|
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 29, 2017 14:20:57 GMT
You could make my perspective your perspective by putting your perspective to the test. Not sure how long I'd have to meditate to transcend gravity, but I don't have that kind of time to spend on you and it seems like that's the kind of proof you'll require. No offense, but I really don't mind if you don't share my perspective. Even if yiu could transcend gravity wouldn't there be no way to prove to him that you did it? If he doesn't believe you will transcend gravity and yiu try to put it to the test by jumping off the Eifel Tower won't he just see you die considering your beliefs shape the "physical world"? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 29, 2017 14:21:23 GMT
You could make my perspective your perspective by putting your perspective to the test. Not sure how long I'd have to meditate to transcend gravity, but I don't have that kind of time to spend on you and it seems like that's the kind of proof you'll require. No offense, but I really don't mind if you don't share my perspective. It doesn't have to be gravity, it could be anything that defies physics or even probability. Really believe you'll win the next lottery, buy a ticket and see what happens. Thing is, if I really believed what you do, I'd be putting it to use vigorously. I'd end up richer than Bill Gates, a better writer than Shakespeare, a better guitarist than Van Halen, a better lover than Casanova, a better poker player than Phil Ivey, a better leader than Gandhi, and a better superhero than Superman. If you aren't already doing these things or similar, I have to wonder why... |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 29, 2017 14:25:06 GMT
Not sure how long I'd have to meditate to transcend gravity, but I don't have that kind of time to spend on you and it seems like that's the kind of proof you'll require. No offense, but I really don't mind if you don't share my perspective. It doesn't have to be gravity, it could be anything that defies physics or even probability. Really believe you'll win the next lottery, buy a ticket and see what happens. Thing is, if I really believed what you do, I'd be putting it to use vigorously. I'd end up richer than Bill Gates, a better writer than Shakespeare, a better guitarist than Van Halen, a better lover than Casanova, a better poker player than Phil Ivey, a better leader than Gandhi, and a better superhero than Superman. If you aren't already doing these things or similar, I have to wonder why... To be fair, it's been awhile since Phil Ivey was on his game. But, I think I can give you an example. I used my conscious thought to envision myself winning an award for lifetime achievement, and it happened even though when I imagined it I didn't know that that award would even exist. Check and mate! |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 29, 2017 14:27:10 GMT
Not sure how long I'd have to meditate to transcend gravity, but I don't have that kind of time to spend on you and it seems like that's the kind of proof you'll require. No offense, but I really don't mind if you don't share my perspective. Even if yiu could transcend gravity wouldn't there be no way to prove to him that you did it? If he doesn't believe you will transcend gravity and yiu try to put it to the test by jumping off the Eifel Tower won't he just see you die considering your beliefs shape the "physical world"? Eva is a 'she' as far as I know. And yes, she would see me plummet to my death because she could not imagine otherwise.. while in an alternate reality I'd be flying around like pegasus.. but maybe I'd be dead in this reality? I guess there is only one way to find out for sure... |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 29, 2017 14:38:26 GMT
It doesn't have to be gravity, it could be anything that defies physics or even probability. Really believe you'll win the next lottery, buy a ticket and see what happens. Thing is, if I really believed what you do, I'd be putting it to use vigorously. I'd end up richer than Bill Gates, a better writer than Shakespeare, a better guitarist than Van Halen, a better lover than Casanova, a better poker player than Phil Ivey, a better leader than Gandhi, and a better superhero than Superman. If you aren't already doing these things or similar, I have to wonder why... To be fair, it's been awhile since Phil Ivey was on his game. But, I think I can give you an example. I used my conscious thought to envision myself winning an award for lifetime achievement, and it happened even though when I imagined it I didn't know that that award would even exist. Check and mate! Really? I haven't kept up with the pros the last few years but he was widely considered the best when I was. Ok, but did the award just come out of your believing or did you have to do something for it, and if you did something then how do you know the believing had any effect? Even if yiu could transcend gravity wouldn't there be no way to prove to him that you did it? If he doesn't believe you will transcend gravity and yiu try to put it to the test by jumping off the Eifel Tower won't he just see you die considering your beliefs shape the "physical world"? Eva is a 'she' as far as I know. And yes, she would see me plummet to my death because she could not imagine otherwise.. while in an alternate reality I'd be flying around like pegasus.. but maybe I'd be dead in this reality? I guess there is only one way to find out for sure... I'm a guy (check the gender symbol under my avatar). Eva = short for Evangelion So what happens to me in the reality you're flying around in? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 15:40:16 GMT
tpfkar It is required; not by dictat but by the fact that it is unavoidable that the cycle of imposition will result in grievous harm to many of the unconsenting parties involved. It's a de facto requirement that many will have to suffer in order to bring about a purported 'benefit' to some that would never be missed anyway. Not only is it not required, it's not imposition, not harm, and not unconsenting. There's no requirement that any have to suffer other than via tendentious definitions of "suffering" by the pathologically morbid that mislabel the normal thriving parts of life, and of course directly by way of mentally deranged psychopaths aspiring for leaders to commit mass murder and ramp the world in to leagues higher savagery and suffering. Things not being missed by the nonexistent or the nuked is irrelevant; the option of experience and enjoyment is all.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceAny conceivable scenario of someone being harmed has to start with their coming into existence to begin with. And as of yet, there is no way of precluding all future suffering, or ensuring that only beings which will have a positive balance of pleasure vs suffering will come into existence. Existence can never be an improvement upon non-existence, because the non-existent entity wants for nothing and is deprived of no pleasure . Therefore it can never be in the interests of the progeny to be born, especially when there's absolutely no way of being certain that they will have an existence that is characterised mainly by gratitude for being alive. It can never be anything other than an imposition, due to the nature of the fact that consent cannot be sought. The only party that desires or needs an improvement upon their present circumstances is the parent, and therefore procreation can only be to the benefit of the parents. If this were not the case, then there would be a moral obligation to give birth, and even then there would still be an infinite number of people who can never be born who will miss out on the supposed benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by edzeppelin on Dec 29, 2017 15:52:55 GMT
Even if yiu could transcend gravity wouldn't there be no way to prove to him that you did it? If he doesn't believe you will transcend gravity and yiu try to put it to the test by jumping off the Eifel Tower won't he just see you die considering your beliefs shape the "physical world"? Eva is a 'she' as far as I know. And yes, she would see me plummet to my death because she could not imagine otherwise.. while in an alternate reality I'd be flying around like pegasus.. but maybe I'd be dead in this reality? I guess there is only one way to find out for sure...  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 29, 2017 16:08:22 GMT
tpfkar I understand this, and this is why when I point out the incoherency of the free will espoused by cupcakes , I'm the one who is accused of being incoherent. Distorting, misrepresenting, overstating, outright lying isn't particularly incoherent, although is laughable when as transparent and easily upended as your mantra is. And positively inept to repeatedly reference something you have zero comprehension of.  But there's no incoherency in the fact that we choose and act according to who we are, as we are both coextensive with and component of the cause and effect to which you wish to assign god-level status commensurate with your Objective Morals idol. Now "choosing" to try to persuade others to "choose" differently when you "believe" choice doesn't exist, on the other hand, that's pure wack.  The psychopathic killing us all to save us thing even more so.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 29, 2017 16:18:28 GMT
tpfkar Not only is it not required, it's not imposition, not harm, and not unconsenting. There's no requirement that any have to suffer other than via tendentious definitions of "suffering" by the pathologically morbid that mislabel the normal thriving parts of life, and of course directly by way of mentally deranged psychopaths aspiring for leaders to commit mass murder and ramp the world in to leagues higher savagery and suffering. Things not being missed by the nonexistent or the nuked is irrelevant; the option of experience and enjoyment is all.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceAny conceivable scenario of someone being harmed has to start with their coming into existence to begin with. And as of yet, there is no way of precluding all future suffering, or ensuring that only beings which will have a positive balance of pleasure vs suffering will come into existence. Existence can never be an improvement upon non-existence, because the non-existent entity wants for nothing and is deprived of no pleasure . Therefore it can never be in the interests of the progeny to be born, especially when there's absolutely no way of being certain that they will have an existence that is characterised mainly by gratitude for being alive. It can never be anything other than an imposition, due to the nature of the fact that consent cannot be sought. The only party that desires or needs an improvement upon their present circumstances is the parent, and therefore procreation can only be to the benefit of the parents. If this were not the case, then there would be a moral obligation to give birth, and even then there would still be an infinite number of people who can never be born who will miss out on the supposed benefit. They aren't harmed by coming into existence, they're given the super-duper-duper opportunity to experience and enjoy. No need to preclude all future suffering, as that's just a normal part of thriving. Existence is everything that is good and nonexistence is  . The nonexistent have no interests of any kind, but if you want to consider future peoples' interests, we go by the evidence that they prefer to have the option by massive ratios. A choice is always superior and not an imposition regardless of your continuous lugubrious nonsensical chants.  Procreation is for the benefit of those beautiful creatures having total blasts day after day after day. Praise be to your Great Objective Morals that you don't have access to the nukes you want your man to use to mass murder everybody and send the world back into the savagery and massive suffering of pre-sentience and or pre-/early civilization!
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 29, 2017 16:45:45 GMT
@miccee, you are never going to get this complete moron to understand your view. Save yourself the suffering, make him nonexistent to you by putting him on 'block'.
I am not having 'a blast' right now, I am suffering with only a glimmer of light at the end of a very long tunnel, and I think that those that aren't currently suffering just can't understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 29, 2017 16:54:24 GMT
tpfkar @miccee , you are never going to get this complete moron to understand your view. Save yourself the suffering, make him nonexistent to you by putting him on 'block'. I am not having 'a blast' right now, I am suffering with only a glimmer of light at the end of a very long tunnel, and I think that those that aren't currently suffering just can't understand. I'm really concerned what hopelessly morbid slow people who project their total inability in navigating basics in life into having their pal in power nuke the world, try to ease their utter uselessness by calling other people "morons".  We all suffer; some just turn utterly pathetic and nasty. 
my relatives want to pray! |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 29, 2017 21:00:03 GMT
To be fair, it's been awhile since Phil Ivey was on his game. But, I think I can give you an example. I used my conscious thought to envision myself winning an award for lifetime achievement, and it happened even though when I imagined it I didn't know that that award would even exist. Check and mate! Really? I haven't kept up with the pros the last few years but he was widely considered the best when I was. Ok, but did the award just come out of your believing or did you have to do something for it, and if you did something then how do you know the believing had any effect? Eva is a 'she' as far as I know. And yes, she would see me plummet to my death because she could not imagine otherwise.. while in an alternate reality I'd be flying around like pegasus.. but maybe I'd be dead in this reality? I guess there is only one way to find out for sure... So what happens to me in the reality you're flying around in? You don't exist there. It would all be people like me, flying around knowing we'd seen through the ultimate illusion, hugging and having orgasms. You'd just be here, pondering my dead body... maybe having orgasms too. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 29, 2017 22:23:01 GMT
tpfkar Pure childish wishful hoo-doo on the level of "Allah flew to seventh heaven on a winged horse".
I believeI'm going to guess that I hit a nerve and you're not going to be procreating anytime soon. Nature is too smart for that. You and Erj and Ada do like to lean on whatever puerile fantasies pop into your noggins.
You respond because you're a filthy miserable queer who hates God and people who believe in God. You deserve to burn in hell, and you will, and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 30, 2017 1:02:40 GMT
Really? I haven't kept up with the pros the last few years but he was widely considered the best when I was. Ok, but did the award just come out of your believing or did you have to do something for it, and if you did something then how do you know the believing had any effect? So what happens to me in the reality you're flying around in? You don't exist there. It would all be people like me, flying around knowing we'd seen through the ultimate illusion, hugging and having orgasms. You'd just be here, pondering my dead body... maybe having orgasms too. Ah, so yours is kinda like the Matrix theory, but with more flying and orgasms and less AIs using us as batteries. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 8:56:06 GMT
tpfkar Any conceivable scenario of someone being harmed has to start with their coming into existence to begin with. And as of yet, there is no way of precluding all future suffering, or ensuring that only beings which will have a positive balance of pleasure vs suffering will come into existence. Existence can never be an improvement upon non-existence, because the non-existent entity wants for nothing and is deprived of no pleasure . Therefore it can never be in the interests of the progeny to be born, especially when there's absolutely no way of being certain that they will have an existence that is characterised mainly by gratitude for being alive. It can never be anything other than an imposition, due to the nature of the fact that consent cannot be sought. The only party that desires or needs an improvement upon their present circumstances is the parent, and therefore procreation can only be to the benefit of the parents. If this were not the case, then there would be a moral obligation to give birth, and even then there would still be an infinite number of people who can never be born who will miss out on the supposed benefit. They aren't harmed by coming into existence, they're given the super-duper-duper opportunity to experience and enjoy. No need to preclude all future suffering, as that's just a normal part of thriving. Existence is everything that is good and nonexistence is . The nonexistent have no interests of any kind, but if you want to consider future peoples' interests, we go by the evidence that they prefer to have the option by massive ratios. A choice is always superior and not an imposition regardless of your continuous lugubrious nonsensical chants. Procreation is for the benefit of those beautiful creatures having total blasts day after day after day. Praise be to your Great Objective Morals that you don't have access to the nukes you want your man to use to mass murder everybody and send the world back into the savagery and massive suffering of pre-sentience and or pre-/early civilization!
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Existence is the source of all harms, as you are aware. Without that first condition being met, harm can never occur. And being chained up inside the box of a psychopath, to be taken out and raped or beaten occasionally is a normal part of thriving? Or having one's corneas painfully scratched by in turned eyelashes until one slowly goes blind? What made you sad before you were born? What were your cravings? What improvements did you sense that needed to be made? What choices did you feel that you were missing out on? We don't have to consider the future people's preferences, at least not at the expense of bringing suffering into existence, because nobody will lose out on any experiences by not being born. In fact, the only way to be deprived of those experiences is by being born. You're creating more deprivation of those vaunted 'having a blast' experiences than you are actually creating those experiences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 8:59:04 GMT
@miccee , you are never going to get this complete moron to understand your view. Save yourself the suffering, make him nonexistent to you by putting him on 'block'. I am not having 'a blast' right now, I am suffering with only a glimmer of light at the end of a very long tunnel, and I think that those that aren't currently suffering just can't understand. I know I should stop, really. I don't tend to block posters unless they make a lot of spam threads, but the ongoing back and forth has been continuing for too long, with that poster unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of non-trivial suffering in the world, let alone that this is an unavoidable cost of producing life. Sorry that you're not 'having a blast'; neither am I. I think that it's very easy for glib individuals to ignore suffering in order to push an agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 30, 2017 13:43:49 GMT
tpfkar @miccee , you are never going to get this complete moron to understand your view. Save yourself the suffering, make him nonexistent to you by putting him on 'block'. I am not having 'a blast' right now, I am suffering with only a glimmer of light at the end of a very long tunnel, and I think that those that aren't currently suffering just can't understand. I know I should stop, really. I don't tend to block posters unless they make a lot of spam threads, but the ongoing back and forth has been continuing for too long, with that poster unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of non-trivial suffering in the world, let alone that this is an unavoidable cost of producing life. Sorry that you're not 'having a blast'; neither am I. I think that it's very easy for glib individuals to ignore suffering in order to push an agenda. You're a continuing Ada-emulating liar. I've never denied non-trivial suffering in the world. You're simply deranged + highly dishonest both in your "beliefs" and in your posts. RatchedCarson1950s is simply another of many who's willing to be a massive hypocrite in order to serve her affections, in her case for like broken bitter friends.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 14:37:37 GMT
tpfkar I know I should stop, really. I don't tend to block posters unless they make a lot of spam threads, but the ongoing back and forth has been continuing for too long, with that poster unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of non-trivial suffering in the world, let alone that this is an unavoidable cost of producing life. Sorry that you're not 'having a blast'; neither am I. I think that it's very easy for glib individuals to ignore suffering in order to push an agenda. You're a continuing Ada-emulating liar. I've never denied non-trivial suffering in the world. You're simply deranged + highly dishonest both in your "beliefs" and in your posts. RatchedCarson1950s is simply another of many who's willing to be a massive hypocrite in order to serve her affections, in her case for like broken bitter friends.
Does Free Will Exist?You're trivialising suffering, or at least marginalising the sufferers and trying to shut down that side of the debate. You've also claimed countless of times that suicide is a trivially easy act, in spite of the overwhelming and conclusive evidence to the contrary, both to justify denying people access to state-assisted suicide and also to wave away any concerns for the wellbeing of people who will exist in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 30, 2017 14:45:33 GMT
tpfkar They aren't harmed by coming into existence, they're given the super-duper-duper opportunity to experience and enjoy. No need to preclude all future suffering, as that's just a normal part of thriving. Existence is everything that is good and nonexistence is . The nonexistent have no interests of any kind, but if you want to consider future peoples' interests, we go by the evidence that they prefer to have the option by massive ratios. A choice is always superior and not an imposition regardless of your continuous lugubrious nonsensical chants. Procreation is for the benefit of those beautiful creatures having total blasts day after day after day. Praise be to your Great Objective Morals that you don't have access to the nukes you want your man to use to mass murder everybody and send the world back into the savagery and massive suffering of pre-sentience and or pre-/early civilization!
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Existence is the source of all harms, as you are aware. Without that first condition being met, harm can never occur. And being chained up inside the box of a psychopath, to be taken out and raped or beaten occasionally is a normal part of thriving? Or having one's corneas painfully scratched by in turned eyelashes until one slowly goes blind? What made you sad before you were born? What were your cravings? What improvements did you sense that needed to be made? What choices did you feel that you were missing out on? We don't have to consider the future people's preferences, at least not at the expense of bringing suffering into existence, because nobody will lose out on any experiences by not being born. In fact, the only way to be deprived of those experiences is by being born. You're creating more deprivation of those vaunted 'having a blast' experiences than you are actually creating those experiences. "Harm" is not the Great Satan, regardless of your Great Objective Morals. It's simply a relative, subjectively applied notation. We have like, dislike, good, and bad. We continue to strive for like, good, and continue to diminish dislike, bad. There's no reason going forward that anybody has to go through your lugubrious fantasies other that in your own psychopathic dreams of mass murder and sending the world back to chaos and abject savagery of less-advanced times. "Before born" is irrelevant. "Have to" never will be the measure. "Good to", "want to" by massively overwhelming margins, continuously making things more delightful is the measure. And I realize that you're a "glass boiled dry" kind of guy, but you moaning on and on about how horrible everything is doesn't make it so. And I can't express colorfully enough how deranged it is for someone to pose as logical the taking of a good thing and overdoing it to the point of unsustainability. Par for the pathologically broken deranged Trump-nuke-the-world! psychopathic course, of course.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 30, 2017 23:18:46 GMT
tpfkar You're a continuing Ada-emulating liar. I've never denied non-trivial suffering in the world. You're simply deranged + highly dishonest both in your "beliefs" and in your posts. RatchedCarson1950s is simply another of many who's willing to be a massive hypocrite in order to serve her affections, in her case for like broken bitter friends.
Does Free Will Exist?You're trivialising suffering, or at least marginalising the sufferers and trying to shut down that side of the debate. You've also claimed countless of times that suicide is a trivially easy act, in spite of the overwhelming and conclusive evidence to the contrary, both to justify denying people access to state-assisted suicide and also to wave away any concerns for the wellbeing of people who will exist in the future. In answering shrill lugubriously nonsensical framings posed as "fact', one isn't required to respond with nuance. How pray tell am I "shutting down" any debate? Is this more of your hissing about others wanting "safe spaces" while howling about people having the gall to not respond to you or the temerity to respond to your utter horsesh!t? As you well know, my position is that state-assisted suicide is warranted for the terminal who aren't mentally ill and where we can reliably separate their sound wants from derangements from their pathology. And the wellbeing of future peeps is getting net-better rapidly, at least for as long as we can keep the psychopaths from nuking the place back into abject savagery and exponentially-ramped suffering.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce |
|
