I agree, but in the long run such people are not good for the forum. He was banned for evangelism. As it says in the guidelines: — jamalrob

I think, in general, how the thread ran it's course was fair; the ideas were fairly debated (by the community anyway), and he was clearly an evangelist. Rather than ban him at post #1, the ideas were allowed to flesh out, which I think is right. Then, once it was obvious that he was contributing nothing and simply evangelizing, he was banned.

We all had fun, and we all experienced pain. I don't think he was properly trolling; see @exit above. He went through the trouble to make a second account (for what reason?) in order to sign off...? I don't know. Hopefully this is the end of it.

I will say to the moderators, even though the thread was far too popular for you to delete or close, I appreciate that nonsense like this was able to be addressed. Free speech means that all ideas, no matter how close-minded, need to be brought to the table, if only to be shot down. Edit: indeed, if close-minded ideas aren't even given the chance to be shot down, how can ideas be debated in the first place?

Noooo, he won't even see the irony tho

Well SonJnana, apparently PJ awaits your response. What fucking response are we even awaiting?

Tru

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

No it doesn't. Answer the question.

No you don't; I and everyone else await your response to the question that was asked fucking pages and pages ago.

So answer the question.

What question is that an answer to? No one's.

I'll make a drugstore run (we call it a bodega run around these parts); I can't keep watching the entertainment otherwise.

*burp* what?

I don't detect any novel information in your response.

See above, sucka!

Derp, nvm, the name appears on the tab, but nowhere else; Shestov. Been meaning to read him.

Interesting first paragraph. Who's the author?

Oooo oooo yay

I don't have time to read the article, but I'll look at it later (which means I probably wont; I'm too lazy :P care to summarize?)

Yup. Everyone is fake. Except me. I'm always one tick away from nihilism, which seems to be the place to be. It positions you one tick away from God as well. :P

I'm a non-beliefist, but only in regards to non-beliefism.

Sculpture mainly. — charleton

The first time I've almost agreed with you! Would love to see your work. Assuming you really mean that sculpting is your main motivation for life (even if I disagree with that motivation itself).

I doubt the average person, even the average TPF member, is conscious of what they "live for everyday", since the daily ritual of life doesn't allow for that much reflection. On top of that, when we do reflect on why we live life each day, we tend to come up with a nice ideal: "I live life for the betterment of others", "I live life for the beauty of things", "I live life because it's my imperative to do so", etc., ad naseum. But these aren't real reasons for "living life"; they're justifications for one's existence, and generally not quite truthful. In reality, we generally don't know exactly why we're living life.

Which has nothing to say about why life should be lived, which is the implied question within your question. The recognition of the uncertainty and the insincerity are good starting points, however.

*holds beer*

Woah buddy!

Do you detect that you shall demonstrate your point to be valid, regardless of whatever answer ANYONE returns?

This is not a response to what you quoted. As has been long mentioned.

Things don't require belief, to be valid. (as long mentioned). — ProgrammingGodJordan

This is not a response to what you quoted. As has been long mentioned.

1.Right. I detect no contact between you and this reality.
1a) i.e. you are unaware of your scientistic beliefs.

2. This had long been pointed out to you in this thread.
2a) your continued refusal to acknowledge this contacts a garnering of knowledge suggesting that you are in denial.

Everyone has, which is why it's time to put it to rest.

Edit that sentence with proper grammar and I'll respond. And it's "scientism", not "scientistism".

Also, isn't scientism a special brand of pseudo-science? Where's our recently christened pseudo-science expert @TimeLine on this topic?

You're doing just grand, but I remain pessimistic.

It's beyond black now.

I've been watching, bub...

I was the first responder (lol) to this thread, so the entertainment value has long since vanished for me. Around page 8 or so.

I think I would cry a little. But then feel ok.

Yes to 2 and 3.