For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Do daleks qualify for sainthood? If not they really need to make an exception in your case.Dalek Prime wrote: But I care about it from an ethical standpoint, because I care about suffering. And that which doesn't exist can't suffer.
Who is being forced not to exist exactly? Do tell.marjoram_blues wrote:One of the assumptions presented is that the universe doesn't need beings. Again, how do you know this. Henry raised a reasonabe objection. Your response doesn't hold up. It may not have needed beings in the beginning. However, right now - there are sentient beings in the universe. How do you know that such 'energy' ( positive and negative ) is not required for growth and development of stated universe.Dalek Prime wrote:The universe doesn't require it, as you suggest. If it did, it would have began consciousness from it's inception. As to you liking it, that's because you exist, and can't imagine otherwise.henry quirk wrote:"You haven't offered on legitimate defense, besides being defensive. None of you have."
Sure I have, you can't see it cuz your head is buried in your own peculiar philo-hole.
Again: I like being alive. I like every pleasure, pain, success, failure, and on and on. I find living preferable to not living. What other defense do I need?
Your position, 'I would have no consciousness in the universe', you defend how? With this, 'Because the universe...doeesn't require it', despite the fact it is the very workings of reality, the universe, that give rise to life.
Not really seein' how your view is on firmer ground than mine.
Example. If you had no concept of candy, fruit, or sweet, would you sit around, pining for a candy apple? You know of it, so you automatically pine for it (consciousness, that is). And fuck off with your assumptions of my thought processes, or lack thereof. Just discuss this rationally, or piss off.
By insisting on there being absolute nonexistence, this theory could result in the universe failing to thrive. A dying universe. Way to go.
Forced nonexistence is not shown to be either morally or rationally better than the alternative.To use future sentient suffering as a justification for universal and absolute nonexistence is unreasonable, with a more than a hint of madness.
I'm neither a martyr nor a saint, Harbal. I just care about people, perhaps too much.Harbal wrote:Do daleks qualify for sainthood? If not they really need to make an exception in your case.Dalek Prime wrote: But I care about it from an ethical standpoint, because I care about suffering. And that which doesn't exist can't suffer.
That's right, Dalek, you can't allow the Universe to suffer like this, think of your ethical principles.marjoram_blues wrote:this theory could result in the universe failing to thrive. A dying universe.
That's why I asked you earlier that, if you had no concept of candy, or fruit, or sweet, would you pine for it. Clearly not. And something that has no concept of pleasure or life doesn't pine for that. Again, were you waiting in the aether, pining for a life? Of course not.henry quirk wrote:And that which doesn't exist can't experience joy or pleasure or love or accomplishment either, and these events or states are just as plausible, possible, as suffering.
Again: not seeing that your footing is any firmer than mine.
The universe is not conscious, and thus does not suffer, thrive or not.Harbal wrote:That's right, Dalek, you can't allow the Universe to suffer like this, think of your ethical principles.marjoram_blues wrote:this theory could result in the universe failing to thrive. A dying universe.
Yes, I remember thinking that about you round about the time you called me a fuckwad on the other thread. What is that, by the way?Dalek Prime wrote:I just care about people, perhaps too much.
A fuckwad? Jism. Semen.Harbal wrote:Yes, I remember thinking that about you round about the time you called me a fuckwad on the other thread. What is that, by the way?Dalek Prime wrote:I just care about people, perhaps too much.
Does a rock suffer, marjoram? Neither does the universe. Why? Again, because they have no awareness. Stop anthropomorphising the universe.marjoram_blues wrote:Dalek - nice avoidance. Get back to the poor universe which you would have devoid of beings
OK, I'll take that into consideration when I come to a decision on what I'm going to do with you.Dalek Prime wrote: I always mean my insults in a caring, humane vein. Nothing personal.
Hey, stop telling me what to do - it was your logical universe which started all this.Dalek Prime wrote:Does a rock suffer, marjoram? Neither does the universe. Why? Again, because they have no awareness. Stop anthropomorphizing the universe.marjoram_blues wrote:Dalek - nice avoidance. Get back to the poor universe which you would have devoid of beings
And stop trolling with stupid questions.
Let me help you there. In the control panel is a blocking mechanism. Paste my name, and presto...Harbal wrote:OK, I'll take that into consideration when I come to a decision on what I'm going to do with you.Dalek Prime wrote: I always mean my insults in a caring, humane vein. Nothing personal.
Go jump in a lake.marjoram_blues wrote:Hey, stop telling me what to do - it was your logical universe which started all this.Dalek Prime wrote:Does a rock suffer, marjoram? Neither does the universe. Why? Again, because they have no awareness. Stop anthropomorphizing the universe.marjoram_blues wrote:Dalek - nice avoidance. Get back to the poor universe which you would have devoid of beings
And stop trolling with stupid questions.