Bruh. What are you doing.

If either Nietzsche or Diogenes, had only these pages on which to communicate their ideas - everywhere else being shadow edited by AI's tuned to exclude anything that's not a reflection of the media narratives from ever being seen, Diogenes and Nietzsche would have died in obscurity and be forgotten by the world. Because they didn't conform - didn't want to conform, didn't have an identity rooted in conformity, could not conform!

Bruh. What are you doing. — Outlander

Are we bruh's now? When did that happen? Do I get a say in this?

Do I get a say in this? — karl stone

Have you ever? :lol:

Hey I may not be one of the players here, not so popular (as you might be able to gather from my username, I don't desire such), but as it happens to stand I may be one of your few friends here. As nominal a fact as that may be, you should be appreciative of that.

Professions of friendship confuse me. Why would you want to be my friend? Given that, again, you are questioning my conduct - as opposed to the treatment I've been subjected to, I'm not at all sure you are who you claim to be!

Professions of friendship confuse me. Why would you want to be my friend? — karl stone

Let's just say I see a young me (albeit much more intelligent) in you. I would hate for brashness and your obfuscation of "pushing the envelope" or "being a trendsetter" (like the philosophers named in your second post) and simply refusing to follow the rules for no other reason than to do so not required to express or share your point be your downfall here. When you clearly have so much more to offer.

I'll show what I mean. You, like most if not hopefully all persons who post here consider this site as "just the Internet." I.E. there's plenty of intellectual circles to post, engage, and become part of online. This is simply one of a great many. It's a casual hobby. Something you do for fun, no different than taking up an interest in woodwork or perhaps even twiddling one's thumbs. But not to Jamal. The site owner. He may be temperamental at times, for reasons none of us would ever know or be able to judge. But. One thing is for certain. He's worked hard on this site. He's invested great amounts of time, effort, and frustration in ensuring it's a respectable and above all fruitful forum for discussion of higher intellect, specifically philosophy. It's important to him. So it becomes a somewhat strict place as a result. And if you habitually fail to acknowledge that, specifically by, in an almost juvenile and mocking fashion, respond to "don't spam the shoutbox" by what one might construe as retaliatory spamming of the forum, well, it makes it seem like you don't really appreciate your membership here. Which is a loss for many, not just yourself, I might add. And I'm afraid his hands would be tied as to his response, now wouldn't they?

This would have probably been best communicated via private message, but I doubt this thread will linger for too long. So I'm happy to share my TPF "patriotism?" in the interim, I suppose. :grin:

Shameless plug.

For someone who claims to be:

not be one of the players here, — Outlander

...you sure do have a keen insight into the site owners' inner workings. And you have taken the time to explain them to me, again. What a great friend you are! But to whom? Your younger self perhaps? I hate my younger self. His naivety in allowing people to befriend him for no apparent reason is responsible for at least half my woes.

I'm not a trendsetter; I'm a Galilean objectivist on a forum full of passive aggressive subjectivists. I'm not pushing the envelope. I'm correcting an error. I have explained this in the shoutbox, and I'm wondering how you - who have such insight into the thinking of someone you profess not to know, has no insight whatsoever into the thinking of someone you profess to be a friend?

I might appreciate my membership here more if it didn't feel I'm unwelcome. I can not care, but I'll be damned if I don't stand by my conscientious convictions. I think Galileo was right, that science is true, and philosophy should have followed in the course of a scientific objectivism. I think subjectivism is bunk, and much of Western philosophy is..metaphysics, papering over the cracks of a rational/spiritual schism wholly invented by the antithetical position the Church adopted to science.

That; alongside a Magma Energy solution to the climate and ecological threat - makes me something of a unicorn, and not someone you should want to drive off the forum because I'm not reading your facial cues or offering the required degree of deference.

you sure do have a keen insight into the site owners' inner workings. — karl stone

I enjoy reading his posts. Not habitually or in an obsessive way, just casually as I see new ones on the front page. I have the site loaded up a lot. I like being intellectually stimulated. It keeps me off... other things. Usually.

It's common sense, really. Why run and actively engage in something for 10 years without pay if you're not at least mildly impassioned about it.

I hate my younger self. His naivety in allowing people to befriend him for no apparent reason is responsible for at least half my woes. — karl stone

We have that much in common, at least.

I'm wondering how you - who have such insight into the thinking of someone you profess not to know, has no insight whatsoever into the thinking of someone you profess to be a friend? — karl stone

I in fact do have much insight, as does anyone who has been here for several years and reads the posts of said individual. I mean, sure, every post he made could be facetious in some attempt to obscure his real character, for some reason, but aside from that. It doesn't take much to gleam a fair amount of a person's character from observation of a prolonged, natural expression of their posts online. Sure, he could just be a liar. But if not, it's just my opinion. Surely not infallible. I'm "in support of your membership here", I suppose is the more apt-expression as opposed to "friendship." An ally. Same concept, really.

I might appreciate my membership here more if it didn't feel I'm unwelcome. — karl stone

This is more of a philosophy forum. The science is related, indirectly, sparsely, tangentially, perhaps. But a topic centered around discussing the scientific facts of a theory is categorically off topic. Absolutely fine in the Lounge, but again, this is more about philosophy. Non-physical things. It just comes off as this obsession, that may very well change the world we live in, but nonetheless ultimately rests outside of the scope of what this forum is intended for (philosophy).

This is more of a philosophy forum. The science is related, indirectly, sparsely, tangentially, perhaps. But a topic centered around discussing the scientific facts of a theory is categorically off topic. Absolutely fine in the Lounge, but again, this is more about philosophy. Non-physical things. It just comes off as this obsession, that may very well change the world we live in, but nonetheless ultimately rests outside of the scope of what this forum is intended for (philosophy). — Outlander

So by philosophy you mean metaphysics; intellectual logic chopping rather than anything concerned with truth, wisdom, or justice as it pertains to the real world? I cannot agree; that's not what philosophy is. It's more than a mere talking shop; it's about asking how we live.

Proving high temperature geothermal is technologically possible is not about mechanics; it's about the sustainability of human existence.

But that aside, why would you want to put anything beyond the scope? On what basis? And who decides that - assuming that Western philosophy is twaddle in the course of ecclesiastical error, then what's relevant to philosophy qua philosophy is again up for debate. No?

So by philosophy you mean metaphysics; intellectual logic chopping rather than anything concerned with truth, wisdom, or justice as it pertains to the real world? I cannot agree; that's not what philosophy is. It's more than a mere talking shop; it's about asking how we live. — karl stone

Of course not. Furthermore, conflating metaphysics with intellectual "logic chopping" is absurd. Yes, logic is required for any sort of meaningful communication, at least when it crosses a certain threshold beyond idle pleasantries and grunts of displeasure in the form of sentences. This is an odd side of you that's coming out now. You're betraying a certain willful ignorance now that reminds me of how you made strange, esoteric references and remarks to other long term posters here. As if you've been here much longer and are much more familiar with persons here than you like to portray yourself as being to random interlocutors/casual posters such as myself.

Proving high temperature geothermal is technologically possible is not about mechanics; it's about the sustainability of human existence. — karl stone

It's an aside, as far as the underlying and larger philosophy. It doesn't matter if it's geothermal or wind or solar, if the mechanics are sound, that's all that matters and the topic reverts (or rather returns) to what it rightfully should be: the discussion of whether or not human endeavors alone can result in sustainability that results in our continued existence, or whether or not our existence can be sustained at all and how to best go forward.

The specific mathematics, equations, and studies of the type of energy are not part of the particular philosophy you purport to discuss. It's either, feasible, or it's not (but perhaps something else is). Anything specific to geothermal shouldn't require more than a half sentence per its relevance to the philosophy of sustainability. If, again, that's what you purport your desire is to discuss?

Basically, it doesn't matter. "If geothermal energy is feasible" or "if geothermal energy is not feasible but perhaps something, whether currently known or otherwise, might be", is one and the same as far as this purported philosophical argument of "sustainability" is concerned.

It's like attending a meeting in an intellectual debate club, and everyone is dressed as asked, minimal themes, nothing shocking or ostentatious, and here you are, decked out in every piece of clothing, button, or pin that advertises your one belief. It's a distraction. That's what it is — and that's all it is — a distraction. And from so deep within that heavy layer of non-necessity, I wouldn't be surprised if you failed to see such yourself. But. You're clearly capable of such. So. Come now. Step outside your current seemingly unbreakable will and current fascination, and see the larger debate for what it is. See the forest for the trees.

It doesn't matter if it's geothermal or wind or solar, if the mechanics are sound, that's all that matters... — Outlander

Oh contraire. Part of the problem is that we need abundant constant clean energy going forwards - not to spend fortunes mitigating some small part of carbon emissions, intermittently, in ideal weather conditions. Without discussing what may very well prove a bone of contention for those invested, emotionally if not financially in wind and solar; in terms of what these technologies are able to deliver, then the question of feasibility is mooted.

I cannot show how Limits to Growth is misconceived without proving the qualitatively superior nature of high temperature geothermal technology, not thereby inspire with a vision of a prosperous and sustainable energy abundant future - wind and solar cannot promise.

These subjectivists are preparing to die; engaged in anti-enlightenment, anti-capitalist, anti-rationalist, post-modern nihilism, via antinatalism unto the absurd. How can I break through to them; that there is in fact a long and prosperous future ahead for the making, all to play, to hope for, to dream of and talk into existence were I contrainend from offering more than cursory demonstrations of fact?

It's like attending a meeting in an intellectual debate club, and everyone is dressed as asked, minimal themes, nothing shocking or ostentatious, and here you are, decked out in every piece of clothing, button, or pin that advertises your one belief. It's a distraction. — Outlander

I think I'm shadow banned on twitter and on youtube. I tweeted Greta Thunberg everyday for months and got no replies, neither from her nor her followers. I've commented on every science video on youtube, every climate video, the IEA, COP, IPCC...nothing. No-one sees it, or no-one cares. I don't know that I'm shadow banned. I kind of hope so. Point is, I'm not here for the social dimension. I'm here to put my ideas out there.

And from so deep within that heavy layer of non-necessity, I wouldn't be surprised if you failed to see such yourself. But. You're clearly capable of such. So. Come now. Step outside your current seemingly unbreakable will and current fascination, and see the larger debate for what it is. See the forest for the trees. — Outlander

I'm not sure I know what that means; but let me ask you if you are content with knowing that you are the weak link in a hypothetical chain linking every previous generation to every potential future generation of human beings? Are you unconcerned by a characterisation of yourself as betraying the struggles of your every ancestor, and all your children's children? Because I am not content. I am concerned. I will not fail for want of trying for a prosperous and sustainable future powered by endless clean energy from high temperature geothermal. Hume notwithstanding, if it is technologically feasible, it is morally obligatory!

Oh contraire. Part of the problem is that we need abundant constant clean energy going forwards - not to spend fortunes mitigating some small part of carbon emissions, intermittently, in ideal weather conditions. Without discussing what may very well prove a bone of contention for those invested, emotionally if not financially in wind and solar; in terms of what these technologies are able to deliver, then the question of feasibility is mooted.

I cannot show how Limits to Growth is misconceived without proving the qualitatively superior nature of high temperature geothermal technology, not thereby inspire with a vision of a prosperous and sustainable energy abundant future. — karl stone

See, this is fine. Up to the point you fail to realize "magma energy" is akin, at least in the argument you framed, to anything that is non-dependent on "ideal weather conditions", such as solar and especially wind that are in fact dependent on such. The known (magma, atomic, etc.) and the unknown are one and the same. You simply have the apple of your eye which in its specificity is detracting from the base philosophy. If you want to promote a specific energy source, and not an idea, get some money, and go lobby at your local government. This is not what this forum is for. It's for discussing general ideas rationally, not evangelizing specific and dogmatic paths to such.

These subjectivists are preparing to die; engaged in anti-enlightenment, anti-capitalist, anti-rationalist, post-modern nihilism, via antinatalism unto the absurd. How can I break through to them; that there's is in fact a long and prosperous future ahead for the making, all to play, to hope for, to dream of and talk into existence were I contrainend from offering more than cursory demonstrations of fact? — karl stone

This has nothing to do with anything of the above (first quote), at least in the context of strict philosophic debate.

I tweeted Greta Thunberg everyday for months and got no replies — karl stone

Oh how dense can you really be. You remind me of the unfortunate ilk I have to be associated with. Do you really think any celebrity reads anything people send them? Other than law-enforcement associated types who scan incoming messages for possible threats and alert the proper authorities? On social media especially? Of course not. Big name media persons who garnish majority attention in newspapers, or even unknown models on explicit (or semi-explicit) photo sharing sites such as OnlyFans. It's run by people other than the person themself. You're responding (and spending, wasting rather, your effort and resources) on random persons who will never communicate anything you wish. It's amazing talking to someone who knows (or at least is able to articulate) knowledge much greater than I yet fails to grasp such not only common sense but basic knowledge.

Oh how dense can you really be. — Outlander

Not as dense as you are dishonest.

I tweeted Greta Thunberg everyday for months and got no replies, neither from her nor her followers. — karl stone

Or maybe you are dense.

Difficult to say without a colonoscopy!

Not as dense as you are dishonest. — karl stone

I've illustrated no dishonesty in any interaction we've had on this web forum, whereas you, as others would agree (and perhaps may be inclined to soon punish as a result) have shown much denseness.

So, that is the dynamic upon which things rest. Not yours. But that. And that alone.

If you're so smart how come you never figured out that science is true, or that Earth is a big ball of molten rock? If you're so honest, why can't you admit that's valid and relevant? I don't expect you to answer, but maybe one of your followers can tell me!

I’m so proud. — T Clark

It's good to keep people updated with regards your emotional state.

Proud.

I see that!

If you're so smart how come you never figured out that science is true, or that Earth is a big ball of molten rock? If you're so honest, why can't you admit that's valid and relevant? I don't expect you to answer, but maybe one of your followers can tell me! — karl stone

You’re kind of a bully.

You’re kind of a bully. — T Clark

Projection!

That's smart ass for you started it!

Projection!

That's smart ass for you started it! — karl stone

It was just a statement of fact. No judgment involved. I’m not claiming to be any better.

It was just a statement of fact. No judgment involved. I’m not claiming to be any better. — T Clark

It's not a fact though. I'm playing tit for tat. If you come titting at me, expect to be tatted.
And I'm kind of a smart ass, so expect to be tatted real good!
If you stop with the titting, I'll stop with the tatting.
Game Theory.

If you're so smart how come you never figured out that science is true, or that Earth is a big ball of molten rock? — karl stone

I'll admit many posters here have me beat as far as strict encyclopedic memory (knowing/being able to immediately recall all the "buzzwords", and base concepts, of established mainstream philosophies and their authors and able to use them flawlessly as a second nature in debate and discussion). In my defense I've simply never taken the time to study them. I wanted to be "my own" philosopher, not being "influenced" (stealing) the ideas of other people. It didn't quite work out as I envisioned, no not yet, but a noble effort remains a noble effort. :wink:

Science is about discovery. Most discoveries are simply more correct than they are incorrect. This is what constitutes a scientific "fact." They don't change often, but sometimes they do.

It's not that the Earth isn't a big ball of molten rock, or that geothermal energy is not viable, it's that you've explicitly stated your belief in a conspiracy that powerful groups are actively suppressing the value and use of geothermal energy, for reasons you've yet to logically explain ("Big Oil" could just use their money to corner the geothermal market, make legislation and more that effectively results in little to no change in profit, theoretically at least, if one believes they're so large and nefarious).

I mean it's interesting to think about. Humans are opportunistic by nature, so greed is hardwired into our DNA and as a result "culture", despite efforts to make it a taboo. It's plausible. But just pointing to the sky and waving your arms around without really showing any proof is no way to convince anyone of anything, be they a thinking person or not, now is it? :chin:

If you're so honest, why can't you admit that's valid and relevant? — karl stone

It's factual. But see the bolded text above as to why it is you, my good sir, who makes other things not related to geothermal more relevant, which as a result consequently makes the idea of geothermal less relevant, at least in the framing of your concerns and their priority.

So it becomes a somewhat strict place as a result. — Outlander

This is one of the loosest MB's I've been on. People routinely insult each other here, even the mods do it. It's all great fun. You can get away with a lot if you're a quality poster.

This is one of the loosest MB's I've been on. — RogueAI

We frequent different depths of the Internet, that's all I can say.

It's all great fun. — RogueAI

It is. It certainly is. :grin: