Are you ready to entrust dealing centres with at least $10,000? - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Objectivity - belonging to an object, independent of the subject; a characteristic of factors or processes that do not depend on the will or desire of man (mankind). (Once again, "you poop"... ugh, "you poop"... Eh... )
OK, that'll do. So, the law that is objective is the one that does not depend on human will. I will now show you that the laws of morality are also objective.
Let us take a capacious principle that I have already written about - "Do not do to another what you would not want done to you" - and conduct a cruel mental experiment by placing you in a hypothetical moral anti-world, where the overwhelming majority professes the opposite principle. Since everyone in this world does only nasty things to each other, for purely statistical (and independent of your will) reasons, you will have to deal with them every day. The first night you will be, say, simply "smashed up" on the street; the second day you will be robbed of your flat; the third day a dozen of thugs (and those will be all the people)And on the fourth day, when you will try to take revenge on those scoundrels, you will be stabbed to death, sparing you at last from your miserable life in such a rotten world.
Such an infernal society, even if it appeared as a result of some powerful hypothetical dissonance of evolution, would not be viable and would destroy itself very quickly. Therefore, society as an object exists only when the above-mentioned principle operates rather than its antipode. So, firstly, actions of such world-changing principles are quite objective, and secondly, their appearance is not simply a result of a free choice of a big group of people, because in the first case, society exists, while in the second one it does not (otherwise speaking, if the world exists, people in it made the first choice).
Such infernal society, even if it appeared as a result of some powerful hypothetical dissonance of evolution, would not be viable and would destroy itself very quickly. Therefore, society as an object exists only when the above-mentioned principle operates rather than its antipode. So, firstly, actions of such world-changing principles are quite objective, and secondly, their appearance is not simply a result of a free choice of a big group of people, because in the first case, society exists, while in the second one it does not (otherwise speaking, if the world exists, people in it made the first choice).
Why unsustainable? Why "destroy"?
Any criminal gangs - just by such laws - exist, and nothing, they are not going to destroy themselves.
Why unsustainable? Why "destroy"?
All criminal gangs exist under these very laws, and nothing is going to destroy themselves.
These are local things. In order for groups of criminals to exist and "thrive" there must be large masses of normal people living that work and create material values that criminals could take away from them. And in a society of only criminals, which I wrote about, who would they rob - themselves, and when they have eaten everything up, then what? It may not come to eating everything. They will rather shoot each other.
It seems to me that you have an error in logic. If you are talking about "Anti-World" then remove all the "no" particles from your phrase, and you get "do unto others what you would like them to do unto you".
No. There's nothing wrong with my logic. You are suggesting to do a double negation, which would simply result in an identity conversion. But I condescend to your erroneous remark, as you obviously read the forum and write in a language other than your own, which makes it very difficult to understand the meaning.
No. There's nothing wrong with my logic. You are suggesting to do a double negation, which would simply result in an identity conversion. But I condescend to your erroneous remark, as you obviously read the forum and write in a language other than your own, which makes it very difficult to grasp the meaning.
That is why there is so much controversy about it, and why there are so many problems in determining disability group ?
There is not as much objectivity in psychology as we would like to think.
The vital, vital needs are objective. But the rest... We just observe them in all people, so we consider them objective.
And the definition of all sorts of "complexes" is even more stupid...
Can I give you an "objective" example of a complex?
For instance, when a person drives an expensive car with winter tyres in summer. It's also hilarious when some accountant in an X6, six foot tall, starts "rocking for a frame". That's from the physical world.
And some people try to pass themselves off as Napoleon amongst strangers and so on.
However, taking it all to heart is also stupid.
For example, when a person drives an expensive car with winter tyres in the summer. It's also hilarious when some six-foot tall accountant in an X6 starts "swinging for the hills". That's from the physical world.
And some people try to pass themselves off as Napoleon amongst strangers and so on.
However, taking it all to heart is also stupid.
That's right. Taking crap personally is also a complex that you have to get rid of, especially as a trader.
My knowledge of linguistics is quite modest. The EnglishYou is always You, which means it is a very polite language.Theyused touse thou - like our You- toaddress an inferior person. But I do not know whether it is used now.
Didn't we used to communicate on INVESTOR.RU forum about ten years ago? There was a person there with such a nico
Maybe ten years ago I was an investor and I reincarnated as a trader. Although I do not remember and have never seen such sites. Ten years ago I didn't even know the Internet existed.
Probably ten years ago I was an investor and reincarnated as a trader . Although I don't remember or have seen any websites like that. Ten years ago I didn't even know the internet existed.