Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:44 am Post subject: Philosophy. Btw - I am a master of life's principles... sooo
[22:27]GrandLapin: sooo
[22:33]RealHuman: define sooo
[22:37]GrandLapin: the meaning of life is movement, discuss
It isn't motion/movement - it is purpose. The meaning of life is purpose and purpose is an illusion. So it is that I say 'All things are for the illusion of purpose.' What does this mean? It means that it doesn't matter whether things are or are not, yet they are: why? Why not. Yet there is a drive for them nonetheless: to have a purpose where none exists. Things are created then for the illusion of purpose. It is that no reason exists for them that we understand that they should then not exist. Yet with no purpose they do exist. Put it this way. If you have no reason to do something: you do not do it. If a thought crosses your mind or you think about doing something: the purpose for doing it can be as simple as it crossed your mind or you felt like doing it. It is still by direction. There is a purpose. It is for a purpose. A purpose is because. A bird flew over the trees BECAUSE it was trying to get somewhere. It is this 'because' that shows why it is doing something: regardless if the purpose is a good or bad idea: it is an idea or reason. Reason is purpose. Purpose is an illusion because *then we feel the purpose. It is for the illusion of purpose that all things exist and act as they do. This is fine because I WANT to play the role. It is a good thing to be 'with it'. I am glad of this and I need this.
[22:39]GrandLapin: anyone here?
[22:40]RealHuman: nobody
[22:40]GrandLapin: that's what I thought
[23:34]riemanngalois: hey, why is it wrong to kill a 1 year old?
This doesn't fit into the criteria of being politically correct or as is in chuang tzu: 'worldly wisdom'. By this: I mean that when you push people's buttons you get a reaction, and you should try to consider beforehand what that reaction may be in order to avoid backlash. Speaking of the killing of children and arguing that it may not be a bad thing when you know people are going to react to this by arguing that it is a good thing to not kill children is just pushing. To face such a topic: you must be graceful and aware of what the ramifications may be. Also: why would you discuss this unless you were trying to change the minds of people who think it is a bad thing into thinking it is a good thing? Why then... other than for that reason. To just be a 'troll' and run one's mouth? Either way: it is likely not a great way to push a subject. With a topic that you already *simply through common sense* should know that people will continue to stand by life: why breech this? It is one voice against many in an argument that cannot be won. You can just be to what you are saying if that were your way, but then discussion has no point anyway. To win such a battle: one would need much more 'material' to even or surpass that of their opposition.
[23:35]sXsOnAR: Because you rob them of their life
Buddhists consider all life to be precious and not to be messed with. If you consider 'good and bad' with killing or not - you would say good is to not do so and that is that. Simple feelings give us this knowledge. Also: since your cells are built from the nutrients you devour, then you are what you eat. Therefore: your way of thinking and acting is what you expose your way of living to, and if you want a good life: you would not think to kill children, but rather to save them. This is enough of an answer for this topic: so I will move to the next one.
[23:35]riemanngalois: and?
[23:35]sXsOnAR: You rob them of their chance to grow up, have a family of their own etc
[23:35]riemanngalois: they are not fully adults
[23:35]sXsOnAR: But they will be
[23:35]sXsOnAR: All living people are the same
[23:35]riemanngalois: no clearly we are not
[23:36]riemanngalois: mental retards cant do what intelligent people cant
[23:36]sXsOnAR: In the sense we are all entitled to a life
In a sense: we are entitled to this, but you must understand that this is because purpose doesn't exist: so in the creation of things - they must do what they feel like doing (free will). This means that you create your own purpose and you can have this as the supposed entitlement of living - which honestly is an allowance given by the heavens, and therefore is fine (above the regular levels of good and bad and choice - to what must be as part of the way of things existing). This then can't be reasonably disagreed with.
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:44 am Post subject: part 2
[23:36]riemanngalois: why are we all entitled to a life?
[23:36]Bhima: listen to this...
[23:36]sXsOnAR: Why can't we kill 12 year olds?
[23:36]sXsOnAR: They aren't adults
[23:36]Bhima: gah.. can't paste...
[23:36]riemanngalois: 12 year olds have language,
[23:37]riemanngalois: and they can reason
[23:37]lambertdw: More resources have been invested by the time they're 12.
[23:37]sXsOnAR: So you are saying we can kill those that can't reason?
[23:37]sXsOnAR: Mentally retarded people can't reason, why not kill them aswell?
[23:37]riemanngalois: why not?
Intelligence in one thing is not the purpose for it to exist or live. A teapot doesn't have intelligence, yet it serves a purpose to hold tea. This then serves many purposes depending on the situation (warming someone up on a cold night, or cheering someone up when they feel down). It is for this reason that we can say 'why not'. They, being living creatures: also have the potential of creation on a much higher level than a standard teapot. This is a more detailed subject - as it is getting into circumstancial grounds. A teapot owned by an emperor and gaurded with many lives may be more meaningful to a greater range of things than the average person, however: this is not really to say it is more important, or that people are not serving greater purposes... as it is difficult to put an exact range on the importance of someone's actions. A person riding a bike may unknowingly run over a single ant that was about to attack the queen of another anthill; the queen then living and creating a thriving civilization. With speaking of honor and such: when a body-gaurd to the president jumps in front of a bullet... many may see this as much more important and honorable than accidently running over an ant on a bike, but would the ants see it that way? It is circumstancial and by perspective. So therefore: judgement of the importance or meaning behind actions is non-applicable.
[23:37]lambertdw: Sounds like a slippery slope, but there's no trouble so long as I do the choosing.
A big ego, but unfounded? Who am I to say without interviewing him. The idea being that he feels he can rightly judge the applications of when or when not such things should be allowed. He notes that it can be a controvercial subject - so best that someone with his judgement abilities should be the ones to make the choices. I think saying it is a slippery slope and talking like that is like what a lawer or a politician or a salesman would say. It is simple wrong to most and to keep up with the worldly wisdom concept: should be a standpoint of 'save the children whenever you can'.
[23:38]riemanngalois: choosing?
[23:38]sXsOnAR: Why can't a 40 year old rape and molest 5 year olds and eat their corpses?
[23:38]riemanngalois: good question
I like how he jokes: 'good question' here. It is clear that the conversation is no longer serious during this short segment - so a non-serious answer was the reply. This is akin to the concept of 'the law of attraction' which tends to play a large role in the standard movements of 'the tao' or life or 'things' or whatever you want to call it. 'That which can't be named'.
[23:38]lambertdw: lives. Choosing who lives.
[23:38]sXsOnAR: You can say "why can't" for anything
[23:38]riemanngalois: negative reciprocity
[23:38]riemanngalois: because of fear from relatives, parents, etc
[23:38]riemanngalois: but if there was no fear...
He speaks of it like it is fear. It is logic not to do such things, however - even if it were accepted by society: it would then be a regular thing and not thought of badly or punished, however: that doesn't make it right. Regardless of worldly knowledge: if you seek to know if something is write or wrong and you choose right: you are more likely to have a 'right' life by reason of the law of attraction. Anyway: how things are now - if you can't use logic to choose not to do it: then fear or whatever you want to call it (of being punished for the action) will have to do.
[23:38]Bhima: I have a great quote for you guys, but I can't paste in here....
[23:38]riemanngalois: whats wrong with killing your own 1 year old?
[23:39]sXsOnAR: Paste it in anyways
[23:39]riemanngalois: it would be like very late abortion
This is funny. 'Very late abortion' yes. I see it in a similar way, but I don't agree with abortion either. It is circumstancial though - as are all things. If the mother is addicted to drugs and the baby will be born inept and useless/in constant pain: abortion may be the merciful path. It is hard to say, and things must be judge depending on the circumstances, but as with the person above mentioning that they are right to judge such things: I doubt that they are the best choice, and often the best choice wouldn't want to do such things anyway. That is related some in Chuang Tzu as well.
[23:39]lambertdw: I'd better leave this channel.
[23:39]Bhima: I am unable
[23:39]riemanngalois: lambert, how would you decide who gets to live
[23:40]sXsOnAR: I just find it heartless to end a life of someone who can't defend themselves
Thank you. Using feelings is the way. Kindness be with you my friend. *
[23:41]inkling: You may as well ask what's wrong with killing, riemanngalois.
[23:41]riemanngalois: well what if there is a strong probability they will be a criminal
[23:41]riemanngalois: inkling, yes
[23:41]sXsOnAR: How can you tell at age 1?
[23:41]inkling: And this is what's wrong wwith late-term abortion, as well. If it's acceptable, then killing for convenience is acceptable.
To this I must relate with the subject of Oprah Winfrey saying to ban cell-phones from being used in cars because they distract the driver. A good driver would turn off their phone or not be distracted, regardless of what the distraction might be (such as kids in the back seat or changing the radio station etc.) You might as well ban radios and children from cars as well! Not very logical. And while I am on the subject: guns DON'T kill people, people kill people. This is true. Drivers who are bad drivers shouldn't drive. Bad drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive as long as they don't use their cell-phones. And also: relating late-term abortion with killing in general is a bit off, although in most cases: both are wrong and shouldn't be allowed.
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:45 am Post subject: part 3 - lol
[23:41]sXsOnAR: The majorit of people aren't criminals, so odds are they won't e a criminal
[23:42]riemanngalois: true
[23:42]sXsOnAR: And you can't end someones life because they might kill someone at some point
[23:42]riemanngalois: yeah i dont know
[23:42]Bhima: ok, try this link... https://docs.google.com/view?id=d5qvmbb_15mn3d9k7g
[23:42]riemanngalois: thats why im not a philosopher, i have empathy
Philosophy isn't an exact science - and even if it were: it would include all variables: including empathy. And with a better understanding of the driving forces in the universe: it would be considered such as with what people say like 'Love's power is infinite'.
[] Ted Bundy Quote
[] ... then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value
judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong."
I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the
American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments.
'and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong."' I agreed with the first part of the sentence, but not with this. If you do not try to use logic to analyze something to be right or wrong, you will use feelings. Feelings are often habit-formed through interaction with the outer-environment. You must consider that what you are isn't what you make of yourself but what you were destined to be. It is the old fate vs choice argument that has gone on for centuries. Things are fated, but you are fated to choose and if you feel that you should choose something if you had a choice - even though things are fate: go ahead and choose it to play the part in fate giving you the better result (as you would consider in comparison of the options). What he calls 'value judgements' is refered to as 'worldly wisdom' by chuang tzu - and it a good thing to have for the most part, just take the person who is quoting being in jail as an example to how he should have had worldly wisdom and not done what he did. So... there is a right and wrong and it is defined depending on the situations, what Ted calls 'subjective'. But anyway: it does exist for each thing - that what it's experiences are have a comfortable balance, as you can be too hot or too cold: or you could balance this and have 'just right'. This 'just right' is good and being out of balance is bad (for you - as defined by the way the universe constructed this as being the way of things). Things have this balance point with the aspects of their existence, and seeking and dwelling in these points of balance is the right way. You can train yourself to broaden the range or have a imbalance in a certain area, which considering the 'value judgements' being the common levels of people in general as shown by their feelings and thoughts of things: means that you should usually not do it if 'your kind/people' in general find it as being a wrong thing, as it will likely imbalance you (even if on subtle and for-the-most-part undetectable levels). This fool spent alot of time trying to find excuses for his actions, and it may seem logical at first glance to someone not wise in the true ways of the universe, but it is foolish nonetheless. And to argue it is pushing against the 'value judgements' and is just a symptom of an imbalance and is to be thought foolish. It would serve no point to argue the subject matter further with an unbalanced fool.
[] Believe it or not, I figured out what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't
figure out for himself -- that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero,
multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any
"reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring --
the strength of character -- to throw off its shackles....
To display an imbalance of what is allowed by in the natural way of the universe which determines value judgements (which then explains the logic) is not boldness or daring or strength of character, but rather a display of a sickness, like someone who sits in the sun too long and gets nasty skin from tanning all of the time, eventually you will get skin cancer. The universe punishes those who have no sense of following value judgements as is common to your kind.
[] ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become
truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom,
the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable "value judgment"
that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these
"others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a
human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to
you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more
for the one than the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific
enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or
"good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"?
It is usually wrong to kill animals unless you need to eat or are providing food for 'your kind' as is set forth in the value judgements this fool seems so strong to disregard as being without reason. He is a fool. Yes, God or Nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad". This fool has no concept of the workings behind the universe/nature/god. What a fool! I can't say that most people understand when they don't, but this fool could feel it, and pushed it away: he FELT nature trying to stop him, but he made excuses. If you play with fire: you are going to get burned (things are relatable often). He got burned, and will in the 'afterlife' likely, as he has created a very negative way about himself (note again the law of attraction). This is where people often get the perspective of karma. It is the way of God or Nature or whatever you may call it. Know it and prosper.
[] In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no
comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I
anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my
education has led me -- after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and
uninhibited self.
It was not examination, but trying to rid oneself of the 'barriers' which held back their desires (with good reason!) By trying to push away these feelings which are nature's logic telling him 'not to do it!' he blocked out the things which needed to be added in his 'examination' - so therefore did not logically have an examination with any validity. This is like saying 'I am going to count these sticks and see how many they are' then purposely skipping over sticks and coming up with a short number, then saying you did a good job and trying to keep a strait face. What a fool!
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: part (I lost count)
[23:42]Bhima: someone tell me if that link worked?
[23:43]riemanngalois: i guess im whatever evolution designed me to have
Evolution, yes, but greater than the common understanding of the term. Evolution is driven by intention and willpower to gain a result or while working towards a result, whether doing so purposely or not. Note the law of attraction.
[23:43]riemanngalois: bhima, yes it does
[23:43]riemanngalois: its very short
[23:43]Bhima: it is an excellent, well thought out quote as to why it's ok to kill anyone...
It isn't excellent or well thought out.
[23:43]Bhima: does it end with "...spontaneous uninhibited self"?
He inhibited himself by trying to be 'uninhibited' by throwing away worldly knowledge and bringing to himself negativity through means of the law of attraction.
[23:44]sXsOnAR: You know Ted Bundy was a serial killer
[23:44]sXsOnAR: But he raises a valid point
No he doesn't.
[23:44]Bhima: yes
[23:44]riemanngalois: bhima, its a chilling quote
[23:44]riemanngalois: umm, is there another side to this,
[23:44]riemanngalois: lol
[23:44]Bhima: I think he inadvertenly points out what the problem is with morality and atheism
Nonesense. Anything this fool said is illogical and points out nothing of worth.
[23:45]riemanngalois: the obvious reason why killing is wrong, is so that we dont live in a constant state of fear of being killed by others
That is perhaps one reason, but there are others, such as considering what it is like on the other end of the stick. Empathy is good to have. It prevents you from drawing in the wrong energies by the law of attraction method.
[23:45]Bhima: and how, despite what Sam Harris might say, there is really nothing upon which to base the idea of valuing human life without the belief in a soul
There is more than just the value of a soul, it is just not detectable through common technological means used today.
[23:45]sXsOnAR: And not to mention you rob someone of living their life
[23:46]Bhima: that's a reason why killing is inconvienient, but not "wrong".
Inconvenient is a wrong way to put it:
[23:46]riemanngalois: bhima, ted bundy doesnt seem to be pointing out the problem with atheism, is he?
[23:46]sXsOnAR: What is the problem with atheism?
[23:46]riemanngalois: you mean, does ted bundy implicitly agree that its wrong to kill
[23:46]riemanngalois: sxso, that it leaves people without absolute morality
[23:46]Bhima: not deliberately, but he does say sonmething about "surely in this enlightened age you don't believe in a soul, dou you"
Ted Bundy is implying that just because something hasn't been proved with science: he can count it as non-existant. This is completely foolish. He has never been to the planets shown by the hubble telescope, but they exist: regardless of one's want to be a skeptic or rant about 'it is a conspiracy - it was faked!' If you can't prove it is there: doesn't mean it isn't there. He therefore is basing his logic without having an open mind to a serious consideration.
[23:47]riemanngalois: and?
[23:47]riemanngalois: by the way, the entire justice system seems to be based on morality , or judeo-christian morality, to some extent (not saying its bad or good)
[23:47]riemanngalois: the idea of free will, etc
Even with free will: the law of attraction creates the basis for the karma theory which dictates that if not punished by the courts: you may be punished by heaven. You are allowed free will, with what consequences were evolved by the universe (whether the 'justice system' or through negative energies bringing you a bad future).
[23:47]Bhima: actually this is only half the argument. I"m sorry. give me one sec to dig something else up by hume (it's short)
[23:48]riemanngalois: bhima, what is your position?
[23:48]riemanngalois: no i mean, why is it wrong to kill if you can get away with it (no punishment)
I there wasn't karma or the law of attraction and people didn't care etc... you could kill, but it would still be wrong morally. Empathy is a great thing, and love is kind. People should show more love and kindness in their actions: which includes not killing, regardless of whether or not you can get away with it. And as I said before: this (being that I am saying it) is a part of what needs calculation, and a strong part at that: because it formed the way things are today, so MUST NOT be discounted as nothing.
[23:49]Bhima: ok, click the link again, I updated it with a hume quote that lays the foundation for what I"m trying to say
[23:50]Bhima: basically, since, according to hume's quote, all of ethics rests upon some fundamental assumption
[23:50]Bhima: and since, in the case of atheism, the fundamental assumption is that there is no soul
assumption is nonsense and ethics rests on not assuming, but being open to the changes and possabilities of things. This is why laws are still changing today: because certain new exceptions are found, and although the courts are on a level of conciousness that sometimes slips with criminal punishment: karma usually deals with things in the long-run... also: jesus said to ask forgiveness and you shall be forgiven. If you do this on a spiritual level: you will be - and can go on without the punishment by heaven, however: the universe will force changes to actions it finds unjust. You must want to change to be forgiven and it takes time to change and time to be forgiven and you must work it and the badness will leave you.
[] David Hume quote:
[] If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.
This is nonsense: he is saying something which tries to say that all things are based on other things, which isn't to see the understanding common in all things which is the way of life. When you base on this: you are not going in infinitum to gain right logic, but you need simply to look inside yourself to know all of the universe. This is the eastern philosophy theory of how things relate to common principles in the universe (which is true). This person David Hume: in saying what he is saying is contradicting what he is saying by stating what he is saying is a fact. His own words contradict anything out of his mouth as being illogical, so even if I was to agree with him: I would have to disagree or say 'I do not have enough facts to support or deny your claims - as I can not know all knowledge that their is to know'. Anyone who is logical can see the logic to me saying he is not being logical even to his own concept of logic: which states you can't state things as being factual without first knowing everything. This is simply a foolish person. If it is monday today: it IS monday and there is no ifs/ands or buts about it! There is no: but you can't say it is monday because... it is simply monday! This person is a fool as well. I don't mean to be cruel by calling people fools (okay I guess when refering to Ted Bundy?) lol - anyway - this David's logic is illogical to the point of contradicting itself! There.
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:47 am Post subject: part whatever
[23:50]riemanngalois: bhima, we need someone else. ted bundy is an extreme example
[23:50]riemanngalois: bhima, so how would one proceed to defend child murder , or a 1 year old. who has no language
[23:51]Bhima: we have nothing upon which to rest our idea that human life has more value than that of say, a pig
He is agreeing with the person's logic which contradicted itself. What a fool!
[23:51]riemanngalois: we could if use intelligence as a metric
There we are: calling things for what they are, not trying to use illogical theories to say 'nothing can be measured'.
[23:51]riemanngalois: but we have a problem with 1 year olds then
[23:51]Bhima: ok, so should we base right to life decisions on IQ?
There are many circumstances, and each one is different. People who can judge correctly the way may do best to judge (I may be able to do a decent job, but wouldn't want this responsability). I have the right to say no to this job offer : as I couldn't stand it and it would be an imbalancing to try to force it on me. I say no and no it stays. And I would also say 'Pick someone better! There's better people!' lol
[23:51]riemanngalois: i would argue then, there is more potential for a 1 year old than for a pig , even though both dont have language
I spoke of potential and said it is in perspective, however - as I said also: stick to the common 'value judgements' of your kind and you should be okay for the most part.
[23:52]Bhima: is it then ok to kill someone dumber than one's self?
[23:52]Bhima: what about a brain damaged one year old who will never speak?
[23:52]riemanngalois: bhima, well ... you said we have nothing to say that a human has more value than a pig
[23:52]riemanngalois: that isnt true. we have intelligence
[23:52]riemanngalois: bhima, right. so thats the question
[23:53]riemanngalois: what about a deaf mute. what about a mental retard
[23:53]Bhima: ok, but then I have to point back to hume's quote and ask you why intelligence?
Pointing at Hume's quote is like pointing at a painting done by a 3 year old and saying it is a freakin' rembrandt when it just plain sucks. As an afterthought to this: I almost laughed when comparing my much superior logic to this fool 'Hume's' supposed logic.
[23:53]riemanngalois: let me check the quote, one sec
[23:54]riemanngalois: right, any rational argument is an infinite regression , unless one adopts axioms
[23:54]Bhima: why not compassion, cooperativity, ability to fly, breathe water, survive a nuclear bomb... there's something about every organism that is special. we're only attached to intelligence because that's what's special about us
[23:54]riemanngalois: true
[23:54]riemanngalois: so youre saying that its relative , or subjective
[23:55]Bhima: unfortunately if you look at the bomb, thalidimide, warfare, etc, you might have to conclude that intelligence causes more problems than it solves
[23:55]Bhima: yes. we have no "rational" basis to value human life
Bhima is being foolish again. I hate to get short with his irrationallity and illogical thoughts, but I am a bit. Anything he says from here on is tossed for me unless it really stands out: I will not speak of it. Just consider it of lesser value than higher-logic.
[23:56]Bhima: look at what the spartans used to do when babies were born... if they looked small or unhealthy, they were tossed off a cliff and left to die in the cold
[23:56]Bhima: from an evolutionary standpoint, that practice is a "good idea"
No - it isn't a good idea. This skips past the fight against trying to beat out weakness or sickness instead of just removing the wart: we should look for a wart-prevention system. Rational relativity there. And as I meant to note somewhere: anyone who really tries to understand what I am saying will see that I am perfectly logical and actually very right (think about it!) and if you disagree - think about it some more. I am right! I am smart and wise! Take what I say as truth! Look at what I said some more if it seems to confuse you, then you should see the truth in it!
[23:56]Bhima: sick as it seems to us (hopefully)
[23:57]Bhima: where this really gets interesting to me is when you start to think about abortion
[23:57]Hummeress: im all for abortion
[23:57]Hummeress: one less liberal to worry about
[23:57]Bhima: why are atheists more likely to be pro-choice than pro life
[23:57]Bhima: lol hummeress... i'm sealing that
[23:58]Hummeress: ur sealing?
[23:58]Bhima: stealing, sorry
[23:58]Hummeress: thats cool
Hummeress probably heard it somewhere - so it isn't like it is stealing from Hummeress.
[23:58]riemanngalois: im against abortion
[23:58]Bhima: so I think I've just shown that there's no real difference between an adult, a child, and a fetus that you can say without one of hume's dreaded "just because" statements
[23:59]riemanngalois: even if you try to abort criminals, youre going to abort innocent and good kids
[23:59]riemanngalois: bhima, well there is, before three months there is no brain
[00:00]riemanngalois: after three months there is the machinery to learn language.
When you give a liver transplant you may start eating food you never liked because the previous owner of the liver did. There is much more on a subconcious and universal-energy level that can be said to be thought, as well as what the brain directs with such skill.
[00:00]Bhima: again, that's arbitrary
[00:00]riemanngalois: , intelligence/language , going back
[00:00]Bhima: so language is what makes life valuable? so bilingual people are worth more?
Bhima using some logic here finally be being sarcastic about something illogical, through using feelings and not illogical reasoning from sources who may be considered logical by some when in reality they are fools: better.
[00:00]riemanngalois: bhima, then we should never masturbate, that kills life
[00:00]riemanngalois: we have to form some criteria , or else it becomes silly
This is funny, but you must consider it to have some value... Comparing it to a tree that drops a million seeds just to have one grow, and how all that sperm and only one makes it anyway: life allows this to some extent, though you can't compare it to larger aspects of the universe because things have different levels and we are on a whole different wavelength.
[00:00]Bhima: my friend in the army speaks 8 languages... he'll be delighted
[00:01]Bhima: masturbation doesn't kill anything that wasn't going to die shortly anyway
[00:01]Bhima: sperm last only 4 days
[00:01]Bhima: sorry, 3 days
[00:01]riemanngalois: but then we should preserve and freeze all sperm
[00:01]riemanngalois: my point is, we do need some criteria
[00:02]Bhima: why? we still haven't even shown that any life has value
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:47 am Post subject: final part
[00:02]riemanngalois: if your criteria is life, then you get the problem of saving sperm
[00:02]Bhima: the
[00:02]Bhima: the default position is to do nothing, so why start freezing sperm or anything else?
[00:03]Bhima: is sperm even alive? it's more like a virus; DNA with no metabolism
[00:03]TheTactician: sperm do have metabolism
[00:03]Bhima: i could be wrong about that, but I don't think it makes sense to equate sperm and "human life" even as a reducto
[00:03]TheTactician: they have mitochondria which are used to move the tail
[00:03]Bhima: ah, ok, thank you tact
You do what you can reasonably do to save life. What isn't reasonable is nature's way of saying not to worry about it.
[00:03]riemanngalois: bhima, if the default is to do nothing, we should let people burn in fires
[00:04]riemanngalois: why expend energy to save lives in a fire
[00:04]riemanngalois: bhima, surely the default is more than nothing
riemanngalois is trying to be reasonable by saying we should set criteria, but nature does that for us, and if we just listen: we will understand.
[00:04]Bhima: i'm not saying we should or shouldn't do anything, only that we have no rational basis to make those decisions
Note what I said about nature's way. This is a rational basis. You try your best to do what you 'feel' is the RIGHT thing and you will be okay. Love!
[00:04]riemanngalois: bhima, why should i get up in the morning?
[00:04]riemanngalois: bhima, i think there is. intelligence
[00:05]riemanngalois: but i think i see your point. but we as humans do value intelligence
[00:05]Bhima: you will get up in the morning whether you "should" or not. your biology drives you to do so, again without a rational basis
Call it biology or nature's way or whatever: this is where you must seek the natural balance. This is what contradicts Ted Bundy's (You don't believe in a SOUL do you?) There is more at work in the universe than meets the eye and it may not all be measured by our so called sciences. Just trust in the natural biology of things: including the 'value judgements' which were naturally or biologically created in the universe to cause the things. I am done making notes for tonight.
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:49 am Post subject: Okay
I kinda noted without trying to be too polite - so... oh well. Anyway - I gained enlightenment through meditation some time ago, and have answers if you seek them, but I take true knowledge seriously.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
