Science is not the search for an explanation of the universe

Science is, in reality, only the pursuit of "sufficient" truth - truth that will explain the entirety of the observable universe. Scientifically, the statements "God made the world through the big bang blah blah blah", "God made the world 6000 years ago to look like it was made through the big bang blah blah blah", and "the big bang happened" are all the same. They will all generate the exact same results in laboratory experiments.

Atheists aren't more scientific then theists. Atheists aren't even the source of scientific knowledge/revolutions - skeptics are. Descartes was able explore geometry, and he wasn't motivated by anything except the search for absolutely true axioms. However, in the universe, there are few absolute explanations. There are only truths of interaction.

Science only seeks to be able to predict - to make hypotheses that can be tested and reproduced. "God made the big bang happen" is not scientific - however, the statement "no god exists" is equally unscientific. Hell, even the statement "the real world exists" is no more scientific than the statement "the real world is a vast illusion played out to me by a tricky demon". Science has no interest in the unprovable. Except through logical contradictions, no conclusion on a god or the lack thereof can be reached (scientifically).

Finally, consider the dreaming skeptic argument. I've had ridiculously real dreams in the past - prove to me that the world I am in now is not a dream. If you find yourself unable, that is because these things cannot be proved. The belief that this world is real is just as much a belief as any other.

The rationalism of theist

For the point of clarification, I'm going to say rational means "reasonable" and that a rational/reasonable person uses logic.

The only real reason I think that atheists may be more rational than theists is because theists start with the answers to their questions and then try to work backward. I mean, as we all know and agree, logic is a practice based on manipulating premises - and unless the premises are contradictory, logic has no way of commenting on the premises veracity. Consider the skeptic, who argues that since his dreams seem real to himself the entire world might be one big dream. Is this man irrational? By modern convention people would say yes, but those nay-sayers would only say yes because they believe that to be rational is to be right. I believe that (if) this skeptic has sufficiently proved his case plausible, so rejecting his world view (without refuting his logic) would be wrong.

Similarly, theists start with the premise that god exist and find coherent truth - the things around the theist all combine to prove his original point. Yes, often we have to look at the world events through the lense "god wanted it to happen", but even that is just another premise.

And consider the atheist for comparison. It is true that the atheist may be the truely logical man, who questions all premises, and finds nihilism or whatever the hell it is atheists find after their process of disregarding every premise as invalid. Are these people, though, right in their dismissal of the theists? Isn't that the exact opposite of logic? If a theory could be true, that is, if a theory is conditionally truth, then disregarding it for no reason other than "well I don't believe it" is wrong (and certainly would equate atheists and theists). The unicorn example proves this - what if someone thought a magical invisible unicorn ran the show? If such a world view was plausible, then the person who believed it is being rational in believing in the teachings.

Seriously, though, the moral of this post is simple (this is more personal to the atheists in that thread): stop being so pretentious. You think you're enlightened because you somehow judge your world view to be more likely than a theist's? It isn't. I'm not suggesting you convert to theism, I'm suggesting you recognize the beauty in all logic, and recognize that your rejection of the theist as retarded marks the "crime" you accuse the theists of.

Tl;dr: seriously, theism makes sense, and basing logic off premises is not inherently illogical. 

on the live bans

6:47 AM me: Ok, so microsoft bans people with modded xboxs from xbox live

  Should they be allowed to?

 berstff27: Yeah

 me: Why?

 berstff27: Yeah

6:48 AM me: Why?

6:49 AM berstff27: Because its their product. And xbox live is a community in which they have to be the moderator since it affects their own financial well being.

16 minutes

7:06 AM me: Well, like, why should they have control over their products after they go to market? Yes, xbox live and xboxes are both owned by microsoft, but they are separate products, and if you do something wrong with your xbox your gamertag shouldn't be affected

 berstff27: If you mod your xbox that would affect xbox live

7:07 AM Its not like they're taking your xbox away

7:08 AM me: They make it so your xbox cannot play future games

7:09 AM And, if you play pirated single player games, it hardly affects xbox live's livelihood

  Heck, pirated multiplayer games hardly affect xbox live

7:10 AM berstff27: They should be able to whatever to people who pirate games. That's theft. Its illegal.

19 minutes

7:30 AM me: Its not like microsoft has the right to punish thieves

  That's the point of courts

7:32 AM berstff27: True but it can protect its own well being.

7:33 AM And people don't have a right to use xbox live. Its of course conditional. Remember all the terms of agreement you had to go through.

7:37 AM me: Yeah, but the ToS obviously has to be reasonable. Like, the ToS couldn't require you to only play xbox live standing up, or only play with microsoft controllers

7:40 AM berstff27: Then you shouldn't agree to it. Then you should take it up in court.

  Until then though they stand.

  And what microsoft is doing isn't unreasonable. They are taking measures to prevent abuse of their products. We can't all be extreme pacifists like you.

  Especially if we're trying to make a profit.

7:42 AM me: Ha, I know. I'm just saying that the fact that xbox live is run by microsoft shouldn't change what it can do. That is, what if a third party did the same thing? What if xbox live was run by like, google, and then google came in and bashed up everyones xboxes

7:45 AM berstff27: Well I don't think that would happen where a third party controls an aspect of someones product.

7:46 AM And google live would still ban people with modded xboxs

7:47 AM me: Yes, but the intrusive bans are the problem. I mean, like, what does it matter to google live if someone is playing a game they bought, rented, or pirated?

7:50 AM berstff27: But google live could never exist without microsofts expressed permission

7:54 AM me: Why's that?

  Why does microsoft have the right to dictate what you do with your console after you buy it?

7:55 AM berstff27: Because the games and console would have to be designed to allow it.

7:56 AM The whole point of copyright laws is that a company still has some ownership of their product despite the fact that you bought it.

7:58 AM me: Only the right to be the only people profitting off their intellectual property. But interfacing with their intellectual property is quite the opposite.

8:00 AM berstff27: Yes but microsoft completely controls the design. It could make it so others can't interface with their product

19 minutes

8:19 AM me: And what happens when other succeed in interfacing with it?

8:20 AM Also, in my honest opinion, you are dangerously blurring the line between copyright law and contract law

44 minutes

9:04 AM berstff27: How am I blurring the line between the two?

9:08 AM me: Well, like, copyright violations are a public matter

9:09 AM berstff27: The whole idea of ownership makes contracts necessary. In effect, someone has something you don't, so you have to barter.

9:11 AM me: Yes. That's true. And the service has every right to have an eula

27 minutes

9:38 AM me: But the service doesn't have the right to act for the public benefit

9:39 AM Sure, it could act to stop harm to itself, but not to another service

 berstff27: What?

  What do you mean?

 me: The first service being live, the second being the console

9:40 AM Like, live can't help xbox's well being

  That's for the public to do

9:43 AM berstff27: What does that even mean?

9:44 AM me: What do you mean?

  Like, how do you not get what I'm saying?

9:46 AM berstff27: Why do you talk of services without talking of companies?

9:47 AM me: Because who provides the service shouldn't matter

9:48 AM berstff27: But it does. For exactly the reasons I've said. Copyright and contracts.

9:49 AM me: What?

  Copyrights are to a company and enforced by the courts

  Not by the company

9:51 AM berstff27: Who provides the service does matter.

  Your point?

15 minutes

10:13 AM me: My point is that if their was one company that made xboxes and one that ran live and one that made games

  That situation should be the same as microsoft

10:14 AM berstff27: Yeah if...

  Why should it?

 me: ?

10:15 AM Because otherwise you don't have perfect competition. You have some companies getting a head start legally on others

  And, more importantly, you encourage big companies

10:16 AM berstff27: Yes...

  So?

10:17 AM The idea of perfect competition in every market seems unrealistic

18 minutes

10:35 AM me: Yeah, I know.

Me on pacifism

I asked a guy when we stopped being friends

Guy November 16 at 9:11pm

When you said you would rather see 300 million americans die to terrorism than see america kill anyone. In any context, its the most vile comment I have ever heard uttered by man.

Robert Kennedy November 16 at 9:13pm

Oh. Yeah, that was a good comment. I mean, I also said I would rather see 6 billion humans die to 1 human than the 6 billion humans kill the 1 to save themselves. I don't see how nonaggression is vile in any context.

Guy November 16 at 9:16pm

Do you believe the Book of Mormon? "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish".

Robert Kennedy November 16 at 9:26pm

Did you really just misquote (omit the "in unbelief") part of the scriptures to prove your point?
Isn't that the epitome of evil? Like, wow. I am stunned, right now. How is bible bending not the worst form of vileness? o.0
I'm really interested how you think that the "in unbelief" is not at least pretty important to that phrase.

Guy November 16 at 9:37pm

I did that on purpose hoping you would know it. So knowing and believing the book of mormon. When Captain Moroni was faced with the Kingmen living as citizens of their own establishment, when they sought for their enemies to destroy them to change their form of government while Moroni was out fighting a war, do you remember what Captain Moroni did? He "put to death all those found denying their freedom." You, Robert, are no different than the kingmen. In your own words, you "would rather see 300 million Americans die to terrorism than see America kill anyone." What do you mean by kill anyone? In war? Capital punishment? You don't deserve the freedom you had to make such a statement. If you feel America is such a threat to humanity, I would gladly pay your one way ticket out of here. You lost my friendship the day you said that, and until you grow up and grow a pair, it won't be renewed. Friendship request denied.

Robert Kennedy November 17 at 7:18am

You aren't listening to me. You're saying the same tired things, the same party lines.

My stance has nothing to do with America, and (as I hope you will realize) is quite the opposite of cowardice. And I do hope you read what I have to say, and don't skim it waiting for your turn to talk.

As I have said, many times, I would say the same thing about the whole of humanity; that I would rather see every single human willing to sacrifice his own life rather than kill another person. You speak as if I've insulted your land by preferring the terrorist; I'm not sure if this is another of your games, your scarecrow tactics, or if you truly aren't reading what I'm saying. I don't prefer the terrorists; rather, I chose the most extreme situation to show that I'm not hiding the implications of my rational. I chose to put on display the fact that we would lose our lives, our families lives, in the pursuit of our Good. And I will always hope that people forsake everything to be good.

You speak of growing up, and growing a pair. I ask you, do you think Jesus, when he was allowing himself to be crucified for the Good, was being womanly? Do you think Ghandi, in his nonviolent resistance, was cowardly; the men in the book of mormon who allowed themselves to be slaughtered, or the fathers who refused to take up arms. Were those people true villians of the testament? No, Ty, you see, I'm not spouting the same party lines, and I'm insulted you would dismiss my philosophy without investigating my reasoning. Do you think that poorly of me? Why? Because I think different than you? Because I'm younger, I've been brainwashed by the media and any day now I'll realize the error of my thinking?

You speak of freedom as something that should be earned. You speak as if you believe that the moment free will, free thought, is used poorly it should be stripped. No, my argument is not about freedom, but I will talk about it, since it is important that you not think I forsake the gifts we have.

Freedom is truly great; one would have to be mad not to recognize that. But, I do not see death as the end of freedom (although such a stance would be easily defended). And more important than having freedom, is what you do while you have it. If someone was born in communist china, and stood up at Tietnam square, did he not excercise his God-given freedom? And yes, he was executed by man, but was he any less free? No. We learn from the prophets that punishment does not entail an end to freedom. Even if we were taken over by evil, evil men, we would still be able to resist!

And that is why I believe in non aggression. Because the consequences of this world are trivial to the glory we may get on high. Because, except for times where God specifically orders murder to happen, every indicator in the bible says it should not. And because I do have courage to stand up to anything, even death, for what I believe (though I don't doubt you would too).

End note: I'm astonished by your quickness to calling me a coward. Was there any reason for that?
Also, what was your plan if I didn't call you out? To let it slide? Honestly, you either consider me unworthy of your time or you think I'm an idiot; both options seem plausible, and neither seem like good conclusions.

Guy November 17 at 8:01am

What would you have us do? Disband our military? Let anyone who wants to kill us do so rather than defend ourselves in the hope that they have a change of heart in the process?

Robert Kennedy November 18 at 8:54am

Are you asking for understanding or to attack me?
"EXTREME pacifism is what I want; if a nation invades another nation the defense should not exist. Every individual should consciously make the decision to become more perfect, and physical pain doesn't slow that. Killing and anger does, though."

However, it should be noted my repeated caveat; that this is a completely voluntary death. I would never wish America allow those Americans to die who do not wish to. I have always been, will always be, utilitarian-esque in politics. So if the whole of America was willing to be more perfect and forsake everything in the hope of the Good, yes, I would dissolve the Army.

Not in the hope that the killers would stop, mind you, but with the knowledge we will be better for our adherence to our faith. I don't seek any physical reward, no mercy; the entire point of my belief is that you shouldn't shape your morals by other people's actions (well... in this and most cases; there are moral decisions, like who you should have sex with, where the other person's opinion does matter :) ).

Immediately, though, I would not disband the Army. Consider it like the law of consecration; we could live in a world where the only murders were directed by God, but for now we don't, because we would not wish to force those who don't consent into such a world.

Again, an end note: I still have no clue why this is your discussion style. Were you to end your question with "What would you have us do? Disband our military? Let anyone who wants to kill us do so rather than defend ourselves?" I would understand your question. Where from what I said did you draw that I pray for mercy?

Stability vs Infinite Chaos

me: Ugh. Are you less than happy?

 berstff27: I'm fine. I already said that.

9:28 AM me: I know. But you say that sometimes and you're actually not

9:29 AM berstff27: Then you don't share my idea of fine.

9:30 AM me: No, before you said you occassionally say fine and you aren't.

9:31 AM berstff27: Then I don't share my idea of fine. What difference does it make?

9:32 AM me: Internal stability should be the first stability you aim for

9:33 AM berstff27: What is virtuous about internal stability?

9:34 AM me: Stability is inherent virtuous, because stability can last when other things cant

  Because in a temporary world stability is eternal

9:35 AM berstff27: Randomness can be eternal. The digits of pi do not end.

 me: But the digits of pi are not random

  A circle is a circle and is similar to every circle

15 minutes

9:51 AM berstff27: Even if the value of pi were constantly changing what difference does it make?

 me: Then not even math would be stable

  Not even logic

 berstff27: So?

9:52 AM me: So then reason would be meaningless

  Maths stability, pi's stability, gives math and logic meaning

9:53 AM berstff27: You act as though reason is meaningful now. But what good has it done us? Ameobas are probably better life forms than us. Or maybe electrons or some inanimate thing.

9:54 AM me: Not the ability to reason, no, I don't care about that. I'm talking about reason as in, the logos that drives all things

9:56 AM berstff27: Again so what? Why is chaos bad? That what I was talking about. Ameobas and electrons both have increasing chaotic lives than us.

10:00 AM me: I think the idea is that electrons, temporarily yes, are chaotic. But over time they are quite stable

10:01 AM Enough that electron clouds are like, 99% accurate

10:02 AM berstff27: From the electrons perspective everything chaotic

10:05 AM me: Is that true? I mean, aren't your personal frames well defined, everything else is just uncertain in comparison?

  I mean, an electron might as well think it has zero velocity

10:06 AM And that the nucleus is moving fast

 berstff27: Yeah and the nucleus is flying about chaoticly

10:07 AM me: Yes. And over time even that could be seen as being predictable, if the electron cared to look at any sort of reference frame that would allow for stability

10:08 AM berstff27: There would be no such reference frame.

  And its all beside the point. There could be complete chaos and I'm saying I don't care

10:09 AM me: Ok. That's fine, but that's silly.

 berstff27: Why?

10:12 AM me: Because stability is good - it's the only thing that makes time not completely in control of our lives

 berstff27: Why is control good?

10:15 AM me: It may not be. But control by another thing, especially something as arbitrary as time, certainly isn't preferable to non control

10:16 AM Because with such randomness, things like love, things that do mean something to us, are worthless

10:17 AM berstff27: Obviously. True chaos isn't even existence or nonexistence. Its just a happening.

10:19 AM me: I know. One moment to the next, life wouldn't exist (as life is defined by ability to react); neither would science

 berstff27: Yep

Poems

me: When stability is for the stables, are we ever really free? 

If I'm not the same as yesterday, am I ever really me?

If I'm not free to be unstable, and not stable enough to be me, can I ever be free?

Should I even want to be?
berstff27: My soul sings and dances

When that fiber of my essence

Jumps from K's to Q's and S'sIn a vibrating quintessence

Of reverbing words that please us

And resounding sounds that please me

Making joyful music motion

In a merry very flurried sense of self.

me: I write rhymes so that you'll meet me on the shore of the Sea

You and I, in between, my mind, it's pulling us away

Uncreative's what you call me, but that is not my name

And a man is what you see, but all these muscles are inane
berstff27: The last line seems out of place.

me: Inane seems like a good word for "useless"

Or, insignicant

berstff27: I just meant your talking about you and I and then you end with a man

me: Oh

I meant that all you see in me is a man

berstff27: Oh ok.

Why Extremism is Sometimes the Answer

This was an essay I wrote a while ago (the day Maine banned gay marriage). The point of posting it here is more for my appreciation of extremism than for the political message. I italicized out the parts that are especially off topic.

And, on to the essay:


Ok, so everyone can argue for gay marriage. It's probably the single easiest position to defend; unless someone starts with the axiom "the worst thing that could happen to America is letting them fags get married", every other position leads to the conclusion that it is morally right to allow gay marriage. I'm not gonna run through the answers to every "gay marriage bad" argument, but here are some key ones that shouldn't stop you:
"Morally it's wrong" - even without pointing out that you shouldn't look to the bible for answers to everything (because people will in general categorize you as an atheist and therefore moral-less), you should argue about the immorality of government. That is, the idea that even if I individually oppose wars, or oppose taxes for myself, I should still vote for taxes and the military because the government doesn't serve my desires, it serves the public needs.
"Churches forced" - empirically denied, and, the fact that churches have nothing to do with the government's marriage. We let those god damned atheists sign their parchment; the fact that many people choose to celebrate with their bishops is irrelevant to the state
"Civil Unions" - Separate but Equal
A bunch of "marriage is for X" - we let people who can't X marry (infertile, elderly for procreation; I don't remember the other common one)
I'll add more here if they matter or if you guys want to contribute

Inevitably, the discussion will turn to the other person offering compromise. They will cry the need for "Civil Unions" (mentioned above). When you continue pressing, they will ask why you care, or they will say something like "whatever man, I disagree, but you can do what you want"; you CANNOT stop.

I'm going to take an aside here, and talk about the moral value of extremism. A lot of people think themselves "moderate" because they compromise, that is, because they are pro life but anti fag and pro gun control but anti taxes (looking at you, libertarianism). In reality, almost every political discussion is extremist; you may be extremist in a lot of different combinations, but that does not make you a moderate (ie, just because you are independent, you aren't moderate). I would argue, however, that extremism in policy making is often requisite. We can not compromise on things like gay marriage, or on things like committing to a war. Sure, we may compromise on abortion (like allowing for the first trimester baby-killing) but on a lot of things, moderation is simply not the best solution. This is especially true of civil rights; we cannot pat ourselves on the back and say "good job guys, we gave them most of their rights, everybody is happier". Until equality (in freedom) is reached, no answer is satisfactory.

Here is why I am passionate about gay marriage: because gay marriage opposition is at the heart of what is wrong with the average person; the outright rejection of love, the apathy about others' suffering, the ignorance of facts. The average person holds views that are wrong (inevitably about SOMETHING), and when those views are proven wrong, the average person keeps holding them because "it doesn't really matter", and in all reality, for most opinions it doesn't; but if love doesn't matter, what does? Why are you alive, if not to achieve (at best) perfection, like that achieved in the perfect love that marriage can facilitate, or at least to pursue happiness? I was recently talking to a girl about this; she opposed gay marriage, and I pointed out that it is morally wrong for the public to oppress other members of the public, that stopping two people from pursuing happiness together because of gender is certainly oppression. She replied, and this was after a good 20 minutes of us talking, "bleh". I was mad. The idea that she can be APATHETICALLY oppressive is at the heart of almost all dehumanization; that she can actually recognize that oppression is happening, and not only allow it to happen, but to VOTE for that oppression, all while knowing that she has no real reason!

You, as an enlightened person (and this goes out to everyone who believes in the necessity of gay marriage) are morally required to actively be a douche to people who allow this kind of oppression. Don't sink into the easy escape of friendship with whoever you happen to be talking with. Don't allow the statement (as a girl I talked to recently said) "whatever man, I disagree, but you can do what you want" to slide. The heart of gay marriage opposition is the idea that if a gay doesn't agree with what a straight person says is love, they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want (get married). Don't let mindless oppression fester; if nothing else, at least force whoever you are talking to to admit that they are oppressing the gays.



TL;DR/thesis: if you support gay marriage you should not tolerate people who don't. And I don't mean like, "don't tolerate" in the "I'm gonna break up with you/not talk to you if you don't support gay marriage", but in the sense that you should never be ok and complacent with the fact that someone you know doesn't support gay marriage. At least get them apathetically pro gay

An Explanation

So, in case anyone cares (in other words, unless anyone but me and Mike [[grammar intentionally discarded]] read this), we're gonna post here our various essays, chats about philosophy, maybe poetry. Anything we deem worth having in the knowledge base of humanity they call the internet. This will, obviously, inevitably be abandoned in three weeks ;)

Humans or Dancers

6:44 AM me: Hey mike

  How are you?

6:45 AM berstff27: Fine

  And you?

 me: Tired. And my body hurts

  But, fine

6:46 AM berstff27: Why are you tired? Did you give plasma?

 me: No, there was a school dance yesterday, harvest

 berstff27: Ah. Did you go with someone?

6:47 AM me: Yes, Egg. It was a high school dance

6:48 AM I realized how much I miss dancing with people I love

6:52 AM berstff27: Yes. You're quite the dancer. But are we dancers or are we human?

6:53 AM me: Yesterday I was a dancer

6 minutes

6:59 AM me: I foresook my humanity, and became a part of the music

7:00 AM A natural extension of the art

 berstff27: But the music was human

 me: Naw, the music was art

  Made by humans

7:01 AM But separate

7:03 AM berstff27: But isn't it an expression of humanity?

  Music devoid of meaning is merely noise. But any meaning of our music must surely be human.

7:06 AM me: I think I would dance to rhythemical noise

  And call it art

  Idk

7:07 AM I guess that would imply I create music from sound

  But then I would just say that part of being a dancer is creating music from noise

  And therefore I can be entirely dancer while still foresaking humanity

 berstff27: But even rhythm is a just the human appreciation for order and predictability.

7:08 AM But whenever you create music from sound you do so through the lense of your humanity

7:11 AM me: I don't think so. I think it would be, when I'm human I create and evaluate music as a human; and as a dancer, I evaluate it as a dancer. That is to say, I may love songs as a human that I hate as a dancer

7:13 AM berstff27: How can a dancer evaluate anything devoid of being human? Our humanness is the substrate of our very thought.

7:16 AM me: That's not true. Certainly, we share many thoughts about survival, eating, drinking, where to locate ourselves with animals. Indeed, a dancer's very existence depends on his music

7:17 AM He would certainly evaluate various rhythms as far as they are able to keep him existing

7:18 AM That is to say, a monkey who would survive by dancing, or at least, by being in the presence of good music, would surround himself with good music

7:19 AM berstff27: But there is no such monkey. There is no such person.

7:20 AM And by substrate of our thought. I meant that a dancer is still a person and cannot even begin to view the world except through humans eyes and human ears.

 me: But there is such a dancer

  But with monkey eyes and monkey ears

7:21 AM It would be just as effective

 berstff27: No. That would lead to a monkey dancer. Because they might not recognize beat or harmony in any way similar to a human.

7:23 AM me: Ok, well I'm assuming it has the same human brain at that point

  Just because a dancer has the same body as humans doesn't make it human.

 berstff27: I think it would.

7:24 AM me: Then being human is a worthless group

  Based solely in the physical world

  Pfffft

7:30 AM berstff27: I think such a group would matter. Its important to remember that we have limitations by the very fact that we are trapped in these human forms.

7:31 AM me: Limits only if you care about the fact that we have human forms; the forms are practically self serving; you justify caring about them because of the limitations that only exist because we have them

6 minutes

7:38 AM berstff27: What does that even mean? You cannot smell or hear as a dog would. So you could not dance like one. To think you could would be foolish.

7:39 AM me: I meant it as, you think recognizing the value of our human body is important because of the limitations of the human body

7:42 AM berstff27: And why would that be wrong?

7:45 AM me: Because you can only justify valuing something if it would be missed if we didn't have it

7:46 AM berstff27: are you saying that's wrong?

7:47 AM I would say you can only value something by fully understanding what you have. Which may or may not involve the experience of missing it.

5 minutes

7:53 AM me: I would say that yes, you can only value something if you know it. But that's more of a prereq; valuing something is based on how much you , not necessarily enjoy it, but... want it? Or, recognize the need to it. But the limitations of being human is neither wanted or needed. I'm not disputing (I may dispute every value you give to it, but I'm not disputing the possibility of) the value of humanity

12 minutes

8:05 AM berstff27: By your own words then if you don't have an understanding of the limitations of humanity you can't even begin to value it or not. I'm not saying you should appreciate the limitations but you should recognize them.

8:06 AM me: Ah

  Ok, I misread your thing. When you said "I think such a group would matter. Its important to remember that we have limitations by the very fact that we are trapped in these human forms.", I read that as "I think such a grouping would be valuable because of the limitations of the group".

Starting up

60% of tests fail, according to the A/B/C/D/F curve. This is a test of my ability to publish. I expect suc
cess.