I just wanted to start a band and be invited to a house party, though. — thewonder

Maybe that will happen in the next 2 million years or so.

As stated, I have no intention of posting this Demotivator and only came to wonder this after thinking about it. — thewonder

Maybe that was a good decision. I know that your intentions were not evil and my point was not supposed to be aggressive. It was just to point out that humor is usually a part of every group's value system, what actually counts as humor can be very different between different groups though.

It's supposed to make light of the Absurd. — thewonder

The truth of your statement cannot be faulted, is not absurd. The fact that sometimes, no matter how hard you try, you are going to fail is an objective statement about the conditions in the world. To make jokes about the truth can be hurtful.

Dark humor, mixing the distasteful with the funny, can be very entertaining. But it can also be disgusting to some. But most would be bothered by jokes about violence against others, unless of course the joke is about lawyers or politicians.

As to whether someone would take your work and use it as a tool to promote "white power", I really cannot see how that would happen.

Did she bug out?

So,

"Sometimes your best just isn't good enough.", juxtaposed over an image of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. — thewonder

would not appear to mock anyone.

Maybe it is a jab at the bosses that came up with the signs you mentioned, but they are a group. Thus you were, possibly unintentionally, mocking their way of thinking.
A wild guess by any of them, might be that you consider them to be nazis.

The purpose of this thread is not to either defend or admonish this joke, but, rather to put to question as to whether or not humor can be too cynical or bleak. — thewonder

Much would depend upon your definition of humor.
If you count humor as the ability to appreciate and express humorous things then jokes that are cynical would not usually be counted as funny, UNLESS it is also accepted that the mocking of others is acceptable. And we are not allowed to do that nowadays.
Most adult jokes tend to make fun of others, a person or group, that are not part of the tellers in-group. And they do often to lean towards degrading them, either making them look stupid or abnormal in some way. But the funny thing is that most peoples have their own jokes that do exactly the same to the ones that tell jokes about them.

Can anything be too cynical to be a joke? No, if something makes people laugh then it is not too cynical. But cross the tracks and see if they laugh on the other side.

Should jokes be cynical? Not if they really do cause harm to people. Telling jokes about Jews is one thing, I learned a lot from an old Jewish friend. But telling jokes about the concentration camps is going a bit to far if it is meant to make the suffering of the people look funny.
The old guy I knew actually told me a joke about one of those camps, but it was the Jews that made fools of the nazis in it.

What say you? — TheMadFool

If everyone turned into a grass eater:

• Where would we all find our food?
• How many acres of land would I need to have a decent supply of food?
• What would I eat when there is 6 foot of snow on the ground?
• What would the cost of maintaining a family be each month?

Maybe there is a reason why it is being overlooked.
Do you by any chance have a decent recipe book for this food?

Raid.

Or perhaps a Playmate? — Pinprick

That is a classic, I had not heard it in years.

But just at the avatar, it's definitely a beetle.

Beep — Ladybug

Are you by chance a Volkswagon?

Even simpler rule.

Ignore the news mostly. Stick to science.

Look at a general news site every day or two to make sure the world hasn't ended and Bob Dylan hasn't won the Nobel Prize in literature.

Avoid stories that aggravate me.

Generally stay away from politics. If I decide to read some, go to moderate conservative sources I trust. "American Conservative" is my favorite, although they got a little goofy during the election.

Stay away from liberal sites. There's nothing more irritating than having to deal with people I'm supposed to agree with who are idiots.

Use comment sections as a place to test my ability to be civil and look for common values with people I disagree with. — T Clark

Check.
You should look more often.
Check, especially the kartrashian type of stuff.
Double check, nothing about anything political is interesting and is annoying.
Triple check, the problem is that sometimes you have to read the article to discover that the writer is an idiot.
No way. The comment sections are there for entertainment purposes. That is one of the best measurement of the decline of people's IQ. And the source of hours of laughter at the stupidity of the posts.

But what does stereotyping really say? It says that people look like who they are. In other words, that inner reality is accurately reflected by outer appearance. — Pantagruel

No it does not. Stereotyping is the process of assigning a "type" based upon a preconceived concept of the appearance, behavior and mannerisms of that type.

In old movies, the bad guys nearly always wore black. It was the concept of what bad guys should look like.
English people drink tea. When you go to a cafe or restaurant in some places around the world and ask for tea the waiter might ask you if you are from England. Even if you are Dutch you would have been stereotyped as English.

In itself, this is not a bad thing. — Pantagruel

Yes it is. I had a friend with a slight lisp caused by a deformation of the tongue. He missed out on several good jobs that he was over qualified to do, because people thought de was either mentally ill or gay.

Black lives matter did not appear because cops treat everyone equally either.

Is anyone else playing Dunning-Kruger bingo? — Isaac

No thanks, it is amusing enough watching the kettle call the pot black ass.

So you are not paid to teach. You just scream some 'teachings' at passers-by do you? — Bartricks

How did you deduce that from anything I said? That is screwed up I am not even going to try making sense of it.

But yes, there is no requirement - certainly wasn't when I was appointed anyway - to have any formal teaching qualification in order to be able to teach in a university. Ask most academics - they don't have them. None of my colleagues do anyway. Perhaps we should hire you to come in and tell us how it's done? — Bartricks

Some fucked up place you live in them. In the civilized world you can lecture without an educational degree in some places, they are usually reserved for primary and secondary levels. But you usually have to have a Ph.D. and usually experience in the field.

Ask most academics - they don't have them. None of my colleagues do anyway. — Bartricks

I did, and most of my colleagues have a masters degree.

Just more about how whether x is compatible with y turns essentially on whether s exists. — Bartricks

Whether x is compatible with y is actually a moot question unless x exists. If x does not exist then it is not compatible with anything. Which is the point I think you have missed all along.

Cookies are not compatible with milk unless there are actually cookies.

You should have payed attention in English class. — khaled

Do you really think he ever took any?

First - if you deserve something, it doesn't follow that it is permissible to give it to you. — Bartricks

Yes, you are right. We all deserve medals for putting up with your oral vomiting, but here at TPF it is not permitted to do such things.

Rapists deserve to be taped. — Bartricks

I'll be charitable and presume you mean raped, unless there is some new kind of punishment of which I am not aware. But this is false. In some places it is called rape when an adult has consensual sex with a minor even if the adult was tricked into thinking that the other was also an adult.

But even accepting what you state to be true as a fact, who would do the raping? Would that person also have to be punished in the same way?

Simple point, well understood for millennia. You might want to learn it. — Bartricks

Again, actual no. It is only in recent times that it has become the practice of some societies to move away from the "eye for an eye" concept of punishment. And I say some because it is still practiced in a lot of places around the world.

As a result it does not follow from us all deserving everything that happens to us that we are permitted to a anything to anyone. — Bartricks

Why would anyone with half a brain and a minimum of education think that we deserve everything that happens to us? The rest of the sentence makes no sense at all.

Now, that's not relevant to this debate. So do try and focus. — Bartricks

Nothing is really relevant to this for the simple reason that it is not a debate. It is a tirade of unabashed bullshit from you followed by another tirade of unabashed insults from you whenever someone posts anything you disagree with. With is basically everything everyone has posted.

Christ. — Bartricks

And why are you bring him into this. He would be a useless waste of time as well if humans snuffed themselves out.

Thus I post. — Bartricks

Finish the sentence "and abuse but never answer"

go away. You have nothing philosophical to contribute and you seem humourless. — Bartricks

Wise words of wisdom, you should try taking your own advice.

God forbid you actually teach at a university? April fools is over you know — khaled

I don't think it is where he lives, it appears to happen 365 days a year.

Well that's false. The arguments I have made show that God's existence implies antinatalism. — Bartricks

Only in your head does that argument make sense.

You're job is to derail discussions? — Bartricks

No one pays me to do it so I doubt it could be counted as a job.

Like everything else you have said, I find that highly implausible. — Bartricks

No one really gives a flying f**k what you find plausible.

Glad to see you're acknowledging you're bad at your job. — Bartricks

I have never met anyone who is perfect, and even the best of any profession can have a bad day. But at least I know how to admit it.

But nobody taught me to teach. You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

Nobody taught you to teach, does that mean that you do not know how to teach or that you learned all by yourself?

You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

Really, I would really love to know where those universities are.
https://www.teacher.org/career/college-professor/
https://www.ucas.com/ucas/after-gcses/find-career-ideas/explore-jobs/job-profile/further-education-lecturer

These qualifications seem to be pretty standard worldwide. Do you by any chance live on another planet?

They're called 'pupils' at your level, not 'students'. — Bartricks

No they are not and you have no idea at which level I teach. It would be good for your reputation if you stopped making these stupid unfounded statements.

Anyway, we're getting distracted by your pathetic attempts to insult me. — Bartricks

I have no need to try to insult you, you are doing a perfectly good job of that yourself.

One of my points was that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism. — Bartricks

No, I think that was your only and principle point.

So, you think that omnipotence is compatible with not having created everything. — Bartricks

Obviously, just because something has the power to create does not make it a given fact they it will create. It can just create beer and then sit around drinking for eternity.
But I still fail to see the reason you say this.

Yet you are now insisting that God's existence is not compatible with antinatalism. — Bartricks

No, again, Not now but since the beginning. I am not insisting that god's existence is incompatible with antinatalism. I only said it about 20 times, and that surely cannot count as being insistent, can it?

So on what basis do you believe that? — Bartricks

The basis that it is bloody stupid.

Do you think that the combination of omnipotence and omnibenevolence entails that the being possessed of such features will have created us? — Bartricks

So if you god did not create us, where did we come from? I am not sure about your use of the word WILL in that sentence but I would guess you meant MIGHT

How? — Bartricks

How should I know how a omnipotence and omnibenevolence being would be able to create us. I have never met one to ask about it. Must put that on my bucket list.

By hypothesis antinatalism is correct — Bartricks

By hypothesis shooting people is correct, but that does not prove a thing.

for the question is whether God's existence is compatible with it - and thus being omnibenevolent would involve 'not' creating people — Bartricks

Which brings us to what you claim should be its reasons for not creating us. The fucked up world and our ignorance about how to live in it. Exactly what parts of the world make it dangerous for humans to live in?

Let us go back to the beginning again and look at what you said about god creating us for a purpose. Do you have any knowledge of that purpose?
If you do not then you cannot say that it has placed humans on earth to suffer. Maybe its purpose is to create a race of super beings that can take over the running of the universe when it retires. And that can only evolve through the suffering of hardships he has placed before us. Just look at how many human institutions work on basically the same principle.
So unless you can actually state the reasons we are here your case for the ungodly behavior you accuse it of has little meaning.

That's why the only basis upon which one could maintain that antinatalism and God are incompatible is if one thought that omnipotence (or omniscience) required having created everything. — Bartricks

No, again again. I explained another reason why it is incompatible with antinatalism . And I can think of several others.


I knew you would be back, even though I lost the bet by a couple of posts. Like the song says, "you just can't get enough" of being shown your wrong.

Guess I lost the bet, he made it to 51 posts by my count.
I must be losing my touch.

Based on what?

Who decides where the line is drawn?

This is what happens when the sheep are lulled to sleep, more concerned with their TV shows, fast food, cheap crap from China, drugs and alcohol, and God knows what else. — synthesis

The Romans invent the circus, we have Football, TV and internet.

Corruption is nothing more than the human trait that everyone has to a certain degree. Greed, wanting more than you have or need.

Anyway, you're still not addressing anything in the OP. — Bartricks

I guess you did not read where I said there was nothing there worth addressing.

It seems you agree that God's existence is indeed compatible with antinatalism — Bartricks

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Not a bloody chance on agreeing to that either.

Yes, well people are very generous aren't they? — Bartricks

Funny you should mention that. My job is one of the reasons why I am bother to post here.

I am actually a teacher, I teach people to explain things to other people.

AND I AM SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT SOMEONE ELSE FUCKED UP THEIR JOB WHEN THEY TAUGHT YOU.

Makes me feel good to know that, in all my years of teaching, I have never had a student as screwed up as you.
:rofl: :lol: :lol:

The claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not assume that God exists. Obviously. — Bartricks

I then argued that God's existence, combined with the nature of the world we live in, positively implies the truth of antinatalism. — Bartricks

For fucks sake make up your mind, if you have one to make up.

Does this bloody god of yours exist or not.

Now, try and say something half-way sensible that addresses the OP. — Bartricks

Shumptrimshaft has super super powers. With his strength he can move the universe all by himself. He was around before the universe came into being, he has even claimed to have helped in the process. He has a system of information gathering that is capable of providing him with everything he needs or wants to know.

Because of this knowledge he decides that he will try to help a group of beings on one of the planets. He gives them guidance on how to behave and become better beings. All that he asks for in return is that the beings adore him, because no one else does.

A group of these beings decide that they do not want to continue breeding because they think it is wrong, that they should not have more off springs because they will only suffer in live. They try to spread their ideas to the other beings on the planet and convince them to join with them. Eventual, they succeed and all of them stop breeding.

Would Shumptrimshaft be compatible with the concept of not breeding?

So that you do not get confused, here is the definition of compatible that I am using. If this is incorrect, please advise me of the one that you are using.

Compatible = Able to exist and perform in harmonious or agreeable combination

No though. I'm well paid. — Bartricks

So, am I.

But you once again failed to confirm my presumption or tell me I was wrong.

Like I say, I explain things for a living, — Bartricks

So you live in poverty?

So let me presume then that you meant that

I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.

is a lie.

Yeah, that's false. — Bartricks

Once again, what is. Please learn to explain.

The claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not assume that God exists. — Bartricks

Did I say anything about the existence of god? I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.

And thus presumably you would agree that God and antinatalism are compatible? — Bartricks

I do not, and you do little for your case presuming such things.

As I said from the beginning, your statement is based on the fact that there is a god.

Supposing that there was one, what would its purpose be?

Back to the OP: do you think omnipotence involves having created everything? — Bartricks

No.

Those aren't the same. — Bartricks

What are not the same? Bloody hell, learn to explain properly.

And it is 'too' much, not 'to' much. — Bartricks

That one was too easy for a bright boy like you. But you did not find the others I left for you.
Yes sir, next thing we know Barfricks will be joining the grammar nazis, or is that the spelling nazis. Whatever.

Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved.

You assume to much.

Question begging. — Bartricks

That's what you did when you said you could prove god existed.

so that would make you in your 70s today. — Bartricks

The only true thing you have said so far.

Er, no. That's valid. — Bartricks

Sorry I got my p's and q's mixed up.
Sorry again, that p's and r's

And that's invalid because it is invalid. — Bartricks

Absolutely fucking amazing. I never would have guessed that.

Yet you don't know it. Not a good student then. — Bartricks

Probably true, but I guess I have probably forgotten more than you know.

Anyway, do. you. have. anything. philosophical. to. say. about. anything. in. the. OP? — Bartricks

You have got to be freaking kiddin mate. No one I know would have anything philosophical to say about the load of bollocks you wrote.
How the hell did you ever come up with such bullshit anyway? That would most likely be a more interesting thing to talk about.

We did not mention their soundness. — Bartricks

Who are WE and why did WE not mention it?

The same reason the first isn't. It doesn't conform to any of the 9 rules of inference that you don't know but are currently looking up. — Bartricks

But you see the first argument as
p
q
Therefore p

I see it as
p
q
therefore p and q

Why is that.

But do not quite know what these terms mean and you are learning on the hoof, yes, by looking stuff up on Stanford and Wikipedia, yes? — Bartricks

I probably studied this stuff before you were born. Not to sound too old but I went to college before most people had color televisions. Maybe that's the problem, I have forgotten too much of it. No, that's not true.

You do not have to show that an argument's premises are 'false' to establish invalidity. An argument is invalid when its conclusion is not implied by its premises. The point of an argument is to 'extract' the implications of the premises. — Bartricks

Did you not read what I said?

To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why? — Sir2u

That is not valid. Why? Because 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. That is, 3 does not tell us what the combination of 1 and 2 create. — Bartricks

That's nice to know. But could you please explain why?
If god created humans and told them they have to worship him would that not prove he needs to be worshiped. So if he let humans become extinct he would not have anyone to worship him.

But what I really don't understand is why you think the second one is invalid.

So just don't engage with my threads. Easy, yes? Stay away and stop coming in and saying things designed to do no more than annoy. — Bartricks

I just love how you work for the cause. Still think no one is taking bets?