|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 24, 2018 10:26:36 GMT
No, you started with an attack: If hatred and insults are all you bring to the discussion, then you need to be banned. ________________________________________________________________________ So, let me get this straight, you think this statement... "I always thought that if humans could deal with the reality of existence without the crutch and divisiveness of religion, humanity might have a chance to advance to a higher quality of life." ...is an attack? _______________________________________________________________________ And you also think that... If hatred and insults are all I bring to the discussion, then I need to be banned. Is that correct? _______________________________________________________________________ I do believe that could be perceived as a threat. Are you threatening me?Instead of this immaturity, why don't you join us on this new thread I started? Was Reincarnation Deleted From The Bible?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 24, 2018 10:30:34 GMT
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I also don't care how many names you call Donald Trump. But this..... .......is offensive and unnecessary. The blurb that goes with this board asks people to be tolerant and respectful of those with different beliefs, and I have been. I've never condemned anyone for being an atheist or told anyone that atheism was stupid or blamed all of the world's ills on atheism. You, on the other hand, have not been tolerant and respectful, and your behavior proves it. And after all this time, I'd still like to see it stopped, and I'm going to do everything within my ability to get it stopped. And if some don't like it because all the "fun" has gone out of the board, then good. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can post your hateful garbage. You don't need to bring it here. So, are you going to report me? Yet another threat?Or perhaps this thread would be more to your liking. No hell below us......and no religion too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 20:15:12 GMT
I don't have any beliefs which are emotionally important to me any more; but I used to have them and did not like having them threatened. Nowadays I have certain beliefs and opinions that I'm extremely confident about, and am willing to put them out there for anyone to try and pick holes in them. Some of my opinions I would now consider to be bulletproof, having undergone rigorous interrogation (free will and antinatalism are 2); and there's other beliefs that I am less certain of, and I'm willing to be challenged on these points and adapt my opinion accordingly. Okay. Hopefully you won't mind if I ask you something now. Recently you said something about being made to exist without giving your permission. Need I point out the conundrum involved with that? Yes, point out the 'conundrum' involved with that. If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist), then non-consent should always be presumed.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 20:19:56 GMT
*****I've never condemned anyone for being an atheist or told anyone that atheism was stupid or blamed all of the world's ills on atheism. ***** This statement is patently untrue. You have on numerous occasions condemned atheists to burn in hell for an eternity, citing as an excuse that we don't believe in hell, so it doesn't matter what you say. The same goes for the subject of blasphemy. You, Sir are a liar.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 20:24:21 GMT
Okay. Hopefully you won't mind if I ask you something now. Recently you said something about being made to exist without giving your permission. Need I point out the conundrum involved with that? Yes, point out the 'conundrum' involved with that. If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist), then non-consent should always be presumed. ...and need I point out that the conundrum is that you are taking for granted that you exist to have this problem? You say you didn't have consent to exist yet if you didn't exist you wouldn't know about any of this so it is a nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 20:32:31 GMT
Yes, point out the 'conundrum' involved with that. If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist), then non-consent should always be presumed. ...and need I point out that the conundrum is that you are taking for granted that you exist to have this problem? You say you didn't have consent to exist yet if you didn't exist you wouldn't know about any of this so it is a nonsense. So you're saying that my parents were justified in creating the problem, so that I could one day become cognisant that a problem existed? How does that work out? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/cks894g49/change.gif) Why create someone so that they can become cognisant of a problem that you unilaterally decided to impose upon them? How does any of this justify the need to create the problem to begin with? Is that the same as saying that it's OK to rape someone because otherwise the rape victim wouldn't know how bad it was to be raped?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 20:33:07 GMT
tpfkar There is no "rational" interrogation here, nor is there any reason for there to be. Leave my emotionally valuable beliefs alone, and I'll leave yours alone. I don't have any beliefs which are emotionally important to me any more; but I used to have them and did not like having them threatened. Nowadays I have certain beliefs and opinions that I'm extremely confident about, and am willing to put them out there for anyone to try and pick holes in them. Some of my opinions I would now consider to be bulletproof, having undergone rigorous interrogation (free will and antinatalism are 2); and there's other beliefs that I am less certain of, and I'm willing to be challenged on these points and adapt my opinion accordingly. If you have to (esp. unilaterally) assert your impassivity (;^∀;^)and protest your confidence... ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 20:33:25 GMT
Okay. Hopefully you won't mind if I ask you something now. Recently you said something about being made to exist without giving your permission. Need I point out the conundrum involved with that? Yes, point out the 'conundrum' involved with that. If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist), then non-consent should always be presumed. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 20:36:40 GMT
Yes, point out the 'conundrum' involved with that. If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist), then non-consent should always be presumed. Why? Because you're creating a problem for that person that needn't exist; and really only for your own benefit, so that you can experience parenthood. There's a greater moral obligation to do no harm than there is to do good, and this is embedded in the rules of any reasonably civilised society (except for procreation, unfortunately). Surely you understand the idea that it's not usually deemed acceptable to gamble with other people's wellbeing if you can't get their consent for that first, and you have no reason to think that they are currently missing out on whatever benefit you think that you can secure for them?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 20:37:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 20:46:43 GMT
...and need I point out that the conundrum is that you are taking for granted that you exist to have this problem? You say you didn't have consent to exist yet if you didn't exist you wouldn't know about any of this so it is a nonsense. So you're saying that my parents were justified in creating the problem, so that I could one day become cognisant that a problem existed? How does that work out? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/cks894g49/change.gif) Why create someone so that they can become cognisant of a problem that you unilaterally decided to impose upon them? How does any of this justify the need to create the problem to begin with? Is that the same as saying that it's OK to rape someone because otherwise the rape victim wouldn't know how bad it was to be raped? No, I am saying that you need to exist to know anything. That is the conundrum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 20:56:47 GMT
So you're saying that my parents were justified in creating the problem, so that I could one day become cognisant that a problem existed? How does that work out? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/cks894g49/change.gif) Why create someone so that they can become cognisant of a problem that you unilaterally decided to impose upon them? How does any of this justify the need to create the problem to begin with? Is that the same as saying that it's OK to rape someone because otherwise the rape victim wouldn't know how bad it was to be raped? No, I am saying that you need to exist to know anything. That is the conundrum. But how does that mean that we should create people just so that they can experience the harm and thus know that existence is harmful? I don't see the conundrum at all. Nobody would be missing out on anything (including knowledge) if they hadn't been born. I know that existence is problematic, and therefore I have no desire to drag someone else into this for my own personal gain, just so that they can come to know what I already know.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 23:25:28 GMT
No, I am saying that you need to exist to know anything. That is the conundrum. But how does that mean that we should create people just so that they can experience the harm and thus know that existence is harmful? I don't see the conundrum at all. Nobody would be missing out on anything (including knowledge) if they hadn't been born. I know that existence is problematic, and therefore I have no desire to drag someone else into this for my own personal gain, just so that they can come to know what I already know. Without existence you can't know anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 23:27:44 GMT
But how does that mean that we should create people just so that they can experience the harm and thus know that existence is harmful? I don't see the conundrum at all. Nobody would be missing out on anything (including knowledge) if they hadn't been born. I know that existence is problematic, and therefore I have no desire to drag someone else into this for my own personal gain, just so that they can come to know what I already know. Without existence you can't know anything. I didn't claim otherwise, and this is irrelevant to the question of whether there is any compelling ethical justification to create new life.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 23:31:41 GMT
Without existence you can't know anything. I didn't claim otherwise, and this is irrelevant to the question of whether there is any compelling ethical justification to create new life. You are a hypocrite, then, speaking from a position of existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 23:36:56 GMT
I didn't claim otherwise, and this is irrelevant to the question of whether there is any compelling ethical justification to create new life. You are a hypocrite, the, speaking from a position of existence. I didn't choose existence. My consent was not obtained. And now that I'm here, there are rules in place to make it as difficult and risky as possible to end my existence. Probably because people fear that if we allowed people to die, then eventually everyone would realise how ultimately futile it is. So the likes of you have to use underhanded and forceful means to prevent people from overtly rejecting your illogical philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 23:38:26 GMT
You are a hypocrite, the, speaking from a position of existence. I didn't choose existence. My consent was not obtained. And now that I'm here, there are rules in place to make it as difficult and risky as possible to end my existence. Probably because people fear that if we allowed people to die, then eventually everyone would realise how ultimately futile it is. So the likes of you have to use underhanded and forceful means to prevent people from overtly rejecting your illogical philosophy. You HAVE existence though, yet you want to deny it to others. YOU are the illogical one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 23:42:31 GMT
I didn't choose existence. My consent was not obtained. And now that I'm here, there are rules in place to make it as difficult and risky as possible to end my existence. Probably because people fear that if we allowed people to die, then eventually everyone would realise how ultimately futile it is. So the likes of you have to use underhanded and forceful means to prevent people from overtly rejecting your illogical philosophy. You HAVE existence though, yet you want to deny it to others. YOU are the illogical one. I have it, but don't desire it. It was imposed upon me. And nobody who doesn't exist will ever be deprived of existence, because there's no such thing as a non-existent person. Therefore anyone who has any interest in existing will already have an existence, and none will be denied.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 23:45:50 GMT
You HAVE existence though, yet you want to deny it to others. YOU are the illogical one. I have it, but don't desire it. It was imposed upon me. And nobody who doesn't exist will ever be deprived of existence, because there's no such thing as a non-existent person. Therefore anyone who has any interest in existing will already have an existence, and none will be denied. That YOU don't desire it is purely a personal preference and NOT a universality. The rest of what you said is nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 23:49:11 GMT
I have it, but don't desire it. It was imposed upon me. And nobody who doesn't exist will ever be deprived of existence, because there's no such thing as a non-existent person. Therefore anyone who has any interest in existing will already have an existence, and none will be denied. That YOU don't desire it is purely a personal preference and NOT a universality. The rest of what you said is nonsense. I didn't claim it as a universality. But if we didn't bring more people into existence, we would be doing nobody a disservice, because there would be nobody who was being deprived the opportunity to exist. We would however, be refraining from imposing risk and harm on people.
|
|