Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:13 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 10:42 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 10:02 am Christianity is society's dumpster.

Islam is the sword of the dispossessed.

Judaism is for those God chooses.

Buddhism is for those of us who give up on life and don't want to come back to it.

Confucianism is for those who want to do well in life.

Hinduism is theological multiculturalism, maybe?

Atheism is for learned people.

Agnosticism is truth.

Okay.

Are these the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truths, of Life?

Or, are these just "gary childress's" OWN views and opinions, ONLY, here?

Yes.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Either this one BELIEVES that 'they' ARE BOTH, OR, "gary childress", AGAIN, has NOT READ and COMPREHENDED the VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY QUESTIONS that I ASKED, above here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:17 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 10:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:41 am Life is for the successful and industrious. And considering that our society doesn't believe in punishing the lazy and incompetent. It's the duty of those of us who are lazy and incompetent to punish ourselves.

If 'this' is what you BELIEVE is true, then okay. But, HOW, exactly, are you so-called "lazy and incompetent ones" going to punish "yourselves", and in 'WHAT WAY', exactly?

Firstly, if you are REALLY "lazy and incompetent", then you will NOT BE ABLE TO punish "yourselves".

Secondly, even if you could, then in 'WHAT WAY/S' WILL you punish "yourselves", exactly?

That's a good question.

Which ONE, EXACTLY? I ASKED you three.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:17 am Maybe I can solicit your help.

To do 'what', EXACTLY?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:17 am Do you work for free?

That all depends on what you 'class' as 'work', exactly?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:38 am When Age won't even converse with you, then you know things have gotten really bad.

Okay.

But, WHEN have I NOT conversed WITH you?

Were/are you EXPECTING me to be on line, here, ALWAYS, for you?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:43 am Virtue to a wicked person is chasing everyone else away.

There are NO such things as a 'wicked person' NOR a 'non wicked person'. Just like there are NO 'good' NOR 'bad' people, AT ALL.

Which is, OBVIOUSLY, CONTRARY to the POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this is being written.

What ACTUALLY EXISTS IS DIFFERENT.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:46 am Virtue for the sick is going down with the ship.
Virtue for the healthy is seeking to be wealthy.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL 'thing', which backs up and supports this view or BELIEF of yours, here?

If yes, then WILL you PROVIDE it, or them?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 12:11 pm A friend told me about this interview a few years back. It kind of speaks to my mood right now.


Sacha Baron interviews Noam Chomsky

What mood were you in when you wrote that?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 3:54 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:12 am It's better to do nothing at all than to do evil.

So, to you it is better to not do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, like breathing and sleeping, for example, then it is to do evil.

Also, how are you defining the 'evil' word, here, EXACTLY?

Age. Are you unable to use an internet dictionary or google for definitions? When someone says something, are you not able to consult a dictionary to find out what is meant by the word or phrase they are using? That's what I usually do when I don't know what a word or phrase means. From there you can argue with the person based on the official definition of the word they are using.

Evil might be defined as "something profoundly immoral". "Profoundly" generally means "extreme" or beyond what is normal, average or expected. So my phrase above would translate roughly as:

"It's better to do nothing at all than to do something extremely immoral."

Do you agree with that statement?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:07 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 3:54 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:12 am It's better to do nothing at all than to do evil.

So, to you it is better to not do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, like breathing and sleeping, for example, then it is to do evil.

Also, how are you defining the 'evil' word, here, EXACTLY?

Age. Are you unable to use an internet dictionary or google for definitions?

NO.

Are you ABLE TO INFORM the readers, here, of what the DEFINITIONS you USE, for the words that you USE, here?

Oh, and by the way, VERY, VERY RARELY do others HAVE and USE the EXACT SAME 'definitions' that you HAVE, and USE.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:07 am When someone says something, are you not able to consult a dictionary to find out what is meant by the word or phrase they are using?

WHY are you ASKING, more or less, the EXACT SAME QUESTION, TWICE?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:07 am That's what I usually do when I don't know what a word or phrase means.

Okay. BUT, have you EVER LEARNT that 'the way' you DEFINE A 'word' is DIFFERENT FROM HOW others DEFINE the EXACT SAME WORD?

If you DID, then you would be PARTLY AWARE of the, EXACT, reason WHY you human beings MISS and MISUNDERSTAND SO MUCH. EXACTLY LIKE you ARE, here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:07 am From there you can argue with the person based on the official definition of the word they are using.

HA HA HA

you, OBVIOUSLY, have NOT YET 'looked up' the so-called 'official definition' for the word 'argue' word.

BECAUSE IF you HAD, THEN you WOULD NOT HAVE SAID and WRITTEN WHAT you JUST DID, here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:07 am Evil might be defined as "something profoundly immoral".

OBVIOUSLY, you MISS and MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL and OFFICIAL CLARIFYING QUESTION that I ACTUALLY ASKED you, above here.

Here, I WILL REPEAT IT FOR you:
How are you defining the 'evil' word, here, EXACTLY?

WHICH MEANS, I DO NOT WANT how the 'evil' MIGHT BE defined.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN BY 'my question' TO 'you',

I AM SEEKING, HOW 'you', "gary childress" ARE, EXACTLY, defining the word 'evil', WHERE you WROTE and USED 'that word' in 'that sentence', above here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:07 am "Profoundly" generally means "extreme" or beyond what is normal, average or expected. So my phrase above would translate roughly as:

"It's better to do nothing at all than to do something extremely immoral."

WHY did you DEFINE the 'profoundly' word and NOT the 'immoral' word?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:07 am Do you agree with that statement?

NO.

And, for the OBVIOUS FACT, which I OBVIOUSLY POINTED OUT and SHOWED you IN my VERY FIRST sentence, which you QUOTED, and are RESPONDING TO, here. It is BETTER to be ALIVE, than BE what you call DEAD. As 'you', BEING HERE, is LIVING PROOF of this Fact.

AGAIN, TO "gary childress", it is BETTER to NOT eat, to NOT sleep, and to NOT even breathe, and thus just end up, as they would say, DEAD, than to do something so-called 'extremely immoral'. 'This' is correct, right?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 8:42 am It is BETTER to be ALIVE, than BE what you call DEAD. As 'you', BEING HERE, is LIVING PROOF of this Fact.

Yes. I think you are right.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 10:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 8:42 am It is BETTER to be ALIVE, than BE what you call DEAD. As 'you', BEING HERE, is LIVING PROOF of this Fact.

Yes. I think you are right.

GREAT.

So, now that 'we' have SETTLED and AGREED that it is ACTUALLY BETTER to DO SOME thing than it is to do 'something profoundly, or extremely, immoral', 'we' can 'now' move along, here.

But, if you, still, ONLY 'think' that I am right, and are, still, NOT YET SURE, 'we' can have a further discussion, if you like.

Either way 'we' are YET to CLARIFY, ABSOLUTELY, 'the things', which ARE 'evil', FROM 'the things', which are NOT.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:12 am It's better to do nothing at all than to do evil.

It is better to hold it in than to fart in an elevator.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:12 am It's better to do nothing at all than to do evil.

It is better to hold it in than to fart in an elevator.

explain to everyone that it was predetermined

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:12 am It's better to do nothing at all than to do evil.

It is better to hold it in than to fart in an elevator.

explain to everyone that it was predetermined

-Imp

That won't make it smell any better to them.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:12 am It's better to do nothing at all than to do evil.

It is better to hold it in than to fart in an elevator.

Okay.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:12 am It's better to do nothing at all than to do evil.

It is better to hold it in than to fart in an elevator.

explain to everyone that it was predetermined

-Imp

The 'thought', 'It is better to hold it [a fart] in than to fart in an elevator', IS/WAS 'predetermined' by the 'past experiences' of 'that body', in which 'that thought' is/was in, hitherto the moment of 'that thought' arising, because if 'that body' had lived in different places and/or different times where 'farting' was not such an 'issue' or where there were no elevators, for example, then 'that thought' would not have arisen. And, the CHOICE to actually fart, or not, is/was also 'predetermined', AS WELL.