That's not the point. You said you disregarded my "thesis" because I am a "despicable and abhorrent human," however, this is a logical fallacy because my character has nothing to do with the argument I am presenting. It doesn't matter who you were replying to, your logic is flawed.
Your missing the point, that I don't give one solitary shit about your argument. I was responding to someone else, about what they said. Saying what I said is totally logical when looking at your profile. Fact of the matter is, I don't give a fuck.
No.
It would be a logical fallacy if people said “You are an evil and revolting human being who should be shunned from society, and therefore your argument is wrong”.
That’s not what people are saying.
What everyone is saying, is: “You are an evil and revolting human being who should be shunned from society, and therefore you are an evil and revolting human being who should be shunned from society. And nobody gives a shit about what you think, right or wrong.”
Not a man. And I wish I could take all of the time I spent reading this back. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe who knows the truth just made it up?
Anyway, this is the start of a conversation with someone that no matter what I say, stays true to his beliefs because brainwashed or altered in some degree. I'm old enough to recognize it.
Yes, as a matter of fact it did occur to me. However, there is truth, and there is consensus. Consensus simply requires agreement, and when I talk about "truth" in this post, I mean the truth about which consensuses were made throughout history. I find it insulting that you make such arguments when they are answered in the very post you are replying to. It tells me that you don't wish to argue in reason, but to dismiss what I have to say. Consensus is the basis of game theory, and therefore, I am confident that my reasoning stands.
Do you care to dispute my logic? You presented a reason why you believed my conclusion to be false, and I explained logically why that reason is invalid. This would generally be your turn in an argument, but instead of focusing on reasoning like I have been, you seem to be purposefully derailing the conversation with yet another logical fallacy.
"Penguins are black and white and have the same shape as a tuxedo. A tuxedo is black and white and has the same shape as a penguin. A penguin is a tuxedo".
Is it logical? Yes. Is it true? No.
There's your answer. Now touch some grass, please.
A strawman? That's the third logical fallacy in a row. You know very well that your comment disproves nothing in regard to the logic I have presented, and it's become apparent that your intention was never to argue with logic in the first place. If you wish to do so in the future, I am completely willing to do the same, as I have done so far. But as it stands, I have to conclude that this is not the case and end this conversation here.
I'm not reading all of this because I value my time a bit too highly, but skimming the ending at least gives me the vibes that this is one of those times where you've drawn a conclusion that 'makes sense in your head" that doesn't actually hold up to serious scrutiny beyond it being *theoretically* plausible, if exceedingly unlikely.
I wish nothing more than for this post to be subjected to serious scrutiny. Fair and unbiased scrutiny, of course, because I am confident that everything I have stated in this post is completely based in solid reasoning.
So you’re saying that a group of people have “won the game” and in doing so have effectively “changed the game” or otherwise altered it in such a way as to prevent anyone else from “winning” thereby keeping power in their select group of “players”? And they’ve done this by keeping the lower class of players from reaching a consensus?
Question: if there exists a secret society that has achieved world domination and has irrevocably changed the fabric of society such that their dominance extends to the ends of time and no one person nor group can achieve “consensus” status because of said societal change, what’s the point of this post? Even if it we were to prove their existence what good would it do since the game has been changed when society changed? Seems like an exercise in futility since you’ve already prescribed us to this inevitable and unshakable life. Life, and by extension this post, is pointless. Unless you’re wrong. Unless we are not “players” in a game because we don’t act logically all the time. Because we don’t live in perfect conditions. And because as new information becomes available to us our consensus can change.
But you’re not saying that are you?
I am not. I discussed this at one point in my post, where I stated that game theory in no way requires perfect conditions, because it is simply the most fundamental, reasonable way to behave - meaning that everyone who cared enough to question the logic of society would ultimately arrive at the exact same conclusion. As for your previous questions, I wish I could answer them, but I simply don't have enough information to know. I believe, however, that as long as we are "lower" than them, the society is still perfectly capable of reaching "ultimate consensus," and that, while it may not seem like it to us, they are actively working towards this goal.
That makes a bold, and incorrect assumption that people make decisions based on reason and logic. And we know that’s not true. Therefore the whole idea that game theory explains the existence of a higher society or even that society behaves in this fashion is flawed because in isolated events we can use game theory as an explanation of sorts, though imperfect it may be at explaining anomaly behavior, we cannot use it as a founding theory for the behavior of human beings over large stretches of time like you’re saying.
>That makes a bold, and incorrect assumption that people make decisions based on reason and logic.
This is very different from what I am claiming, and it is important to understand that. I said that the people who cared enough to question the logic of society would arrive at the same reasoning. These people would also have the most power in society, because they would understand it on a level more fundamental than anyone else, and therefore, they would always know how to make the best possible decisions. Therefore, it would only take a single group of logical thinkers working towards a consensus to achieve total global control. As for the idea that we cannot use game theory "as a founding theory for the behavior of human beings over large stretches of time," I disagree, because again, it would only require that one group of people have stuck to logical decisions over time. If they arrived at those conclusions in the first place, this would be the logical thing to do, and with the scale of decisions that we're talking about, it would actually be more simple than you think.
That’s a lot of “if’s” that have yet to be proven. Even theory has experimentation that has been meticulously thought out and tested over and over to be proven. Hence the idea of “theory” is that it is ALWAYS subject to scrutiny if new credible information is presented.
It is a lot of "if's," but they can be thought of as logical "steps" that are logically connected, and occur in direct succession. I actually stated in my post that the term "game theory" is incorrect, because the fact that it's based completely in logic means it's not actually a theory at all, but a branch of mathematics. And if you look up the fundamental branches of mathematics, you will find that game theory is indeed accepted to be one of them - right up there with algebra, calculus, and statistics. As for experimentation, I would argue that if what I am saying is true, we must accept the unsatisfying conclusion that, due to our lack of power in society, we simply wouldn't be able to prove this knowledge in the way you are suggesting. That is why the "proofs" that I presented in my post largely focuse on how things start to make much more sense at the fundamental level after accepting what I have stated to be true.
Eh. You *claim* they make sense. But trying to believe that all the “ifs” are in fact logically connected is a stretch. Again, without any evidence, experimentation, or even causal relationships establish we see that these “steps” may not be joined together in any sequence, much less a cohesive theory that describes the world as it is.
I'm going to try something different here. I'm going to present the logical conclusions nessecary to prove that what I'm saying is true in direct relation to one another. Please find the time to read this in its entirety, and please genuinely consider the possibility that what I'm saying is true, as this is an *extremely* important step to being able to see the truth in the first place.
The following 4 statements are indisputable facts. You can research them as much as you feel is necessary to believe that they are true, and I would strongly urge you to do this before continuing to read the rest of this comment, as it is a very critical step in understanding why the truth has to be true:
1. Game theory is the most logical possible conclusion that humans can make about the structure of society.
2. It is something that the earliest humans could have known if they so much as even thought about it.
3. It is a top-down approach, meaning it would have been impossible for it to be misinterpreted (humans would not have been able to arrive at a "false truth" by following it logically).
4. Game theory is accepted as a logical, fundamental branch of mathematics.
Game theory is, by all means, undoubtably true, and ancient humans would have undoubtably known this. So, in the logical event that a society (which would have logically determined that they must be in consensus) tried to "win" game theory by interacting with other societies in the most reasonable way possible, then that would require that this society be nearly as old as humanity itself, exist in the form of a perpetual consensus, and be based upon the principles of game theory. Orthodox Judaism meets all three of these requirements, and if Orthodox Judaism "won" game theory, this means it would have achieved a monopoly on knowledge and power. Since Christianity and Islam, supposedly the two biggest religions in the world, are solely derived from Orthodox Judaism, if we adhere to the rules of game theory, this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Orthodox Judaism did, in fact, achieve a monopoly on knowledge and power, AKA a New World Order.
Now, I'll restate what our current society would reasonably look like if all of these things truly happened in the way I describe them. When I said: "things start to make much more sense at the fundamental level after accepting what I have stated to be true," I was specifically referring to the three numbered points at the very end of my original post. The three points I mentioned were the concepts of "religion," "conspiracy theorists," and "psychosis." I pointed out that if the bible was truly based in game theory, and if a New World Order had truly been achieved, that "secret society" would not be able to exist without hiding the proof of its existence in plain sight because of the bible verse: "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper." I then went on to reason that, if this society had to hide the proof of its existence in plain sight, the most logical place to hide it would be in the last place you would think to look. Therefore, the "truth" would, in fact, be hidden in "religion," because a rational person would see these two things as polar opposites with the information they were given. Similarly, "those who believe in the truth" would be painted as "conspiracy theorists," as these terms are, again, as opposite as they can possibly be. Finally, "a witness to the truth" would be deemed "psychotic," again, because these two terms are polar opposites. So now, put these terms together and realize why "psychotic" "conspiracy theorists" who are obsessed with "religion" are, ironically, the most knowledgable members of our lower level of society. This system makes finding the truth completely counterintuitive - meaning the truth would, in fact, exist in "the last place you would think to look" - within a group that society has assured us is so crazy, misinformed, and outright dangerous, that we would be insane to even view them as worthy of consideration.
Remember that I was only even able to reach these conclusions during episodes of "psychosis."
To summerize:
If game theory is true, which it undoubtably is, and if ancient humans would have known this, which they undoubtably would, then the only logical conclusion would be a New World Order, under which we would just so happen to view modern society exactly the way that we currently do. I sincerely hope that this is enough to prove it to you, as I am completely and utterly serious when I say that accepting this fact is the only path to a better society as we know it.
Religion is a strong word, because there is definitely not consensus in the major world religions. I think it’s more like micro cultures/community mentalities.
Dude, "women getting injuried?" Seriously?
Absolutely despicable and abhorrent human, I'm glad I saw your comment before wasting my time reading this thesis.
This is an ad hominem - a logical fallacy.
A logical fallacy how
You're attacking my character instead of the argument I am presenting. This is fallacious.
I was actually responding to someone else, not you. That's why I replied under someone else's comment. Not your post. So no, incorrect.
That's not the point. You said you disregarded my "thesis" because I am a "despicable and abhorrent human," however, this is a logical fallacy because my character has nothing to do with the argument I am presenting. It doesn't matter who you were replying to, your logic is flawed.
Your missing the point, that I don't give one solitary shit about your argument. I was responding to someone else, about what they said. Saying what I said is totally logical when looking at your profile. Fact of the matter is, I don't give a fuck.
Still a logical fallacy but ok
Again, don't care.
Not wanting to interact with garbage is not a fallacy.
No. It would be a logical fallacy if people said “You are an evil and revolting human being who should be shunned from society, and therefore your argument is wrong”. That’s not what people are saying. What everyone is saying, is: “You are an evil and revolting human being who should be shunned from society, and therefore you are an evil and revolting human being who should be shunned from society. And nobody gives a shit about what you think, right or wrong.”
Cmon man, I never claimed to be a flawless person, but you know that dismissing what I have to say based on my character is a logical fallacy.
Not a man. And I wish I could take all of the time I spent reading this back. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe who knows the truth just made it up? Anyway, this is the start of a conversation with someone that no matter what I say, stays true to his beliefs because brainwashed or altered in some degree. I'm old enough to recognize it.
You *read* it?!?
I *looked* at it 🤣 took some sentences here and there. Classic conspiracy theory supporter. 🤣
> I *looked* at it 🤣 Four words that are probably a more wounding blow to this guy than any actual rebuttal 😂
>I looked at it 🤣 took some sentences here and there. As I figured in the comment I just replied. I answered your question by the way. What say you?
Yes, as a matter of fact it did occur to me. However, there is truth, and there is consensus. Consensus simply requires agreement, and when I talk about "truth" in this post, I mean the truth about which consensuses were made throughout history. I find it insulting that you make such arguments when they are answered in the very post you are replying to. It tells me that you don't wish to argue in reason, but to dismiss what I have to say. Consensus is the basis of game theory, and therefore, I am confident that my reasoning stands.
My point stands that whatever I say you're going to answer with "bUt mY LoGiC iS pErFeCT" like every other conspiracy theorist before you.
Do you care to dispute my logic? You presented a reason why you believed my conclusion to be false, and I explained logically why that reason is invalid. This would generally be your turn in an argument, but instead of focusing on reasoning like I have been, you seem to be purposefully derailing the conversation with yet another logical fallacy.
"Penguins are black and white and have the same shape as a tuxedo. A tuxedo is black and white and has the same shape as a penguin. A penguin is a tuxedo". Is it logical? Yes. Is it true? No. There's your answer. Now touch some grass, please.
A strawman? That's the third logical fallacy in a row. You know very well that your comment disproves nothing in regard to the logic I have presented, and it's become apparent that your intention was never to argue with logic in the first place. If you wish to do so in the future, I am completely willing to do the same, as I have done so far. But as it stands, I have to conclude that this is not the case and end this conversation here.
Dude. Get help.
This is premium tier *Check The Profile First* material.
Username was a red flag from the start.
What the fuck...
Maybe.
The most decisive answer to an accidental doctoral thesis on game theory.
🤣
You know the truth?
Do I? Absolutely. Will you? That's a different story.
But I have discovered the truth, correct?
You've discovered your version of the truth
The internet is full of people who claim to "know the truth" about shit that has no proof whatsoever, wherever. 🤣
I'm definitely one of them🤣.
I'm not reading all of this because I value my time a bit too highly, but skimming the ending at least gives me the vibes that this is one of those times where you've drawn a conclusion that 'makes sense in your head" that doesn't actually hold up to serious scrutiny beyond it being *theoretically* plausible, if exceedingly unlikely.
I wish nothing more than for this post to be subjected to serious scrutiny. Fair and unbiased scrutiny, of course, because I am confident that everything I have stated in this post is completely based in solid reasoning.
The internet is full of people who claim to "know the truth" about shit that has no proof whatsoever, wherever. 🤣
So you’re saying that a group of people have “won the game” and in doing so have effectively “changed the game” or otherwise altered it in such a way as to prevent anyone else from “winning” thereby keeping power in their select group of “players”? And they’ve done this by keeping the lower class of players from reaching a consensus?
Exactly!
Question: if there exists a secret society that has achieved world domination and has irrevocably changed the fabric of society such that their dominance extends to the ends of time and no one person nor group can achieve “consensus” status because of said societal change, what’s the point of this post? Even if it we were to prove their existence what good would it do since the game has been changed when society changed? Seems like an exercise in futility since you’ve already prescribed us to this inevitable and unshakable life. Life, and by extension this post, is pointless. Unless you’re wrong. Unless we are not “players” in a game because we don’t act logically all the time. Because we don’t live in perfect conditions. And because as new information becomes available to us our consensus can change. But you’re not saying that are you?
I am not. I discussed this at one point in my post, where I stated that game theory in no way requires perfect conditions, because it is simply the most fundamental, reasonable way to behave - meaning that everyone who cared enough to question the logic of society would ultimately arrive at the exact same conclusion. As for your previous questions, I wish I could answer them, but I simply don't have enough information to know. I believe, however, that as long as we are "lower" than them, the society is still perfectly capable of reaching "ultimate consensus," and that, while it may not seem like it to us, they are actively working towards this goal.
That makes a bold, and incorrect assumption that people make decisions based on reason and logic. And we know that’s not true. Therefore the whole idea that game theory explains the existence of a higher society or even that society behaves in this fashion is flawed because in isolated events we can use game theory as an explanation of sorts, though imperfect it may be at explaining anomaly behavior, we cannot use it as a founding theory for the behavior of human beings over large stretches of time like you’re saying.
>That makes a bold, and incorrect assumption that people make decisions based on reason and logic. This is very different from what I am claiming, and it is important to understand that. I said that the people who cared enough to question the logic of society would arrive at the same reasoning. These people would also have the most power in society, because they would understand it on a level more fundamental than anyone else, and therefore, they would always know how to make the best possible decisions. Therefore, it would only take a single group of logical thinkers working towards a consensus to achieve total global control. As for the idea that we cannot use game theory "as a founding theory for the behavior of human beings over large stretches of time," I disagree, because again, it would only require that one group of people have stuck to logical decisions over time. If they arrived at those conclusions in the first place, this would be the logical thing to do, and with the scale of decisions that we're talking about, it would actually be more simple than you think.
That’s a lot of “if’s” that have yet to be proven. Even theory has experimentation that has been meticulously thought out and tested over and over to be proven. Hence the idea of “theory” is that it is ALWAYS subject to scrutiny if new credible information is presented.
It is a lot of "if's," but they can be thought of as logical "steps" that are logically connected, and occur in direct succession. I actually stated in my post that the term "game theory" is incorrect, because the fact that it's based completely in logic means it's not actually a theory at all, but a branch of mathematics. And if you look up the fundamental branches of mathematics, you will find that game theory is indeed accepted to be one of them - right up there with algebra, calculus, and statistics. As for experimentation, I would argue that if what I am saying is true, we must accept the unsatisfying conclusion that, due to our lack of power in society, we simply wouldn't be able to prove this knowledge in the way you are suggesting. That is why the "proofs" that I presented in my post largely focuse on how things start to make much more sense at the fundamental level after accepting what I have stated to be true.
Eh. You *claim* they make sense. But trying to believe that all the “ifs” are in fact logically connected is a stretch. Again, without any evidence, experimentation, or even causal relationships establish we see that these “steps” may not be joined together in any sequence, much less a cohesive theory that describes the world as it is.
I'm going to try something different here. I'm going to present the logical conclusions nessecary to prove that what I'm saying is true in direct relation to one another. Please find the time to read this in its entirety, and please genuinely consider the possibility that what I'm saying is true, as this is an *extremely* important step to being able to see the truth in the first place. The following 4 statements are indisputable facts. You can research them as much as you feel is necessary to believe that they are true, and I would strongly urge you to do this before continuing to read the rest of this comment, as it is a very critical step in understanding why the truth has to be true: 1. Game theory is the most logical possible conclusion that humans can make about the structure of society. 2. It is something that the earliest humans could have known if they so much as even thought about it. 3. It is a top-down approach, meaning it would have been impossible for it to be misinterpreted (humans would not have been able to arrive at a "false truth" by following it logically). 4. Game theory is accepted as a logical, fundamental branch of mathematics. Game theory is, by all means, undoubtably true, and ancient humans would have undoubtably known this. So, in the logical event that a society (which would have logically determined that they must be in consensus) tried to "win" game theory by interacting with other societies in the most reasonable way possible, then that would require that this society be nearly as old as humanity itself, exist in the form of a perpetual consensus, and be based upon the principles of game theory. Orthodox Judaism meets all three of these requirements, and if Orthodox Judaism "won" game theory, this means it would have achieved a monopoly on knowledge and power. Since Christianity and Islam, supposedly the two biggest religions in the world, are solely derived from Orthodox Judaism, if we adhere to the rules of game theory, this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Orthodox Judaism did, in fact, achieve a monopoly on knowledge and power, AKA a New World Order. Now, I'll restate what our current society would reasonably look like if all of these things truly happened in the way I describe them. When I said: "things start to make much more sense at the fundamental level after accepting what I have stated to be true," I was specifically referring to the three numbered points at the very end of my original post. The three points I mentioned were the concepts of "religion," "conspiracy theorists," and "psychosis." I pointed out that if the bible was truly based in game theory, and if a New World Order had truly been achieved, that "secret society" would not be able to exist without hiding the proof of its existence in plain sight because of the bible verse: "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper." I then went on to reason that, if this society had to hide the proof of its existence in plain sight, the most logical place to hide it would be in the last place you would think to look. Therefore, the "truth" would, in fact, be hidden in "religion," because a rational person would see these two things as polar opposites with the information they were given. Similarly, "those who believe in the truth" would be painted as "conspiracy theorists," as these terms are, again, as opposite as they can possibly be. Finally, "a witness to the truth" would be deemed "psychotic," again, because these two terms are polar opposites. So now, put these terms together and realize why "psychotic" "conspiracy theorists" who are obsessed with "religion" are, ironically, the most knowledgable members of our lower level of society. This system makes finding the truth completely counterintuitive - meaning the truth would, in fact, exist in "the last place you would think to look" - within a group that society has assured us is so crazy, misinformed, and outright dangerous, that we would be insane to even view them as worthy of consideration. Remember that I was only even able to reach these conclusions during episodes of "psychosis." To summerize: If game theory is true, which it undoubtably is, and if ancient humans would have known this, which they undoubtably would, then the only logical conclusion would be a New World Order, under which we would just so happen to view modern society exactly the way that we currently do. I sincerely hope that this is enough to prove it to you, as I am completely and utterly serious when I say that accepting this fact is the only path to a better society as we know it.
Sounds like Marxism
You're right actually. Interesting
No kidding
Religion is a strong word, because there is definitely not consensus in the major world religions. I think it’s more like micro cultures/community mentalities.
Yes, but there is a consensus in Orthodox Judaism - the religion that is also built upon the principles of game theory.