The purpose of all life

Simple. When both sides lose, you don’t think it’s good for anyone.

But you still haven’t defined how a plus or minus is determined to factor the equation. Are we just going to wait around to let evolution figure it out?

You’ve got an idea. It’s your life… run with it. But there is a corner over there that you seem to ignore that has my curiosity.

Plus or minus (sorry I thought it was clear) is whether ones personal consent is violated against their consent. That’s different for each individual to judge for themselves.

There are mutually exclusive consents.

The broadest one is that some people’s consent is violated if anyone’s consent is violated, with others, their consent is violated unless they can violate the consent of others.

The latter group is what we call “evil”

In order to solve this equation, the latter group needs to be sent to a reality where they actually believe that they’re violating consent, but actually aren’t, they are kept ignorant.

The former group will desire to know that they’re in a reality that cannot violate theirs or anyone else’s consent, they will desire to not be ignorant.

Think of consent also as each individuals desire fulfillment, most of ours are vastly different from each other.

Non zero sum work is to solve all of this.

spdrdng.com/posts/conscious-vs-s … processing

The subconscious mind doesn’t lie.

The conscious one constantly does.

Like pulling teeth, some people who process the world with their subconscious in their conscious mind, when they explain the obvious … people hate themselves, and so hates and censors the person who points it out as projection.

Logic is logic.

When logic comes, never get defensive about logic.

simply understand and change behavior -accept the consequence of being wrong.

An example of this is iambiguous, who to this day, still hasn’t accepted that all rational beings don’t want their consent violated against their consent, and his postings for the years have been usurped - he refuses to adapt even though he KNOWS he lost the debate there. And it goes on …

But people writing about the conscious mind do.

I’ve met plenty of rational beings that want their consent violated against their consent.

That’s not possible. Consent violation by definition is what a person doesn’t want.

You know like when someone jumps out and says “boo” and you jump a bit, if it’s a friend you’ll probably laugh about it. That’s a consent violation, almost everyone wants that. But everyone also wants these experiences on their own terms, thus, they don’t want their consent violated against their consent. To suggest that you know the reverse of people is counter definitional and also shows you don’t have either much imagination and that you’ve lived an easy life.

I am quite sure the “universe” can make anyone “tapout” in about an hour. Do yourself a favor and stop taunting it, as you are want to do.

You literally just said that consent violation is by definition something that a person doesn’t want, then you said that almost everyone wants it.

People like suprizes in their life (not all people). Suprpzes are by definition, consent violations.

When it moves into the territory of consent violations against their consent, as I already explained and you ignored, that leaves a wide open field to send people to hell forever.

You’re not even responding to the nuance of my post, or the reason why I say “consent violating against consent”. You’re replying to half the content.

Every being wants consent violations on their own terms!

Being born is a consent violation. Except that is not what consent means. But let’s have it your way for a moment. Some dude in India is now suing his parents for having him be born without his consent.

[scene: monday morning. small claims court in new delhi]

judge: this court is now in session. let the plantiff step forward and state his complaint.

jamal: thank you, your honor. i am suing my parents because they did not ask me if i wanted to be born.

judge: is this true?

father: it is true, your honor. but it isn’t as if we could have asked him. i mean he wasn’t born yet, you know?

judge: are you aware, jamal, that in not being able to ask not to be born, you are not bound by contract to be asked if you want to be born?

jamal: onus probandi, you’re honor.

[judge waves over a hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt who brings him an enormous book. they consult over the book as the hot indian woman flips through the pages, finally pointing out paragraph nine subsection a.3 in chapter four]

judge: are you aware that the burden of proof lies on you to show that jamal did not not want to be born?

father: rationabile dubium, your honor.

[judge waves over the hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt who brings him the enormous book again. they consult over the book as the hot indian woman flips through the pages, finally pointing out paragraph six subsection b.1 in chapter seven]

judge: are you aware that your father had reasonable doubt to believe that you wouldn’t want to be born, jamal?

jamal: argumentum ad populum, your honor.

[judge waves over the hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt who brings him the enormous book again. they consult over the book as the hot indian woman flips through the pages, finally pointing out paragraph two subsection c.6 in chapter eleven. hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt decides to sit down beside the bench this time rather than walk back to the attorney’s chamber. she crosses her legs and puts the book on her lap]

judge: are you aware that just because most people are happy they exist and are glad they were born, it doesn’t necessarily mean jamal should be happy and glad to be born, too? i will allow you some time to make your considerations, and call a brief intermission for the court.

[quiet chatter fills the court room as the judge adjusts his turban, steps down from the bench, and heads for the coke machine in the lobby]

Court back in session.
The hot chick again brings back the enormous book, as the attorney for the Plaintiff refers to another subsection and reads aloud:

It is the necessary requirement of the law that all prosecutors and Judges acquire a PHD in the history of philosophy to know the contractual impression that the categorical imperative plays on subsequent opinions.

Therefore judgement for the defense in addition to punitive damages for all violations of idea paternae.

Whereupon slyly, the hot chick uncrosses her legs , revealing more thigh than she should have, to everyone’s dismay and or satisfaction

I’ve already addressed this on these boards.

Saying being born is a consent violation is like saying that the leading cause of death is birth.

Birth is also the leading cause of life.

Birth is also the leading cause of consent.

However, since we all know that many people never wanted to be born and eventually commit suicide, we could make the birth absolutely consensual by having a painless plan for suicide provided for each birth, suicide clinics that are all over earth.

THAT you CAN sue for!!

Except pro lifers would never settle for that in a Democratic society.

We’re not talking about pro lifers here, we’re talking about pro slavery people here.

My stance on abortion is very straight forward though:

If the mother wants to be a hands on mother and decides that she can’t do that the way she wants in context, she has every right to abort a child.

Ecmandu, you can’t say that everyone wants their consent violated, and that no one wants their consent violated and both of those things be true.

That’s not what I said, and again, you know it.

What I said is that almost everyone wants their consent violated, but that nobody wants their consent violated against their consent, everybody wants consent violations on their own terms, there is no exception to that.

Think in terms of surprise birthday parties to understand how I’m categorizing this. Lots really love them, lots really hate them. If you put someone in a reality where surprise birthday parties are impossible, you’ll be violating their consent by not having a consent violation like this in their reality.

It’s not as simple as stating nobody wants their consent violated – an additional step needs to be clarified there, to avoid what every being individually and collectively seeks to avoid, having their consent violated without ever being ultimately on their own terms.

Sounds like your talking about love and being self aware ultimately. To see the bigger picture. Violating consent or another’s ‘will’ is to be tyrannical, by asserting yours over theirs. If this is what you are meaning then I can’t say I disagree. Live happy but in the least harmful way possible.

Existence is agony, so the purpose of existence is to lessen the agony of which you and others endure, by choosing love. There are only two paths after existence, love or fear.

A third one , faith. Beyond love and fear. That is if there is no love or fear.

There are some who can’t love because they fear its loss.

Love isn’t always pleasant in motion, to add to what meno said.

Love is also a subset of consent violation:

Your consent may be violated if you aren’t loved or aren’t loving. Being loving certainly doesn’t always imply consent.

There’s one level above consent violation.

Surprise. Not all surprises are consent violations, but all consent violations are surprises.

That’s why I worked hard to word these concepts so carefully. I didn’t and don’t want to be sloppy in teaching this.

I feel like it isn’t real love though. Real love is when you understand that you are a byproduct of environment ultimately and you consciously choose to love and be a person that tries to do as least amounts of harm possible.

I agree faith is another path, but in the end most people are let down with it because it’s illusory depending on what you have faith in. If it’s external and not the self or something that has real effects on yourself or on the world then I wouldn’t waste time. Love and fear are very real and people go through them everyday. It’s best to choose love because when you see the bigger image, when you hurt someone you hurt yourself in multiple ways, some of them being mere possibility but still, is it worth the risk? Reality is like a glass puzzle. We each are a piece, we get to choose which piece we want to be based on the extent of who we are or our abilities. If you hurt another, the entire image can Crack to harm you, this is called karma, the ripple effect. Not only that but you also have to carry the weight of regret or hurting someone else, when it catches up to you… And it will. Faith and expectation is where disappoint and insecurity is created as a possibility and a very high chance of it.

Why have faith when you can know or not know, it’s fun pondering but I’d suggest not getting sucked in too deep like a lot of people are, where they make claims based purely from it. It’s that simple.

I live my life by this quote and think it’s a pretty solid one.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle

It is never good to violate consent but it is also necessary to survive. Like I said we should do the least amount of harm to the extent of what we can while not subtracting from what you need to be happy. This is where perception being different comes into effect and all the discussions regarding it, “well which perception is right or good” “should we allow cannabalism if it makes them happy” I feel we have answers to these questions that are both humane and possible for us all. Yes it is gross and no I wouldn’t advocate it but who am I to exert my will upon another individual and what brings them peace? Do it in seclusion if it’s not accepted in mass society. Take people who donate themselves after death only.
We have answers for all of these issues but it’s just a matter of people not understanding existence and the bigger picture.

Ps. It’s nice to be back talking intellect with you gents and ladies. I have been starved of intellectual stimuli.