I would not be destroying anything. I would be preventing. For something to be destroyed, it must first exist. You can't destroy something nonexistent. — Truth Seeker

By not letting it exist you are destroying its potential, even if it is only in your head.

Again, I am preventing the existence of those who suffer and die — Truth Seeker

What right do you think you have to do this? Whether you believe in a godly creation or in evolution, suffering is a part of life.

instead creating those who are all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful so that they will never suffer and die. — Truth Seeker

Do you think that a bunch of god like creatures would not suffer? Have you no idea about the effects of boredom? Something that is all knowing has no motivation to learn nor experience new things. Something that is all powerful never knows a challenge.
What the hell would they do with their eternal lives?

I have been suffering from CPTSD since 17 December 1982, Bipolar Disorder since 29 September 1997 and chronic nerve pain since 21 August 2008. I am on various medications but they are not very effective. I was kidnapped when I was 4 years and 5 months old. I almost died by drowning when I was 4 years and 9 months old. I was raped when I was 5 years and 9 months old. I watched people murder each other when I was 8 years old. I was beaten regularly by my Mum from my earliest memories (age 4) to 15 years old. I was beaten regularly at school by my teachers. Six of my relatives were murdered. My best friend was also murdered. When I was 9 years and 7 months old my younger brother died at the age of only 8 days due to doctor's errors. When I was 13 years and 8 months old my favourite uncle died due to an anaesthetist's error. My uncle was only 28 years old and had just gotten married. When I was 12 years and 10 months old, I experienced a cyclone that killed 138,866 people. — Truth Seeker

So at a quick guess I would say that you are about 44 years old, live or lived in Bangladesh or India, have an extremely good memory and have had a lot of bad shit happen to you.

Whilst I admit that I have not experienced the personal abuse you were subjected to and are probably the reason you think as you do, I have not had an easy life either.

Without going into any really personal problems:
I have had several close friends that have died, in accidents, by sickness( three to COVID) or murdered. And also three by suicide.
I live in a country that was for years the most deadly country in the world, in a space of two blocks in each direction from my house we had a total of eight murders in less that six months.
I have experienced several hurricanes that might not have left as quite as many dead as the one you mention, but left wide spread and devastating damage to the place I live. I have experienced several severe earthquakes that have done serious damage to the place I live, one of which almost destroyed my home.

But after all of this, and knowing that many are suffering in this world, I do not think for even a minute that I would wish to to change the universe because I am pissed of with it.

Justified, maybe.
But what is the difference between gas and killing a bunch of people with a big bomb that might only kill a few of them immediately and leave a lot more suffering their wounds before they die or even living a life of suffering for years after?

I don't know. I didn't claim to be all-knowing. I am going by what I have observed on Earth. — Truth Seeker

Strange that you would destroy what could be trillions of millions of possible life forms based on what little you know about the earth.

I am merely exercising my imagination, nothing more. — Truth Seeker

But doing so after possibly killing off a lot of beings just like that without even knowing.

You would not say that if you had my genes, my environments from conception to the present, my nutrients from conception to the present, and my experiences from the womb to the present. I hate life the way it has been and is. The world has been and continues to be full of suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. — Truth Seeker

Misery loves its own company.
It is easy now to see why your imagination creates the scenes you describe above. You appear to be suffering from "The world fucked poor lil'ol me" syndrome. With a side of "Only I know what I am suffering" complex thrown in.

I have no idea about your life nor what you are suffering from, but I am willing to bet that I know people with even worse luck in the lottery of life. And some of them will never have the opportunity to go online to complain in a philosophy forum.

Most of us I believe spend some of our time here on earth wondering "what if". It is a wicked waste of time and torture to our brains. All it does is make us feel miserable about things we did wrong but cannot change.

I would prevent the existence of the universe (or universes if there is more than one) as that would prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. — Truth Seeker

How do you know that all of the universe is like our little shit hole corner of it?

I would bring into existence an infinite number of all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful beings who always make perfect choices instead of fallible organisms such as ourselves who make mistakes, suffer and die. — Truth Seeker

Your god syndrome and alpha macho ego are definitely on show hare. :rofl:

Hey, sometimes they slip through the cracks. — Mikie

:lol: :rofl:

I have no idea who that is. — Mikie

Your loss youngster. :rofl: :lol:

:rofl:
I think the advice about raising kids is spot on, bigger sticks should then mean better kids.

:rofl: Not all, but I think that a lot of them probably fall into the category.
I met one that explained to a group of teachers that the act of chewing gun was the equivalent of masturbation, while continually chewing her pen while listening to people talk.

But that doesn't mean what they teach is useless. It would be a logical fallacy to argue that someone who is flawed can't also be a conduit for wisdom. — Tom Storm

It was more of a "do they practice what they preach" thought than an actual question.

The bible is a collection of life guides that was collected from many ancient cultures. A lot of the books that are sold are on a similar line. When someone digs up these books in a few thousand years, what will they think about us? Probably that we were a bunch of wild savages living on base instincts.

RIP Duanne Eddy

There is no way you are not a bot made in 2015 by a now-bankrupt company. — Lionino

But there were an infinite number of self replicating bots made in 2014.

What always amazes me is the fact that despite so many people writing articles and even books about this topic, there are literally hundreds of them online, so many people live unhappy lives.

I would really like to see some statistics about the writes of these ideas to see if they have achieved what they preach using the ideas they tell others to use. Or whether they attain a fulfilling life off of the profit from the books.

There isn’t a certain question at hand. It’s an invitation to think about certain points which I post. I throw my thoughts out there and hope to create a place for people to just let there thoughts roam. — Elnathan

OK, but just opening the thread to be met by that is overwhelming. I read most of it but I, fortunately, had the time to do so. For some people it would be easier to read three or four threads on different topics.

And without some sort of a question or prompt it is difficult to know how to reply to what you are saying.
You say things have been proven, do you expect everyone just to accept your word for it? Provide some links or quotes to back up your beliefs.

Somehow you've managed to attribute nearly all the quotes in your reply to a poster who's not even participating in this thread. — Wayfarer

It is easy to do and I think his sarcasm is peaking out there a lit bit.

:up:

Err, What was the question?

Still going strong.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/willie-nelson-turns-91-today-130000313.html

Civilians should be limited to revolvers, shotguns or bolt-action rifles, with lengthy prison time for any violators. — RogueAI

Where are you going to find that many prisons and who will run the country when so many workers are in them?

[noreplytothismessage]

Actually, it is. Yes, it’s also a rant post, but there are reasons given: — Mikie

How's about that, I guess that you being the only one around here that really knows anything must make that true then.
Just to make sure, let's check out the OP.

I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with. — Mikie

Statement of opinion, no reason for your opinions given in this paragraph.

It sounds very authoritative, doesn’t it? — Mikie

This is a question, I guess even you have figured out that there is no need to give a reason for it.

“That’s not an argument.” It strikes me as a person imitating someone who uses it appropriately, but who really doesn’t understand the implications. Like doing an impression. — Mikie

Statement of opinion, no reason for your opinions given in this paragraph.

“That’s a fallacy of xyz”

“That’s not an argument!” — Mikie

I suppose these are examples of what pisses you off, but that does not make them reason for why or how they do so nor what is wrong about them.

“As if they’re the final arbiters because they just took freshman logic.

What a waste of time— I’d like to see this stupid shit go away. — Mikie

Statement of opinion, no reason for your opinions given in this paragraph.

So I guess that the score is something like this:
Statement of opinion - 3
Questions - 1
Examples - 2
Reasons - 0

If you disagree, that is your problem.

A long time ago, on the old forum, I wrote a post about the same thing. About wankers that have taken an introduction to philosophy course in high school and thought that the 5 ideas they got from reading about ten philosophers were the only ones that counted and everyone else was dumb because they did not agree with them.
But I did give explanations and tried to discuss and engage with the rest of the posters.I did not usually tell them to fuck off for disagreeing with me. I would if they started personal attacks and name calling like 5th grades fighting in the school yard, as you have shown an aptitude for doing.

If you did not have your head stuck so far up your arse that you can lick your own cerebellum you might have responded more reasonably when I posted this.

Could you, just for conveniences sake, point out exactly what your argument is here. I might be wrong but I think you skipped directly to the conclusion which means, wait for it...........

“That’s not an argument!” — Sir2u

All you had to do was say "I am just ranting there is no argument there". But no, you had to do just what you accuse others of doing and start talking shit and insulting other posters.

I think that the only thing you said that was worth reading, because it applies to your post, is the following.

What a waste of time— I’d like to see this stupid shit go away.

Goodbye and thank for the entertainment.

[/noreplytothismessage]

Every statement? Every POV? Every belief? — Vera Mont

Oh dear, I thought we were talking about posts on the forum, the OP in particular.

How be, we just provide links to authoritative sources for statements of fact, acknowledge our personal opinion, belief or perspective, and provide arguments only for philosophical positions? — Vera Mont

But we could just make it one of those unwritten rules that when people post something that is nothing more than an opinion of other people (read RANT), they should state what they are doing from the beginning. That would at least make sense and everyone could just ignore it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they should have reasons for them. And they should be able to state those reasons clearly. Otherwise we have what the something like the OP is and claims to be against, just a bunch of statements.

↪Sir2u

:scream: — Mikie

Let me try again.

An argument is the presenting of reasons/evidence for a claim or conclusion. Really that simple. — Mikie

Everything you said in the OP are statements of things you believe to be true, but there is no prof of what you say. Are we expected to just take your word for it that everything you say is true?

Why is everybody expected to argue about everything all the time anyway? — Vera Mont

Nobody is expected to argue about anything, but everyone is expected to provide arguments for their points of view, beliefs and the statements they make.

I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with.

It sounds very authoritative, doesn’t it? “That’s not an argument.” It strikes me as a person imitating someone who uses it appropriately, but who really doesn’t understand the implications. Like doing an impression.

“That’s a fallacy of xyz”

“That’s not an argument!”

As if they’re the final arbiters because they just took freshman logic.

What a waste of time— I’d like to see this stupid shit go away.
a day ago

Oh, and to clarify:

An argument is the presenting of reasons/evidence for a claim or conclusion. Really that simple. — Mikie

Could you, just for conveniences sake, point out exactly what your argument is here. I might be wrong but I think you skipped directly to the conclusion which means, wait for it...........

“That’s not an argument!”

True, I remember reading that eating also damages DNA. — Lionino

Sex to, maybe you could come up with a pill to stop the need for that as well.

Another down-side: employers would cut lunch hour to 2 minutes a day. — Vera Mont

Ain't that the truth. :rofl:

The benefits being pleasure. — Lionino

That is what life is all about, if you don't enjoy it what is the point of living it.

Or you could take a pill and avoid every downside of eating (bloating, toxins, phytic acid, heavy metals etc). — Lionino

:chin: You forgot to include wear on teeth, wasted time cooking, having to use a truck to take the food to the shop, having to sit down for a few minutes to put food in your mouth, having to take a shit once in a while and probably a whole bunch of other reasons you should not eat. :smirk:

So if I wanted to celebrate something with good food, I would happily eat then. — Tom Storm

Wouldn't eating then be like smoking or at least like drinking beer? — Lionino

When I said "You can still eat stuff, but it would not give you any needed nourishment and would come with all the negatives of eating", — Lionino

When I said it is not necessary I meant that taking the pill is not necessary because food still is available. So if I am not taking the pill I would still need nourishment even if it came with all the negatives of eating. But it would also have the benefits I mentioned

I wanted to imply that you get all the negatives without getting the positives. — Lionino

You meant to imply but did not do so, so it does not count.

Wouldn't eating then be like smoking or at least like drinking beer? — Lionino

Only if I ate and drank more that I needed excessively. But I would have a shitload more fun doing it than you would swallowing a pill.

Some folks said they wouldn't take the pill. I wonder why :chin: — Lionino

If it was a necessity then obviously everyone would take it, But it is not, therefore why deprive oneself of the pleasures attached to the ritual of eating.

I'm with Vera on this one.

:up:

2000 years ago they were probably just scared shitless and did not even think too hard about killing him.

In the movie Starman(1984), the military people that were chasing the hero had a portable autopsy table. With hold down straps on it. They definitely were not rationalists.
The hero is more or less what the OP is about, except he did have some powers.

How is Diana Ross only 79? — Mikie

Because there are still a few days until she is 80, on March 26.

Some poeple think such a being walked the Earth some 2000 years ago. Some stuff happened, from some perspective not a lot, but surely not little. In any case we killed him — the pharisees. — Lionino

They killed him because they did not have labs to put him in for study, experimentation.

If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?

Would you even believe them? — Benj96

Even if they were only semi-omniscient they would know way more than most people and be able to prove it easily. They might even know enough to keep their mouths shut so they do not end up in some government, deep, dark lab.

Would you want to speak to them? — Benj96

Why? Do you really think she/he/they would give me the solutions to the worlds problems and risk ending up in the lab I mentioned.

Would you like them or despise them? — Benj96

In today's world I guess that it would depend on whether she/he/they got more likes than you did today.

And how do you think humanity would react as a whole? — Benj96

By putting him/her/them in that lab. Unless of course he/she/they are not only omni-benevolent but super-duper rich and capable of solving the worlds financial problems.

Thank you — ENOAH

You are welcome. :wink:

If a Chimpanzee looks at it, she doesn't see Eiffel or Iron. — ENOAH

If she looks at you she does not see ENOAH or human either.

Both in fact are "artificial" whatever that word means. — ENOAH

You are the one that is using "artificial", so I supposed you knew what it meant.

My original point is that for humans now, and arguably since the dawn of culture, sexuality is something other than what it was in Nature. Even whatever we hypothetically agree is normative. — ENOAH

I believe that if you think about it you will see that it is the words and their usage that has changed not what people do to each other. In nature there is no normative, nature does not need nor care to judge.You do the wrong thing and you die, simple as that. And if we use nature as the norm, then pretty much anything goes.

Therefore the normative are in no position to say "yes but our sexuality is what it was in Nature, yours isnt, therefore...and so on."

If it was just that last statement, we might be on the same page? — ENOAH

Here you appear to be saying that discrimination is wrong. You are correct because all types of tastes in sexual gratification are present form the dawn of humanity. None should be discriminated against unless what they want to do is harmful to others.

I think that if everyone just stopped talking about their "sexuality", (their personal taste for sexual indulgence) and just had sex without causing any harm, the would not need to worry about what gender they were.

It is all about the words used(unnatural socially constructed utterances used to indicate or communicate some idea) and nothing about what people do to make themselves happy. The only thing I would count as unnatural is harming others intentionally for ones own benefit.

A thought, what makes a plastic flower artificial? Is it the fact that it is made of plastic that is a man made substance or the fact that it only has the appearance of a flower without the feel and smell of a flower.
Is the form of petroleum called plastic unnatural because it does not appear in nature naturally, then so is life. Life is only a combination of materials from nature so we must be artificial also.

But it is the Eiffel Tower that has displaced those natural "things" with something artificial. — ENOAH

How so?
I never said that things were or were not artificial, I simple said that they were natural. Artificial things (artifacts) are made by natural beings out of natural material, could that be counted as unnatural?
It is just metal in the air instead of in the ground. Man used fire to reshape iron ore and create it. Just because its particular form is man made and not found in nature does not mean that is any more unnatural that a piece of tree that a caveman used to help him get around after breaking his leg. I think that we could possibly go as far as saying that a natural piece of matter has been used in an unorthodox, non-natural way.

Because same goes for human sexuality. The procreation/organic arousal/drive part are Natural, and that Nature still is, but for humans with our presumably unique Mind, that Nature is displaced by something artificial. And my point is that artificial nature applies to so called hetero-sexuality and so called LGBTQ +, alike. — ENOAH

You have basically confirming what I said earlier, that the wrong words are being used to refer to the wrong things. If we use the words in the sense that I specified earlier then there is no problem at all.

Sexuality: A person's tendency of sexual attraction, esp. whether heterosexual or homosexual

Gay, lesbian, unisex, polisex would then become only the handles for your particular brand of sexuality. — Sir2u

[opinion]There are lots of types of sexuality, but (from my point of view) only two genders or sexes. And anyone that says there are more are using those word incorrectly. [/opinion]

Ok, I was wondering, as I descended your stairway of responses, now I am more certain, it's possible I have an idiosyncratic way of defing Natural. — ENOAH

It is always possible I suppose, but do not let that worry you. You are certainly not alone in the world where so many want the words to mean what they think they should mean.
This whole conversation is only possible because so many people want "sexuality" and "gender" to mean something other than they were originally intended. If their meaning had stayed as a synonym to sex we would have nothing to talk about.

Nature is the world, the universe, everything is part of nature. If we decide to call everything that is constructed by mankind as artificial and therefore in some way wrong, then maybe we should not have this conversation. Because language would also have to be classified as artificial.

This is really just a lot of hullabaloo about something that is not going to change in the near future. For as long as mankind has had the capability to use words he has also had the ability to twist them to suite the circumstances.
If people want to run around saying that they are this or that gender(out of the 300 that they claim exist) or even gender fluid that is their problem. I for one am just going to sit back and watch them. And maybe have a laugh at the same time. The only thing I am sad about is that I will not be around to see them deal with their off-springs, if they ever figure out how to have them.

*I know, some think animals have "souls" — ENOAH

Maybe you would like to come and tell my dog that I might have to have put to sleep next week that she does not have a soul. Or maybe your "diosyncratic way of defing" soul is different from mine.

But is the Eiffel Tower natural? I mean, maybe it is. Maybe 1000 philosophers will tell me why, and maybe I will be impressed enough by their reasoning to throw in the towel. Is it? — ENOAH

Is it made of unnatural materials? No. Was it made by unnatural means? No. Does it follow the laws of nature? Yes it does.
Prehistoric humans built out of stone, mud and sticks which formed the base for architectural constructions of all types. The adaptions from one type of material to another and from one design to another came from the natural processes of the human brain.
What could be unnatural about the Eiffel Tower?

But is a marriage certificate natural? — ENOAH

A social construct is different thing from a physical construct, while both are results of human brains they serve different purposes. A marriage certificate is unnatural because it inhibits the natural freedom to choose how and with whom you share your life. It limits what you can do with the things you own or create.

An article of clothing? — ENOAH

The need to protect yourself is natural, dress yourself up to attract mates is natural. Trying to please everyone by dressing like them or trying to be like everyone to fit in is natural.

A condom? Etc. — ENOAH

The desire to be safe from disease is natural, the need not to have more children than you can feed is also part of nature.