Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote:I can't help it if people keep quoting a book they don't bother to read.

It's no good blaming them, it's the idiots who do read it who are at fault.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's odd that so many posts begin with unsupported bizarre or idiosyncratic assertions.

What's odd about it? To say it is odd seems like an unsupported, bizarre assertion, but at least it's not really idiosyncratic.

Skip wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Adam and Eve were created as God was. God didn't procreate (except with Mary, down the road). The fruitful/multiply stuff came after the sin.

Nope. This is chapter one. The sin doesn't come till after the second version, and Eve's punishment is not procreation itself, but the pain of procreation. The inconvenient material is relevant and very much in context. I can't help it if people keep quoting a book they don't bother to read.

I stand corrected. In all fairness, I didn't quote the book directly. Everything I've said before this though, I stand by.

Dalek Prime wrote: You think challenge and struggle is a good thing...

You've added on the word "struggle" to what I said. There are many different kinds of struggle... and I don't think challenge necessarily requires "struggle". So you're adding your own grumpy stuff into this. Without challenge, you are a bump on a log. There's no need for life or growth in that case. Playing a game requires challenge. Do you like games? Aren't some games really fun and engaging and invigorating and skill-building? For some people (like me), life is like that! It's not this gloomy, boring experience of unrelenting toil and punishment. You need to dance a bit! Strip off your clothes and run naked through the wild grasses... twirl around under the sun... make love under the stars... smile and laugh. These experiences are available too.

Harbal wrote:

Skip wrote:I can't help it if people keep quoting a book they don't bother to read.

It's no good blaming them, it's the idiots who do read it who are at fault.

Didn't blame anyone for anything. Merely attempting to set the record straight for my own comfort: I dislike arguing about something that undefined or misidentified. It was you who mistakenly attributed the invention of [?human] sexuality to Satan - who does not appear in the text at all; it's just a serpent.
Gen III - 1

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

They had sex, they just didn't see anything wrong with it.

Lacewing wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: You think challenge and struggle is a good thing...

You've added on the word "struggle" to what I said. There are many different kinds of struggle... and I don't think challenge necessarily requires "struggle". So you're adding your own grumpy stuff into this. Without challenge, you are a bump on a log. There's no need for life or growth in that case. Playing a game requires challenge. Do you like games? Aren't some games really fun and engaging and invigorating and skill-building? For some people (like me), life is like that! It's not this gloomy, boring experience of unrelenting toil and punishment. You need to dance a bit! Strip off your clothes and run naked through the wild grasses... twirl around under the sun... make love under the stars... smile and laugh. These experiences are available too.

You should know me better than that by now, Lacewing. I'm an antinatalist, and there is no need for life in the universe. If that's not so, do tell me what the universe needs it for? And don't just say it must need life, because life is in the universe. That's just fallacious.

Seriously. How much time do you personally spend dancing and prancing in the sun, on your own time, compared to your work time for others?

Lacewing wrote:Strip off your clothes and run naked through the wild grasses...

I don't recommend it. The last time I did that I was thrown out of the garden centre and got a visit from the police.

Dalek Prime wrote: I'm an antinatalist, and there is no need for life in the universe.

Why must there be a need in order for something to be... or in order for there to be value?

Harbal wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Strip off your clothes and run naked through the wild grasses...

I don't recommend it. The last time I did that I was thrown out of the garden centre and got a visit from the police.

A shame, really. Lots of nitrogen in pee.

Lacewing wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: I'm an antinatalist, and there is no need for life in the universe.

Why must there be a need in order for something to be... or in order for there to be value?

There doesn't need to be a need. We and other unnecessary things exist anyways. But if it's not necessary, why bring more into the fray? Isn't your own life satisfactory enough without creating others to dance naked? They won't miss it. And they certainly won't miss the crap that goes with it.

Value is a quantity for the living. Not for that which has never been. Tell me, before you existed, what did you value about life? Did you look forward to being conceived? I'm not being facetious asking this. I'm quite serious.

Skip wrote: Lacewing already brought the story out of context...

Well my point isn't actually about a particular story -- which would simply end up in argument about story details. Rather, I'm referring to an attitude, which surely isn't unfamiliar, in regard to the "evil" assigned to those who extend beyond traditional ideas of what is commanded by god. Any religion or story will do. I just picked a simple example. Sorry if it wasn't factual enough. My focus is on the title of this thread... and I do believe it's a valid observation.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's odd that so many posts begin with unsupported bizarre or idiosyncratic assertions.

Is there any other kind?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Maybe I should ask you; why are you demeaning women by using the phrase "MANkind"?

I often use the word humankind, only to have some jackass complain that it's inappropriate. Why are you focused on being critical instead of contributing intelligently to the discussion?

Dalek Prime wrote:Isn't your own life satisfactory enough without creating others to dance naked? They won't miss it.

Actually, in my case, it is the onlookers who won't miss it.

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Isn't your own life satisfactory enough without creating others to dance naked? They won't miss it.

Actually, in my case, it is the onlookers who won't miss it.

Bugger the rest, Harbal. All that matters is the enjoyment you derive from it. Same for the rest of us... (our enjoyment, not yours lol! )

Dalek Prime wrote: But if it's not necessary, why bring more into the fray?

Why must there be a value judgment of necessity in order for there to be life... spreading its little heart out? Why must there be a point to anything?

Dalek Prime wrote: Isn't your own life satisfactory enough without creating others to dance naked?

Sure... but if I can be creative, why not? I don't have to, but why does that mean I shouldn't?

Dalek Prime wrote: Tell me, before you existed, what did you value about life? Did you look forward to being conceived? I'm not being facetious asking this. I'm quite serious.

"I" wasn't. And I'm guessing that "I" still am not. The "I" is just an illusion of a collective dance of energy. It doesn't need to have purpose. Nothing is necessary... so what? Everything is possible. If you don't want to play because you don't like the "non rules" or lack of necessity, then you don't have to. Or, like a lot of people, you can make up rules to pretend by. It's all available.

Lacewing wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: But if it's not necessary, why bring more into the fray?

Why must there be a value judgment of necessity in order for there to be life... spreading its little heart out? Why must there be a point to anything?
Because you are making someone else struggle with pointlessness, by creating them. It's not right or ethical.

Dalek Prime wrote: Isn't your own life satisfactory enough without creating others to dance naked?

Sure... but if I can be creative, why not? I don't have to, but why does that mean I shouldn't?
Be creative with your own existence. That's cool. But not with another's. Again, it's not right or ethical.

Dalek Prime wrote: Tell me, before you existed, what did you value about life? Did you look forward to being conceived? I'm not being facetious asking this. I'm quite serious.

"I" wasn't. And I'm guessing that "I" still am not. The "I" is just an illusion of a collective dance of energy. It doesn't need to have purpose. Nothing is necessary... so what? Everything is possible. If you don't want to play because you don't like the "non rules" or lack of necessity, then you don't have to. Or, like a lot of people, you can make up rules to pretend by. It's all available. I neither have the urge to kill myself, fuck you very much, nor have I the urge to fool myself.

By the way, you do exist. There is an 'I' in you. You are conscious. I don't care what the Buddha says about it.

Oh look, here's Nick_A to tell us that what blind deniers and blind whatever-else-the-fuck we are lol! ... Well, he was here a second ago....