OUR MAIN PROTEST: Give the unemployed fair pay that frees them from their imposed hardship and supports uproot of crime-filled communities. — Bug Biro

Why would people that are happily and profitably employed want to go on strike or quit their job to help the unemployed? Not many would be convinced to do so.

STEP #1: Every person or most people from a city, a country, or across global landscapes quits their job simultaneously. — Bug Biro

Instant anarchy, many places would not survive 24 hours.

STEP #2: The government panics, stands to lose tons of money and cannot support every unemployed person sufficiently. — Bug Biro

Governments would not lose anything except income and in most countries around the world they are NOT obliged to support the unemployed anyway. That only happens in some first world countries.

STEP #3: Looting begins for both survival and criminal intent.

STEP #4: An undetermined number of people are killed during the criminal act of looting or other crimes. — Bug Biro

Yep, you got that part right. all of those stupid people running out of the stores with giant TVs on their backs and the electricity will be cut of soon if it has not already gone.

STEP #5: Government eventually caves into demands or must offer an alternate settlement of greater or equal potential for our betterment. — Bug Biro

Not going to happen. :worry: There will probably be no government after the first few days that could actually be capable of getting this done.

You have picked just one of the things I said and rambled on without making any sense at all. I have no idea what most of your writing actually is supposed to mean or how it is related to the OP.
The rest appears to be saying that because I picked an example about a politician I am not fit to post an answer to. If I had mentioned people that disregard climate change instead of trump, would you have judged me differently?
By the way, I am neither American nor political in any way. So the comment in no way represents my way of thinking.

Your ideas could have made a reasonable thread, but when you start attacking people that reply you are lost.
Bye.

If you suddenly decided to say "Yes" to every request made by anyone you encounter (like in the movie by the same name), and were highly capable/ able to fulfill their desires, where do you think you'd end up? — Benj96

11. A genie in a bottle with an unlimited wish list available on a monthly basis. Sort of like amazon without being paid.

Can we force people to believe things? — Andrew4Handel

Yes we can, it happens all the time. Should we is another question.

Should we try and force people to believe things we want them to believe? — Andrew4Handel

We should try in some cases, for example "People should not vote for presidents like Trump". But trying and succeeding are again two different things.

Does reason cause beliefs or something else (for example emotions)? — Andrew4Handel

Most people have some sort of emotions attached to their beliefs, which is cause and which is affect has been a matter of discussion for may years.

Can we decide whose beliefs are right and should be prioritised? — Andrew4Handel

Education above and beyond the university of farcebook, twatter and wankipedia would be preferred when trying to do so, but not necessarily needed if one can use the brain to do research through other media.

Did I post this here or has it been moved here? — Andrew4Handel

Don't worry about it, if anyone is interested they will find it.

Convince the members of this forum that the right path of life is Bushidō. — javi2541997

Pushing religions or theist ideas can lead to serious consequences, be careful you don't start preaching about it. :wink:

And yet you eat fruits and vegetables that is grown with the help of animal secretion. — TheMadMan

OK, that might be true to a certain extent. But that we are actually holy shit is a bit different.

God eats us, secretes us, we become the humus,which the creates the fruit, we are the fruit, God eats the fruits, secretes it, and so on. — TheMadMan

The very thought that we might be nought but god shite is something I I would rather not contemplate.
:fear:

If you were given the choice to walk in God's shoes for a moment — Benj96

Abolish any and all ideas, concepts, histories of gods. Remove all idea of a superior being from the minds of all humans and replace it with the concept of self sufficiency and love for oneself and everyone else including the planet.
Then I would go back to my job of trying to teach common sense to teenagers. :wink:

I was asked to define luck by a workmate, this is what I came up with.

Luck is nothing more than the coincidence of time, place and purpose.

I am in the right place at the right time to catch a plane, I am lucky. Too late or wrong airport, I am unlucky.

I am in the wrong place at whatever time to find the treasure, I am unlucky

As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?" — EricH

Please don't give him any more ideas about how to adapted his theories, they are weird enough already.

But then he died.

Did you not see his denial that he died?
Great musician going to the other side soon though, he is sick.

Am too. — Banno

Do you really want to claim that you are a better bullshitter than Bartrix? :wink:

Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread. — universeness

Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place.

HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. — schopenhauer1

But he is not the "number one". :lol:

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it. — Bartricks

Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true: — Bartricks

Have you figured out why your reasoning is wrong yet?

It is actually quite simple. The world cannot visit evil on people, I cannot even try to imagine a tree or a rock acting in an evil manner, and animals act on instinct so they cannot be classified as evil.

Only other people can visit evil on other people, AND there is a way to stop that from happening without eliminating the entire population.

And the fact that your god wont change the beings he wants to introduce into the world just proves what assholes gods are.

Bye.

Well that wasn't very witty now was it. — Bartricks

The truth is seldom witty, like you.

But I'm clever and witty. — Bartricks

Trying to get another person to agree with you, that is the problem you face.

Did your advice to be nice only apply to me and not you? — Bartricks

No, I've been modelling myself on you!

And one last piece of advice. Using what gods do as a way of specifying what humans should do does not work, humans are actually real.

See? — Bartricks

But that's not nice, is it? I've been modelling myself on you! — Bartricks

I rarely do this because it is sort of frowned upon, but.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on

I have done all I can to make it clear to you. — Bartricks

And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers.

You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own. — Bartricks

No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything?

The number of coherent arguments you have made still stands at 0, as demonstrated by the number of people that have told you this against the number of people that have agreed with you.

Calling people beginners and using other demeaning ways to try and invalidate their thoughts is not the way to win arguments. Presenting researched, worthwhile topics to discuss works better.

So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse and try to be nice.

I am so glad I left the UK way back in '75. I even got out on November the 5, sailing across the channel watching the fireworks goes of was something to see. I never looked back since. :wink:

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.

That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see? — Bartricks

Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.

Which are the possibilities and which one are you ruling out?

Or should I use your own words, "Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?"

You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God. — Bartricks

Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence

Why does a god need to be involved? All of the definitions above are about human behavior, characteristics or qualities.
Being about humans means that we are in some way able to influence the behavior being classified as evil, therefore we can prevent evil. The fact that it is not done in no way impedes the ability to do so.

And why do you have to capitalize the word god?

Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children. — Bartricks

If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny.

You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same. — Bartricks

That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind.

Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes? — Bartricks

OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry.

So if neither of them is prepared to give a little to get a quickie then there will be no babies born and the world will be a happier place without their dumb genes in it.

Makes no difference to the rest of the world how these dumb tinder twits fix their problem and has nothing to do with morality as it is just a personal problem.
And stop trying to come up with more stupid examples that do not help understand your theory.

How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry? — Bartricks

Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well.

Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. — Bartricks

That is one person at least I suppose.

If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument. — Bartricks

And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims.

I think we need to add English to the courses you'd fail. — Bartricks

I actually give those courses, it pays reasonably well where I live.

If you need help presenting your ideas here on the forum, you can PM me. But I do not help people do their assignments, there is a special section for that.

Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. — Bartricks

It is a confused mess. Your are trying to build an argument about man doing something because a god would do it (or not do it). Not going to work.

And do not tell me that I would not pass a philosophy course with that answer. I don't need to pass anymore course than those I passed long ago. :rofl: :cool:

Glad to have been of help. :wink:

Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be.

Here's how our exchange is going: — Bartricks

No, that is what you are doing because you failed to understand what I said. A rookie mistake.

Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else? — Bartricks

I have no opinion about the futility of you trying to prove a pointless, no correct answer question. It makes no difference to an "omnipotent, omniscient person" because those same qualities give him/her/it the ability to do both things at the same time or or fail to be an "omnipotent, omniscient person". This is just another "rock to heavy to lift" theory and comes to the same end. But only a rookie would not be able to see that.


All I did was answer your question about the morality of your "introduce life or not question". I don't give a hoot about the rest of the claptrap.

Another "so what?" thread. :meh: — 180 Proof

Coming up like weeds in a rose garden, and there are too many thorns to be able to get too them.

Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, — Sir2u

No it isn't. — Bartricks

So explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from?

But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. — Bartricks

First of all, please tell us what YOU mean by 'metaethical' and explain why what I said comes under the heading of absurd.

Rookie mistake. — Bartricks

You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one".
One of the worst rookie mistakes is having to give several different examples so that others can get an idea of what you are blathering about and then insinuating that they are the ones that are lacking in brains.

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks — Sir2u

You asked a question, I explained why the question is irrelevant. If you cannot see the pointlessness of your own question, I cannot help you to understand.

Me: "which way to the city centre?"
You: "A city centre is a collection of trees" — Bartricks

You must live in a nice place, do the Ewoks live around there.

I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. — Bartricks

That's the spirit, you are no use to the cause if you get shot down every time you open your mouth.

When you have multiple "Once in a century" weather cataclysms wrecking havoc multiple times per year, and it will only get worse, much worse, then maybe, just maybe, this time is different. — hypericin

And here is sciences biggest problem, there is only a short period of recorded history. Something that is today "Once in a century" might very well have been a common thing 20 or 100 centuries ago.

We do know that humans are helping the problem along with their abuse of the environment, but is it really the only cause?

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks

Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, this is a one person society so he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants to do and it would always be morally acceptable.

And if he/she/it does like the results, he/she/it can redo or undo the problems he/she/it caused.

No problem to discuss here, moving on.

Is there any difference between how one begins one's day in the medieval age and in the modern age? As far as I can tell toilette and a good breakfast was common to both eras, but then after that ... — Agent Smith

You don't have to go back in time to see differences between the many ways of starting the day, just look at the many different cultures ways of doing things today.

Were I live, not many people really take breakfast seriously. they prefer to either take something to work or buy something there. For the people in the backwoods, there day usually starts before dawn some there is often a couple of hours of work done before breakfast.

I think that the only really significant point of connection between different times and cultures is taking a piss before you do anything else and maybe washing your face.

Starting by waking up is usually a good way. :wink:
Not much is going to happen before that.

Are these the best of times? Are we all lucky folks? As an example, slavery is in the past and animal rights is in the future — Agent Smith

No they are not, on still exists and the other will not get very far until humans evolve to be able to live on a different type of diet.

The only bloody place we have to live on.

Let's try not to fuck it up too badly.

Life started exactly once in 4.5 billion years on earth. — an-salad

Do you have any links to the info you used to reach this conclusion?

That strongly implies it’s a one off event. — an-salad

No it does not.

Have you tried googling the answer? :wink: