There is evidence to suggest that for every person raised in a 1st world economy, 5-8+ people could be raised without malnutrition or neglect in a 3rd world economy. — XanderTheGrey
Hello. I see a contradiction between these two statements. If humans have no "moral" (I think you mean ontological) value, then your argument in the first quote has no effect. 1 x 0 = 8 x 0 = 0.Should we really place any moral value on individual human life? Personally I can see no value. — XanderTheGrey
the less people, the more resources available. — XanderTheGrey
I take the church of Euthanasias stance on suicide; the less people, the more resources available. However I also extend this concept to mass homicide within 1st world economic zones such as the United States, Europe, Metropolitan Asia, ect. — XanderTheGrey
Personally I can see no value. — XanderTheGrey
Hello. I see a contradiction between these two statements. If humans have no "moral" (I think you mean ontological) value, then your argument in the first quote has no effect. 1 x 0 = 8 x 0 = 0.
The more resources for who? Individuals who have no value?
I say this a lot; you can't have soft nihilism. If individuals have no value, then resources for those valueless individuals also have no value.
Every human at some point values someones life.
Value, as you are defining it, accounts for a single perspective; that of yourself. Given that most of the secular society has been taught that everything happens by chance, and there is no superior being, then it is not surprising to find the lack of purpose in many people's lives. If, however, the premise of the none existing god fails, then all of the secular society also fails. Purpose is not found in yourself, but rather in something greater; hence the populace cannot find purpose due to lack of finding
Yes, I agree. It takes most humans a while to find truth in its purest form, uncorrupted by others.My desire is to not adhere to concepts that are so saturated in hypocrisy and convolution. — XanderTheGrey
I agree with you on an emotional level, but we need to be able to make arguments against this kind of nihilism. These kinds of arguments should be welcome at the table. If these arguments aren't given a hearing then they continue to fester and grow. — Noble Dust
In a serious and convincing voice, Xander has proposed mass murder as a political tool. I don't think he means 10 people, I think means millions. Otherwise his political goals would not be met. How is this different from the Nazis under Hitler, the Soviets under Stalin, The Chinese under Mao, or the Khymer Rouge under Pol Pot? From my point of view, the difference is that he means to apply it to me and my children. I guess I don't mind this being discussed here, but its sickening to have all the usual pseudo-philosophical suspects act as if the idea is not monstrous. — T Clark
I forgot to add perhaps; that even if I had no values, it would make sense for me to expetiment with adhereing to diffetent "patterns" as it were, rathet than devoting myself to the behavior of a loose unit. — XanderTheGrey
The point I'm trying to make here is that the greatest precived common values of the greatest precived majority of mankind: seen convoluted and construed in many areas, including this one; suicide, and homocide. — XanderTheGrey
Those of us in the 1st world suffer from a terrible delusion that our everyday lifestyle choices are not responsible for the vast amount of suffering on the otherside of the globe; — XanderTheGrey
Meanwhile a group of people were locked in a room together with enough resources to last each one 90+ years, it would be considered wrong if a smaller group claimed the majority of the resources as their own. Would it be wrong to those few people so that more of the others could survive? — XanderTheGrey
war is an incredible waste of resources, — XanderTheGrey
I think the most I would ever seek to do is help create an online movement that encourages mass murder, and murder-suicide, and addresses its true effects on the rest of the population. — XanderTheGrey
Hello. I see a contradiction between these two statements. If humans have no "moral" (I think you mean ontological) value, then your argument in the first quote has no effect. 1 x 0 = 8 x 0 = 0. — Samuel Lacrampe
The more resources for who? Individuals who have no value?
I say this a lot; you can't have soft nihilism. If individuals have no value, then resources for those valueless individuals also have no value. — Noble Dust
Resources for who? Your statement suggests that resources are valuable, but you admit that you think individuals are not valuable. What makes resources valuable, given that people are not? — Noble Dust
Every human at some point values someones life. — Hand In Hand
I forgot to add perhaps; that even if I had no values, it would make sense for me to experiment with adhereing to different "patterns" as it were, rather than devoting myself to the behavior of a loose unit.
— XanderTheGrey
How would that make sense? — Noble Dust
The point I'm trying to make here is that the greatest precived common values of the greatest precived majority of mankind: seem convoluted and construed in many areas, including this one; suicide, and homocide.
— XanderTheGrey
Too many typos; not sure what you mean. — Noble Dust
That said, I don't condone homicide, but I don't consider killers "evil" either ... I consider them unconscious ... i.e. unaware (on a deeper level than the superficiality of the mind) of what they're doing. I laugh everytime there is a mass shooting and the news immediately labels the killer "evil". What they're doing, of course, is what is easiest to do - label someone without any investigation or understanding whatsoever. "He killed 10 people, and he is therefore evil. Case closed." This is because of laziness ... no one wants to know the deeper truth behind what actually happened. Also, the action is mistaken for the person performing the action. An evil act is mistaken for an evil person. — Aurora
LOL. I'm assuming that the song is, in some form, a response to what I said ? If it is, do elaborate, — Aurora
I laugh everytime there is a mass shooting and the news immediately labels the killer "evil". What they're doing, of course, is what is easiest to do - label someone without any investigation or understanding whatsoever. — Aurora
I think that people are puppets of/to their conditioning. It's almost like they're robots/machines on autopilot ... executing their instructions without any questioning. You're an engineer (as am I) ... you can appreciate that. — Aurora
How does your understanding of the mechanistic lives of people jibe with your dismay about their inauthenticity? Is that where the inauthenticity comes from? — T Clark
If you recall my grocery store example in my thread about inauthenticity, we have been conditioned, like robots, to reply to the question, "How are you?" with the response "I'm good. How are you ?". This is what makes it inauthentic. It comes from a superficial place within us ... that mask or layer of conditioning that hides our true essence. — Aurora
The true essence of a person is consciousness, prior to its contamination by societal/cultural conditioning. So, newborn babies are closest to that true essence; they have not yet been conditioned with concepts, language, and other artificial constructs that most people blindly adhere to and mistake for absolute truths. — Aurora
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.