This might be what we need; a consent violation to end all consent violations, and ecmandu could very well be the man for the job.
Think it over, E. It’s time for you to get serious and stop messing around with sidewalks.
I already explained this to you three times.
You are ‘false to power’
My ‘truth to power’ is the lesser of two evils.
You’re the perp.
Hyperdimensional mirror realities work exactly like this one, just that the beings are reflections - you are far from alone. I’d point out that we’re even more alone in this reality then that one.
Why don’t you explain what “false to power” and “truth to power” mean for a start?
I have already told him more than once that the only solution to consent violation is extinction
This is because once the human species is dead no one can violate anyones consent ever again
And so Mother Nature will take care of the problem for us because entropy comes as standard
Ecmandu however prefers his own approach : create hyper dimensional mirrors where we all have our own Universe
The delicious irony is that by the time Mother Nature has finally taken care of him he will no longer be able to do this
And once we are all taken care of the question becomes academic since consent violation will no longer be a problem
Now one could say that Mother Nature is violating Ecmandus consent by killing him as she does with every life form but he is powerless to stop this
And also consent violation is only really a feature of sufficiently complex minds with free will so does not include either Mother Nature or sidewalks
You’re empowering false, I’m empowering truth:
Giving attention to.
That explains it.
Phyllo, you’re just sour grapes pissed because it’s a disproof of god.
Didn’t see that coming.
Lol.
…and thanks for reminding me (with that emoticon) that Transformers 4 is on at 9. 
Not seen it… wanted to in the cinema, but didn’t get round to it. Hope it’s good. 
I’ll tell you what I know. I learned all of this against my will, kicking and screaming the whole time.
1.) Spirits go on and on and on.
2.) when you’re possessed by a ‘dead’ spirit, you can feel its human body in you
I’m not going to pretend that I know more than that, I’m not that smart.
I do know that one saying in the spirit world is: “revenge is so much sweeter on the other side”
I also know that if we ever cease to exist, we could not be here right now, as now is a subset of our existence.
I think you need to open your mind a bit.
I understand that explaining that to you is like trying to explain the color green to a blind person. I used to be you - I’m not mad at you.
There is a difference between having an open mind and accepting everything you say without question
So it is not a question of me opening my mind rather of you explaining your thought process in a logical and rational way
I cannot take you seriously when you post nonsense like the sidewalk violated your consent because you stubbed your toe
You may want to consider why many here - if not all - find your posts completely incoherent and so do not take you seriously
Considering your very high IQ you should be entirely capable of constructing consistently valid arguments of excellent quality
Not the sidewalk … existence itself.
Consent violation is always internal, it doesn’t matter if no agency external occurs, such as a sidewalk.
It’s not an ideosyncratic use of English to consider non anthropomorphic bad as violating our consent.
You’re picking nits here.
This is the actual quote and it could be interpreted to mean as I thought so that the sidewalk violated your consent
I would on reflection say that it is your responsibility to look where you are going so if you do stub your toe it is no ones fault but your own
You went on to say that stubbing your toe is evil which is one of the most ridiculous things you have said on the forum but not the only one
You never engage with anyone but just carry on posting your nonsense and violating their consent by making them respond to it like I am now
Anyway keep on posting your nonsense but I do not have the mental energy required to keep responding to it ad infinitum so I am out of here
You’re missing my whole argument !
If it is POSSIBLE!!! For consent to be violated in existence, existence is immoral. That doesn’t mean that existence is an intelligent being, simply that it is currently, morally (from our internal evaluation) incorrect.
You want to anthropomorphise everything… thus refuting my argument, which is a really bad straw man.
We can have our consent violated by non sentience as well as sentience.
All we have to do is look inside and ask ourselves, “is this violating my consent?” If the answer is “yes”, we know that existence is objectively immoral, even if it’s not sentient.
I’ll explain my whole argument in three stages:
1.) one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated
2.) every sentient being when pressed, is having their consent violated in some way, which we all have in common as well
3.) from this, we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant “fuck this shit!” To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place!
Your entire argument is false because the foundation of it is flawed
Existence is neither moral or immoral - Existence is actually amoral
Only human minds think in terms of morality / immorality
And so it is a human concept and no one or no thing elses
You therefore cannot take an exclusively human concept and apply it to all of Existence
Before human beings existed the concept of morality / immorality did not exist anywhere
And so consent violation with regard to immorality can therefore only logically apply to human beings and no one or no thing else in Existence
Unless there are other beings in the Universe who understand the concepts of morality / immorality those concepts will die with our extinction
You will not accept this because consent violation is your thing but my arguments against it as you define it are logically valid and yours by default are invalid
Existence is not amoral to sentient beings.
If I step on a nail accidentally, I can, with no logical contradiction, state that existence violated my consent.
You are guilty of anthropomorphising here which is what you accused me of rather ironically
You have absolutely zero idea what animal minds think about consent violation - none at all
What sentient beings think is irrelevant as my point was that Existence itself is amoral
Anything you or anyone else thinks about Existence is simply subjective interpretation
But I was stating an objective fact - it is neither moral or immoral - it merely exists as the name implies
It is human minds who think their projection is synonymous with actual truth when it is simply an opinion