Anyone wanna argue?

[ThomasQED]

I'm open as to subject matter.

[RandomThoughts]

1. If you can prove that a action does not cause a reaction, or effect.

Then are you free to do any action?


And if an effect then did occur, would it be the fault of the original broken action effect connection, or the connected one.

[ThomasQED]

3. I was hoping for something like paper vs. plastic

but I'll play :-D

Yes, you'd be free to do any action, and the effect would be the fault of the connected one (if I am understanding you correctly).

[RandomThoughts]

9. Are you saying two things.

You are free to do it, but still responsible.

I been thinking to stay in justice, it is theoretical, that lack of connectivity in action and effect would give a non responsibility by lack of intent.

the assumption of no action and effect connection removes intent, and responsibility, unless you could reasonably assume that action and effect could occur at any time.


It really is the time loop question, if you are in a time loop, could you do anything, and if you thought that, would you be responsible for actions in the last loop that does have an effect, since the thought would be there would be no effect.

Although those not in the loop would only see the last one, so there would be no way to convey the concept within observations other then self thought, so the proof would be difficult, unless also done first within each loop, before action.

That could make a good sci fi story.

While in time loop a meticulous defense would have to be constructed for the possibility of the occurrence of last loop. Could write a story about that, thanks for the thread. But once the possibility of last loop has a defense constructed, it can no longer be said that action is not thought to create effect.


Unrelated side note, might right and left really be, write and those that leave?




Note I don't believe in temporal lore.

[ThomasQED]

12. Yes, free to do it

but still responsible. Because who else would be responsible?

The part that interests me though, is why would you do ANYTHING if there were no effect? I suspect that in this situation I - and most other people - would just stop doing anything at all.

[RandomThoughts]

34. And that is the puzzle.

As an action is shown to have less likelihood of effect, then it is more likely to do larger action things, since they don't have effect anyways. While at the same time, an action that has larger attributes, would theoretically more likely have an effect.

So at the same time that an effect does not occur, people in general get more extream, so not having an outlet for people to have an effect on life, things like democracy, then they get more extream in their actions.

And people feel less responsible for those actions.

Just thinking on some mental puzzles.


In my case I have confirmed some effect action connectivity, and also confirmed existence of what owes me. So the puzzle does not fit my situation, but is really interesting thought puzzle.


Basically if someone tries to remove action and effect connectivity, they try to make you powerless, a common thing to do to passify a population to get them to accept something, but it also creates more extream behavior as people try to find actions that do have effects.

It explains the downward spiral of control, and creation of extreamism in some cases.


So as an example, if you had a thought that could do something, and someone tried to stop that, you would keep turning up the volume of the thought, and that seems to fit the systematic approach also. So actions of control create the items controllers think they are stopping.


Just musing a bit, but that seems why coercion fails, and education has a better effect.

[Steely_Dan]

2. Yeah...I wanna argue!

What's it to you?

[ThomasQED]

4. Argumentative people like you

are bringing down society!

[Steely_Dan]

5. No we're not!

[ThomasQED]

6. Can't we all just get along?

[Steely_Dan]

7. LOLOL...Well That Ends it.

[ThomasQED]

8. No!

You're supposed to be belligerant (sp?) or explain why that's not true!

[fNord]

10. ok, here is some topics you can choose from:

Theism vs. Atheism;
weather Dante or Spaghetti had more influence on the Italian national character;
whether or not wearing shoes is a sexual perversion;
For or against suicide;


Pick one and chose a side. Ill take the other....


this will be fun

[ThomasQED]

11. I'll take...

whether wearing shoes is a sexual perversion, because I have no idea where that might go!

I'm going to say it is NOT.

[woo me with science]

13. depends on where you wear them. nt

[ThomasQED]

16. D'oh

Didn't even think of that. But is that a perversion or just a preference or quirk?

[fNord]

17. excellent.

Then I will argue that they are. would you care to open, or shall I?

[ThomasQED]

18. I'll start.

Shoes are ubiquitous, at least in the western world, and merely protection against the environment.

To claim wearing them is a sexual perversion is a perversion in itself!

[fNord]

25. Claiming that they are ubiquitous is no real defence....

since everyone in the western world masturbates as well (yes Virgina, women do it too.) there common status dose not dismiss them as a sexual perversion, it merely means that that perversion, like masturbation, is rampant in the western world. As for protection from the environment, the natives of this content, not unlike the Aboriginals of Australia and the early tribes of Africa, survived for centuries before the sexually depraved Europeans arrived with there twisted "shoe wearing fetish"

[woo me with science]

26. Oh, that's nice.

Start by calling your opponent a pervert!

You have a lot of experience in GD, I see...:rofl:

[fNord]

30. Thats it?

Come on, this could have gotten way more interesting than that:

[fNord]

31. Well ThomasQED, I like you Bravado,

but you lack the courage of your convictions. better luck next time

[ThomasQED]

33. Sorry!

I fell asleep.

I don't have any strong convictions either way on this one – I was looking forward to finding out why it is a perversion!

[pokerfan]

14. No.

How did I do?

[ThomasQED]

15. I'm pretty sure you do.

[pokerfan]

19. No, I don't.

[ThomasQED]

21. You do if I say you do.

[pokerfan]

27. No, I don't.

[MrScorpio]

20. I'm sorry, I was looking for Verbal Abuse

Don't mind me.

[ThomasQED]

22. I believe that's down the hall.

[fNord]

29. I believe the Python is down the hall....

[TheMightyFavog]

23. Which Japanese insult best Descibes Brewers Manager Ken Macha?

Baka? (idiot)

Bakamono? (Stupid/born fool

Bakayarou? (asshole)

Obaka? (big fool damned idiot)

[ThomasQED]

24. Stupid/born fool!!!!

What did he do?

[TheMightyFavog]

28. Didn't pull Dave Bush when he should have.

Everyone in the stadium saw Bush was getting shaky in the 5th. (Brewers lead 3-2 at that point.) Next Inning, Bush gives up two hits and a dinger, costing the Crew the game.

[HopeHoops]

32. "Oh, I'm sorry. This is Abuse. Arguments are down the hall on the right."

[rug]

35. No, I don't want to argue.

What are you going to do about it?

[old mark]

36. No, and you don't want to, either. nt

[applegrove]

37. No. Since my mom stopped picking arguments with me 5 -8 years

ago I try to avoid them. You can't always. But I try.