So in conclusion if the belts of rank in karate have toxic ego effects so can the other stuff mentioned. — HardWorker

That would depend on the sensei, one of the first things my daughter learned in karate classes was that she should never think of herself as better that others because she has a higher colored belt. She was told that as she moved up it would be her job to act as a guide and instructor for the lower belts but that meant that she was responsible for making them as good as her. To fail to help them would be a tarnish upon her abilities to lead and teach.

In schools, I am a teacher, it is one of my battles for the last twenty years to try to teach kids that if you get a hundred by honest means the you should celebrate it. But getting a hundred was not the point of the exercise, learning what you needed to get the hundred was.
Getting a hundred by any means and then bragging about it makes people into assholes, of which the world has an abundance. But it happens a lot because toxic parents also like to blab on about their super kids.
And then farcebook, snapclap and twatter come along and make it easier for them to show off.

Blame society, blame the economy, who knows who really is to blame. But if parents tried a bit harder to be parents things might be better.

Now-a-days I'd say science is a profession tailored to the economy. — Moliere

Would it not be the other way round? The economy being tailored to science.

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. — Moliere

You can get a lot of information from academic journals on the web, but not the ones that contain the information that is moving the economy.
But the question there is, how many people would actually be interested in reading them? Not too many i believe.

I would argue that the question might also be why should life NOT have meaning to people? — Tom Storm

I think the real question should be
Why do people keep asking if there is a meaning to life, instead of going out and finding it themselves?

Why would anyone know what the meaning of life is?
Why would anyone not know the meaning of life?

I think that this is a personal and individual question that everyone has to find the answer to themslves.

But if there was a nonphysical existence that we could expect after physical death, what reasons could there be that it should be so well hidden from us that we tend to leave it to religions to speculate on it? — TiredThinker

Why would it have to be a non-physical life? Religions describe heaven as being in the presence of god and hell as being tortured by burning. How would either be possible in a non-physical form?
Maybe it is hidden in another universe!

I think most of us lack the time and energy for highly intellectual thought processing needed to create super high quality posts.
Help us out and give us something to discuss.

But not something that all of the college boys/girls have just read about and want to blab on about how this guy should be listened to because he got everything right, until they read the next chapter and then someone else got it even righter. I hate having to try to convince students that their favorite philosopher might be wrong because other ideas exist.

Have you ever feel that the universe conspires against you? — niki wonoto

Nope, but I sometimes/often feel like it does not want to cooperate either.

shush, your age is showing, just like mine.

Very interesting. (say that with a German accent and see if you can remember who made it famous)

STEP #1:
Most people within Canada quit their job simultaneously. — Bug Biro

Why would people that are happily and profitably employed want to go on strike or quit their job to help the unemployed? Not many would be convinced to do so. — Sir2u

This situation always happens. I guess is due to lack of collectively culture. We are living in a individualistic and selfish period where most of the citizens only care about their own problems and avoid to make groups or masses with the aim to change the circumstances. — javi2541997

We agree then, and I serious doubt that any country not motivated by external threat would be likely to pull together in such a way.

Going back to an earlier post, I mentioned that when one group goes on strike, the rest bitch about them.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21234340/parents-teacher-strike-schools-closed-last-minute/

Not the greatest of info sources, but it makes a point.

Is there any actual historical event of every person in a country quitting their job in the same day? — LancelotFreeman

I have never heard of one, but the imagination of the OP seems to think that it would be a good idea.

Serious question, and why would most cities not survive 24 hours because of that? — LancelotFreeman

You probable live in a reasonable accessible and well supplied city, But how long do you think the stocks in the supermarket would last if the transport works went on strike? Most major supers and gas stations get supplied daily or at least 2 times a week. Once everyone knows there will be no deliveries for a few days there will be mass buying until everything runs out. What happens then?

Maybe 24 hours is a bit exaggerated, but not so much in a country where nearly everyone gets their food on a day to day basis.

It is interesting your view of living in a country such as Honduras. As you already guessed, there is an important community of Hondurans living in Spain. They say that they emigrated here due to social and security issues. It is obvious that Spain is not a paradise but at least they value the peace and calm in the streets. — javi2541997

Yes, I know quite a few of the people that have gone there to live, and not many of them were actually affected in a direct way by the violence. They sometimes lived in areas that were violent but that was good enough to convince the immigration of some countries to let them in. My wife has quite a few friends and family members that moved there.

But how is it going over there with the none Spanish speaking immigrants? Are they adapting to Spanish life OR are they adapting Spain to their ways? There are "supposedly" places in England where shari laws take preference. If that is so, why did they want to leave their place of origin?

We were the most violent place on earth for a few years, and I work in the most violent city for more than 20 years. But i never saw a bomb go off because of so stupid terrorist saying his religion is better than other peoples.

Well, I think the huge difference between having strikes in Honduras and England is the fact that, in the latter the society still works and everything goes "correctly". — javi2541997

Maybe you could explain a bit more about what you consider to be "going correctly".

I wish you the best of living there. Probably, it is just my own negative prejudices but it seems that the situation in Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc... is pretty f*cked up (sorry for using bad words) — javi2541997

Well I have been around these parts since the 60's when I used to come and visit and lived here since the early 70's. I have never even considered going back to England to live, could not stand the place in '81 when I went for a week.
We have problems here, and I hope that one day they will fix them. But most of the people are not actually involved in the problems even if they suffer from the consequences. There are murders, thefts, corruption, inflation, drug runners and addicts, homeless people and a lot of other bad things, just like in England. But the average person goes out to work for wages that do not meet the cost of living and try to live a reasonable life, just like in England.
There are some differences though.
There is only one language used here, if you do not learn Spanish you will have a hard time. No one is going to bend over backwards to try to make your live easy for you if you plan on living here. Lots of people do speak English, but if you want to be called Honduran you speak Spanish. How's that going in England now?

I do apologize, you are right I do appear to be attacking you — Kizzy

Accepted

Most people realize it is the right thing to do and will benefit the employed and unemployed. — Bug Biro

Maybe yes, most people do realize the best thing to do, but not many would actually act upon it.
Look at the situation throughout the world, massive strikes are happening almost everywhere.

I live in Honduras and the situation is almost the same here as in England although for different reasons maybe.
The doctors and nurses go on strike and everyone bitches about how thoughtless the are. Transportation goes on strike and everyone bitches about how thoughtless they are.

They cannot even get together and strike all at the same time.

OUR MAIN PROTEST: Give the unemployed fair pay that frees them from their imposed hardship and supports uproot of crime-filled communities. — Bug Biro

Why would people that are happily and profitably employed want to go on strike or quit their job to help the unemployed? Not many would be convinced to do so.

STEP #1: Every person or most people from a city, a country, or across global landscapes quits their job simultaneously. — Bug Biro

Instant anarchy, many places would not survive 24 hours.

STEP #2: The government panics, stands to lose tons of money and cannot support every unemployed person sufficiently. — Bug Biro

Governments would not lose anything except income and in most countries around the world they are NOT obliged to support the unemployed anyway. That only happens in some first world countries.

STEP #3: Looting begins for both survival and criminal intent.

STEP #4: An undetermined number of people are killed during the criminal act of looting or other crimes. — Bug Biro

Yep, you got that part right. all of those stupid people running out of the stores with giant TVs on their backs and the electricity will be cut of soon if it has not already gone.

STEP #5: Government eventually caves into demands or must offer an alternate settlement of greater or equal potential for our betterment. — Bug Biro

Not going to happen. :worry: There will probably be no government after the first few days that could actually be capable of getting this done.

You have picked just one of the things I said and rambled on without making any sense at all. I have no idea what most of your writing actually is supposed to mean or how it is related to the OP.
The rest appears to be saying that because I picked an example about a politician I am not fit to post an answer to. If I had mentioned people that disregard climate change instead of trump, would you have judged me differently?
By the way, I am neither American nor political in any way. So the comment in no way represents my way of thinking.

Your ideas could have made a reasonable thread, but when you start attacking people that reply you are lost.
Bye.

If you suddenly decided to say "Yes" to every request made by anyone you encounter (like in the movie by the same name), and were highly capable/ able to fulfill their desires, where do you think you'd end up? — Benj96

11. A genie in a bottle with an unlimited wish list available on a monthly basis. Sort of like amazon without being paid.

Can we force people to believe things? — Andrew4Handel

Yes we can, it happens all the time. Should we is another question.

Should we try and force people to believe things we want them to believe? — Andrew4Handel

We should try in some cases, for example "People should not vote for presidents like Trump". But trying and succeeding are again two different things.

Does reason cause beliefs or something else (for example emotions)? — Andrew4Handel

Most people have some sort of emotions attached to their beliefs, which is cause and which is affect has been a matter of discussion for may years.

Can we decide whose beliefs are right and should be prioritised? — Andrew4Handel

Education above and beyond the university of farcebook, twatter and wankipedia would be preferred when trying to do so, but not necessarily needed if one can use the brain to do research through other media.

Did I post this here or has it been moved here? — Andrew4Handel

Don't worry about it, if anyone is interested they will find it.

Convince the members of this forum that the right path of life is Bushidō. — javi2541997

Pushing religions or theist ideas can lead to serious consequences, be careful you don't start preaching about it. :wink:

And yet you eat fruits and vegetables that is grown with the help of animal secretion. — TheMadMan

OK, that might be true to a certain extent. But that we are actually holy shit is a bit different.

God eats us, secretes us, we become the humus,which the creates the fruit, we are the fruit, God eats the fruits, secretes it, and so on. — TheMadMan

The very thought that we might be nought but god shite is something I I would rather not contemplate.
:fear:

If you were given the choice to walk in God's shoes for a moment — Benj96

Abolish any and all ideas, concepts, histories of gods. Remove all idea of a superior being from the minds of all humans and replace it with the concept of self sufficiency and love for oneself and everyone else including the planet.
Then I would go back to my job of trying to teach common sense to teenagers. :wink:

I was asked to define luck by a workmate, this is what I came up with.

Luck is nothing more than the coincidence of time, place and purpose.

I am in the right place at the right time to catch a plane, I am lucky. Too late or wrong airport, I am unlucky.

I am in the wrong place at whatever time to find the treasure, I am unlucky

As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?" — EricH

Please don't give him any more ideas about how to adapted his theories, they are weird enough already.

But then he died.

Did you not see his denial that he died?
Great musician going to the other side soon though, he is sick.

Am too. — Banno

Do you really want to claim that you are a better bullshitter than Bartrix? :wink:

Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread. — universeness

Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place.

HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. — schopenhauer1

But he is not the "number one". :lol:

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it. — Bartricks

Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true: — Bartricks

Have you figured out why your reasoning is wrong yet?

It is actually quite simple. The world cannot visit evil on people, I cannot even try to imagine a tree or a rock acting in an evil manner, and animals act on instinct so they cannot be classified as evil.

Only other people can visit evil on other people, AND there is a way to stop that from happening without eliminating the entire population.

And the fact that your god wont change the beings he wants to introduce into the world just proves what assholes gods are.

Bye.

Well that wasn't very witty now was it. — Bartricks

The truth is seldom witty, like you.

But I'm clever and witty. — Bartricks

Trying to get another person to agree with you, that is the problem you face.

Did your advice to be nice only apply to me and not you? — Bartricks

No, I've been modelling myself on you!

And one last piece of advice. Using what gods do as a way of specifying what humans should do does not work, humans are actually real.

See? — Bartricks

But that's not nice, is it? I've been modelling myself on you! — Bartricks

I rarely do this because it is sort of frowned upon, but.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on

I have done all I can to make it clear to you. — Bartricks

And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers.

You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own. — Bartricks

No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything?

The number of coherent arguments you have made still stands at 0, as demonstrated by the number of people that have told you this against the number of people that have agreed with you.

Calling people beginners and using other demeaning ways to try and invalidate their thoughts is not the way to win arguments. Presenting researched, worthwhile topics to discuss works better.

So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse and try to be nice.

I am so glad I left the UK way back in '75. I even got out on November the 5, sailing across the channel watching the fireworks goes of was something to see. I never looked back since. :wink:

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.

That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see? — Bartricks

Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.

Which are the possibilities and which one are you ruling out?

Or should I use your own words, "Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?"

You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God. — Bartricks

Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence

Why does a god need to be involved? All of the definitions above are about human behavior, characteristics or qualities.
Being about humans means that we are in some way able to influence the behavior being classified as evil, therefore we can prevent evil. The fact that it is not done in no way impedes the ability to do so.

And why do you have to capitalize the word god?

Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children. — Bartricks

If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny.

You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same. — Bartricks

That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind.

Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes? — Bartricks

OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry.

So if neither of them is prepared to give a little to get a quickie then there will be no babies born and the world will be a happier place without their dumb genes in it.

Makes no difference to the rest of the world how these dumb tinder twits fix their problem and has nothing to do with morality as it is just a personal problem.
And stop trying to come up with more stupid examples that do not help understand your theory.