You think a skateboard to the head cant kill someone? wow. let me use a skateboard to your head then. — Miller

Let me see if I can.. be an ambassador of rationality here. Sure, a skateboard has hard metal parts, "trucks" I believe they're called. That if violently swung at a person have a reasonably high chance to result in serious injury, sure as can a fist, or a random rock or bottle found on the ground. So an item created for leisure and recreation is not quite equatable to an item created to be a weapon, a weapon some say is for war and mass casualty. Let's be honest, say you're told to kill as many as possible, would you grab the plaintiff's skateboard or Kyle's rifle?

Had they done their fucking job there would not have been any shooting. There were only three people shot that night. — James Riley

The job of the police is to provide security for citizens in that anyone, regardless of race or religion or any other nonsense we've come to distinguish and identify ourselves with has freedom of movement across any national territory, unimpeded and free from threat of bodily harm or other grievance per specific constitution. Sometimes the police do their job, and it results in grievous bodily harm whether it be being pelted with rocks, frozen water bottles, or bottles filled with volatile bodily fluids. If the local police force cannot perform this duty due to civil unrest the state is to call a "state of emergency" and send in the "national guard" which is actually a misnomer as it is a state agency to enforce law and order. They are essentially trained using the same mindset of the national military. Only in the event several states and their enforcers cannot maintain order is when they call "martial law" which suspends every citizen's constitutional rights entirely and essentially is civil war which means, nothing is accounted for or "on the books" as it were. As to why a minority group would wish this to occur seeing as there is absolutely zero chance of coming out on top is not only a mystery to me but frankly makes me think there's something else afoot. As in, those who wish for the destruction of minority groups want them to push for this seeing as, like i said, absolutely zero chance of coming out on top. It would be a purge or ethnic cleansing if enough people are indoctrinated to believe this "ghetto mentality" of, despite the law codifying you as equal, and yes many others who are actually simply in violation of this law and subject to removal and/or prosecution, stand in your way and abuse this law, your sole solution is to fight law and equality itself when in fact it's what you seek. It's sad. So many fall victim to this trap.

So basically, had "they done their fucking job" lots of people may have been harmed or killed. Believe me, there would have been plenty of shooting. Assault is threatening another citizen. Battery is striking one with your fists or an object. That's illegal. If you assault a cop, you are going down. If you have friends who also pose a threat, so are they. In no light mood or sentiment, that's a lot of bullets and a tremendous waste of life. Capital murder usually carries the death penalty, attempted (which is what they usually try to spin battering a cop as, or shooting, which is understandable) doesn't come far behind.

And for the record I'm the first to admit there are plenty of pieces of shite that wear the uniform, traitorously take the oath (the punishment for treason is still death btw, that has never changed), then hide behind the badge. And even more who look the other way. But there are also plenty of citizens and non-officers who do the same, those who kill and wreck havoc on the lives of law-abiding citizens. There's no easy solution. Not really, anyway.

he had a swaggery, self-important personality that is common in boys his age who are anxious to prove themselves and want to be a hero. He wanted to become a cop and he probably just couldn't wait to get out there with a gun and intimidate quell people willing to harm other citizens and property as is all citizens oaths in the Constitution, to combat enemies foreign and domestic, so he went LARPing across town, where there was a riot and he could be a badass. — _db

Up until the probably, nowhere is any law violated. Yet, if you continue reading between the lines and the italicized text, nowhere is any law violated.

It's important to analyze all events and the timeline of events through a color-blind and non-sensationalized lens. This is not a trial to determine if racial biases are present in court or one or more systems that make up the justice system, that is an independent issue that must be addressed later. The key item at hand was which (if any) discharging of a firearm by a citizen towards another citizen with intent were justified at the time of discharge.

You got a young kid openly carrying an assault weapon, barely legally, at an American demonstration. This is not illegal per local laws. Nor is this a privilege restricted to any one group of people, all 17 year old citizens present could, as a result, have done the same and perhaps outnumbered him and told their own version of events. That's what people don't understand about this case, you don't have to be a certain color to open carry an assault weapon at a protest. Do I think this is wise? Not necessarily. Nevertheless, this is codified law. You can change the law, but to do so you first must abide by it and allow others to.

Before getting to the "first" physically aggressive action, the assault and attempted battery on Rittenhouse by the first deceased person, you must recognize there are two states a weapon can be in when one carries one on their person. Rest state and "ready state". A rifle slung on your back or pointed downward is not "ready state". Carrying it with both hands and your finger on or near the trigger, and obviously as well as pointing the barrel at a person where if fired would either strike them or nearby them, is "ready state". This is a very important factor in determining if one is reasonable in assuming they would soon be shot in an environment where guns are present and therefore not automatically a threat to life and limb.

You have two "groups" (though what's important to realize is the individual nature of offenses) utilizing their right to protest and publicly assemble, while yes, being armed. Free speech and provocative speech is generally allowed but there are exceptions that are (usually) made on a case-by-case basis. Inciting a riot, fire in a theater, etc. these are all vaguely defined and largely depend on the circumstances and reasonably assumable intentions of the defendant. If, and only if the Kyle Rittenhouse did not engage in assault (threatening, menacing, etc.) before himself becoming assaulted and nearly battered, the discharge of a weapon on a person who literally just got done assaulting and attempting to batter you before chasing you is not such a stretch from a justified homicide in an inherently chaotic and violent setting. Not one to speak ill of the dead but the guy shot has a record, not just criminally but mental health concerns as well. That doesn't look good for character or legal defense. I'm not saying it's right that he's no longer here or that he decided to fire upon him I'm saying a 17 year old does not have the ability to perform a mental health analysis and diagnosis whilst being attacked by unknown projectiles in an unfamiliar environment. When attacked, it is not a citizen's job to play psychiatrist or doctor in the heat of a moment assault when your life is threatened. It's a tragedy, perhaps a failure of the mental health or criminal justice system, nothing more. It's not so much about the degradation of the deceased's character more so about the circumstances and environment both men created leading up to the moment the weapon was discharged. Sure you could say since the guy was hospitalized for trying to kill himself, it only makes sense that if he doesn't value his own life, how could or why would he value the life of others, basically suggesting he tried to cause severe bodily harm to Rittenhouse by throwing a plastic bag of unknown items which could have been anything. Rocks, frozen water bottles, etc. if you're struck at the right spot at the right velocity you could end up unconscious, perhaps in a coma, fatal bleeding, TBI if you fall and your head stikes a rock, etc.

Huber's is a lot more complicated. Will expand on him and the third later but essentially it's like if a mob of people says an undercover/plain clothes cop just shot someone and he's a "mass shooter" with a fake badge. Who's really at fault. The people who believe they are acting in the scope of the law and the interests of the nation who fatally subdue him, or those who in turn let him go when he turns out to actually be a mass shooter and 50 people get killed at a nearby school. None of this is simple really.

In short, mistakes were made.

monarchs — baker

That's the other thing. One great man, a man of compassion, duty, bravery, power, all only used when appropriate.. one you wish to rule forever, never will. For such would be a hell in and of itself. There is no guarantee, in fact perhaps as some argue an inverse guarantee, that the successor (biological kid) would not be, in less adept terms, a shit. How can one have time to father a nation and his own child without neglecting one or the other. Man cannot serve two masters.

It's complicated. It doesn't take much effort to see both sides.

What if you were a non-criminally inclined third-world person, never hurt a man, always there to help, who was just sitting there in his shack only to have it blown up and his only child fatally wounded. The idea of this "better life" is a promise every nation makes. Sure perhaps to one-up each other and then be able to call the other out.

Then of course, if you send not just a person but tens of thousands of persons who don't speak your language, know nothing of your rules, laws, and customs, and perhaps have a few what many call "backwards customs" ie. arranged marriage, honor killings (not too dissimilar to duels in early America), what some say is oppression of women, etc. when the host nation does not have sufficient and most importantly successful "cultural integration procedures" (which due to Covid-19 is quite impossible) then of course the citizens will not take to that. Neither will the refugees feel comfortable nor will they be safe as the law is applied equally. So nobody actually benefits from this, except as you say, these potential external and malevolent forces acting in the interest of their own nation who are allegedly purposely sewing chaos in the lands of potential adversaries.

It's tough man. Real tough. Better than how it was before though, who can (appear to) be the kindest nation vs. who can really be the cruelest. We've come along way. Don't you agree?

Some argue that if we lived forever that the hardships of life would be greatly depreciated in value. — TiredThinker

There we go. FIFY. Some do. Some may be right.

But does its value largely come from its brevity, finitity, and frailty? — TiredThinker

Appreciation perhaps. That's potentially one reason roller coasters, skydiving, and bungee jumps are fun. Imagine driving and seeing an oncoming car swerve in your lane barely missing yours by inches, then careen off a cliff and blow up. You'd be pretty thankful now wouldn't you. Bet you'd go home and the next meal you ate would have just a bit more flavor.

Is the argument that life in the universe is only possible within like 0.0000001% of the history of the universe an argument for the value of life, or its insignificance, and likihood that it was more of a mistake? Surely its value is mostly in the experience of life and not the relative span of time? — TiredThinker

I feel some truths are self-evident.

Well the last thing I would want to be called is illogical.. if you say so. PM me your address, OP.

Sometimes you have to separate the art from the artist. Erm.. the decision from the person.

"Stupidity is possessing the ability to know better whilst, absent of undue burden, neglecting it. Without this ability, only ignorance remains."

Then again where does maliciousness come in. Somewhere between the two, or perhaps as a result of both.

Could you refute any of their wishes and look down on their decision, if their wishes to die are as rational from their eyes, as is the wish to go on living in the eyes of a person who wants to stay alive? And what free will does a human really have in this society if he doesn't have the right to die if he doesn't want to go on living? — Echoes

I'd probably egg on Person C for being such an ingrate in a world of suffering, strife, and low quality TV shows. Imagine how many people around the world would wish to live the life of Person C. A lot no doubt. So if not with a tinge of irony, Person C and to a variably lesser extent following the same line of reasoning and depending on the nature of the "rough hand", Person B.

Everyone has the "right to die" just not the Right to Die, for various legal reasons not the least of which would be abuse. Imagine forging a document with a signature that says something along the lines of "I wish to be killed by my co-worker with a bullet to the head while walking home from work but I want it to be random and unexpected so I have no fear". That's one way to get a promotion. Or an inheritance. The scenarios for abuse are endless, combined with the "freedom" factor to just print out legal documents and sign it between two parties on a whim without getting "the fascist state" involved basically and inevitably would evolve into being able to print out a Get Away with First Degree Murder Free card.

I mean, the horror of the realization that nobody will ever love or value me nearly as much as they do themselves. That in the end, myself, my life, and my hopes don't mean a shit to anybody else...that to them, I am just an object to be used in the achievement of their ends, and am otherwise utterly expendable. — Michael Zwingli

Well, when life gives you lemons you might as well make lemonade. Try and become a bodyguard for a head of state. Believe me, if you happen to be the last one left standing in the way between him and a bullet, you'll be worth more than the lives of potentially billions of people. At least, to the person responsible for the lives of said billions of people who asked him to be. Not a bad switcheroo.

There seems to be two prominent (not necessarily mutually exclusive) avenues of thought.

Biology, in short the more you do in life specifically the choices that result in a dopamine "net positive" aka reward are neural pathways that are "carved out" as an old instructor of mine would say.. the more you seem to "intrinsically" lean toward them. This could be essentially what that "gut feeling" is. Which makes sense as far as the whole evolutionary advantage process argument goes. Why would you not learn from your mistakes and successes and wish to either avoid or repeat them respectively from every fiber of your being? It would only be logical to assume that those who do would live longer, gain more rewards and avoid more hazards than someone who does not.

Or.. it could be something a bit more.. metaphysical. Spooky, even. Again we wouldn't know for certain if either is the case let alone mutually exclusive.

For some reason i imagined this being a great deal more fun than it really is. Oh well. Perhaps a lesson as consolation makes us both winners.

-OX
-XX
OXO

@praxis

--X
-X-
OXO

--X
-X-
--O

Tic. Tac. Toe. You. Me. Now. No fancy websites.

---
-X-
---

(please copy and paste the current game board and I will do so as well, thanks)

While I cannot confirm for certain, I harbor strong suspicions that "Hrvoje" is really just an alter ego of praxis. potentially one he's not aware of in his own mentality.

Mental health is bad for your social media. Really.

Remember Rome was begun by two brothers raised by a she wolve. — Athena

Eh, they sure as heck don't make she-wolves like they used to. Though maybe that's best for all involved.

I would but I fear interfering with the intellectual affection you've established and nurtured and have become accustomed to that is this belief you hold above all trials and triumphs of life. Nobody could be that heartless.

I'm curious if you still have that drive to read my entire opening post or not. — TranscendedRealms

I do. Though we're told, and though it may seem the opposite this is a bit less tongue-in-cheek than it sounds, to avoid massive walls of text or visuals due to the fact in may contain dangers, overt and covert, immediate, and long-term, detectable, and otherwise. Though I did skim through it.

"There is no right or wrong in one's eye until someone punches them in it"

Of course this is not so simple. What if you see a 5-alarm fire consuming a building that's in mid-collapse and believe two of your three children are inside. You may attempt to rush inside and the fireman won't stop you. Yet, you have a lifelong friend nearby who grabs you, punches you in said eye, and says "They're gone man. No one inside is alive. Think about little so and so." You may call this action wrong and he may call it right, yet these views can easily swap by any circumstance. Finding out they actually snuck out to go to a party a few hours before, or perhaps did perish and by attempting to save them you would have perished too leaving little so and so to yeah who knows. Or by choosing not to enter maybe little so and so grows up and due to your inability to cope is raised in a home of neglect and guilt and becomes the next mass shooter whereas if you would have went inside and perished he would have ended up adopted by a nice rich family and became a United States senator who manages to pass fire safety bills and enact new laws that cut fire-related fatalities by 35%. Who's to say what is right or wrong. It's a valid argument, really.

"What is the point of bliss through tragedy, appreciation of life through pain now alleviated, if pre-tragedy/pain I was just fine" seems to be a sentiment of your post.

I will need to come back to this one. I'll admit I've been up for quite some time and grow weary of molesting my keyboard. But just think of all the love songs. I'd rather feel something than nothing at all. What was it like when you were in love or got a new car or rode a roller coaster for the first time. You were ecstatic. Sure you were fine before, but there's a thrill of the dynamic of something that you didn't have before and therefore something that could be lost. And as Marchest de France de Leon (I made that up) once said "The Only Paradise is Paradise Lost".

Ironically if not as a poignant footnote, I had a really good quote that I came up with that I really wanted to share that I suddenly can't seem to remember. Such is life!

Edit: Or perhaps granted even in one's own mind, the thrill of conquering one's fear. We have many primal fears the most prevalent I believe we are in consensus with being death. Roller coasters can be terrifying at a young age or shoot probably any age. I was. Afterwards and after a few snacks, I was ready. And almost bored. So, perhaps this does- that's right I feel I'm almost back on track. To quote another "what is shocking at first, becomes boring and vacuous when repeated". This is true. Yet, do you regret the experience? The ability to now seek something greater? Doubtful. Curb your enthusiasm.

String theory, or perhaps a fancier word I can't think of that as you said describes "everything that can happen either has or will in an alternate dimension" theory.

Few paradoxes I can think of off the top of my head. The destruction of a universe or "the multiverse" as a whole. The possibility of someone transcending their universe and entering another one (like in the movie The One, pretty good btw more sci-fi than psychological thriller but it's there). Whatever started or "created" the universe, the idea of it "not happening" or happening in a dramatically different way such as a universe that is actually comprised of multiple universes or somehow "outside" the multiverse? These can all be, in my opinion, lazily disproven or made invalid by simply saying "that's not how it works" or these actions and their consequences are not included in "everything that can happen". Who knows. I'm no physicist.

What if, however. And bare with me now. The big bang/singularity actually occurred when one of these paradoxes occurred, due to it rather, thus resulting in a massive explosion that wiped out the old universe and created a new one, thus correcting the paradox. Perhaps in the old universe society advanced to interstellar travel, numerous advanced species interacting on an intergalactic scale, and nearly all scientific questions answered and adapted into devices and technology we can't even fathom. Then! Some scientists tried to push it further, perhaps there was talk of interplanetary war and sought the power to change spacetime and gain some kind of crazy military advantage that was then feasible. They succeeded alright.. they wiped out the enemy. And the entire universe in the process. This occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. We refer to this incident as the big bang or birth of the universe. But perhaps if it was simply it's death and rebirth? This is something we will never know. All I do know is, the more mankind plays God and coddles his science as it were alive, one day we may all pay a very dear price. Perhaps.. in an ironic twist of fate, ignorance is the only true way to save the planet, the galaxy, and entire universe. Who's to say.

Is man an imperialist being? If you've ever raised a child, this answer is painfully obvious. What you work hard and have struggled for to be able to make and give him are "his things" and if you ever attempt to show the difference between having and not having in a means to encourage effort or appreciation so that he could do the same himself someday, you are the enemy.

That portion of your house is no longer "your house" but his own. Though he likes to know your around, after he discovers a sense of identify, the realization there are some problems he cannot solve on his own yet before he begins to realize, perhaps he can.

Is a person, be they man or woman more likely to admire or want to get to know someone with a mansion and a yacht or a one bedroom apartment and a kayak they use on weekends. Sure perhaps the latter if the person can adequately diminish the value of the former but this is still casting dominion over a man and his being if not the world, not to say devaluing or removing the idea of success from possibility but devaluing the idea of objective failure from being unable to achieve what was originally desired thus increasing the value of an objectively lesser state of circumstance and life itself.

Wait, one can be crazy, and happy and contented also — boagie

Whether one holds a rational or irrational belief is contingent on the knowledge available and such a quality is independent from whether it is factual, absolute, transient, or not. None of these terms are mutually exclusive or intrinsic pairs. Followers of geocentrism used all the same standards, methods, and systems of rationality we have today, they were simply without the tools to see more than what was available. Were these men crazy? No they where brilliant scholars, the best of their time, more likely so than either you or I. The followers of heliocentrism were in fact the ones who held the correct belief, yet were labeled as crazy because no evidence to the contrary was presented due to the fact the tools to do so were simply unavailable.

What's actually crazy in my view is a man who thinks that in this world of violence, strife, and immense personal greed, who is actually aware the universe is populated with trillions of planets and many galaxies we cannot even see as well as phenomena that can only be "explained" in incomplete and half-assed manners (ie. black holes, they probably go somewhere, we think), can even muster the audacity to think he knows what happens after death let alone the full nature of life and existence, it's borderline insanity. It's disgusting. They need to be rounded up in the street and locked far away from our children who still have a chance at true knowledge that is only unlocked when we at least have the seed of faith that is.. perhaps there's more than what we see. This is what religious people shield society from, close-minded thinking. The repulsive and insidious lie that the entirety of all there is to ever know, see, or experience is dictated solely what can be observed from the first opening and final closing of one's eyes in life. This is the reality of an infant and I for one refuse to let an entire generation of young men and women remain stagnant in this backward minded thinking without as little as a shout.

But back to the question. An established term has established definitions and these are generally more or less accurate. At least good starting points.

Mental health is obvious. Having the willpower to avoid performing actions that violate whatever the hell the government says makes you crazy. Or in a more friendly way, the ability to function as an independent and productive adult and provide for oneself regardless of circumstance whilst avoiding extreme actions deemed dramatically counterproductive to a free society.

Emotional health can probably be likened to having a good time and positive mental attitude while doing so. More often that not, at least. Oh and smiles. Or at least recognizing the emotional states of others and genuinely feeling they have value. Not necessarily more so than yours but value just the same.

While it is my wholehearted belief that honest and intellectual effort resulting in coherent thought (as the introduction suggests) is the not only the spice of life but the fruit itself in disguise, would it be possible for you to summarize your prevalent sentiments or arguments, "your point" rather, in thumbnail, bullet points, etc?

I love stories. Stories have inspired men from dwelling in caves to orbiting the planet. I genuinely have the desire to read the post fully, and with any luck or perhaps chance I will. Though as the driving force, the oil in the machine as it were, as far as philosophy is questioning, I have one. How can one expect to believe you to grasp any concept you're attempting to convey, if it cannot be simplified (therefore assessed and understood while being assembled in a coordinated format) if you yourself cannot?

Imaginary innovation is by far the easiest to create and develop because the only limitation is the suspension of the audience’s disbelief, and that can be rather generous. — praxis

Is it really? People aren't stupid. At least we live in societies where we mutually benefit or suffer, burden sharing I believe is the term. There is no castle without a king. No collection without a collector, I suppose. And the darker sides of life are more than omnipresent enough to distinguish one who can alleviate them, if not at least in one's thoughts and mentality.

If a man can come to such a place and yes one could say trick, deceive, or con or as you say create "suspension of the audience's belief" does he not simply expose not only the vulnerabilities but further journey one has to travel as far as understanding? One that yes may be fraught with challenges and great risk, but also gilded with exciting and worthwhile challenges and opportunity for further learning and chances to conquer fear? I like to think so. Don't you?

Disagree. I think the OP is essentially asking about what matters. Does "building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand" really matter, or really lead to happiness? It certainly has the potential to lead to wisdom, at least wisdom in the Western sense. — praxis

Right but nobody is disagreeing with that, not even OP, though he may believe so. See by even questioning the value of that which is, OP becomes Hume, he becomes Socrates, and "Kneechee". All without even realizing it. OP has committed a first-degree murder of his premise with a smoking gun in his hand that he can't even see! Yet by simply demanding more out of who and where we're expected to learn from he places himself on an amazing path of discovery he can't even see! Who knows what fertile lands, green pastures, and lush oases OP has the potential of reaching without the distractions of rigid instructions from times past. Sure, these were brilliant and great men who advanced not only themselves but entire societies writ large. We would be fools to ignore them, at least the "trendy" meme-ified versions of their wisdom whilst scrolling through social media and living our modern lives. He came, he saw, he questioned. And that opens one to a plethora of contentment that few who conquer nations and people will ever know. For if all we know is to take what we can, how will we ever know how to receive what we otherwise could not? This is the reality of a small child, one that philosophy helps us break free from. OP may be wrong, entirely and indisputably. Yet his desire to question the works of others and at least acknowledge the possibility he and he alone may educate himself to the highest degree of learning, is what I believe, is the goal of any real philosopher who ever lived, which is simply in a word, freedom.

Where it becomes nonsense is if you'd start arguing that you're just as a good a tennis player as the professionals, but you just play by a different set of rules, and who's to say which rules are the ones we ought to follow. — Hanover

But is this not the true nature of philosophy at its core? To question the rules, the benefit, the efficiency, not to dismiss or belittle the gold standard but to explore it with the hopes of finding paths yet unseen to unlock the true future of a better tomorrow. Sure sometimes we'll fail, and we should expect to be criticized when we do, especially with such elevated and perhaps even omniscient sounding sentiments like we may perceive from the OP. But as iron sharpens iron only by making mistakes, I'm reminded of Thomas Edison. Great guy. Never met him but I use his stuff everyday. One of his better known quotes, that weren't womanizing and self-centered was "I have not failed. I have only discovered 10,000 ways that won't work". And he was right. Imagine the first person who discovered or rather invented the candle. He literally lit up the houses and lives as well as the hearts and minds of an entire generation. But what if we failed to stop questioning and criticizing then? The candle was perfect, flawless, it addressed every need that was once left unanswered. Yet we continued to criticize what was established, what worked, and what solved problems beyond sufficiency. This was not arrogance, or perhaps it was. But dang it through this negativity or perhaps simple failure to be placated by what already solved our needs we discovered that which was truly great and in my view vindicated any arrogance or ignorance in the process. For philosophy truly is the love of wisdom, and love is an open ended action that never ceases. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to run around my house and turn all my lights on and off in rapid succession like it was my first time discovering electricity.

Kudos, OP. I can honestly say and feel TPF is a better place for you having posted this thread. Cheers. Keep up the good work. Don't ever let them get you down, kid.

I just have to add in OP's defense. Who influenced the influencers? Sure, other influencers. But somewhere up the line... there was nobody. Or was there? This singularity in philosophy and knowledge through generations and studies will not go away. OP offers an answer to this singularity by embracing what all great men do. Being open to possibility, even if that possibility is your own. For is that not the essence of what freedom is? I'll be the first to admit the OP leaves much to be desired, blindly following the sentiments of the OP will likely lead to not only ignorance but a life unlived. But at least in my view, the OP is redeemed because it has the spark of true wisdom and philosophy that, if nurtured and exposed to the right intellectual catalyst will grow into a raging inferno of enlightenment and with any luck, happiness. A spark that is smothered when we fail to ask a simple question, that one almost futile-sounding one word protest to all that is reprehensible and undesirable in this world that is "Why?"

Thank you for endorsing this discussion, It really means a lot to me. — Average

Why do I feel a vague, possibly powerful, insidious sense of sarcasm lodged ever so craftily in these alleged sincere words. Perhaps my own frailties or manifested malfeasances reflected back at me are what I see. I'd almost hope so. Almost.

You have qualities of God, it is the other qualities that you equivalate with these that concern, believe it or not me more than you. Now, that is.

You're talking about a fictional character — Tom Storm

What will you be to those who come after you who never met you. A vague idea or visage that exists solely in faded photographs and annoying holiday conversations. You may create your own fiction, but others will create your reality long after you're unable to.

This is actually, perhaps unintentionally, a really good question. Does one who theoretically has the power to do anything really have free will? You can do anything so in theory you would, because why wouldn't you? But that's a whole can of worms for another day. The question that relates to us normal people in the here and now is since we do NOT have the ability to do ANYTHING and/or EVERYTHING at any given moment, does that give us freedom or take away freedom? Sounds like an easy answer or nonsense, but just think about it for a moment. Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.

That which either detracts from, balances, dissolves, or perhaps even adjudicates or "makes right" what we call ugly in this life. For most people this is an elegant painting, a well-sculpted statute, or I suppose more relevant today a nice designer phone case or hot chick I guess. For some this is not any of these traditional things. Beauty could be found in a discarded meal tray crawling with maggots and flies, for this shows that all things have purpose and the destruction of the old and no longer usable only helps make room for the new and fresh. Something like that. Right? Somebody help me out here.

First, well secondly rather I heard this was a controversial thread due to certain remarks from positions of authority. I'm eager after posting my, as you said or seem to be advocating for, "uninfluenced" or "organic" reply to your OP, to delve through and see what deviltry lies within. It's like, why can't they just use sock accounts like every moderator on basically every other forum anywhere? I don't know. Nextly I suppose, anyone who incorporates my new favorite word "benighted" into their dialog is a good person in my book. It's so.. mentally captivating. Imagine, someone you disagree with who you believe ignorant is not just "stupid" or "dumb" or "a moron" they are, as the word suggests overtaken by, nay- shrouded in darkness. As if everywhere they go this darkness just follows them and negatively affects every person or thing around them, which is exactly what happens minus the cool visuals. But I digress.

I think the first sentence in your OP pretty much sums up any larger point expressed and frankly simultaneously answers any potential controversial replies or criticisms (which I can't wait to see) of said OP. Generally speaking when I was in my late teens I ordered pretty much every philosophy book around. I ended up reading very few and remembering even less. Or did I? The one book I remember was Philosophy for Dummies, not only because it was so simple and easy to digest, well perhaps that was why. But it also highlighted or outlined certain "de facto" rules or common avenues of philosophical thought in a clear and easy to follow format that offered mainstream views on each "item" or idea as well as fun anecdotes and "what ifs" that really made me actualize the philosophical thought process .Without this turning into a product review, some books are a great starting point.

That said. I don't think anybody is arguing a mentally sufficient person devoid of any books or even modern education would be unable to be a brilliant philosopher or an otherwise incredibly educated and learned person with more wisdom to share than they have the time to.

Edit: After re-reading your OP (and still without looking through the discussion) I gather your prominent assertion is the value of non-Western (which one would assume would be Eastern) philosophy over Western philosophy, casting Western philosophy as "much ado about very little". Am I somewhat on the money here?

From what little disciplines and mainstream knowledge I have about both types (which you encourage and say is good, right?) it would seem, and correct me at any moment for the slightest reason, Buddhism/Eastern philosophy is about tackling the problems of life by humility and casting life as something designed to be difficult and by investing one's time and being into it only causes harm to one's happiness or life whereas Western philosophy states the opposite that it only happens to be difficult and by investing one's time and being we alleviate these difficulties if not for ourselves but for others who come after us. Something like that?

It's not that complicated really. You can have the same discussions and reach the same conclusions just they don't really matter that much when your wrong or even if not especially when you're right for that matter. Nihilism is the true dark shadow of religious faiths in my opinion. The "bastid" child of religion and philosophy that nobody told was actually adopted and not related to either that decided to move in to both homes at once without asking and now refuses to pay rent whilst simultaneously decreasing the property values of both.

The Aztecs for example tried to placate the gods with sacrifices to ensure a successful harvest but these days those kinds of practices are seen as barbaric by many. — Average

Necessity, much like ignorance, is not a constant but a circumstantial.. circumstance. The four year old child may be unaware of the next logical step in a basic mathematical equation just as the forty year old professor may be unaware of the next logical step in a complex equation that describes complex nuclear fission.

We all want things. We act based on what we deem is the most efficient way to get them. For example, you probably placate your hunger and various cravings with unhealthy food and other substances, as do I. I forget my point, though as you hold this discussion to be fruitful or at least of some purpose no matter how vague or minute, so do I with this post.

I like this guy. He has a question or concern so does his research and goes to an appropriate place and attempts to ask those who would be qualified enough to provide a solution.

So basically you hold the notion that perception and subjectivity is as close to truth as we can get to the absolute nature of the universe, which has been right (fire is hot) though has also been wrong (the Sun appears to revolve around us) whereas the other guy desires to place the absolute nature of truth and reality outside of what our senses can perceive. There are benefits and consequences for each viewpoint.

I'm the drunk guy, and I hope you guys will be fair. — Troll hunter

Just buy the pizza. If you can afford the booze what's a few dollars spent on someone whom you deemed worth consuming not only your time but ours as well.

I think we can do better than references and reasonable claims especially when it comes to important life or death questions. — Average

Well then by all means, the floor is yours. You think you say, which predicates or at least opens the possibility of an action. An action whose consequences and benefits you will undoubtedly take note of and either file under 'successful' or 'to be avoided'. Of course, most things in life are not single actions but rather chain reactions that lead to an understanding few will discover. Patience is a fleeting trait of the modern human. Perhaps by design. And looking around at all the readily-accessible tools of wholesale destruction, perhaps not a moment too soon at that.

In other words we have no way of knowing how many lives would be saved or how many lives would be sacrificed. We also have no way of knowing who would be saved and who would die. — Average

Precisely. :smile:

As you've alluded to we have references and reasonable enough claims, at least in comparison to others. Nothing more. Nothing less. The charm that is the mystery of life. I suggest programming languages and mathematics to satisfy this need for certainty you have. Besides, it may not be life, but it sure has a mark on it.

Personally I think that trial and error is a bad idea. For example let’s suppose that you try something and it turns out to be deadly like putting radium in make up for example. Is that really the best way to solve our problems? — Average

Perhaps, perhaps not. Better the devil you know, I suppose. Not many new choices or other tools in the arsenal let alone a magic bullet. Scientific experimentation (trial and error) or observational comparison, which is still science (ie. people who eat fast food daily often become obese and have increased likelihood to suffer from health complications therefore fast food is unhealthy and causes said complications).

I doubt that you would want to be one of the soldiers or one of the patients that would be used as a guinea pig to test all of the experimental tactics and strategies or medicines and surgeries. — Average

Generally no, though when I'm feeling invigoratingly pious I do revel at the thought or opportunity of sacrificing myself to save others or for some greater good. At least people I like or who otherwise continue to benefit causes or concerns that I deem important long after I would no longer be able to. Don't you?