DKay']Why wouldn't there be other definitions ? Just because the definition of "better military" seems the same for most people, doesn't mean it is for everybody.

The only things you can define, are those who are part of the objective reality. An atom is an atom, and it's definition is the truth (however the idea of an atom can vary from one person to another, and there is no definition of the idea of an atom, is there).

Things that are part of the sensible worlds cannot be defined as they are ONLY ideas. Can you define beautiful for example ?

Ideas are non substantial, you just have accepted a definition of better because it is more confortable for your small brain, just like people have accepted a particular definition of the world beautiful and thus, have different standards "id hit it" "i wouldnt"

 

Definitions are majority consensus opinions. The fact that most people are of the opinion that a better military is one that can kill people faster means that is how a better military is defined. If you change populations then definitions will change, however in this case we are taking global populations.

 

Having a different opinion from the definition does not make your opinion a definition, it makes it an opinion. And a wrong one, usually.

 

Once again: majority concensus makes definitions, not minority. I'm sure a lot of people think the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it true. Just like a lot of people think the definition of there is the same as their's.

NWA']Definitions are majority consensus opinions. The fact that most people are of the opinion that a better military is one that can kill people faster means that is how a better military is defined. If you change populations then definitions will change, however in this case we are taking global populations.

 

Having a different opinion from the definition does not make your opinion a definition, it makes it an opinion. And a wrong one, usually.

 

Once again: majority concensus makes definitions, not minority. I'm sure a lot of people think the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it true. Just like a lot of people think the definition of there is the same as their's.

 

In the past, people believed the Earth was flat, and they accepted it as being the truth. They were proven wrong, and we now see them as being ignorant and foolish (which you must be, to think you know the truth about something you can't prove) The fact that most people believe that the definition is true, doesn't make it the truth, once again.

It's like today's metaphysics, you can only make assumptions about what you don't see.

Majority can only agree to accept an assumption, not make it the truth

DKay']In the past, people believed the Earth was flat, and they accepted it as being the truth. The fact that most people believe that the definition is true, doesn't make it the truth, once again.

It's like today's metaphysics, you can only make assumptions about what you don't see.

Majority can only agree to accept an assumption, not make it the truth

 

It makes it relatively true, which is all that matters.

Take it to PM you silly love birds.

NWA']It makes it relatively true' date=' which is all that matters.[/quote']

I see you backed off, and now you're just proving my point even further : something "relatively true" is subjective, and cannot be defined as the truth.

America is relatively better than the rest of the world, big deal, this means it could be true, but it also means it could be wrong : it means nothing

DKay']I see you backed off, and now you're just proving my point even further : something "relatively true" is subjective, and cannot be defined as the truth.

America is relatively better than the rest of the world, big deal, this means it could be true, but it also means it could be wrong : it means nothing

 

For all intents and purposes, it is completely true for our time. You're playing the WORDS R THOUGHTS LOL game and it only exists to waste time.

America isnt better than the rest of the world. Every country is dependent on another country. Have you ever looked on the back of something you owned? like a remote controller? or something It would probably say ,"Made in mexico" or "Made in china" The mouse im using write now says, "Made in China"

America isnt better than the rest of the world. Every country is dependent on another country. Have you ever looked on the back of something you owned? like a remote controller? or something It would probably say ,"Made in mexico" or "Made in china" The mouse im using write now says, "Made in China"

 

 

 

Yeh, everyone borrows and depends on another country. We are dependent on a few countries (not entirely) but I would say we have the most ammount of countries depending on us. Not completely sure about that but it seems like it.

NWA']For all intents and purposes' date=' it is completely true for our time. You're playing the WORDS R THOUGHTS LOL game and it only exists to waste time.[/quote']

 

If it isn't true for all times, it isn't true at all, an atom is, was and always will be an atom.

If you have people disagreeing on what is an atom, they're disagreeing on the idea of it, as you can't argue the object, part of the objective reality (notice how objective comes from object)

Thoughts can vary from different people, or even for the same person through times. I've never seen anyone argue about the legitimacy of another person's idea of what's beautiful, as it is his personnal choice, well this is the exact same thing with the word better, which is the superlative of good, and what you think is good or bad, it is called your morals, and as everyone knows, morals are intuitive, and vary greatly, and cannot be "defined" as you make your own assumption of what is has to be

kigy']Take it to PM you silly love birds.

Agreed.

sweden is going to nuke u all

DKay']If it isn't true for all times, it isn't true at all, an atom is, was and always will be an atom.

If you have people disagreeing on what is an atom, they're disagreeing on the idea of it, as you can't argue the object, part of the objective reality (notice how objective comes from object)

Thoughts can vary from different people, or even for the same person through times. I've never seen anyone argue about the legitimacy of another person's idea of what's beautiful, as it is his personnal choice, well this is the exact same thing with the word better, which is the superlative of good, and what you think is good or bad, it is called your morals, and as everyone knows, morals are intuitive, and vary greatly, and cannot be "defined" as you make your own assumption of what is has to be

 

I already explained how majority thinking defines definitions. You're covering ground that was already covered.

 

Further, things can only be true insofar as we know they're true. Everything we know has the possibility of being false, so saying "if it isn't true for all times, it isn't true at all" is ridiculous. Was it true that an atom was once the smallest particle we knew of? Yes. Is it true that it no longer is? Yes. Was an atom being the smallest thing true when it was thought? Yes. The fact that it is no longer true does not make it false in the past and the fact that it may be wrong does not make it false.

 

You're playing the "lol disagree" game and I lost my train of thought because I'm playing WC3.

America has scientists from all around the world improving their military. The most advanced is the best, and America is most advanced. America > Earth.

 

your name says it all....

 

-_-

NWA']I already explained how majority thinking defines definitions. You're covering ground that was already covered.

 

Further, things can only be true insofar as we know they're true. Everything we know has the possibility of being false, so saying "if it isn't true for all times, it isn't true at all" is ridiculous. Was it true that an atom was once the smallest particle we knew of? Yes. Is it true that it no longer is? Yes. Was an atom being the smallest thing true when it was thought? Yes. The fact that it is no longer true does not make it false in the past and the fact that it may be wrong does not make it false.

 

You're playing the "lol disagree" game and I lost my train of thought because I'm playing WC3.

 

No, an atom will stay consistent through times, and whatever words we use to define it, it will remain true to itself

You're giving me the definition of your idea of an atom, not the atom itself

The idea we have of an object constantly evolves, as we find more precise ways to define it

 

Don't bring up shit excuses like "i'm playing WC3", do you really think im sitting there anxiously waiting for your next breath, you're a great entertainment while i'm traveling through eve online

we have a problem with that shit,from what I have read they only have one nuke that could make it over here and it has never been tested due to the US keeping a eye on them latley.Truth be told this whole mess is getting out of control.I am really thinking of moven out of america to canada [mom whole side of the family is canadian so im a easy in] that or move to middle america.their nukes would slam our cost lines cuaase its so far away.

Im going to make a topic for Dkay and NWA..........Anyway. They also say N. Korea will also nuke their own people in the south. You have to relise, these people don't give a fuck about nature. They have no morals.

I know America is better than France because human beings naturally seek the best environment/shelter/protection/etc.. And I am human thats why I live here.

DKay']No, an atom will stay consistent through times, and whatever words we use to define it, it will remain true to itself

You're giving me the definition of your idea of an atom, not the atom itself

The idea we have of an object constantly evolves, as we find more precise ways to define it

 

Don't bring up shit excuses like "i'm playing WC3", do you really think im sitting there anxiously waiting for your next breath, you're a great entertainment while i'm traveling through eve online

 

I start replying to your posts while I'm waiting for the game to start. Once it starts I don't alt tab out until I win. I don't even remember what this thread is about except that you're trying to act like Plato with some bullshit about words only being shadows of true meaning or something. LOL DESCARTES!? THINK THERE 4 AM

 

Basically, you're wrong because you're French.

Im going to make a topic for Dkay and NWA..........Anyway. They also say N. Korea will also nuke their own people in the south. You have to relise, these people don't give a fuck about nature. They have no morals.

 

They don't give a shit about the natural repercusions, but they do care about other countries attacking them.

Ok, you two want to know something? America has things wrong with it, as does France (mayeb more so because they won't change, adapt, they are living too much in the past and can't catch up)

 

I say this because it is true. America is almsot up. India is the way of the future. America should REALLYREALLYREALLY stop fucking around with other countries, like Iraq, with their armeis and stupid policies/reasons. You want to win over a country? You want to impose democracy? Here's a few things to use in your fight for glory and freedom.

 

 

 

1. INTERNET

 

2. MCDONALDS

 

3. CONSUMER ITEMS

 

4. HOLLYWOOD

 

5. CHOICE

 

there you go, your best weapons to win. Iran is a messed up country culturally, so introduce these things and they have the choice of life.

 

What would you choose?

 

1 - OPPRESSION AND RULES BASED ON RELIGION, PARTICULARLY HARSH IF YOU'RE A WOMAN

 

2 - A T-SHIRT, OWNERSHIP OF LAND RIGHTS, INTERNET ACCESS TO THE GLOBE, REALLY COOL MOVIES WITH LOTS OF SWEARING

 

 

 

I'm serious, if countries followed Switzerlands example (a little more positive i.e. aiding human rights) then there would be no fear or WAR

 

it is a little mroe complicated, and certain things do come into play (defining human rights, racism) but in the end this is a good start

 

 

Peace bruz

NWA']I start replying to your posts while I'm waiting for the game to start. Once it starts I don't alt tab out until I win. I don't even remember what this thread is about except that you're trying to act like Plato with some bullshit about words only being shadows of true meaning or something. LOL DESCARTES!? THINK THERE 4 AM

 

Basically, you're wrong because you're French.

 

No counter arguments, no proofs, i win, ha ha ha !

DKay']No counter arguments' date=' no proofs, i win, ha ha ha ![/quote']

 

No counter argument, no counterproof, you are French, I win. OUI OUI OUI HAW HAW HAW

 

FROMAGE?

this thread is a rifk

 

ideas cannot be defined as a whole

objects stay true through time, but the definition of their idea, constantly evolves, as it is an idea

 

better is part of the sensible world, as it isnt intelligible, and then has no objective definition, as you said using your own words better means "relatively true" and then could mean anything

First off, Someone stated that we have "interceptors." Yes, we have jets with Particle Beam weaponry fixed to the noses of the aircraft (their modified 747s, to be exact). We also have land based anti-missle weaponry. As far as Satilite missles, I'm sorry but no KNOWN things exist on our side. Russia does have some nukes in space, but they're not operational anymore. We have Particle Beam weaponry in space for the purpose of destroying Other satilites and/or incoming missles. Ever hear of Starwars? We can use stuff like that, but treaties don't allow us to bring actual arms into space.

 

On to NWA and Dkay:

I have to side completely with NWA on this. The US is obviously the most superior country--or the BEST country, if you will.

 

You can obviously define what "best" means. The Majority of the English speaking world (if not the ENTIRE english speaking world) will tell you that the word "best" makes you think of the superior of two things by a MAJORITY.

 

Yes, while you can say that France is best at sucking Horse cum, that's ALL they are best at (besides not using soap and having hairy women). While, if you say the US is the best COUNTRY, you will be correct due to the fact it has (on average) one of the best economies, the best military ( the best military technology on average, the largest volunteer military, etc).

 

Now you DKay would bring back up that "best" is a subjective term, but then again that would mean that ALL words are subjective. So okay, next time you say you're going to eat what ever you french people eat, I'll tell everyone that you're eating penis because what you said is subjective and if I define it as the male genitalia, then I am right. No, that's not correct, though.

 

Words are defined as what the Majority of the Speakers of that language see it as and what the definition is agreed upon to be. ANYTHING ELSE IS COLLOQUIAL!

 

With that said, we can say America is the best because the definition of best is: 1 : excelling all others <the best student>

2 : most productive of good or of advantage, utility, or satisfaction <what is the best thing to do>

3 : MOST, LARGEST <it rained for the best part of their vacation>

 

No, we're not the LARGEST/MOST. However, we do have the largest volunteer military. We do excell others with our battle field stragedies. etc.

 

Hell, you could rewrite the definition of as:

1 : excelling all others <the best student>

2 : most productive of good or of advantage, utility, or satisfaction <what is the best thing to do>

3 : MOST, LARGEST <it rained for the best part of their vacation>

4 : The United States of America

 

Also, on what the "best military" is: The best military is the one that can kill the Oposing forces faster with the least ammount of resources. Clearly, our recourses (our technology, our training, and our troups) would be exhausted MUCH slower than that of China's, EVEN IF THEIR MILITARY IS BIGGER.

 

Thing about it this way. You can have a US Marine and have him mugged by a BUNCH of retards. On individual skill, the Marine would have been better, though out numbered. He would have surely killed more than his number (1) of the retards. Even if he dies, he would have used more of the enemies resources than they did of ours.

 

Trying to play a game of words and definitions just to save face is just showing your actual feelings (those being that we are better and the only way to say we're not is to try to obsure the meaning of "better" and all other words).

 

To settle this:

 

1 + 1 = 2. But if someone said it equaled 3, then it would. However, this wouldn't change math, just what we know as "3" would actually mean what we know as "2" (the value of singular unit added to another singular unit would be called "3" units). Along this logic you're trying to reinforce, We could be the "worst" military, but we would still kill more, use less resources, and be more dominant despite what being superior is called.

I thought that "Better" wasn't even a real word. lol Also America is not the best country, Though Canada was the best country, for 7 years in a row voted by the united nations, and you cannot define the best country just by thier military.

Actually, according to the newest report in 2005-2006, Norway is #1.

Followed by Sweden.

BASED ON:

BNP

Economy

health

and other stuff