The Second Titanic Will Apparently Be Built

That's statistically probably never going to ever happen.

Again, statistically that's next to impossible.

Ya, somehow you managed to cure cancer inadvertently by being the most charismatic guy ever and saving a guy who's live probably sucks ass on the fly like it was no big deal. Yet even though you landed that 1 in a billion shot you still couldn't make the ~50% shot of getting a wife. Wow.

Like really, off the bat your first example is the guy curing cancer.

Well shit. This guy couldn't get a single friend and he was able to save him. I'm pretty sure anyone could.

She married a greeter at Wallmart. She was broke and impoverished either way.

The son of a fucking Wallmart greeter found the cure for cancer. I think by this time someone else could've done it pretty handily.

And why do you automatically assume the worst case scenario? It's just as likely that without you existing the wife would've married a wealthy scientist who had a child who stopped the aging process and made everyone immortal. And because you saved the Wallmart Greeter we now are just stuck with the cure for cancer. Bloody typical.

Dude, you just said what the theory was all about. "Everything that has ever happened on Earth has led up to this very moment." That's what it is about! Every single thing, every single action, every single thought or movement of a muscle have led up to this moment, and things would change over time if a thing didn't happen. That's why every person leaves a mark on the world, whether we can see it or not.

I don't even want to respond to Kara...

Can you be so kind as to point out where I said this guy was a walmart greeter? I said you got into a conversation with a guy at walmart.

Anyway, yes, obviously that is situation that rarely ever happens. But it can happened. and similar things have happened in the past. My whole point is, just by talking to somebody, you leave your mark on the world. The rest of your post is so ridiculous, it is not even worth responding to you.

You can't say that at all. There is no "irrelevant" or "minor" change. Just by being alive, you're changing the lives of everyone you meet. Glance at someone for an extra second on your way home from work and your son won't be the same person as if you had not. Everything you do changes the course of the world. The true effects of your life are completely unknowable.

Never said anything about "everyone contributing some masterpiece". I already explained why accomplishment is a worthless metric, and why every single person that has ever lived has necessarily lived for the world to exist in the way it does. That's not speculation or theory, that's indisputable fact.

Your judgement makes no sense. Both of these supposed people have very obviously changed the world through their existence.

Yes. It's unbelievably obvious that that's the case. Even just on an immediate temporal level, you can figure that the impact on your family and friends would be devastating, and fundamentally change their lives. Of course there's the unknowable implications of your life in "the grand scheme of things".

The whole thing started because Ler made the ridiculous statement that seeking material wealth is a wasted life.

No one can make that call because no one is omniscient. It's not about level of education, it's about whether or not you know literally everything that can be known. Because without that knowledge, you have no right to claim that a person's life was worthless.

He clearly has. He claimed a secretary was worthless unless he/she had kids or got married.

Yet again, accomplishment doesn't factor into this at all. Every single person has to have lived for the world to be the way it is, and every single person alive will change the world through their existence.

Really? I mean I don't know how you can make that claim without seeing the hubris yourself. You are not omniscient. You do not have the right to claim that a person's life has been worthless.

That's just stupid. You can't know any more about the impact of your own life than that of others. None of us can even come close to understanding the effect we've had on all of the other people we've interacted with, or what that will amount to.

Ler already forfeited his argument. Why are you people still responding to him?

You can leave an irrelevant mark on the world though! Also, while the butterfly theory is most likely correct, I disagree with it being used in an argument because you can't prove it! People do things and that leads to other things. I wish people would stop analiyxing what might have happened, what might have been, what could happen in the future, and think more about what actually DID happen, what is going on now, and what our chances to change things really are. I'd love to think I'm going to make this giant change in the world, I would love to think I'm going to singlehandedly unite the world! But, that's most likely not going to happen. I know that, and I accept it. Which is why I don't care about what could happen, I care about what I'm doing now. Alternate history, the butterfly effect, it all makes for some good entertainment, but in the end, why should I care what might have happened? I'm not some omnipotent being, I don't control every human being on Earth. As Kali said, I really don't know what impact I'm going to have. But I'm also really not going to try to know that.
@slydessertfox, I don't believe there is a cure to cancer. You can develop something to combat i effectively, but unless we make some major medical breakthrough, that cancer will always lie dormant and may possible strike again. Its much like viruses, in that way, it can't be cured.
@Kali, can you prove everyone makes an impact by existing? Not everyone does. You will live your life and pass on, and the majority of people will leave a bloodline or some other mark of existence. That's it. We are all small beings, drifting through our daily lives. Actually, I've yet to find a real meaning in human existence. Why do we exist? It seems to me we only kill and destroy. If we just died out, every single one of us, its not like the Earth would go through some sort of catastrophic disaster. It will just sit, and continue its floating through space. It will go on with its existence, and ours will be cut short. In short, humans themselves have no purpose, not really. Bees, ants, crocodiles, deer, lions, and pigeons all have a purpose. They all contrubute to the food chain. We're just at the top. If we were gone, populations wouldn't grow out of control, plants wouldn't die, animals wouldn't starve. We leave any real mark on the world except for resource consumption. We leave a mark on humans and all our complex theories. Most people will leave that mark. But some people, whether through choice or chance, will simply not leave a mark, and will be lost in the annals of time. Never to return.

I feel like you're just being thick headed on purpose here, but I'm going to respond to you anyway...

No mark on the world is irrelevant. Eventually the tiny, microscopic change you have caused in the world will become more and more visible. Of course we can't "prove" this change since it's impossible to predict what otherwise might have happened,(though we can guess) but we know for a fact that small events have moved on to affect the world hugely.

Yeah I'm totally also tired of people analiyxing things... That just sucks, now I just wish I knew what analiyxing meant...
Apart from that typo this is just not a part of our discussion. An average human being doesn't really have a chance to change things visibly in the short run, but over time things will have changed because he existed.
ALSO, analysing and thinking about what might have happened in the past/happen in the future is a vital part of being human. If we don't look at our past actions(both personal and humans as a race/in history) and reflect upon them, we will not learn from our mistakes. Looking at what might happen in the future is also vital for businesses and governments because they need to adapt, but also for us on an individual level, so we can plan ahead.

No, and that's not what the butterfly effect is about. I think you're misunderstanding the "theory" or whatever you want to call it.

So we've determined you don't suffer from megalomania, which is good...

Because it will make you able to learn from your past mistakes, like I said. Could you please not repeat yourself to make your replies seem smarter, because they're longer.

Well thank you for admitting that. Exactly because you're not omnipotent, you will not be able to determine wether a life has been worthless or not, because you do not know all the factors etc.

I think I got around to everything...

Yes. It's not even a matter of obtaining proof. It's a logical certainty that every single person who has ever lived has made an impact on the world simply because they existed.

Wrong.

What do you mean "that's it"? That's a hell of a lot of stuff. The world is on a different track because of those things.

Oh Jesus Christ, please don't ever talk about any subject of philosophy, ever. Maybe in a few decades, when your intelligence has caught up to your second-grade vocabulary, you can begin to, introspectively, ponder these things. Just don't ever say anything like this ever again.

i <3 you kali

@General Mosh Do you agree that if Eintsein, or Edison, or Graham Bell, or hell even Isaac Newton, didn't exist, then the world would be a lot different.

So are we not talking about the titanic anymore?....

Is that a surprise to you? Derailing seems to be a specialty to this forum

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what MIGHT have happened, this is what we live in, this is our present, and while its nice to think about these kinds of things, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

You don't have to think about how the world would eventually be when learning from past mistakes. You can think, "Hey, next time I'll study for the test instead of drinking, and then I'll get an A!" But that doesn't mean you have to complicate things and think, "Hey, if I had gotten an A on that test x and x would have never happened, y would have happened, and my son could have cured cancer!" You'll drive yourself bloody insane. Think about what you might do, not what you might have done.

I wasn't referring to the butterfly effect here. Sure, the butterfly effect is probably true, things could have changed. But its still simply baseless theorizing and guessing. And it really doesn't matter. I care about what you do, not what you could have done.

I didn't repeat myself....and longer replies aren't the smartest....they just go into more detail...

No, no its not. It is a matter of proof. Except, as I have said before, by the very nature of the butterfly effect it simply cannot be proven. Its THEORY. In my opinion, using it in an argument is just as bad as trying to use god.

But no one will ever know the world is a different track. No one will ever know or be able to guess what could have happened differently if someone never existed. If we all called books ducks, because of some random chance while the English language was forming itself, then we would never know books were supposed to be called books. Because, in that reality books are supposed to be called ducks, so books are ducks, and no one is ever going to know or guess that if in their reality something had changed then their 'ducks' would be called books.

1.) You're four years older than me.....you'll be waiting just as long to ponder these things. Come to think of it, Stalin is like (23?) or somewhere thereabouts, and he contemplates and educates himself on these things. You don't need much to contemplate these things, you just need to understand them and have the drive and patience to think about these things. It doesn't require a "few more decades"
2.) Stop pulling insults out of your ass and using them an argument to discredit your opponent. What are you, 5?
3.) What the hell does introspectively mean? Don't make up random words to make yourself sound smart.
4.) Don't tell me what to say, you fascist pig.

Irrelevant.

You know, I was going to respond to your post as I usually do, but honestly, having seen this, I think there's really just no point.

When I talk about your ignorance, your underdeveloped teenage brain, etc. this is what I'm talking about.

@Mosh and @Kali
Ad Hominem
(Especially you Kali, since you recently told me not to do it)

Edit: And I think we're just running around in circles, so I'm not going to answer your question Mosh, sorry(no really)...

LOL did you not sense the dripping sarcasm? Do you really think I don't know what introspectively means? And seriously, the fascist pig thing should have given me away...
But you know, characteristic Kali, resorting to ad hominem and completely ignoring the rest of my post. Way to go!

People will advise you not to use logical fallacies, but the truth of the matter is that they're often the most useful tools in debate. The only time you want to avoid it is if you've got an impartial moderator who's versed in argument. In a meta-contentious sense, logical fallacies aren't really fallacies at all. While it's true that the character or state of a person doesn't necessarily combat what they say, it does establish what kind of mindset/worldview they have going into an argument, and gives us insight on why they are saying what they're saying. Even if everything you assume about their character and nature is patently false, it is a completely valid argumentative tool to use. If you devote yourself only to substantive issues, you'll lose.

Modernism (or, in academic terms, logical positivism) is, and has been for a while now, a defeated doctrine. The truth value of a statement, and whether or not it's correct, doesn't actually have an absolute influence in argument. I detest a lot about postmodern philosophy, but I will not deny that illusory reality, for all intents and purposes, is reality. And by extension, that the illusion of truth, at least as far as argument is concerned, is truth. What that means is that for people involved in a debate, and especially for those involved in a public debate, it's not about being correct, it's about being right. The distinction being that correctness is "absolute" (and I use that term for convenience's sake), while rightness is perceived or illusory.

Now, all that said, Mosh's position is indeed both factually and logically invalid. I decided in that last post to not even bother responding, because it's just so clear that I'm dealing with an ignorant child, and one who has been disowned by his "side" at that.

I don't remember, but chances are that it was to prevent you from using it against me personally.

Well I totally agree, and that's why I do it sometimes as well, but you specifically told me not to, so I thought it was a bit hypocritical of you to do the exact same thing.
I don't know what meta-contentious means... I don't think 99% of English speaking people do, and while I do appretiate your sophisticated language, it would be nice if you could sometimes simplify/clarify your language.

Well I do believe in a somewhat objective truth, so I can't agree. An illusory reality is temporary, and subject to change, while the underlying reality will stand the test of time. I do think that truth is subjective when it comes to political matters, and that it's impossible to find "the truth" in this matter. A temporary truth might be found though.

Suffering from short term memory are we? It was something about you being arrogant, but to be honest I don't really remember either...

No, you blatantly disregarded a post because you can't seem to recognize sarcasm. And would you be so good as to explain how I've been disowned by my "side"? Which side would that be exactly? I can only assume you mean Ler's partial disagreement with my statements, to which I say I really don't care, we aren't arguing the same thing. I'm, as we have stated before, not a socialist, and we all know that I do not despise capitalism, I in fact agree with it in part, as well as with socialism in part. So, really, the reason people usually side against me in arguments is because my ideals and beliefs are so strange to your ears, so crazy to your minds, you refuse to consider what I'm saying. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm really on my own side, I don't really fit into the capitalism vs. socialism arguments that are always going on. Instead of saying I'm a misinformed and ignorant child, maybe you could actually argue. Or, you could go on ignoring me, if that somehow makes you feel superior in your pompous and arrogant mind.