be to do with the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives have become so centralised since Blair that any real sense of Left or Right wing in a party seems overzealous. Personally though, I'm not a big fan of UKIP, it's a party with a greater share of nutters ("Gays cause floods!" type nutters) in than either the Conservatives or Labour, and that says something to me about what sort of things the principles behind their policies are. They're no longer racist by any means (they used to be compared to BNP), but they still have an overbearing focus on immigration and frankly their "British jobs for British people" doesn't attract me in the slightest, considering Britains wealth has historically been based on the exploitation of foreign colonies and slave labour. I've also been present at a debate/discussion with a UKIP council member, and he was disgustingly prejudiced. They want to do things like cut foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world, which as Nick Clegg said, wouldn't help anyone. All in all I think they have a long way to go before they get anywhere near the stage of either the Conservatives of Labour, not that I think they ever will. Currently they're a one-man party under Farage, and there's still a lot of public disapproval of them because of their history and their leanings against immigration. I'm not opposed to either of those positions I underlined. As far as the comment about Britain's wealth is concerned, its not fair to hold people today responsible for what happened over 100 years ago. And that's a really poor excuse to justify immigration policies like they're some sort of reparations for things done in the past. Immigration should be about "do you possess a skill that we need?". Opening the flood gates from the 3rd world is a nation destroying policy. The fallacy is the belief that most of them will adapt to British ways over time. So what's the plan if they refuse to adapt? Also, holding the entire party accountable for the positions of a few nutters isn't exactly fair. Every side has them. Firstly, I apologise for the comment about the 'nutters', it was subjective and unfair, though I believe I have done this already? Your point about Britain's wealth is also fair, though one could still argue that while we as people are not responsible for the methods used to accrue our nations wealth, the nation we live in is, and it could be argued that we should attempt to give the countries that suffered under our empire some reparation. Indeed we demanded the same thing from Germany after WW1, when the majority of the people who lived their had not personally contributed to the war in any way. Also I hope when you said you weren't opposed you didn't mean you favoured slavery and exploitation? I interpreted it as you don't believe it's relevant. However I will agree with you that immigration policy is a poor way to pay reparations, it is to indirect and uncontrolled. Your point about vetting immigrants is also one I will agree with, we do need to vet who enters the country and use this to evaluate whether or not we allow entry. This is all well and good, but UKIP as a party have an overbearing focus on immigration control, in that it uses a disproportionate amount of their campaigning time, and is unequivocally their most debated policy. European history tends to show that 'one-issue' parties are not good for a country, because they come into government with a huge amount of pressure based around said issue, which encourages the neglecting of other equally important ones, and they also tend to find that when they get into government they have somewhat 'bought their own press', and that the issues they have to deal with aren't quite as easy to fix as they thought. I'm not saying UKIP only talk about immigration, but it's an issue they give too much of their time too. Why? Because it is a vote-winner issue, unlike the economy which few invest time in to understand, that NHS (which is virtually untouchable as a whole now and the only issue that remains is extent of privatisation) or ethical issues, immigration is something everyone thinks they understand and which people are inclined to blame other things on. I won't deny the need for controlled immigration is a big issue here, but the real issue of this political generation is the EU, which encompasses a lot more than immigration, something which I feel UKIP is diluting in order to win votes. As for expecting immigrants to adapt to Britain, that's not really a fallacy as cultural assimilation has been proven time and again in our history. After WW2 large numbers of Indian's and West Indian's came here, and they have adapted, it is no mere coincidence Britain's most popular dish is Chicken Tikka Masala (a dish which actually was born in Glasgow but was an English attempt at Indian cuisine). Even immigrants for the Middle East have integrated virtually seamlessly here, at least in the middle and upper classes, the only real issues remain in working class circles and regions, and education. If History is anything to go by (which it most certainly is), expecting immigrants to adapt is far from fallacy in the UK, though I understand this is different in many other countries such as the States. Something I'll say concerning UK immigration, is that Farage and his party seem to think Britain is overcrowded, citing prison statistics and unemployment as evidence. This is nonsense, it is not the numbers that cause these problems, it is the lack of vetting. You cut down prison stats by vetting immigrants to see if they have a criminal record, you cut down unemployment by vetting immigrants to see if they have the skills the country needs (as you have rightly pointed out), you relieve pressure on the NHS by prioritising the passage of immigrants with a background in medicine, you do fix these issues by straight cutting the numbers and imposing a quota. The UK isn't overcrowded (again go watch Question Time, I believe the panel had Farage and Russell Brand on?), it hasn't got the right people in, this number of people is fine, it isn't the number that causes issues. I believe UKIP's claiming of an overcrowded Britain due to numbers is an example of them tunnel-visioning on a political issue and then misinterpreting it the cause of actual issues in order to win votes, rather than a political issue caused by current cultural unrest. The foreign aid thing is a little sad, I believe cutting it shows a country with a completely individualistic culture, a culture that favours helping the relatively fortunate get what they want more than helping the desperately poor getting what they need. Yes, there is poverty in our country, there are run-down council estates and some people on the streets, and it is our duty to look after them before those in other countries. But taking away funding from countries with slums, with AIDS epidemics, with mass (and I mean mass) unemployment and poverty, seems to me a very, very morally cheap way to deal with domestic problems which could be solved by taking a little more money out of the pockets of the fortunate (foreign aid really doesn't account for that much in comparison to the amount that could be levied in further tax)? And I know some right-wingers are going to say "Oh but it's unfair for those people to be taxed more, they've worked hard!" or "Fix your own countries problems before you give any foreign aid!". But let me tell you what you're really saying, you're saying that it's fairer to take money from the poorest countries in the world that is desperately needed, because you don't want to tax the rich anymore, fair? No. I honestly fail to understand why people ever think it's fairer to make the poorest poorer to make the rich richer, just because they live in a difference place from you, it doesn't make them any less human or make basic human necessities any less needed. Want to fix your countries problems? Go ahead, get some money for it by cutting down on government bureaucracy or taxing the multi-millionaires, don't take away the school of some Somali children for your blighted conception of nation boundaries and only helping one's own. I'll add two last points on this, the first of which is that I'm not saying wealth must be distributed equally in the world or to give half our GDP to poorer nations, I'm saying taking away the meagre foreign aid we do give to get quick solutions to our problems is morally cheap. I also want to say that before anyone says something along the lines of "Most of the money never gets through anyway.", that whether or not the foreign aid gets to the people who need it most is irrelevant of the principle of giving to the less fortunate, what governments do with aid for their citizens is their moral responsibility, giving the aid or not is ours. Finally going back to UKIP, I will give them this, they promote a relative amount of honesty in politics that is certainly a breath of fresh air, and is a great credit to Farage and the party. Their willingness to discuss issues such as immigration as they do is a good thing, I simply feel that they take it too far sometimes (just look at some of Farage on Question Time, he manages to bring most issues back to immigration somehow). Something else to note is that they're something of a 'One-man party", Farage actually said he was going to resign if he didn't win his seat this election, and he did offer his resignation, but the party actually didn't accept it, they didn't let him resign. I say let him in the sense of they didn't condone it of course, so he stayed on. This is because Farage has completely turned them around, without him they would lose vast amount of support over the next term, because his charisma and honesty are a great factor in their growing support. I also want to add this, I'm trying my hardest not to seem like I'm attacking UKIP's members, because I really am not. I don't believe that UKIP's members are in anyway racist, or responsible for some of the crack pot things the vocal party nutters say, or even for the policies concocted by the leaders, I'm simply arguing that UKIPs policies and stance do not make sense to me, and I fail to see how they would be beneficial. My first post about UKIP was very poorly worded and some it I regret posting, because it's unfair, it was too heavily based on my own experience of the party than an objective view (I was present at a debate with a UKIP councilman and some of the things he said were frankly disgusting), so for this I must you to forgive me.

Haha very true, maybe we should do a Guy Fawkes. :D

Of course Mike Brown didn't act the way he did because of slavery, you're missing the point. He didn't wrestle with Wilson through the car window because he thought he "Better teach this white slave master a lesson!", he did it because he felt to respect (which he should have) for Wilson as a police officer. The people in Batlimore rioted because they thought the police were being unjust, they resent the police force. You want to know where this resentment comes from, it comes from a lack of rapport between some black communities and the police force. As I have already laboriously explained, when a social group begins to develop an enmity for the police, you have a self-perpetuating cycle. The cycle will keep restarting itself, because something happens to create a division, resulting in a social group harbouring resentment towards the police. This resentment is what causes people like Brown to react to the police in the way they did, and when that happens you get fatalities in the cause of justice. But because the original division was an unjust one, the social group then sees future encounters as also being unjust, therefore their resentment grows and the cycle restarts of an even greater magnitude from before. This is not something that is difficult to grasp. Eventually cycles like this should fade out, because all it takes is one generation to go through life without such notable encounters, and then the divide begins to be forgotten. But in the case of the racial divide you have, the magnitude of the first division (which was slavery and continued racial hate and inequality for generations afterwards due to the nature of the abolition as being a civil war) is so high that it cannot be forgotten in a generation of two. The injustices suffered for centuries have been burned into racial memory (as they should be, they should not be forgotten just because we do not want to look back on our people's failings), and as historically the police have been meant to be the keeps of justice, there should be absolutely no surprise that a divide exists between them and the black community now, ultimately because of events centuries ago that were never dealt with decisively (after the abolition in 1865, black people were actually taken out of the franchise, equality continued to decline after that one great leap). As for your mentioned difference between the UK and the US, as I have already stated, Black-White/Police/Institutional relations here are far far stronger than over in the states. So what you've said is true, Britain never did have a comparatively sizeable domestic slave population, and yes there still remains racial inequality, but racial inequality between whites and blacks here is extremely limited. Racial inequality here is far more prevalent in White-Eastern European relations, and also White-Asian Relations. So you see we never had this huge great cause of division in Britain domestically, which partially accounts for our relatively stronger relations between Black communities and White communities, and the police. As for why we might have poorer White-Asian Relations, it would most likely be due to the influx of immigrants after WW2, and the associated displacement fears felt by the populace at the time that perpetuated themselves for the next 50 years. By now however, these communities have become so integrated that relations are very much better. The same cannot be said for White-Eastern European relations here, because the divide here has been much more recently, namely Blair's open-door police in the 2000s and the Inter-EU immigration policy allowing vast numbers of immigrants in, which is something the working class resented due to perceived loss of jobs. There is a consistent theme with inequality, which is that of a cycle of division started by some injustice (or perceived injustice), which continues for a few generations but gradually declines as the two groups integrate. The problem with the US is that the nature of this first injustice was so great and so close to home (in addition to being one of the central causes behind the deadliest conflict for the US in history) that it will not decline, because relations got worse in the generations that followed. This is why you have these divisions, this is why certain black communities might harbour issues with the police, because of a vicious circle that, yes, started with the injustice of slavery. No, most of these communities or people will not even acknowledge that this resentment has anything to do with slavery centuries ago, but will attribute it to Racism and racial inequality, which like it or not, was a problem that started with slavery. So you see you missed the point, no Brown and the rioters didn't act this way with slavery in mind, they acted this way because of divisions, divisions that reach way back into History and that start with slavery and the continued inequality after abolition, intermingled with bad feeling from the Civil War. I was discussing the First Cause, you seemed to be thinking I was discussing the immediate cause.

Ah and so do I, as you say politics is such a broad, varied and complicated subject that trying to express it in literary argument won't ever do it justice. We need a book, a library, or a hall of debate. :)

Hmmm, I do understand that in some circumstances people will just sometimes "play the race card", but you'd still be wrong to say that all racism is just 'truly equal justice', racism does still exist, and it exists in every country in the world. The point about economic disparity can't be understated though, I think ultimately it is this that keeps fuelling the fire. Bring people out of poverty and a lot of problems tend to go, ethnic divisions would certainly decline. But again, you can't state that the entirety of these divisions come from poverty or difference in economic conditions, it is likely a the most major contributor, but I still feel that it would be an insult to the memory of many to suggest that the divisions that cost them their lives were purely economic, and not in any way ethnic. There is also the question of what is the ultimate cause of the economic disparity? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that ethnicity plays a large part in one's chances to get a job, to get into college, to get a loan, etc. http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/06/25/3452887/education-race-gap/ An argument can certainly be made that it is ethnic divisions in the first place that then caused an economic disparity, which in turn exacerbates ethnic divisions and so on and so on. It is yet another vicious circle, and the only way to break it is to pull one half out, either the economic disparity or the ethnic divisions, as they cause each other. As for which one would be easier to pull out, I cannot say, because I don't live in the US. Would it be easier to try and bring these communities out of poverty, or to try to eliminate any ethnic gap in employability, application for higher education, pay, etc.?

I don't really see your point here, you seem to be saying that Europeans are interested only in the sensationalism regarding racial inequality in the US rather than the reasons for it, other than that I don't see what you're trying to get at? While I don't doubt that sensationalism and disapproval of American racial equality is common here, it is not fair to say to that we don't understand the reasons behind it. Several European countries continue to have as much racial inequality as America does today (I have a German friend who lived in a community in Germany where there was huge amounts of Racism towards the Turkish). In my country whilst black/white segregation is relatively low, there still exists very real divisions in White/Asian relations and there are some communities that comply hugely to a racially skewed demographic (though this is not actually Racism). For instance the 2011 London riots began over a police shooting of a black man, but like the Baltimore riots spiralled into opportunistic looting. We also have places like Birmingham, which has a huge Asian community, which continues to cause issues particularly in education. What we do not tend to have as much in my country is the same degree of divisions between ethnic groups and institutions like the police. There certainly exists some, but it's just not on the same scale, it rarely reaches the news. The real divisions between the people and the police here are arguably over class, with there still being some degree off enmity towards the police in the north over the brutality they showcased in the 1970s and 80s. However we certainly do understand the causes, and what you say about us not being able to fathom a reason other than 'irrational hatred' is wrong. Racism is irrational, it is always irrational, but it does not always come from a hatred. In fact, funnily enough Racism from hatred is rather seldom in Western Countries today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/10061025/Worlds-most-racially-intolerant-countries-mapped.html Racial inequality is really made prominent not by hatred, but by class, stereotyping, crime, indifference to highly non-culturally diverse communities, and a countries history. If I had to put a cause to the difference in racial equality in the US and the UK, I'd say it would be down to the countries histories. Both our countries have a history of racial oppression, but the US was quite literally born into this oppression, whereas for Britain most racial oppression happened off of our own soil in the colonies. When the America was first colonised by European's (I'm not talking Spanish Conquistadors and the Aztec's, rather the colonising of America by Britain, France, the Dutch, etc.) the Native American's were treated horrendously, driven off their own lands and denied rights by the invaders of their own country. Then you have the British and Spanish using slaves to cultivate crops in the US, a legacy which continued past the war of independence. Now, slavery in the UK ended in 1833, and ended just over 30 years later in 1865 in the US. However the two abolitions were very different. The abolition in the UK was executed through legislation with the Slavery Abolition Act, the only real fight happened in Parliament (a film I'm rather fond of that tells this story is Amazing Grace, worth a watch). However in the US, slavery and it's abolition was one of the central causes of the Civil War, which was the deadliest conflict in your history. This meant that your abolition really the result of war rather than democratic decision, which generated huge social issues for much of the country, particularly as the pro-slavery Confederate States (there were also some Union ones) now had their resentment for the abolition of slavery mixed with that of their loss of the civil war. Racial inequality continued in both countries long after the abolition of slavery, and despite what many people in my country seem to think, we were not really much faster at dealing with it than the US was, the timeline's are strikingly similar. The difference is in the roots of it's demise, the greatest step towards defeating racial inequality in the UK was made in Parliament, the greatest step towards defeating racial inequality in the US was made on the battlefield. So if I had to put racial inequality down to anything in your country, it would not be that white hatred or bigotry, it would be the backlash the Civil war had in creating divisions in America, which were then translated onto the matter of racial equality. You might think this all seems to long ago, but cycles of racial inequality, divisions between social groups and the police, and the divisions created by war are self-perpetuating. They go from generation to generation, because ultimately it is the environment somebody is brought up in that defines their views, and the results of civil war create divisions in communities that will continue for generations if left unchecked. In the case of the US I would believe that these divisions easily became entangled with the problem of racial inequality, which leaves you with the problems you have today - some highly segregated communities with poor views of other groups or institutions. However this is really just a theory, there are plenty of other factors in a case as complex as the US's, but either way you are wrong, European's are not just concerned with the sensationalism of racial inequality in the US and neither do they believe all white American's to be bigoted. We understand just as well as you do that Racism doesn't work like that, and while the case of the US is quite unique, we are perfectly able to evaluate it with the knowledge we do have (I'll also point out that we're far more likely to do this objectively, not being acquainted with the various cultural influences that exist in your country). Everything I have mentioned before now has been in relation to Black-Police relations, rather than Racism as a whole. Not once have I stated that I believe the police force to be racist on the grounds of irrational hatred, in fact I have not even stated that I believe the whole force to be Racist at all. What I have stated is that Racism is alive and well in America and that there certainly are some cases of institutionalised Racism in the police (look at the link I provided earlier in relation to police resignations over the appointment of a black mayor), and that there seems to exist a serious lack of rapport between the police and certain communities. None of this have I attributed to irrational hatred, indeed the latter of the problems I attributed to the self-perpetuating anti-police cycle that is present in every Western country in the world. I've provided numerous pieces of evidence for both claims, and if you have not taken the time to go back and look through them, that is not my problem. I'll also have you know that most of them are not from US media sources, as I'm quite aware of the reputations the like of Fox News and other US media outlets have. The fact that you call European's who evaluate these problems arrogant, when in fact they come to look at these problems as an outsider and will therefore more often than not be far more objective than US analysts ever will, seems rather hypocritical. Maybe it's time to consider the idea that 'over-educated' and well-travelled foreigners, actually might be able to make valid evaluations without being taken in by the sensationalism that haunts your country and it's people? *Gasps*

Ah I see. I suppose in response to your example the relativist might attempt to analyse the situation that they and the assailant are in to try and justify why it was wrong. But you they would still have to constantly answer the question "why?" and it would regress further and further until they have to either accept that morality does not exist under relativism, or define an absolute foundation for morality. When rationalising relativism (hoho I like that alliteration), it always end up at the sole cause, because that is the most fundamental problem. Though there are others, such as can we fully evaluate the consequences of our actions?

@Mongoose57 What you were talking about in your earlier post is Relative vs Absolute Morality. Relative morality is the idea that whether or not an action is right or wrong is dependent on the situation, e.g. culture, consequence, beliefs, etc. Absolute morality is the idea that an action is either inherently good or bad and this never changes, for whatever reason the absolutist believes. Personally, I don't see relative morality as working, because if there are no absolute morals, then theoretically anything is could be good or evil depending on the culture you come from, you could even make up your own culture. Now, for every ethical issue there are going to be to human beings who take opposite views, and these views will be based on their situation (upbringing, beliefs, culture, financial circumstances). But both humans are of equal moral authority, one is not higher hierarchically than the other, and as relative morality justifies actions based on situation, then both their beliefs are equally justified by their different situations. So if two opposite beliefs are equally justified and equal in authority, than which is right or wrong? The answer is neither, for if two opposites are equally right or wrong, then neither is right or wrong, and as the principle applies to any ethical issue, morality ceases to exist as nothing is right or wrong. Thus I'd consider myself an Absolutist on the basis that for morality to exist there must be something of a higher authority than humans defining what is right or wrong. Your question was asking what this higher authority is, and to that there have been many answers. Often it will be a Supreme Being but there are others too, for instance a concepts of Duty, Goodwill and Reason (Look at Kantian Ethics), or perhaps what occurs in Nature, or whether or not an action fulfils it's purpose (though really this isn't absolute because one can commit an action for any purpose), like in Thomas Aquinas Natural Law (though the foundation for this is a God). There are plenty of explanations, but it might not be wise in asking for people's opinions on it because the majority will have to come down to a Supreme Being, and Religious debate is a no-no here.

This is true, but the problem with these mathematical systems is that they of little use to us, because the fundamentals on which they are built do not seem to apply to the universe we live in. The sum of all the empirical experience we have had in history indicates that within our universe, n + 0 = n, thus it is a system based upon this that we use because it is the system that can best be applied to the universe in which we live. This is similar to what I was trying to express earlier, yes you can create a mathematical system based on the idea that 1=2 and develop it further whilst all staying 'in reason'. But you would only be staying in the reason of that system, you would not be staying in the reason that applies to our universe, because all the evidence indicates that 1 =/= 2. Thus, our idea of what reason and the a priori is, is based on experience, it could be argued that the a priori comes from the a posteriori. The true a priori is the purely suppositional, but the realm of the purely suppositional has no necessary laws, so nothing can really be proven by it. It is for this reason that I find it amusing when people point at an a priori argument (an argument from pure logic and reason) and say that there is no 'evidence' around us to support it. Well, actually, the logic and reason that makes up the argument is the sum of all human empirical experience, the a priori is quite literally the highest form of argument, because while the a posteriori is based on selective experience, arguments from reason and logic are based on laws that have been defined by universal human experience since the moment we existed. Somehow in the previous post I managed to miss my own point, and ended up trying to show the opposite in trying to demonstrate that we must hold our logic absolutely. I believe I've now adequately rectified this.

That's the gist of it, your country's history (and mine as well though perhaps to a lesser extent) has created an environment in which Racism is incredibly hard to deal with, as it is self-perpetuating. The only solutions I could really think of are another World War to unite the country, a revolution of some kind, or possibly an incredibly effective campaign run by some very charismatic people on both sides (think Martin Luther King but bigger, with multiple King's some of which would be white). Sadly, most likely to happen of those is a World War. : /

Yeah, I would not want to be a policemen, they have one of the hardest and most depressing jobs you can find. Understand that I am in no way anti-police, I speak purely from principle rather than practicality, I understand that policemen can find things as hard as the members of the communities that hate them do. I think ultimately the only way these problems will be rectified is with a concerted effort from both groups to understand each other, even though I believe it is more the duty of the police to do so more, it would not be a reasonable expectation for fallible humans.

If it sounded as though I was implying equality to be exclusive left, then I apologise for it is obviously not so. I also agree with what you say about right-wing and left-wing attempting equality at different stages. I was merely pointing out that the whole basis for the extreme left wing is total equality, which is not the same in the right-wing. The right-wing may promote the giving of equal opportunities, but this is not the same as the true equality left-wing attempts because of course there are going to be some that are naturally able to make more use of their opportunities than others, e.g. the more academically intelligent. The right-wing cannot claim true equality when somebody who is more academically brilliant then somebody else may receive a better life, even if they had equal starting opportunities. The left-wing ensures absolute equality because as you say, it ensures end-term equality. The right-wing makes Freedom paramount to absolute equality because while it aims to provide equal opportunities, it gives people the freedom use these opportunities as they will and rewards accordingly, rather than rewarding all uses of opportunity equally. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to ascertain that the central foundation of the extreme left wing is paramount equality and the foundation of the extreme right-wing is paramount freedom. Neither are exclusive concepts, but I don't recall ever saying they were. Also, whilst both systems might leave you equally miserable, an argument can be made for the 'catchers' of right-wing society being more miserable than people of a left-wing society, because these 'catchers' will also be aware that there are people in their society who are far better off than them, thus amplifying their misery. Modern socialism is the idea that society should be organised communally, it is nothing to do with Fascism, which simply describes a governmental and social system based on nationalism and strict compliance with rules at the cost of freedom. I don't know why you equate communal organisation to Fascism or where you got this from, if you look at the modern definitions of these things you'll find that these are exactly what they are, also classical socialism is no more socialism than 'modern' socialism is, definitions change. I don't remember saying 'Freedom to fail is good thing' but I do remember my expression of appreciation towards the fact that you had demonstrated that both the right-wing like the left-wing would leave the majority in misery, as you have just repeated now. You seem to have misunderstood me, I appreciated the rhetoric of your statements, not the sentiments.

Ah yes, Zeno and his paradoxes. I have to say it has been a while since I've looked at them, the one I remember most is something to do with a race with a tortoise. I don't think it's fair to say that the flaws he tried to demonstrate have gone un-refuted though, many philosophers like Russell have proposed solutions. My point was really that there comes a point in which we must accept certain things to be logical truths because if we don't in brings into question whether or not we can consider anything true at all.

This shows a misunderstanding of politics perpetuated by our curent educational systems internationally. The Nazis were socialists, and extremely left in nature. Indeed, if one actually reads Marx, his stated method of "social evolution" is that "all" states must be brought to socialism ((that is, you're still allowed to own property, but the government dictates how you are allowed to use it) until they can be led to communism, where the community owns everything and loans to use as needed. The Nazi's were extremely left in nature? Well they were called the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) and I'll give you that you could consider them socialist, but that's about as far as it goes. You are mistaking the symptom for the ailment, arguing that the Nazi's were socialist based on their dictating of use of property. But government control of property or even totalitarianism is in no way exclusive to the left wing, socialism is a method not a principle, and the political left and right describe principles not methods. Even if the Nazi's were socialist, this does not mean they were left-wing, the absolutely fundamental idea behind the left-wing is equality, whether or not a government controls property is irrelevant of their motive for doing so, which would dictate where they stand on the political spectrum. It is not in fact the education system that is perpetuating a false idea, it is those that believe that the left and right-wrings are defined by their methods of governing rather than the principles behind the methods. The right-wing is ultimately concerned with freedom, the left is ultimately concerned with equality. A leftist government might dictate property use in order to assure equality in society, a right-wing government might dictate property use to ensure that a house can be used for anything, but this is equally dictating as the government would simply be dictating that a house can used for anything rather than something. The Nazi's were certainly not left-wing, they did not attempt to remove the class system from their country and promoted a free market, which extremely leftist governments do not do as a free market inevitably leads to some doing well and others doing poorly, which creates inequality. None of their policies indicate an extremist left-nature, because as I've already established Socialism as you have defined it does not necessarily come from a desire for equality. It suits moderate left governments the best, but is in no way exclusive to them. If you look at their 25 Point Plan - http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto - then you'll see that in reality they were not left wing at all, let alone extremely so. Look at point 13, which describes them wanting to "very big" corporations to be owned by the government. But an "extremely left" government wouldn't just want very big corporations, it would want all corporations because this is the easiest way to ensure equality. They put in a lot of nonsense like point 14 which they never attempted to implement, point 16 which literally PROMOTES having a middle-class, which is something no extremely left government would want as it inhibits equality. Another very important thing to note is point 17, which dictates they want a law to take over land if they need too, not out of equality, which is what extremist left governments would do. It is also worth noting that they only nationalised land in 1945 when they were seriously in trouble in the war, up until then landowners could do whatever they liked with their property, which further shows the Nazi's were not left-wing or even socialist by your own definition, as they only really started dictating property usage for the war rather than for equality. I'd also contest that Socialism is merely government dictating property, I think that modern socialism as opposed to Marx's socialism is more about society being run with a focus on community. Look at Clement Attlee's post-war government of Britain. They would certainly have called themselves socialist, but they did not dictate what property could be used for, they simply put a focus on a communal society with universal benefits and the nationalisation of certain companies. Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are all really independent of government philosophy, they are just methods of state governance, with Communism and Socialism being community centric, and Capitalism describing a free market, though I think you're right in what you say about Communism and Socialism being equal parts government structure and market structure, whereas capitalism is really just market structure. Each method has become associated with a different place on the political spectrum because they best suit these places. Communism best suits the extreme left where equality is paramount, Socialism best suits the moderate left which might argue that society should be as equal as possibly while infringing freedom as little as possible, and Capitalism best suits the more right-wing governments where freedom is paramount. The point about China is very good for demonstrating the difference between Communism/Socialism and Capitalism, as it shows the latter to be purely market orientated rather than concerned with the structure of governance as a whole. I agree with most all of this, both the left and right wing have faults because they tend to want to employ Communism/Socialism and Capitalism respectively, and all of these systems have faults. Communism goes against human nature and so is volatile and undesirable and Capitalism promotes human nature which is to tread on others on your way to the top. What I disagree with is when people say Communism makes you slaves and Capitalism doesn't. Capitalism can make the vast majority slaves just as much as Communism can with the US as an example. For those nearer the top Capitalism gets exponentially better, for those near the bottom it get's exponentially worse. I like what the rhetoric about poison, the right-wing giving us the freedom to exploit others and the left-wing giving us equality in our misery. Personally I'm most inclined to have a democratic, very moderate left, socialist, mixed economy country, similar to the of Britain 1945-51 but possibly with less nationalised industry. Out of the two poisons I think I'd still choose the left one, but it's really a matter of moral preference. UKIP are a very odd party really. Before Farage, they were frankly racist, and even now I'm not entirely comfortable with some of their principles, but then part of it will be to do with the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives have become so centralised since Blair that any real sense of Left or Right wing in a party seems overzealous. Personally though, I'm not a big fan of UKIP, it's a party with a greater share of nutters ("Gays cause floods!" type nutters) in than either the Conservatives or Labour, and that says something to me about what sort of things the principles behind their policies are. They're no longer racist by any means (they used to be compared to BNP), but they still have an overbearing focus on immigration and frankly their "British jobs for British people" doesn't attract me in the slightest, considering Britains wealth has historically been based on the exploitation of foreign colonies and slave labour. I've also been present at a debate/discussion with a UKIP council member, and he was disgustingly prejudiced. They want to do things like cut foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world, which as Nick Clegg said, wouldn't help anyone. All in all I think they have a long way to go before they get anywhere near the stage of either the Conservatives of Labour, not that I think they ever will. Currently they're a one-man party under Farage, and there's still a lot of public disapproval of them because of their history and their leanings against immigration. However even if they were half as appreciated or effective as the Conservatives, I still wouldn't be too fond of them. I consider myself reasonably left-of-centre, so really old Labour would be my natural inclination. Now with the centralisation of parties though, elections are based more on practicalities than principles here. I'm sorry but you're not getting away with this. Every party has it's nutters, the difference is UKIP does something about them, it's also worth mentioning that there's a common theme with problematic members, they tend to be ex members of the Conservative Party yet no one said a word about their behaviour until they joined UKIP. UKIP are not anti immigration, it's anti uncontrolled immigration, it's a position widely supported, especially among the working class who have been hit hardest by it. UKIP are the only party that bans anyone with links to extreme right from joining, Labour welcome them with open arms. UKIP is closer to Old Labour than the current Labour Party is, that's why it has so much support in traditional Labour areas, under a fair electoral system it would have 60+ seats. Old Labour was against membership of the EU (then EEC), it wouldn't have allowed uncontrolled immigration, it was big on law and order, all things that impact the lives of ordinary people. If you were Old Labour you'd see exactly where UKIP are coming from. Under Blair/Brown Labour attacked the working class, punishment no doubt for the working classes betrayal of Labour in '79, it used mass immigration to push many into poverty where it could use the tax and welfare systems to trap them, it was an attempt to create a client class reliant on Labour largesse. Labour has become the enemy of the working class, that's why as soon as UKIP turned its sights on Labour they were able to inflict so much damage in such a short time. There's a reason why UKIP are Labours problem and not the Tories, something the press doesn't seem to have noticed. If you want to see real hate and intolerance in the UK you don't have to look further than the new left, the middle class social justice warriors Labour now represent, that's where the violence during the campaign came from, it's where most of the abuse and nastiness on Twitter and Facebook came from, it's the people who demand tolerance from others while showing none themselves as they attack everyone with a different opinion to their own. Well first off I apologise, my statement about the 'nutters' was very subjective, and I accept that every party has them, although UKIP's seem to me to be a lot more vocal: http://www.livemaguk.com/10-outrageous-ukip-blunders/ Though this may be a misrepresentation of the media. As for immigration, I never said they were "anti-immigration" but I said that they seem to have an overbearing focus on it. To me this seems true, Farage seems to spend most of his time talking about policies related to foreign countries (leaving the EU, putting in immigration controls, getting rid of foreign aid) than he does about domestic policies like education or the economy. I accept that the need for a control on immigration is a pressing one, and am in favour of Cameron's attempt to negotiate better terms with the EU, but I still think UKIP gives these issues too much of it's time compared to what the other mainstream parties give it. As for Labour welcoming extreme right MPs, who? Labour is a left-of-centre party, Miliband was more left-wing than Blair was, he even got his position from the Unions! You then say UKIP is closer to old Labour than the current Labour party is, and to an extent I accept this, but in terms of principles I do not. Both UKIP and Old Labour had the same concrete voter base, the working class, however in terms of political views they are very different. UKIP is able to sponge of the current working class because it is among this class that fears concerning immigration are most prevalent, as it is this class who claim to suffer most from the influx of unskilled workers from foreign countries. However UKIP are not actually working class orientated, Labour's policies are still based far more around the working class, but some of the working class still go to UKIP because it is UKIP who are strongest on immigration, and it is immigration that seems to those people the most pressing political issue. You say our voting system is unfair, which is a cry heard from many every election when their party gets votes which fail to translate to seats, it really isn't new. First past the post has kept Britain democratic and without serious extremism for centuries, since Cromwell in fact. What would your alternative be, proportional representation? Take a look at what that got the Weimar Republic first, the answer is constant coalition (weak) governments, more power to extremist parties, and ultimately collapse and the rise of Hitler. Proportional representation is very democratic yes, but it also gives extremist parties more seats, and make coalition politics a certainty, with the latter still being a problem even if it was a two ballot proportional representation system. First past the post has got Britain through French revolutions and the Rise of Fascism relatively unscathed, there is no good reason to remove it now for the sake of a 'fairer' system. The system is fair, everyone has to play by the same rules, if UKIP appealed to people as much as the Conservatives did in the areas they did, they would have got a majority, but they didn't. When it comes to the EEC, you don't seem to have any idea what you are saying: 1. The EEC was created in 1958 at which point the Conservatives were in power under Harold Macmillan. When Labour next got power under Harold Wilson, we APPLIED TO JOIN the EEC! However we were denied because of De Gaulle. 2. You seem to be talking about the ECSC which Attlee's government was against joining, but you cannot possibly compare this to UKIP not wanting to be in the EU now as the ECSC back then and the EU now are fundamentally different. The ECSC that Labour could have joined was the European Coal and Steal Community, and was almost exclusively concerned with trade and welfare in those industries. It had no legislative power as the EU has to day, no concern with immigration and no policy on law and order. Labour had literally just nationalised coal and steel, so of course they weren't going to hand them over the ECSC, but you can't liken them to modern UKIP for not taking part in the ECSC just because UKIP now want to leave the EU. 3. You say they were against uncontrolled immigration, but under Attlee and open-door policy was literally promoted! We advertised ourselves to ex-colonies like Jamaica, welcomed thousands of Polish and Ukrainian people in after the ward ended and did the same with thousands of Indian people after their independence in 1947. You simply can't compare old Labour to UKIP for not joining the ECSC, and I don't know why you think Attlee's government were anti-uncontrolled immigration when in fact they wanted as many immigrants as possibly to come here to supplement the work force lost after WW2. I agree with your general message here, Blair certainly did damage the working class with his open-door policy, but to say that he did it intentionally is ridiculous. No politician is petty or stupid enough to ostracise their voting base for some foolish concept of revenge for an election that happened 20 years ago. It's also ludicrous to suggest that he did it to harm the working class to make them reliant on him, when as any British politician knows, you cannot lose your base of support for even a moment in politics because the system is so competitive that another party will jump on them as UKIP have now. Blair made a mistake yes, he did not erode his working class support deliberately. Labour is traditionally a party concerned with working class interests, this is what old Labour was, this is not what UKIP is now. UKIP used the mistakes of New Labour to take their votes, one of which is immigration, this does not mean they are the party with the working classes interests at heart, they simply use certain policies to win votes from them. If you actually look at their most recent manifesto, most of their economic policies are concerned with the middle class, the class that you claim new Labour now represent, which old Labour certainly did not. As for your comments to the new left, to some extent I agree, what Labour currently represents is an intolerant upper-lower/middle class that fail to appreciate the current feelings of those they are claiming to protect. This is why I'd consider myself Old Labour, real Labour ended with Blair.

As I have said many times, I don't blame Wilson for acting in the way he did, what he did was completely understandable considering the situation and his training. I was merely stating that it would be an improvement for policing if lethal weaponry was not used, because having power generally escalates conflict (e.e.g Cold War) and because any conflict that will occur with such weaponry will have more extreme results. However due to private armament in the States removing firearms from the police force is not an option, but ideally you would get rid of both private armament and then could remove lethal weapons from the police force eventually. I also understand that the nature of your country will ensure that this will never happen, but this doesn't mean that lethal weaponry in the police isn't still a problem, it is simply a problem caused by another problem which will never be solved. Don't try to appeal to me on the strength of your or others convictions, appeal to me with reason. The conviction within your armed forces that the right to bear arms is a good one literally means nothing for the argument that it is in fact good. Plenty of people have had convictions as extreme as this about other things (I mean just look at Himmler's convictions about Jews), but this doesn't mean their convictions are anywhere near right. The fact that there exists a group within the military that would treat the body that rules your country as an enemy should they attempt to bring lawful (not to mention positive) change to your country is not something to be proud of, it is something to fear. Government authority should always supersede that of the army, the fact that there are people in your army who believe they know better than any potential government on an issue and are also willing to use their government-given power to demonstrate it, is a very serious issue. As for Baltimore, the truth is that it was part pure opportunism by some looters, and part an outpouring of decades worth of bad feeling between the police and black communities. Like what happened in my country in the 2011 London riots, something starts out with a legitimate cause and then spirals out of control when violence and opportunism take over. I'm not condoning Baltimore as violent rioting is never the answer, but it is not fair to say that the cause of these riots is purely the responsibility of the black community. Your country (and mine for that matter) has a very troubled, wshistory when it comes to racial equality, and despite what your media will have you believe there are still people alive today that experienced horrific levels of Racism in their past. Furthermore, the idea that the time of Racism is over in your country is a myth, it is simply not true, there is racism everywhere against black communities, and while the vast much of the police force in your country might have no racial leanings what so ever, some of it does. http://-teesa-.tumblr.com/post/118237657050 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/80-per-cent-of-missouri-towns-police-quit-after-election-of-first-black-mayor-10190057.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray (This is heavily related to Baltimore, and while there is still some ambiguity, the fact that 80% of this man's spine at the neck was severed during or whilst being taken into police custody warrants enquiries of Racism). http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/virginia/2015/04/28/natasha-mckenna-death-inmate-taser-mentally-ill/26543601/ Again, I'm not criticising your police force as a whole, but I am saying that there have been plenty of events that are cause for concern when it comes to racism, and racism in the police force is never acceptable, as it is meant to be an objective institution created for the benefit of society. Where I live racism against black communities is relatively low, but there is still a fair amount of racism towards middle-eastern communities (though arguably that too is on the down) and some Eastern European people. However the difference between this and the USA is that there is relatively little evidence that the police here are racist, or that racism is in any way institutionalised to the extent that evidence might indicate it is in your country. Your comment about the SC case simply isn't true, there have been numerous 'odd' black deaths related to the police in recent years, just look at the two I posted above. I can get you more links if you would like. As for this "thug culture" that you seem to be implying purveys black communities, let me ask you where you think (if it really exists), it came from? There is anti-police culture in every country in the West, and it is a vicious cycle. Something happens to cause a rift between a community and the police, the community adopts anti-police culture, they are now more likely to cause incidents with the police, the police respond in kind and the cycle begins anew. When it comes to an issue like this, I believe that it is the job of the police and not the community to push hard for change. Why? Because the police force ultimately exists for the good of society and not for itself, therefore one of it's central priorities should be to ensure that it has a healthy rapport with all different groups. The police is built around protecting and accommodating society and should therefore react accordingly, social groups and society is not built around accommodating the police. Also in the case of your country the "something" that started this vicious cycle is a long history of highly institutionalised racism, and preceding that, slavery. This "something" is huge, it is PERFECTLY understandable that there are still many black communities around today that harbour enmity for the police, it is the job of the police to try and react accordingly to defeat this enmity and ingratiate themselves with these communities. It is not the job of these communities to try and accommodate the police, the police should be there for them, not the other way around. Of course this doesn't mean they shouldn't try, but the burden of effort is on the force.

To me I think logic is the art of making assumptions that are likely to the point they are certain. I mean, in the case of mathematics, when trying to prove the axiom "n + 0 = n" Bertrand Russell and his colleague (I can't remember his name now) came to the conclusion that there comes a point even in mathematics where something must be accepted based on pure logic, and to me it seems that pure logic is simply assumptions that we consider certain. For instance the idea that something cannot come from nothing seems logical to us, because if it could there is no reason why things should not be coming into being around us from nothing all the time. However the fact that they don't is not the same as saying they couldn't, so even in this logic we are making the assumption that things cannot come into being from nothing based on our experiences which are that things do not. Another example might be the idea that 1 =/= 2. But why can 1 not be equal to 2? What absolute reason for it is there? Just because something seems incomprehensible to us or because we have never seen it before or because it is not possible within the laws we have created, does it mean it is completely impossible? Maybe we just don't understand it, maybe it can't be seen in our universe, maybe it is possible in an universe with different laws. Actually, this reasoning can't hold, because if suppositionally anything can be anything because we cannot improve empirically that it is what we say it is, then there is no such thing as a "thing" because everything is equally everything else. If something is everything, then it is also a lack of everything which means it both exists and doesn't exist. In theory it might look like these states would cancel each other out, leaving everything to be in a perpetual state of "limbo" (between existing an not-existing) but if one thinks about it then non-existence leaves only absence, and when something is brought into absence, absence by definition ceases to be, and we are left with existence. So existence + non-existence = existence, (which incidentally is what Russell was getting at) which means that something cannot be everything and therefore our logical laws must hold absolutely, because there is surely nothing greater than the sum of all our empirical knowledge (which is what logic is), which means there is nothing adequate to refute it. In short, logic and the a priori supersedes the empirical or a posteriori because the a priori is the sum of the a posteriori, and so we must accept some basic logic to be true. This logic can in theory be demonstrated by both mathematics and words to the same level, as the above paragraph demonstrates when it reaches the conclusion that existence + non-existence = existence, which is the same as n + 0 = n.

:laugh: Now THAT was funny. :smile: Thank You. Yah but I wouldn't like to have a computer in a greenhouse because all the surfaces for it would be covered in soil lol. :D May as well put the MAC somewhere decent because it probably cost more than the greenhouse did.

Even if you go the Gematria path, I doubt you'll manage to have your demonstration working. I couldn't disagree more. Mathematics has nothing to do with the description of reality. It's pure abstraction in a fixed conditioned set of rules. Numbers have values. Fixed values. Words can attempt a description of reality, realities and non realities at the same time through a twelve words poem that sound illogic. Words have meanings. Different contextual meanings. Aha well you have me on the first part, for sure. :) I think one of the many problems with the "Proof by Greenhouse" was the issue of ontology and trying to wrangle words around to make it work, so I'll definitely give you that. To an extent though, I do believe that words have as much logical power as mathematics, because if we think about where mathematics first came from, it was using to describe empirical relationships that we could observe, for instance the Egyptians using rope in what came to be known as Pythagoras' Rule. Both came about as a way to describe our world, but numbers and mathematics unlike letters are universal, as you pointed out we have turned words contextual through different languages. Had we one world language, then there is no real reason why something is not what we call it, any less than a quantity is we number it. Unfortunately words didn't turn out as numbers have, because they were also used to express things that cannot be as easily described by numbers, such as concepts like beauty or justice. I would still argue they have logical power, as words do mean something and they can make use of logical laws, to think that mathematics holds a monopoly on logic would be short-sighted indeed, though I understand that is not what you are actually saying. Ultimately though, while logical conclusions can follow as much from words as mathematics, the same rules that mathematics uses cannot really be applied to words, so I'd certainly agree with your criticism of the first demonstration, so for that reason the proof fails. There should be plenty more problems though, so ignoring that one I wonder what other issues can be discovered.

UKIP are a very odd party really. Before Farage, they were frankly racist, and even now I'm not entirely comfortable with some of their principles, but then part of it will be to do with the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives have become so centralised since Blair that any real sense of Left or Right wing in a party seems overzealous. Personally though, I'm not a big fan of UKIP, it's a party with a greater share of nutters ("Gays cause floods!" type nutters) in than either the Conservatives or Labour, and that says something to me about what sort of things the principles behind their policies are. They're no longer racist by any means (they used to be compared to BNP), but they still have an overbearing focus on immigration and frankly their "British jobs for British people" doesn't attract me in the slightest, considering Britains wealth has historically been based on the exploitation of foreign colonies and slave labour. I've also been present at a debate/discussion with a UKIP council member, and he was disgustingly prejudiced. They want to do things like cut foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world, which as Nick Clegg said, wouldn't help anyone. All in all I think they have a long way to go before they get anywhere near the stage of either the Conservatives of Labour, not that I think they ever will. Currently they're a one-man party under Farage, and there's still a lot of public disapproval of them because of their history and their leanings against immigration. However even if they were half as appreciated or effective as the Conservatives, I still wouldn't be too fond of them. I consider myself reasonably left-of-centre, so really old Labour would be my natural inclination. Now with the centralisation of parties though, elections are based more on practicalities than principles here.

Color is a description of what wave length of light is refracted off and object. It is not a define that object . A green plant is vastly different to a green colored fog. You've literally just agreed with what you've quoted, your definition of colour "Color is a description of what wave length of light is refracted off *an object." uses an object in it! Thus your own definition of colour can be considered a description of a substance or object, a description by length of wave length reflected. For clarity's sake I will change my definition too: But this has absolutely no influence on the point, as what wave length of light a substance reflects describes the substance, and is a visual description at that because the differences in wave length are distinguished by our eyes. You say that light is not the definition of an object, well I agree, but I never said it was, I said it was a description, which according to your very own definition it is. Rather than describing reflections and refractions of light every time I mention colour however, it is far easier for me to simply say green, rather than the wave length of life reflected from a substance that we have called green. It further makes no difference to the argument as there are clearly many glass buildings that interact with light in such a way as not to appear green, when in fact he logic of the argument holds that all glass should interact with light waves in such a way that what we see is what we have come to know as green. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is complete nonsense. Well first off you've committed the fallacy of personal incredulity, and second calling something nonsense leaves no room for refutation unless you also quantify why, which you have not done. However I agree, the whole argument is nonsense, but at least state your reasons why to create some potential for debate. Straight dismissing an argument without saying why seems to me rather poor practice, as it's not reasoned argument, it's unreasoned argument. So, if you would, please provide reasons that I can try and argue against (I don't expect to win as I'm in agreement with you, but it still makes for a debate to an extent). I also frankly don't see anything non-nonsensical about the truth of logic and the principle of causality, both of which are subjects that still create debate among professional philosophers and physicists today. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolution gives more of a purpose in life than life itself, because without us evolving, which we do on a daily basis, we would continue being the organism we first appeared as. The purpose of life is to exist and compound on that idea to become better than we began. I have two issues with this: 1. The first comes from your claim that "the purpose of life is to exist". The purpose of something (it's Final Cause) is it's reason to exist. Let me use an example in context of Aristotle's four causes too demonstrate: Take a desk, this desk can be adequately described using four causes: Material Cause - The substance of which something is made, which in the case of this desk will be wood. Formal Cause - The characteristics or attributes of something that define it apart from it's substance, which in the case of this desk might be four legs supporting a flat surface and some draws. Efficient Cause - Whatever caused the material of which the object is made to acquire it's characteristics (formal cause), in the case of the desk this will be the carpenter, as it is the carpenter that fashioned the wood into the shape that defines the desk. Final Cause - The purpose of something, whatever caused the efficient cause. In the case of the desk it might be the need for a work space that caused the carpenter (efficient cause) to fashion the desk. Something needs a final cause because otherwise it would have no reason to exist, which logically means it shouldn't as there would be no reason for it ever to come from non-existence into existence. These causes explain the existence of something, but according to you it is the Final Cause of life to exist, which is of course not possible, because existence cannot cause itself - if it could, why are things not simply causing themselves to come into existence all the time, why has a cow not caused itself to come into existence right next to me if it's existence can cause itself? 2. You suggest that Evolution can give purpose, but Evolution cannot give purpose to anything, it is the efficient cause of life, it explains how life came to form, it does not explain why it came to form. You also seem to think that the "change" of life brought through Evolution is a purpose for it to exist, but it cannot be, because for change or improvement to occur their first has to be something to change or improve, which means that for your purpose for the existence of life to hold true, life must already exist. You seem to be arguing that the purpose of life is to change, but the purpose of something is it's reason to exist, and something cannot change or improve unless it already exists, and therefore your purpose for life's existence is reliant on life already existing, so it is not the purpose for life's existence, your logic is circular. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It also could be that we are loosing senses that we no longer need, because our habitat no longer requires their use. In Evolutionary terms it does not make sense for us to have acquired poor senses because we are losing senses that we no longer need. Whether or not we are losing senses that we no longer need is surely irrelevant of why our senses might be poor, because it should not matter if we are losing senses that we don't need because if we didn't need them we wouldn't be using them anyway. Losing that which we don't need and therefore don't use should not make the senses that we do use any poorer and doesn't explain why evolution should have given us poor senses. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ultimately, I agree that the relationship between words is a flaw in the argument, but I will still attempt to refute your points. You say mathematical axioms are different from words because they are rules and words are simplifications of reality, but surely mathematics is also a simplification or at least description of reality in exactly the same way as words are. Both are human concepts used to simplify and describe the universe, when we define a word as something then there is no reason that the word cannot equal what we define it as much as a = a. The fact that we make language analogue does not mean that it is, there is no reason why a definition of a word can not be true/untrue just as numbers are, or that they should have their own absolute and logical rules. Indeed, words can be represented in numbers and mathematics just as easily as letters, what you're reading right now is a computers interpretation of binary (true or false) numbers and representing them as letters and words. If words and letters can simply be considered a representation of numbers as you are seeing right now, then there is also no reason that they cannot obey the same rules that the numbers themselves do. I mean just go and look at something like Hamming Code, a cryptography process in binary numbers that uses mathematical rules. These binary numbers could represent letters, and thus letters and words are as subject to these mathematical laws as numbers are. Words have as much logical power as mathematics does, they are just two different ways of representing logic, and as computers prove, are interchangeable. If I can make "a" = to say "5", there is no reason I could not also make "a" = "walls". Indeed "walls" as a hexadecimal number would be 77-61-6C-6C-73, where the hyphens separate the letters. In Denary it would be 119-97-108-108-115. The word "walls" is the sum of those letters, thus the numerical value of walls might be 547. You would have no issue with me equating 547 to "a" (I should certainly hope), so there is really no reason for you to take issue with me attributing words to algebraic values to which the laws of logic can then be more easily applied. Numbers and mathematics obey logic no more than words.

Well if I had to give a philosophical definition it would be "something that can be used to allow one to see further than the window itself." But if we get into that then we also have to define what sight is, and you'll likely end with an infinite regress of terms. So I will stick with "A window is a structural part of a building that allows light to transverse between the interior of the building and the exterior world, and vice versa" as it seems to me a reasonable definition and provides a good foundation for my proof.

Yet rather enjoyable. :)