Japan the ideal nation state?

[The_memesiah9]

Buddhism comes from Hinduism and Hinduism comes from Vedism that is monnothestic like Islam. The supreme God with no partners in Vedism is called Ishwar

 

[Recon Expert]

@Abdillahi you constantly complain about Somalis being Muslims yet you do nothing other than shitpost on this site.

Why don't you become internet revolutionist or are you a pathetic internet troll seeking attention?

 

[Jantster]

Are you serious?

The amount of brain dead responses on here is frightening. No wonder Somalia is a Shithole, the people are trash so their country is trash. Not only that but they do not have the humility and self respect to ask themselves important questions about why things don't work in Somalia.

I am sorry I wasted my time trying to change your ignorant ways. Even when solution present themselves as logical you find ways to play games. I guess I cannot expect much from a group of people with 68iq. I will leave you to your madness.

Wallahi I knew you wouldn't argue back to @Zhang he or anyone for that matter .

Let me give you a piece of advice, go read a bit and educate yourself, your arguments are all over the place and you really just sound like an arrogant murtad who happened to watch a bit too much anime.

 

[Abdillahi]

I won't comment on your conflation of induction, deduction and abduction. People's understanding on the scientific method, which is usually derived from science popularisers, TV shows and Reddit, tend to do that.

The scientific method is best understood by the consensus to be an abductive process, not and inductive process. This means that we do not use science to "understand the natural world as it is" but rather construct various models which we infer to connect a priori hypotheses and empirical data. These models are not definitively analogous to how things work in the natural world and form paradigms with attached metaphysical assumptions, instruments, theories and institutional support. Science does not, no matter how much you cry, state that observed phenomena (things as perceived through the senses) are the same as their corresponding noumena (things as extant in reality).

You say you base your beliefs on logic and the pursuit of clarity. This is a meaningless statement which has no content apart from emotion: the sense of smug satisfaction you put forward that simply saying you base your beliefs on logic and the pursuit of clarity. Waryaa, how did you adopt your axioms (your first principles)? I ask you this because your previous posts in this thread indicated that you clearly don't have a good grasp of logic because you fell for, again and again, the problem of induction.

Logic is concise in producing outcome that make sense to the reader. Logical axioms can be both objective or subjective. Mathematical proofs can be logical and abstract at the same time like linear algebra or galios theory. These are rules that all logician follow but logic is not science. For example Newtonian mechanics is logical while quantum theory is not.

The scientific method does not follow a logic based axiom agrument. This axiom agruments are purely language based and fall under the category of philosophical agruments. Science is experimental results driven and not driven by philosophy. You cannot make an argument based on abstract thought as scientific proof. The proof is given serious weight when experimental results produce a finding in agreement to the hypothesis. From there a sound theory can be produced that will replicate the results no problem. This is when a scientific theory becomes law. And the new theory becoming the highest form of proof in the scientific field.

Anyone with a basic understanding of logic, proof and the scientific method would know all this. I'm out.

 

[GemState]

Japan is isolated from the rest of the world

We can help fix that

Send 50 good Geeljires there and Japan's aging crisis is no more

 

[Zhang he]

Logic is concise in producing outcome that make sense to the reader. Logical axioms can be both objective or subjective. Mathematical proofs can be logical and abstract at the same time like linear algebra or galios theory. These are rules that all logician follow but logic is not science. For example Newtonian mechanics is logical while quantum theory is not.

The scientific method does not follow a logic based axiom agrument. This axiom agruments are purely language based and fall under the category of philosophical agruments. Science is experimental results driven and not driven by philosophy. You cannot make an argument based on abstract thought as scientific proof. The proof is given serious weight when experimental results produce a finding in agreement to the hypothesis. From there a sound theory can be produced that will replicate the results no problem. This is when a scientific theory becomes law. And the new theory becoming the highest form of proof in the scientific field.

Anyone with a basic understanding of logic, proof and the scientific method would know all this. I'm out.

Embarrassing...

Again, you do not seem to have a grasp on the differences between induction, deduction and abduction. The way you speak about science makes me think that you have never been involved in the scientific process. Your logical positivism was outdated in the scientific community decades ago and you barely grasp the edges of that school of thought. We have moved on from the idea that a new theory becomes law forever and ever, bar a few "laws" like the Second Theory of Thermodynamics which are pretty much as solid as we can ever determine.

Please take the time to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn just so that you may get a basic founding on the current metascientific consensus.

The majority of the rest of your post is full of non-sequiturs and completely evade what I asked you. Clearly, I strained your brain to the max just so that you could spit that out.

Anyone with a basic understanding of logic, proof and the scientific method would know all this. I'm out.

You clearly do not have a grasp on logic. You fall, regularly, for faulty generalisations. Yes, this is Somalispot so that is expected. However, you pride yourself on your "logic" so will have higher standards applied to you.

I am a pure blood Somali from two different clans.

Being a Muslim is a precondition of being Somali. Your clans would reject you if they knew what you were. You are rootless and release your angst at your subconscious comprehension of this fact on Somalispot. Your only problem is yourself.

 

[The_memesiah9]

This could have been a interesting discussion but you really ruined it all when you started talking bad about Islam

 

[Amal Hassan]

The Japanese live in paradise.

Muslims claim that Islam means a religion of peace but everywhere there are Muslims there is poverty and chaos mix in with oppression.
Japan has no Muslims and no Allah and they live 1000x better than Muslim in their own countries.
Japan has no terrorism from Quran extremists but Muslim countries are full of terrorist.
No poverty and wishing for good life in the here after. The Japanese have a good life in the here and now, which they have without Allah but Zen.
Islam is worthless and does not provide the solution to problems. Japanese have zen meditation and provides solution to their daily problems
Japan has a written text that is indigenous. Somalis use latin or Arabic.
Japanese are polite and well behaved. Somalis are chaotic, narcissistic and rude nasty people.
Japanese are mostly Zen and Somalis are mostly Muslim. So tell me again why Islam is a religion of peace and why is Muhammad a perfect prophet?

Islam vs zen? Somalia needs Zen more than ever.

Japan is not an ideal or dream destination imo. I’ve heard that there’s many instances of sexual assaults on subways. Don’t know much about the country but a big red flag is not letting people practice religion. f*ck China, they practically neighbours and the same

 

[Abdillahi]

I wish I was born Japanese so I could be part of this great civilisation. Somalis are a waste of time and energy. Nothing about them inspires me. They can only sucks what little intellect i have and play hide and seek with the truth. Luckily for me My parents accepted me and have come to terms with my decision to leave the Arabic barbarian religion called Islam behind. I know there are other Somalis like Ayaan Hirsi and others how see clearly the useless and time wasting culture that Islam produces. Nothing Islam teaches can produce civilisation it is doomed to the scrap heap of history just like communism. No point debating logic with people without logic.

 

[Ghandi23]

I wish I was born Japanese so I could be part of this great civilisation. Somalis are a waste of time and energy. Nothing about them inspires me. They can only sucks what little intellect i have and play hide and seek with the truth. Luckily for me My parents accepted me and have come to terms with my decision to leave the Arabic barbarian religion called Islam behind. I know there are other Somalis like Ayaan Hirsi and others how see clearly the useless and time wasting culture that Islam produces. Nothing Islam teaches can produce civilisation it is doomed to the scrap heap of history just like communism. No point debating logic with people without logic.

Somali atheists are still Somali. Both atheists and Muslim Somalis love putting the other one down in order to change the culture that is being followed.

 

[Abdillahi]

Somali atheists are still Somali. Both atheists and Muslim Somalis love putting the other one down in order to change the culture that is being followed.

I am not putting anyone people down. I want radical reform to a more productive culture, because the one they have now is worthless. And I can't believe more Somalis don't see this.

 

[Ghandi23]

I am not putting anyone people down. I want radical reform to a more productive culture, because the one they have now is worthless. And I can't believe more Somalis don't see this.

Look, somalia hasn't had a proper government since the collapse of the sultanates. The generation that raised us grew up in communism so the blatant disregard for common sense will remain for another generation. No point in debating.

An example would be a thread I made about Somali history. People who didn't even watch the video proceeded to comment like they knew everything.

 

[Samira]

Well look at things through a Buddhist framework. Your aggregates (and false self) has manifested in a Somali because of your bad practice and bad thoughts in your previous life (in which you might have been Japanese!) Instead of comparing the two which accomplishes nothing, work on cultivating good thoughts and good actions, which will result in you returning home after you die. Of course, the ideal for Buddhism is to reunite with unconditioned nothingness rather than just get a better roll of the dice, so in that vein Somalia which is as close to nothingness as a nation can be, is in fact more advanced than Japan by their own standards!

 

[Somali Napolean]

Japan has its own set of issues, not the perfect state but the japanese mindset is something else.

 

[Abdillahi]

Well look at things through a Buddhist framework. Your aggregates (and false self) has manifested in a Somali because of your bad practice and bad thoughts in your previous life (in which you might have been Japanese!) Instead of comparing the two which accomplishes nothing, work on cultivating good thoughts and good actions, which will result in you returning home after you die. Of course, the ideal for Buddhism is to reunite with unconditioned nothingness rather than just get a better roll of the dice, so in that vein Somalia which is as close to nothingness as a nation can be, is in fact more advanced than Japan by their own standards!

You don't understand Buddhaism. What your wrote does not make sense. Why would somalis be closer to the nothingness? The Nothingness or stillness is a state of being without the mental noise of thoughts and has nothing to do with the physical world.

Japan has its own set of issues, not the perfect state but the japanese mindset is something else.

A mind set that should be used for inspiration. Since the Somali mind clearly cannot produce such a splendour civilisation.

 

[Abdillahi]

A lot of triggered Somalis here. Get therapy guys it shows in all your replies.

 

[Diaspora ambassador]

What are y’all talking about?

Do none of y’all know a bit of modern japanese history?

They where forced into a peaceful constitution after being governed by the west for a bit.

They don’t even have a true army anymore because it contradicts their constitution.

Give them a reason to fight and south asia will go ham again.

The youngsters are sexually depressed, they work to long and life there is hella expensive.


Not to mention that the japanese territories are going to be submerged by the climate issue somewhere around 2100 more or less.

They are adorable at the moment though.

 

[Zhang he]

Deduction is generally defined as "the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning." Its specific meaning in logic is "inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises." Simply put, deduction—or the process of deducing—is the formation of a conclusion based on generally accepted statements or facts. An example would be If a beverage is defined as "drinkable through a straw," one could use deduction to determine soup to be a beverage. Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation, often of a sample. You can induce that the soup is tasty if you observe all of your friends consuming it. Abductive reasoning is making a probable conclusion from what you know. If you see an abandoned bowl of hot soup on the table, you can use abduction to conclude the owner of the soup is likely returning soon.

Wow, you know what the difference is between induction, deduction and abduction now? Well done, I only had to point that out twice. Put that knowledge to good use in the future and cease conflating the three. Your next task is to get a grip on the problem of induction please. I hope that won't take you too long.

it will be peer reviewed independently by other scientist in your field. If they can reproduce the experiments and find the same results

Ninkaan ma yaqaan waxa uu ka hadlayo. I know that you are not a scientist because you said that, in the course of peer review, scientists reproduce other people's experiments. Ain't nobody got time nor money for that apart for the most tendentious and important topics. Peer review is supposed to examine for blatant forgeries, methodological errors and claims unsupported by the evidence and statistics provided. Peer review is also a very disliked process, grudgingly submitted to in the scientific community, because it is arbitrary, inefficient and is abused by journals for rent-seeking. P-hacking and the replication crisis aren't major issues for no reason.

None of this is driven by logicians or philosophical arguments but proof.

Sir, science as we know it has come from philosophy and its subset logic. Science didn't use to be called natural philosophy for no reason. Your anti-philosophy stance on matters of science is another submidwit-tier argument. Let us examine the stances of the most acclaimed physicists of the last century, shall we? I've even selected a meme to get it through your deformed skull.

So none of this process is subject to interpretation based on a subjective experience but objective and good science is grounded on objective facts.

Haddaba maqal. I don't think you grasp anything to do with science. This comes down to the problem of induction that I keep on mentioning.

Let me break it down for you as you clearly won't grasp it by yourself: the problem of induction is that all inductive reasoning rests on a fundamentally unsupported assumption. That assumption is that nature (and I mean by this, the entirety of reality) is uniform. This assumption is justified by observation of nature, which is required for science.

The crux is that you are only able to observe a small subset of reality at any one time and have hence observed that only reality within your locality is uniform. To infer that the entirety of nature is uniform based on your observations of a subset is an inductive inference that is itself unsupported. The response to that is that technology works, so science is right, so induction works so our observations of reality are correct.

The coup de grâce of the problem of induction, which is the bane of the scientistic murtad, is that that final statement is circular. The response is arguing that because induction has worked until now that it will continue to work in the future. This argument is circular because it is in itself an inductive inference with no support. No escape from the problem of induction for you, murtad!

There is a reason that the current metascientific stance on this is that the scientific method is abductive. It avoids tautological reasoning on the level of science and instead shunts any issues to the metaphysical sphere. This poses no problem to anyone but scientistic atheists who had the mental capacity to actually encounter this. There is a reason why so many of the truly groundbreaking physicists, who had to wrestle with metaphysics in order to do their work, delved into religion. They understood that they could not operate on the metaphysical vacuity which you swim in.

Yes I do hold myself to a very high standard.

My clan is very progressive and values education. I don't know what it is like in the zoo of Somalia, maybe your clan are nothing more than terrorists.

Are you insinuating that your clan would support you in your apostasy? Acudhubillah. Who do you take us for, doqonyahow? Somalispot has Somali people in it, it may surprise you. Do you really think that we aren't going to see through that?

 

[Abdillahi]

Wow, you know what the difference is between induction, deduction and abduction now? Well done, I only had to point that out twice. Put that knowledge to good use in the future and cease conflating the three. Your next task is to get a grip on the problem of induction please. I hope that won't take you too long.



Ninkaan ma yaqaan waxa uu ka hadlayo. I know that you are not a scientist because you said that, in the course of peer review, scientists reproduce other people's experiments. Ain't nobody got time nor money for that apart for the most tendentious and important topics. Peer review is supposed to examine for blatant forgeries, methodological errors and claims unsupported by the evidence and statistics provided. Peer review is also a very disliked process, grudgingly submitted to in the scientific community, because it is arbitrary, inefficient and is abused by journals for rent-seeking. P-hacking and the replication crisis aren't major issues for no reason.



Sir, science as we know it has come from philosophy and its subset logic. Science didn't use to be called natural philosophy for no reason. Your anti-philosophy stance on matters of science is another submidwit-tier argument. Let us examine the stances of the most acclaimed physicists of the last century, shall we? I've even selected a meme to get it through your deformed skull.

View attachment 137010



Haddaba maqal. I don't think you grasp anything to do with science. This comes down to the problem of induction that I keep on mentioning.

Let me break it down for you as you clearly won't grasp it by yourself: the problem of induction is that all inductive reasoning rests on a fundamentally unsupported assumption. That assumption is that nature (and I mean by this, the entirety of reality) is uniform. This assumption is justified by observation of nature, which is required for science.

The crux is that you are only able to observe a small subset of reality at any one time and have hence observed that only reality within your locality is uniform. To infer that the entirety of nature is uniform based on your observations of a subset is an inductive inference that is itself unsupported. The response to that is that technology works, so science is right, so induction works so our observations of reality are correct.

The coup de grâce of the problem of induction, which is the bane of the scientistic murtad, is that that final statement is circular. The response is arguing that because induction has worked until now that it will continue to work in the future. This argument is circular because it is in itself an inductive inference with no support. No escape from the problem of induction for you, murtad!

There is a reason that the current metascientific stance on this is that the scientific method is abductive. It avoids tautological reasoning on the level of science and instead shunts any issues to the metaphysical sphere. This poses no problem to anyone but scientistic atheists who had the mental capacity to actually encounter this. There is a reason why so many of the truly groundbreaking physicists, who had to wrestle with metaphysics in order to do their work, delved into religion. They understood that they could not operate on the metaphysical vacuity which you swim in.









Are you insinuating that your clan would support you in your apostasy? Acudhubillah. Who do you take us for, doqonyahow? Somalispot has Somali people in it, it may surprise you. Do you really think that we aren't going to see through that?

Warya excuse me?..

Nothing you said refutes my previous statements. As for Dawkins, Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson. They know more than Einstein, Bohr and Schrodinger here in the 21st century. Karuss is correct Philosophy is finished and has little value. Theoretical Physics has taken the seat were natural philosophy use to sit. Islam is an idea were as quantum mechanics is scientific law. Communism is an idea were Newtonian mechanics is scientific law. Ideas can be wrong and bad ideas can have serious consequences. Thoughts are not truth, they fall under the category
of opinion. Science is not an opinion, we see this most clearly in society and the "social sciences". Social studies are not rooted in science no matter what they say. Progress is gained through the scientific method and not abstract thoughts. However science does not mealy deal with ideas, but ideas that are grounded with natural phenomena. These natural phenomena are part of the Cosmos and not some predefined answer from a divine book. Its an unfolding mystery that scientist are trying to answer. This is the major difference between your holy book (Quran) and the scientific method (finding the truth). I hope this point is crystal clear for you little boy.


I am done wasting my time explain stuff. Nothing is going to makes sense to a religious moron and nothing can be truthful to someone that does not see their own quran as man made and fall of errors. Start with that rather than concern yourself with science.

Are you insinuating that your clan would support you in your apostasy? Acudhubillah. Who do you take us for, doqonyahow? Somalispot has Somali people in it, it may surprise you. Do you really think that we aren't going to see through that?

Look not every Somali is an Islamic ignorant scumbag from the cesspool of evil. If Ayaan Hirsi can overcome the mind control of that degenerate religion other Somalis can too. Just not your kind, you sub humanoid.

 

[Abdillahi]

No matter how many times I see Japan, it always bring inspiration and hope to my heart.