Who here thinks that if they question the "game of life" — schopenhauer1

Oh Wheatgrass, no no. You can have an unjust situation and have someone enjoy their life. Precisely why my argument is more than the simplicity you deem it as. It is hard for some people to wrap their heads around an unjust situation that people can still feel happy subjective states. Someone who feels joy despite X activity that's Y (bad/unjust) doesn't mean that X activity is a good state of affairs. — schopenhauer1

That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life.
— Wheatley

See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread. — schopenhauer1

An oxymoronic fiction like e.g. "noble savage", "p-zombie", "rational actor", "utility maximizer" which I call the "Old Plantation fallacy" (or White Man's Burden fallacy). Specious nonsense, schop1. :shade:
— 180 Proof

So in my case, not to be taken literally. Rather, it is to illustrate a situation where an individual is happy despite being put in an unjust situation. — schopenhauer1

A lot of things get overlooked when you do that. — schopenhauer1

No problems if you ignore them. — schopenhauer1

So just borrow another poster's response? Weak.. — schopenhauer1

An oxymoronic fiction like e.g. "noble savage", "p-zombie", "rational actor", "utility maximizer" which I call the "Old Plantation fallacy" (or White Man's Burden fallacy). Specious nonsense, schop1. :shade: — 180 Proof

See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread. — schopenhauer1

cannot be opted out without dire consequences (death, starvation, free-riding, dying in the wilderness, homelessness etc.). — schopenhauer1

Simply a moral stance not a political policy. — schopenhauer1

Now who is making it complicated :wink:. — schopenhauer1

To prevent injustice taking place, yes. — schopenhauer1

"Do not have kids" — schopenhauer1

person cannot escape the work-game without dire consequences (death, starvation, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Do not put people in these circumstances in the first place. Why is that so hard? Can a human prevent this for someone else? — schopenhauer1

unjust — schopenhauer1

Unfortunately differing policies or systems don't get rid of the underlying problem itself. — schopenhauer1

You’re preventing no suffering and no injustice. — NOS4A2

What did you expect the answer to be? — schopenhauer1

you're full of shit if you don't know that I'm going to say — schopenhauer1

You’re preventing no suffering and no injustice. Your behavior effects no one but yourself, so as far as ethics go, it’s all self-concerned and self-congratulatory. — NOS4A2

Not putting anyone into the economic system in the first place. You should know my answer by now... — schopenhauer1

However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. — schopenhauer1

But this does not excuse Sandifer’s, and many other black boy’s and men’s, murderers; there is a reason we try to keep the courts almost totally colorblind; it is within the power of people of color who live in crime-ridden areas to pick themselves up and make something better for themselves than rampant violence. In fact, they are the only ones who can do it. This might be a greater expectation than we have for privileged white men who leverage their free speech to harm minorities - but I think it is reasonable. — ToothyMaw

You seem to think of religion as an irresistible steam roller. True, there are some folk who would like to run the steam roller over their enemies. They tend to be fundamentalists (in whatever faith tradition they are in). Think conservative Baptists or the Taliban. — Bitter Crank

And many others are also plotting to promote their various views. Good on some, a plague on others. — Bitter Crank

This is an old issue, but mythologies serve many functions, some o them quite useful. — Bitter Crank

An atheist can be as or even more concerned about the future of humanity as a theist. Focusing on the here and now can also be the interest of the theist. — Hanover

No matter what people believe, or do not believe, people tend to conform, and promote conformity to whatever is the dominant scheme of belief. — Bitter Crank

I think your observation is correct, more or less. The term "spirit" and "spiritual" are sufficiently vague that they could just as well be replaced by identity, individuality, or personhood. — Bitter Crank

What some old ones called "soul" is nowadays subsumed under "identity", "individuality" -- and highly valued. — baker

No need to rob us all of our humanity and drive with this myopic pseudo-intellectual resignation to explore and dream that is atheism. — Outlander

The word "life" means many things. Do you have a heartbeat? You're alive by one metric. — Derrick Huestis

"Get a life" is a saying directed towards people who aren't alive by a separate metric. — Derrick Huestis

When a soul is "alive" it follows morality, when it is "dead" it does not. — Derrick Huestis

What do you do for a living? How's life? Are you lively? — Derrick Huestis

Talking about life and talking about the soul may not be different at all if you don't specify how to use the word "life." — Derrick Huestis

don't think the revolution of the proletariat, if it were possible, would be a very good candidate. — T Clark

Created by and for persons. — Outlander

business by definition is an endeavor by people. — Outlander

Happiness of staff only starts to matter when you go further up the hierarchy. — Tom Storm

There are more people then resources. You either beat each other to death or work together and treat others as equals to address these needs. — Outlander