Here I must say that you are wrong, and that I know what my best course of reading consists of. I'm not asking for advice; I'm merely expressing my view on things. You can't appropriate my view. — uncanni

Very well, if you intend to battle it out with the sandbag, go ahead.

I don't buy that for a minute as a justification, as if the sperm were any more active than the egg. Your statement comes from inside the philosophy that I'm trying to stand outside of. The sperm is futile without the egg; the egg is empty without the sperm. — uncanni

Why are you so aggravated over this? It's merely a lack of symbiosis.
The sperm can do more than merely impregnate the egg cell; one is a producer, whereas the other is a container - and this is not a difference meant to insinuate superiority.

Why study Luria? If I don't study Luria and other kabbalists, how will I be able to add my voice, present my argument, create a non-sexist, non-gendered Jewish mysticism??? If I can't take the heat, I'd better stay out of the kitchen; but I can take the heat, so I'm in the fray. — uncanni

There are other and better ways to perform what you wish to do. If you don't study Luria, you merely spare yourself Luria.

Mind you, Jewish mysticism is not sexist - that would be merely some mystics.

An entrance, likewise an exit - are a passage in to and out of, correct?
An entry to a passage, would basically be a passage to a passage; a bit redundant.

That a door leads to whatever lies behind it, does not disentangle it from being a passage - as a passage does the same, correct? Likewise a bridge?

A portal is a passage, isn't it?
If you're not familiar, the port in portal stands for gate.

Luria saw semen as the most sacred fluid in the cosmos, but I ask, what good is semen without an egg? The egg and the womb are nowhere to be seen in his mysticism. I'm moving beyond that. Perhaps all God is is Mother Nature on the cosmic level... — uncanni

The reason he, and others before him tend to put it at the front - is because of its active role in conception. It's transmutation versus substance, or in simpler terms - player vs piece.

I wonder, though, if he supposedly omits the extensive female imagery throughout Hebrew literature, why study him?

I don't think that leads to the elimination of anything; influencing this and that is still a possibility.

As for personification - completely eliminating any imagery won't do.
The image that has affronted you, though it be no exact representation - is valid.
It's good to consider that the notion of father, does not directly imply the semblance of an earthly father; though it's easy to see how that could be manuevered as a political design.

If God is existence of everything, did God create the laws of existence? I would say the laws are part of everything's existence. Why would/how could God intervene? It all is God. — uncanni

It would imply that one couldn't discern intervention from no intervention as they would be functionally the same.

If it's any consolation, it's just another fad that'll die out like the diet fad.

Alright, but since gender is closely aligned with sentience - as an example - an effeminate man, who albeit characterised as proportionally 80% female to 20% male, is a man; I am asking, do you think the people in question could and would afford crippling sentience enough, in order to abolish gender?

It was quite clear - in someone's judgement.
If you will not propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech - you lead me to believe you cannot.

So, you won't propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech?

Someone.

It's not implied anywhere - is it?

Will you or won't you propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech?

Propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech.

It is about the current trend, which seems to be massive and wholesale, towards the complete abolition of gender. That is a whole new level of confusion. I do not believe that society can handle that. — alcontali

The abolition of gender would involve the abolition of psyche.
Do you think these neophiles could pull it off?

One needs to establish a sound ground first — PoeticUniverse

And what's going to differentiate that sound ground from a belief?

For me, the omni- stuff is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser

Do please elaborate.

Here's two ways to look at it.

It's not an event in your life, as you're not living - life ends where death begins.
It is an event in your life, but as you're not present for it, it is not an event for you; hence doesn't matter.

This stupidity has been prevalent throughout history - it only appears to manifest more often now, for two reasons: One, your own involvement with the current age and two, the proportionally larger amount of people inhabiting the planet.

This problem is not one born of technological reliance, as technological progress stacks old on top of older technology; each next step relying on the one before it.
No, you're merely reiterating the age old problem of apathy; a slave's mindset.

A stupid man and a lying man can be a great source of learning; both lucrative and bitter.

Then it would follow, as I've thought it through, that a door or gate or anything of the sort - is a passage.

That said, language is known to mutate - an example I'm sure you're familiar with being the word 'gay'.
So the words themselves don't matter as much as meaning and intent; thusly, use 'door' as you wish.

Yes, which according to the guidelines shouldn't be done because they tend to cross-fertilize and cannibalize each other. — Baden

Now you're going to spark another ethics thread, about cross-fertilization and cannibalism.

When you say 'open the door' - are you opening up the barricade and inspecting its insides or are you moving the barricade and opening up a passage?

A door is a passage.
The thing with the knob is a movable wall.

If one is able to reproduce, one has the right to have children - but whether one is right in having children, is discerned by other qualities - not merely those relevant post-birth, but those relevant during birth as well.

Take a deep breath and realise that Hindu culture precedes Persia.

So what are we doing? Theology or anthropology? I'm not interested in theology because I'm not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. — frank

Neither am I; though it doesn't matter.
That said, one goes hand in hand with the other - whether it's ancient Theology contrived as Mystical Teaching, opposed to modern Theology contrived as Scientific Teaching.

If we're studying human society, we look to how the text has been interpreted for the last few millennia, and so we know the Devil is most certainly mentioned in Genesis (newsflash: it's the snake) and the word Devil is Persian in origin. It has the same origin as deva, and it referred to the gods of the nomadic people who eventually became the Indians. — frank

And I told you, over the last few millenia it's been interpreted and misinterpreted to the extent of debilitation.

No Devil, I reiterate, has been mentioned in the Genesis account - only a serpent, and then that serpent has been interpreted and misinterpreted in volumes.
Mind you it's not the Devil but a Devil, since it's a title, I reiterate, like Satan, or Cherub, or Seraph.

The word is also not of Persian, meaning Avestan origin - and neither did those people produce the Hindu populace. It doesn't refer to the gods of nomads, nor any gods at all - but to teachers, which is what now dubbed gods, was back then.
If you actually say Daiva with a V in front - Vdaiva, it means savvy.

Again, you're doing theology, not anthropology. Plus your theology gives rise to the famous puzzle that God apparently set humanity up to fail and then punishes them for it. God the psychopath. — frank

It's a practical explanation.

God gave instructions on what you could and couldn't do - in the same way a parent instructs their children.
He also didn't tell the serpent to go and trick the two - in the same way a parent wouldn't instruct someone to trick his children with 'free candy'.

No, what he did - was give them time and space to grow up, and they - due to their inexperience - committed to peer pressure and made a rash decision, bringing on the consequences.
As aforementioned in the excerpt about the Stoics - they were punished by their actions, not for.

Unless you're going to call parents psychopaths for giving their children some space, then it doesn't follow that the character in question would be one.

The Devil (the word has a Persian origin) is an image of primal defiance; the existence of a will counter to God's. The message of Genesis is that humans screwed up by listening to the voice of the Devil and should leave behind a free will in favor of a will united with God's. But a person who is all good in every word, thought, and deed would seem to have no will of her own. So in this scenario the idea of a substantial self is directly tied to wrong-doing. The self is a problem, but not the source of good or evil. The sources are out in the cosmos. — frank

The message of Genesis isn't actually that humans screwed up listening to the Devil - and neither is the Devil implied within the Genesis story. The Devil is a title similar to Satan - in that it means misleader - and it is a title that is implied for many angels, both fallen and not fallen.

The message is actually that the manmaker kept his promise in procuring free will for his creation.
If he were to disallow mankind to make mistakes, he would disallow them free will - so he would have to do what he did with Job, and more or less gamble - having them figure it out themselves.

That said, the Genesis account gets progressively more conflated and chronologically disordered.
It's presented in such a manner that merely reading through it, you're unlikely to understand anything.
There's omissions such as the two Adams and Adam's family prior to Eve.
Whether that's intentional or not - decide for yourself.

That the sources are out there in the cosmos is a good take on things - similar to how the ingredients are out in the field, but the problem of preparing them lies with the cook.

This conception of will is similar in some ways to the Stoic version which identifies all evil as a state of disease resulting from straying from the ways of Nature. For the Stoic, evil is always self-correcting because the tree that fails to grow toward the light dies. There's no need to punish it. — frank

It's also the stance Paracelsus held.
And implied in the proverb: Hurrying to his grave.

In both of these outlooks, laws are divine in origin, which means they come from human discernment, not human judgment. We learn to judge by recognizing the truth of the laws. — frank

Their origin is indeed based on discernment, though their prescription is based on judgement.
The laws of physics are discerned - obviously; but whether they are prescribed to a specific something, falls to judgement - singularities being an obvious example.

Do you think the Egyptian version is like that? Or different? — frank

I would equate the Egyptian version with the Japanese Right way of Being, often conflated with Chinese Taoism.

Funnily enough, for Aristotle, who had neither the word nor concept of 'machine', slaves were what he called 'animate instruments' (ktema ti empsychon) or 'instruments for instruments' (organon pro organon) (in the Politics). This was precisely in contrast to the free man, or master, who was distinguished by his use of slaves. One of the things this kind of approach brings out what counts as free or not free is not a metaphysical distinction, but a mobile one: that freedom is not coextensive with man as such, but with some men and not others. — StreetlightX

Funnily enough I wasn't asking about Aristotle, I was asking you - and without fail, you produce a tangent and no answer.

Now here's a little lesson for clarification.
The word Robot finds its roots with the Bulgaro-Slavic word Rob - meaning slave.
It's in contrast to another similar word - Rab - which means worker.
The difference being in that a slave has no rights, obviously - whereas a worker does, though he serves those higher in rank.
The worker if he wishes to, may stop working - forfeit his rights, and seek his fortune elsewhere.
The slave cannot, as he possesses no rights - he is worked to the bone, metaphorically and literally.

The point of all that being - that the distinction is in the willingless of men to toil, meaning that freedom is in custody of all men, but not exercised by all men.
Which is why it appears coextensive with merely some, rather than all - and has nothing to do with some proprietary status.

So when you say:

This was precisely in contrast to the free man, or master, who was distinguished by his use of slaves.

Neither is it in contrast, nor is that a distinguishing feature - but a proprietary status.

Aristotle's analysis of slaves notwithstanding, the takeaway here is that there is no reason to think that man can't be equated with machines, if certain conditions of freedom are not upheld. — StreetlightX

The certain distinction between machine and man - is that man is fully autonomous.
That would mean that although both could share abilities and freedoms - the machine cannot self-determine, i.e will. It requires an operator, because it is a puppet.

And so it's clear - whether the machine is operated by an artificial intelligence or human intelligence, is irrelevant.

So there you go, that's the difference between you - supposedly a man, and the machine you use to write down all this babble.

But thinking in this way would would mean, once again, having to give up the incredibly stupid idea of free will as some kind of a priori metaphysical guarantee of human freedom, served on a plate to man by God. — StreetlightX

No it wouldn't mean any of that gibberish, you're squeezing in here everytime, to spite something you supposedly don't believe in.

You could have fredom without will, like you could have will without freedom.
What the combination 'free will' suggests is the magnitude of difference between the human psyche and that of an ox, for instance.

It would require, again, looking at the world, observing conditions, making at effort at understanding, and acting provisionally and with risk. This no doubt offends the sensibilities of those who think man is in any way special, which can only be a good thing. — StreetlightX

It would require effort to ride a bike, simply reading a tutorial on riding a bike won't do.
So for you to understand free will, ever, would require the effort that stubbornly refuse to put in thus far.

And man being anything special, isn't only a good thing - it's a thing laden with responsibilities, and those can turn awfully sour.

In any case, your questions at this point are just poo-lobbing from the monkey pen. They're unthinking knee-jerks beneath response. If you have something substantial and interesting to say, say it. No one gives a fuck about Egyptian ceremonies. — StreetlightX

And you being the unthinking knee-jerk decided to respond. Alright.

No one gives a fuck about Egyptian ceremonies?

"A remarkable example of classical Egyptian philosophy is found in a 3,200-year-old text named “The Immortality of Writers.” This skeptical, rationalistic, and revolutionary manuscript was discovered during excavations in the 1920s, in the ancient scribal village of Deir El-Medina, across the Nile from Luxor, some 400 miles up the river from Cairo. Fittingly, this intellectual village was originally known as Set Maat: “Place of Truth.”"

Rest of the article details how the Egyptians were likely the progenitors of Greek philosophy. 'Tis good stuff. — StreetlightX

Could've fooled me.

If you're ever willing to get off your soapbox - from which you, mimic the Inquisition which you ironically dislike, persecuting and mocking anything you dislike - telling people to hang themselves and the like - then come and speak to me.
Until then you're just some whiny brat, who wouldn't dare get his hands dirty, but has the gall to call me out on things you're utterly and worse yet maliciously clueless about.

Have you never been hurt and have you never hurt anyone?

"No" is an impossible answer. — TheMadFool

It's not an impossible answer, it's an omission on your part.

Similar to the popularly phrased question: Would you rather be rich or happy? - it's misleading.
Why can't I be rich and happy or neither?
Obviously I can, but you omit that to make the responder believe he has no other choices and leave him dazed as to which to pick.

I'll add to which - even if I, myself, have been hurt and have hurt another - that does not indubitably indicate that my offspring will either be hurt or hurt another; in the same sense that a bloodline composed of ten generations worth of farmers, can suddenly produce an offspring that wants nothing to do with farming.

A machine is a predetermined compound of abilities - so would you equate man with machine?

In addition, explain having laws - as they would have no sway without the subject possessing the freedom of will, otherwise said, the freedom of self-determination.
Likewise what's the point of the Egyptian ceremony of weighing the heart against the feather of Maat - in other words - what you did versus what you should have done?

If I see starving people around me I would think about helping them before having children, because I wouldn't want my children to grow up in a society that lets people starve. — leo

If I may add, maybe those people are starving as punishment for some crime.

A wise man once said: Before you pull someone out of the well, consider why he's there in the first place.

However, the two consequences of birth I described, hurt someone or get hurt by someone, are so certain that we may base a definitive decision on them and the decision should be not to have children. — TheMadFool

They are not so certain - they are a paranoid assumption based in a hopeless state of mind.

This very assumption is what leads to feral children - it poses no benefits, only detriment.

Maybe it makes sense in theory, but it doesn't hold up in practice.

In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt. — TheMadFool

What about the option where neither happens?

Even if it is an improbability, it's not an impossibility, is it?

Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok? — khaled

Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs — khaled

The whole post is oozing hypocrisy.

Okay, boy - if and when you get to the tender old age when there is no one left to visit or care for you and you become nothing more than a burden on the social system and you still hold this view - you can write me a message about how wrong I was, and if I'm not dead I'll read it.

So survive if you can.

No and you’re being willfully blind. In the scenario in question the choice is between 100% chance of severe suffering (and death) or a slight chance of severe suffering for someone else. In this case it is permissible to procreate.

His rights don’t outweigh the child’s but they do have some weight — khaled

First off, the choice is only 100% of suffering if you're an utter wimp who can't defend himself and is scared of dying; to add to which - your assumption that it is inherently bad.
Secondly, that's what outweighing means - having weight, precisely more weight.

And why do his rights appear to outweigh the child's? Because he, like you, would rather save his own skin at the expense of another. You and him both value your own lives over that of another and there's no two ways about it.

Let’s expand on this logic a bit. “If getting raped isn’t worth going through, she can just stop living and spare herself further injury, after all she MIGHT enjoy the experience no? I’ll rape her and give her a chance to make the verdict herself. After all, not raping her would he forcing her to not get raped when she could enjoy it” — khaled

It's not about if she gets raped, maimed, burned alive, lynched or whatever.
Those are all potential risks, that if the woman in question is paranoid over and unwilling to face, she can spare herself the worry by living completely isolated or ending her life.

Imagine you want to build a house, but you suddenly start thinking - what if my neighbour burns it down, what if lightning burns it down, what if a tornado blows it away, what if a meteorite falls on top of it?
All if scenarios, that could happen.

And you either accept that they could happen and build your house anyway, hoping they won't, but prepared to deal with them if they do.
Or you give in to paranoia and don't build the house; quit.

If you're unwilling to go through and cannot handle the potential trials and tribulations, then quit and stay safe.

Thus when someone exists without asking to exist, they have been imposed upon to exist. When no one exists, no one has been imposed upon not to exist. — khaled

What about if that someone does want to exist?
Denying existence to someone who wishes to exist is bad isn't it?
And let me guess - you can't impose on the nonexistent and cannot ask them anything, right?
So how do you impose anything, when you don't know anything? It's simple - you don't.

You're deliberating this drivel on behalf of children you won't have, thus children you know nothing about.

And because that's too hard for you to wrap your head around - here's an easy example.
You impose your hunger on other lifeforms, consuming them at your leisure to prolong your vitality.
You didn't ask those lifeforms for consent prior to consuming them.
You didn't even ask for consent prior to butchering and/or harvesting them - if you've ever even done it yourself, rather than wash your hands with the grocery store.

And the irony of it all is that you possess the leisure and amenities to espouse all of this drivel, thanks to all of the natalists prior to you who got you here, only to have you shit on their graves.

You're a narcissistic stick in the mud who wants to play hero, having humanity go extinct.

For instance, if someone held a gun to my head and said "procreate or I kill you" I think it would be within my rights to procreate. — Bartricks

So your rights outweigh the rights of the child you were so vehemently defending moments ago.

Point in fact, you're just a narcissist who doesn't care about the child, but whatever gets you high at the moment.
Evident by the following statement:

The problem is that you do have to be above a certain IQ level to see this. — Bartricks

Then I'm not imposing natalism - I'm simply a conduit for the child; which in due time after garnering enough experience, can decide whether life is worth living or not.

And if it isn't worth living - it can stop living and spare itself and its offspring further injury. Of course that's assuming its offspring think alike, when they could think the opposite.

The difference between us is that you assume that the child doesn't want to live, whereas I assume that it might want to live, keyword being might.
And unlike you I'm willing to offer the child a trial and have it formulate its own verdict.

Natalism isn't an enforcement but an allowance and each child may spend it as they see fit; whether they suffer or prosper is up to them.

Make up your mind already.

Can I or can't I impose existence on the nonexistent?