Yes I can argue against it.

The same value isn't attributed to a fetus as is a baby.

Killing a fetus isn't like killing a baby.

It is life, but the type of life it is, is okay to abort.

Masturbation is killing sperm; abortion is killing a fetus. I don't think it's murder to abort sperm or a fetus.

It can be argued to be murder, but that depends on how much value you attribute to sperm/fetus.

We're not resposible for the planet. The planet takes care of itself.

It was surviving a long time before humans.

We, the human species, have need for a planet. Destruction of habitat is stupidity. We would be wiser to rationalize with our resources.

That doesn't mean we are responsible for the planet - it means we're responsible for our life.

The difference is we're stupid, the Earth's self-sufficency is hindered by us (rather than the Earth needs to be kept).

Some babies are born black - other babies have different skin pigmentation.

Though, it's not all about skin pigmentation; it's about genetic build.

Race is not a social construct. Different, non-relative genetic builds occur naturally.

Animals in the Southern Hemisphere, are nurtured by the Earth and Sun a lot differently than those in the Northern Hemisphere.

The human vessel evovles differently in different parts of the world.

No, it's not like saying that; I defined my symbol - you didn't. If anyone's lazing off, it's you.

I draw on a blackboard, a green, rising line, to aid explaning morality.

The green, rising line on the blackboard, symbolizes what's beneficent given sense data, of which, there is also a red, falling line; there always is a beneficent or maleficent alignment.

You can substitute the line for highlighting the beneficent parts of your sense data.

You can judge sense data, and act morally or immorally.

What's moral is not entirely subjective - it's both objective and subjective simultaneously.

Think of me marking the blackboard with a rising, green line.

That's the moral line. It symbolizes, when judging sense data, this is what's beneficent.

I judge based on the morality of the matter.

I wouldn't say morality is entirely subjective (based on human consciousness, or a species consciousness).

If I sense the world, there is the sense data which is judgable.

I can make a wrong decision, but a lot of the time the best decision is the right one.

How I make this decision is by first judging sense data. Morality is the nature of judging sense data - morality is objective.

What is a measure of reality? What tool do you use? If mind, then a beneficent measure is what's moral.

I believe it's insanity, either romatically or madly, discomfort with own gender, submission to a greater male/female essence. It can be many things but there's something wrong going on. which doesn't mean it's evil, but the sexuality is abnormal, unhealthy and possesive and that can be confused as great evil. It's normal for a mind to act this way around such harsh conditions.

It is not based on hope only. Based on 'rolling information', what is the most intelligent thought. considering all in this thought-process shows similar objectives, what makes things intelligent for the species is the world that extends that we survive.

i do it's all just misunderstood.

If I present my thesis I'll seem 'too esoteric'.

What is the number 1? If not a scribble on a square-form stone?

If you imagine many stars, you do at once, if you name 1, it doesn't mean it is 1 and all the stara are 1s. The fact you can imagine a nunerous amount of stars as a group shows that mathrmatics exceeds the number 1. We should be talking handfuls and measurement in sense, the universes amount as seen by the eye is a few billion X, where X is the energy of mass ^ power.

Zero is not always followed by 1 - it is evident - people plot 300. If you want to route back to 1 you can but a whole 300 is plotted on zero.

I would take the idea of multiple zeros seriously.

I edited my post any luck?

Morality is study about justice of the law of time.

You can say it's a bad time, or time's are bad. You are judging the time. If you judge the time good, you make profitable decisions. The time may be good or bad for you.

How one could argue otherwise baffles me.

Just me having a whack at it really...

Nice eye.

Straight majorities and masculine majorities exist.

Do you mean that from the root, the universe is fine tuned to create life-support? Further, what is involved in this fine tuning?

(Otherwise, I'm lost).

My apologies.

To whom?

Isn't this thread about nihilism? Is no life better?

I can't get my head around what it's like non-existing.

You said you didn't, and at the end you wrote a statement of how you did.

So, before I continue, does Jesus exist?

If you say 'yes', I'm arguing 'no'.

What then? You say 'how do you know?' - a stupid, nonsensical question that makes no argument and rests on human stupidity.

Don't assume I know this man. He's not Godly, holy or special enough to surpass my mind.

Ever heard of the face of suffering?

Without any strength regarding such subjects, you will be on the wrong side of this face.

You use the pronoun 'He' in a stupid manner.

I said Jesus didn't die on the cross - he doesn't exist.

You then said ' how do you know He didn't.'

Skipping the argument, forcing religion down my throat.

Merely assuming he exists is stupid. You have to argue your case from the root.

You can't just skip it, with strange pronoun usage.

Not really, the man uses a strange method of communication.

He uses the pronoun 'He', in a strange way that assumes I must know the person (He calls Jesus) - I was merely addressing that.

That's not what majority means; nor supremacy.

@Qmeri, I think you misunderstand what simulation means.

So much so, I'm confused by the original post. Truthfully, it's nonsensical.

Yes, the world is a type of simulation.

Where you might be confused is whatever image you apply to to term 'simulation.'

There are two major zeros, and two minor zeros, to account for postive/negative and negative/positive.

One zero implies a positive bias, so I'd agree with @TheMadFool.

Love is selfless input.

What the fuck does 'He' mean? - Je'sus

Should I make this ham, tomato and lettuce sandwitch?

I'm hungry.
I have other food.
Is it wasteful of animal life?

I'm going to eat it - am I making the wrong choice?

Yes.

Yes, the moral decision is always the right (orderly) decision. However, there are special cases, to further understand the wrong, se.

Think of 'moral' as, rolling information, plus good judgement.

1.0 + 1.0 (moral ratio) = 2.

He didn't die on the cross.

The Bible is a whimsical tale about a sky God.

It has so many stupid fans who like the book so much they interfere with intellectual discussion and institutions; please stop Christianity.

You can theorize the current wikipedia/time page is a lie.

You can theorize the current wikipedia/time page is a conspiracy (if you believe the author had evil intent.)

However, I think the word should be changed to stress less 'intent', there is also human stupidity.

What are you talking about? Universal forces creating life-support?

You can, through an alternative method, change your genetalia. You cannot change your sex, yet.

People are weak to require a mask on the truth!

Your workplace is imperfect, and your boss's mind is imperfect.

It doesn't all exist at once.

Otherwise we'd be able to freely access other simulations.

To exit this universe and enter a different simulation, requires a time-change.

Terrorism. Simple.

Terrorist minds threaten the Western World.

The world is a simulation, fed by a star. The universe is one big simulate state. Obviously stars and planets are important.

No, everything doesn't 'exist at once'; the universe is all existing at once, but in other verses and universes nature and time is different.