Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 16:06:09 GMT
Sept 19, 2017 1:43:16 GMT @miccee said:
I don't have any problem with people 'highlighting' why they think that my arguments are unsound. If there be cavernous holes in my reasoning; then why not shine a torch into those caverns. But 'many people enjoy their life, so therefore it doesn't matter if others have to pay for it with lives full of suffering' is a selfish justification which favours those who just happened to have good luck in the lottery.
What do you think every post has been doing. Specifically here, the patent irrationality of zero sum. There is no inherent one paying for any other. It's perverse reasoning to suggest that one creature being born should have any intrinsic connection or necessarily anything at all to do with some other distinct creature being born elsewhere. In any case, as you believe they are all "organic robots" and so they cannot have done/do other than what they have done and will do or "feel" other than what they have been preset to "feel" (just another illusion), any talk of "selfish" and "justification" and "favour" is just loony. You're trapped by Fate in your incoherent state as well, but it just highlights your breakdown in not being to recognize that believing that and furiously trying to affect people (or wailing on about "insults" for criticisms, or any other complaint hypocritical or valid) is deranged thinking.And another crash and burn. At it's worst framing it's a reverse-lottery where all win, and the bulk win big. A tiny minority win less, although most of those don't get a ticket in the end. And some's winnings run out and some choose to check out early as their winnings get low. And some just hate winnings, be they big or small.
Also, unless you can state what the mental illness is, how you have diagnosed it, your qualifications in coming to that diagnosis, and how it invalidates my argument (even if true, you would still need to demonstrate how the argument is faulty...it's not sufficient to cite 'mental illness'), then it is just another trollish ad hominem attack that is used to conceal the weakness of your own argument.
I didn't diagnose you medically, and lay people can observe and recognize patently aberrant behavior, and note morbid, hyper-emotional, grossly irrational thinking. And you repeating "need to demonstrate how the argument is faulty" for something demonstrated countless times, as well as pretending that "mental illness" was evidence for a conclusion as opposed to a conclusion based on the cited evidence of your many times noted irrationality and morbidity (and hysterical framing and overt dishonesty) - only reinforces the la-la land you exist in. "trollish ad hominem attack" - poor poor baby, you should find you one of those "safe spaces" when you get "triggered" like that. <== micCee language
If not 'necessary', then what? If 'desirable' is the measure, then that could not speak for those who end up being forced into a life of suffering; it would only speak for those who have the good fortune to be born into a life that is fulfilling.
You drive or use public transport, don't you?
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
Silly bluster is definitely your shtick. When you live in delusion, this is what you tell yourself (and even post, it seems). Are you completely sure your just as unreasoned previous stance as a rabid natalist isn't actually the right one for you?
There's nothing which has convinced me that bestowing a good that is not needed is worth inflicting a harm which could have been avoided. And my previous 'rabid natalist' stance was really just channeling what society already tells us about having children and is the logical conclusion of that idea.
I suppose that's why you do it as you know you're not arguing in good faith so you assume others aren't going to. And sure, no doubt you're the "triggered", "safe space" yapping alt-right type guy who sniffles about insults when the great holes and derangements in his posts are pointed out. Like all that lean on such limp bilge, you're a massive hypocrite to boot.
And of course your glowing terms for your frequently reprehensible posting behavior is pure drek. Our first interaction on IMDB you vented your frustration by typo hunting. Then you accuse people of being secretly religious when that's a product of your own reverence in thinking that only religious people can value life, and that the good, common sense, human bits of religion didn't come from people in the first place as opposed to the religion itself. You''re also the guy who loves the alt-right language of "triggered" and "safe space", and asserting that people not liking groups being unfairly tarred wholesale as having some kind of minority fetish.
And in this very thread you moaned about "insults" for criticisms you can't take and tones that you instigate.
And of course your glowing terms for your frequently reprehensible posting behavior is pure drek. Our first interaction on IMDB you vented your frustration by typo hunting. Then you accuse people of being secretly religious when that's a product of your own reverence in thinking that only religious people can value life, and that the good, common sense, human bits of religion didn't come from people in the first place as opposed to the religion itself. You''re also the guy who loves the alt-right language of "triggered" and "safe space", and asserting that people not liking groups being unfairly tarred wholesale as having some kind of minority fetish.
And in this very thread you moaned about "insults" for criticisms you can't take and tones that you instigate.
I never complain about your insults, and I have taken them up to this point. I mentioned it in this one instance because the poster in question did a cut and run so that I couldn't defend myself against a)the strawman argument; b) the 'you only think this because you're depressed' dismissal of my argument.
I did not point out a "typo" in your post. I remember the instance well. I was having difficulty deciphering your bizarre way that you were wording your posts, which I have since come to learn is just representative of your signature garbled word-salad style of posting.
Valuing one's own life is not religions; but imposing restrictions on the autonomy of what other people can do with their own lives and bodies on the premise that 'life is sacred' is religious.
And the Muslim thing was about the fact that whenever Islam was criticised, you would always have to draw up an equivalency to Christianity.
Safe spaces did not originate from the 'alt-right', it originated (or at least became popularised) on university campuses. Likewise, 'trigger warnings' originated on university campuses so that sensitive students would be forewarned about potentially "triggering" material. And it's not only the 'alt-right' who mock constructs that were invented to protect students from challenging ideas.
I suppose that's why you do it as you know you're not arguing in good faith so you assume others aren't going to. And sure, no doubt you're the "triggered", "safe space" yapping alt-right type guy who sniffles about insults when the great holes and derangements in his posts are pointed out. Like all that lean on such limp bilge, you're a massive hypocrite to boot.
And of course your glowing terms for your frequently reprehensible posting behavior is pure drek. Our first interaction on IMDB you vented your frustration by typo hunting. Then you accuse people of being secretly religious when that's a product of your own reverence in thinking that only religious people can value life, and that the good, common sense, human bits of religion didn't come from people in the first place as opposed to the religion itself. You''re also the guy who loves the alt-right language of "triggered" and "safe space", and asserting that people not liking groups being unfairly tarred wholesale as having some kind of minority fetish.
And in this very thread you moaned about "insults" for criticisms you can't take and tones that you instigate.
And of course your glowing terms for your frequently reprehensible posting behavior is pure drek. Our first interaction on IMDB you vented your frustration by typo hunting. Then you accuse people of being secretly religious when that's a product of your own reverence in thinking that only religious people can value life, and that the good, common sense, human bits of religion didn't come from people in the first place as opposed to the religion itself. You''re also the guy who loves the alt-right language of "triggered" and "safe space", and asserting that people not liking groups being unfairly tarred wholesale as having some kind of minority fetish.
And in this very thread you moaned about "insults" for criticisms you can't take and tones that you instigate.
What do you think every post has been doing. Specifically here, the patent irrationality of zero sum. There is no inherent one paying for any other. It's perverse reasoning to suggest that one creature being born should have any intrinsic connection or necessarily anything at all to do with some other distinct creature being born elsewhere. In any case, as you believe they are all "organic robots" and so they cannot have done/do other than what they have done and will do or "feel" other than what they have been preset to "feel" (just another illusion), any talk of "selfish" and "justification" and "favour" is just loony. You're trapped by Fate in your incoherent state as well, but it just highlights your breakdown in not being to recognize that believing that and furiously trying to affect people (or wailing on about "insults" for criticisms, or any other complaint hypocritical or valid) is deranged thinking.
And another crash and burn. At it's worst framing it's a reverse-lottery where all win, and the bulk win big. A tiny minority win less, although most of those don't get a ticket in the end. And some's winnings run out and some choose to check out early as their winnings get low. And some just hate winnings, be they big or small.
And another crash and burn. At it's worst framing it's a reverse-lottery where all win, and the bulk win big. A tiny minority win less, although most of those don't get a ticket in the end. And some's winnings run out and some choose to check out early as their winnings get low. And some just hate winnings, be they big or small.
It's not 'zero sum', in that I'm not saying that there's a fixed amount of suffering in the world and when one baby has good fortune, another will have to compensate for that with bad fortune. The point that I'm making is that it's not possible to keep rolling the dice and expect only positive outcomes. Therefore, with each birth we do not know whether the child is going to have a good life, a mediocre life, or is going to suffer terribly. If we allow the dice to be rolled on the misguided basis that the results are 'usually' good, then that means that we're still going to pay the price of the suffering of the unfortunates as collateral damage in the enterprise.
How is having to endure a condition where one's skin peels off at the slightest contact, or 80 years confined to a wheelchair and suffering depression for the entire duration a case of 'winning the lottery'?
As explained a million times, I have no delusion that I'm going to alter an inevitable outcome; merely playing my inevitable role in that inevitable outcome, because a conscious entity cannot choose not to choose, nor be resigned to an unknown fate.
gain with your bizarre ideas. I didn't diagnose you medically, and lay people can observe and recognize patently aberrant behavior, and note morbid, hyper-emotional, grossly irrational thinking. And you repeating "need to demonstrate how the argument is faulty" for something demonstrated countless times, as well as pretending that "mental illness" was evidence for a conclusion as opposed to a conclusion based on the cited evidence of your many times noted irrationality and morbidity (and hysterical framing and overt dishonesty) - only reinforces the la-la land you exist in.
"trollish ad hominem attack" - poor poor baby, you should find you one of those "safe spaces" when you get "triggered" like that. <== micCee language
"trollish ad hominem attack" - poor poor baby, you should find you one of those "safe spaces" when you get "triggered" like that. <== micCee language
If it wasn't a medical diagnosis and didn't invalidate the argument, then that makes it just an insult. Much the same as insulting someone based on the race, sexuality or disability. Which means that your behaviour is no different from that for which you have relentlessly criticised others. Also, you have mocked the appearance of posters here, so again, you do insult people without provocation.
"Good". "Great opportunity". "Wonder". "Ride". With great and looking up odds for happiness & satisfaction when facilitated.
You drive or use public transport, don't you?
You drive or use public transport, don't you?
It's only good for the people who have had good fortuned, and has to be paid for at the expense of those who, through no fault of their own, had poor fortune coming into it.