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
“Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible”
Julien Beillard argues that it makes no sense to say that morality is relatively true.
From Philosophy Now magazine.
What this suggests to me is the manner in which [historically, culturely] morality often becomes entangled in the murky mudlle embedded at the juncture of things thought to be reasonable by some in one particular context and unreasonable by others in another.
Thus for the Aztecs back then who did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have to explain the forces of nature, why not suppose that the gods need to be appeased by human sacrifices?
While, in the modern world, it does seem unreasonable to pursue this sort of behavior.
But it is still construed to be reasonable by any number of religious and secular denominations to impose particular rewards and punishments for behaviors that other religious and nonreligious folks deem to be quite irrational.
So, morality ever and always was, is and will revolve around one’s capacity to demonstrate – God or No God – what actually is a rational human behavior.
If you dropped an ant in a glass of water, it is self evident by its struggle, that you are violating its consent.
You’re the one projecting anthropomorphism here, you are insistent that it must be two ways. I am trying to explain that it only need be one way
No dude.
You don’t seem to understand that I proved through proof through contradiction through proof through self evident definition that ethics is objective:
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 objectively define existence as bad
4.) 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!
No dude, I’m through with you here. The only place I [or, for that matter, anyone] can take you seriously is in/on the rant thread. There you will [by rote I now suspect] continue to ignore the arguments being made by insisting that everyone else is ignoring the arguments that you are making.
Only [there] in huffing and puffing mode.
We’re all fools then, right?
You have not once addressed a single point I’ve made.
I went out of my way to address your need for context:
I stated:
Existence is the context
The proof through contradiction is the self evident appraisal we all have of being able to evaluate our personal consent.
I’m talking to you, you’re not talking to me.
Stop doing that!
My time is valuable.
I actually pay attention to you, show some decency and respect
Read the above post^^^
Are you going to pull a uccisore iambiguous??
Intentionally flame a non rant thread so that it HAS to be moved to rant, so he can’t be publicly humiliated ?? Uccisore was a sociopath, I suspect that you are one as well.
I’ll be interested to see how you handle this
it’s happening again, E. some crazy synchronicity shit. check this out dude. okay remember how i used to pick on you for listening to air supply? well, right after i posted my last one in this thread this morning, i went outside to crank ludwig van up and go to work (had a side job today). the very moment i turned the radio on… guess what song began. ‘i’m all out of love’ by air supply. i mean the second i pressed ‘on’.
but here’s the thing. air supply is never played, even when they’re doing the great 80s hour. in fact, i haven’t heard that song in ten years at least. no man. this was a message from the spirits. through manipulating quantum superposition they suspended the linear causal chain of events that led up to that moment and made that song play instead of something else.
i don’t know what to make of it, though. are they telling me that you’re all out of love? wtf am i supposed to do? i think you need me, bro. i don’t know what for yet, but we’re gonna figure this shit out together.
Music is a nasty tormentor. It heals us, yet it is not only sexual signaling from men (ornate behavior) the lyrics almost always 100% contradict themselves.
This is iambiguous’s ‘conflicting goods’
I struggle with music deeply in this world.
You’re asking me something a bit over my head.
Not the synchronicity stuff, but how to morally relate to music as a whole.
I think you do give consent to see opinions you disagree with and dislike and it’s part of your motivation to come here. IOW it might hypothetically have been, the first time you read one of his posts, a consent violation, but it wasn’t. So, it’s not a test.
So, you choose to read posts that you disagree with and dislike. And you know what his posts are like or might be from early on and yet repeat.
I think not either. On the other hand, as I think I said elsewhere, he is being a consequentialist, and sees it as a lesser evil, and since he is not raping you, if even violating your consent, it is a small consent violation, even if it is one, with the goal of minimizing the acceptance of consent violation in general. Most moralities allow for lesser evil actions, even up to carrying out justified military conflict.
I get the position you are trying to put him in, but it seems kind of coquettish and not true that he violated your consent. I don’t think you actually experienced it that way. I think you enjoy a good scuffle.
I think you’re having a good time. I see you running back to the bar, where your alleged rapist is and you wanted to test him - that is, in your analogy, have another sexual act with him - again and again, and continued after allegedly being raped.
And you play to the gallery about his rapes of you.
I ain’t buying it as a test. I think you like a little rough trade. Not cause of your outfit, but because, shit, you keep seeing this guy. I see you around the town, having a good time, smiling, holding onto his arm, and running back to that bed with him.
Are you claiming battered women’s syndrome?
You just don’t meet the pschological criteria.