Now we don’t need them

😂

Ifs*

😂

We could build more if we agree more. You agree?

Hmm. Now I’d have to ask what you mean by build. I just meant build our conversation

Yes. But it can be extrapolated at a Universal scale. The more people agree, the more they can build yes ? and faster

Well they could agree on a bad idea and never build anything

My use of the word build in that context was very limited.

Hm. If they agree to destroy, wouldnt their destruction building be more if they agree? Meaning they would build their goal of destroying the world faster?

If they agree to build an apartment tower hanging from a meteoroid in space with the apartments in earth’s atmosphere - no matter how many agree, they will not achieve anything. Instead lose a lost

Lot*

Yes. But still. Even if not achieving, can we argue that by agreeing, they are still closer to their impossible goal than if not agreed?

Hmm- still no. If they decide fires can be created by saying Magic words. No matter how many agree, they will be no closer to achieving anything

I disagree. Here is my argument:

Wanna listen?

Yes sure. My battery is low. I’ll read what u say. And then want to continue on previous 4 points you made

After a break

Go ahead

Me and you agree that both of us will levitate from a vertical position. But for the moment both of us stay on a different chair. We agree that in order to levitate, both of us must first stand up. So we agree to stand up, but levitation doesnt happen.

Are we closer to levitation this way, than only one of us standing and the other keeping on staying on the chair?

Doesn’t matter - what matters is if it’s objectively true that standing is a prerequisite to levitation.

Yes this is what we agreed to.

1000000s could agree and stand up. And you’d be no closer to levitation if it isn’t objectively true that standing is a requirement

So in your example it is a requirement objectively? Regardless of what the 2 believe?

Yes

Ok - then yes. But the reason you are closer is not because you agree. It’s because it is objectively true.

So agreement didn’t matter

I see

Ok I have to go. Be back in an hour or so

Pleasure talking to you as always

Thanks a lot and take care 🤗

And remember - any conversation no matter how heated or passionate can be had, as long as there is good faith. 🙂 for you and @Légionnaire Étranger

Cya

Yes I forgave him for calling me pathetic and so on 😄

Still, in 1763 wars waged so far as recorded history goes, I couldn't hear 1 single example of a war between 2 Democracies 😄 I debunked them all 😛 The initial thesis that: "Democracies are less likely to wage war against each other than other regimes" still holds 💪

Also , I might add: "The more we advance further on in History, the probability drops, rather than increasing, as the Human species becomes more civilized" 🙏

‘Declaring victory is less likely an opinion of fact than a self-serving opinion’ —— stonecold316 sep’ 20

🙃

Later

An "opinion of fact" is no better than a "self serving opinion". Its just an opinion not a fact.