I don't see how loving intent produces a threat, because it'll poke your eyes out, but threats are produced by threatening intent.

I don't feel very loved when I'm threatened, so no - it couldn't.

But go ahead, if you have an example, present it.

Go ahead and threaten me with loving intent.

And where's the vague harm in those? They're clearly malicious.

" is too vague to make generalizations about. — Terrapin Station

What's vague about death threats and slander?

And you don't see the harm in that?

Why would that be in favor of my ego? Be a free speech absolutist means that I'm endorsing that people be allowed to call for my death, to commit slander/libel against me, etc. How is that in service to one's ego? — Terrapin Station

Are you actually endorsing that?

The world is a bad place and there's no point in living, so why have kids?

Reminds me of an old folktale, where a boy refuses to wash 'cause he'll just get dirty again, so his folks stop feeding him 'cause he'll just get hungry again.

You brought up Buddhism that supposedly says that desire is suffering, but that's not what it says, what it actually says is that attachment to desire is suffering. Buddhists decidedly do not agree with you in saying that desire is suffering. — leo

To say it even simpler - overindulgence is harmful.
The Middle Path is no different from Goldilocks' just right.

You do know that Christianity, primarily, kept women from voting for centuries. in the West, right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Keyword - in the west.
Meaning only Catholic schmuckery and barbarism.


Tradition.

Problematic in semblance and inherently problematic aren't mutually exclusive

They aren't. — Artemis

Plain wrong.

There are countless examples the in the Bible that suggest adultery is a crime, especially female adultery. — Artemis

Yes, and the one I noted doesn't state otherwise - but it shows that Christianity doesn't endorse oppressing women, but treats them fairly.

Things desire to move. That's obvious.

Problems are undesirables. Drowning is undesirable to one's health.
That someone might be suicidal, doesn't make drowning desirable to one's health, but makes one's health undesirable.

The flaw here is that you think that people can't desire problems.

Re-read:

It's objectively problematic in terms of vitality. — Shamshir

It's a problem for and of every living person.
Consequently those who want to live will stray from it, and those who do not, will not.

It's objectively problematic in terms of vitality. Everyone who values their health finds it a problem.

It's a subjective opinion whether something is a problem. — Terrapin Station

How subjective of a problem is drowning, for instance?

Sure.
Because understanding is reciprocal, there's humans who don't understand other humans; as is often the case on the forum.

But the problem is, even if the dog could understand me, he has no concept of revulsion. — Wayfarer

And maybe it does, but it doesn't share your view on revulsion. Perhaps what you find revolting, it views as sanitary.

It's not even about that.
It's the indulgence of fear that's off-putting, the paranoia.

If you put an antinatalist alone on an island with his or her crush, do you think he or she would be as prone to paranoic bouts of suffering?

Obviously. And that's precisely why they're all depressed - waving the 'rigged game' flag in terms of an unsuitable for procreation world.

It's the childish lust after victory, over the enjoyment of life, that puts them in this situation. They don't want to lose and thus refuse to play i.e procreate.
And you know this.

You'd think that after the plethora of false indications within the last sixty years, that these sorts of events would be less prominent, rather than more. But I guess there's always a school of stray guppies ready to bite the shiny hook.

They're obviously depressed, and if not outright suicidal, apparently self deprecating.

So, I wonder how you came about the notion that they do not succumb to either ailment?

What do you mean - does not?
It's exactly like a child that loses once in a game and refuses to continue playing the rigged game, so as to not embarass itself.

Recognize and rectify.

Jewish mysticism has a tradition of viewing God as male and female. — Noble Dust

As does every other. The traditional sense of gender is as extro- ambi- and introversion; rather than the mockup that's taken its place.

I would say, Christianity didn't invent it, but it was founded on it, benefited from it, and endorsed it. — Artemis

I don't see how it would benefit from it, considering women are the prominent benefactor of Christianity.

And if it endorses such behaviour, then why did Jesus defend the woman caught in adultery, against the Jewish law?

What sort of secret is it if A Gnostic Agnostic knows about it? — Terrapin Station

The name says it all.

Because they are contingent on a subject's will, whether that will is a human, animal, rock, Reason or God. — bert1

I figured. Perhaps the word to be used there is 'intrinsic' - and then point one also falls apart, as it permits both.

The second part seems sketchy.

For what reason?

Then S2=$¬S1$ — alcontali

Is this intentional?

It's short for Aswang.

Now ban the emoji users.

Thanks.

Probable cause clearly states that the detained is suspected of criminal activity, not that he has committed any.

Airport security checks function this way.
Ever been detained and searched at an airport?

Because the judicial system doesn't support your claim. Neither the article, nor my experience with law enforcement support your claim.

What has you so convinced in your theory?

.How much first hand experience with the judicial system do you have?

It happened 20 years ago, and no, we didn't and still don't have grounds to sue.
If me or my friend did sue it would be ruled off as frivolous.

Rather than rushing to respond, think it through for once.

Do you think that your subjective experience of Mount Everest is identical to Mount Everest? — Terrapin Station

Obviously. Otherwise, on your terms, it's just a bunch of atoms.