Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2024 6:56 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 6:05 am
Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:38 pm Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Is ... rs_Immoral
I wonder if he asked about his use of computers/internet, which he used when asking the question:

The problem with this kind of reply is that it invites the response "Yes, the use of computers is immoral for the same kind of reasons the use of fossil-fueled cars is." That is presumably not what you want to hear. Wouldn't it be better to address his argument directly?

Posted: **Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am**

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 6:23 am
LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 10:12 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 7:25 am

Are you asking me a question here, or are you making a claim/statement, with a question mark added, maybe accidentally or not?

Also, you asked me, 'Therefore, it does not exist, right?'

I answered, 'No', which ultimately means, to me, that 'it does exist'. Just in case you were not sure.

But, what is also obvious here is that what you are referring to and perceiving as 'it' might be some thing that I have yet to consider or just be some thing completely different to what I am considering.
Thanks for the clarification.

Do you have any examples of an "existing" moral concept that "every one can agree with and accept"?
Yes, but by 'existing' this could be a point of contention here.

See, to me, there is an already 'existing knowing' within every human being.
However, this already existing 'knowing' is, still only, 'unconsciously known' by most human beings, in the days when this is being written.
Human beings can only 'know' some thing 'consciously' after they have learned/experienced that thing.
So, if one has not, yet, experienced, nor learned, a 'moral concept' they may not 'consciously know' it, but 'deep down's, as it is sometimes referred to, they 'know' it, unconsciously.

For example, every human being knows it is Wrong to kill animals, when it is unnecessary to. (But, if someone thinks or believes that it is okay or all right to kill animals, then please speak up and tell 'us' how and/or why it is.)

Therefore, what this means is that every one 'knows', unconsciously, that it is a 'morally Wrong concept' to eat animals. Although, and obviously, lots of human beings in the days when this is being written will try to 'justify' and/or 'rationalize' otherwise. And, if absolutely anyone would like to try to, then let us have a full, open, and honest discussion here.

There are, by the way, other examples of moral concepts that 'every one can, and do, agree with and accept'..

Sorry, illogical. Right now 6% of Americans hunt animals (over 14 million individuals). The number who NEED to hunt, for food is almost zero. Thus the vast majority do so for "sport", which is another way to say: for "fun". We both agree that hunters consciously think killing animals is NOT wrong, but you're saying that they unconsciously believe it is wrong, but they haven't yet "learned" that it's wrong. The logical problem with this view is that you decide what is right and wrong, then describe those who agree and disagree with your assessment as either consciously agreeing with you or unconsciously agreeing (if they, in fact, disagree). Shazam! Everyone agrees! Using your technique one could just as easily "prove" the exact opposite of anything you'd care to propose.

Posted: **Sun Jun 16, 2024 7:32 am**

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 6:23 am
LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 10:12 pm

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you have any examples of an "existing" moral concept that "every one can agree with and accept"?
Yes, but by 'existing' this could be a point of contention here.

See, to me, there is an already 'existing knowing' within every human being.
However, this already existing 'knowing' is, still only, 'unconsciously known' by most human beings, in the days when this is being written.
Human beings can only 'know' some thing 'consciously' after they have learned/experienced that thing.
So, if one has not, yet, experienced, nor learned, a 'moral concept' they may not 'consciously know' it, but 'deep down's, as it is sometimes referred to, they 'know' it, unconsciously.

For example, every human being knows it is Wrong to kill animals, when it is unnecessary to. (But, if someone thinks or believes that it is okay or all right to kill animals, then please speak up and tell 'us' how and/or why it is.)

Therefore, what this means is that every one 'knows', unconsciously, that it is a 'morally Wrong concept' to eat animals. Although, and obviously, lots of human beings in the days when this is being written will try to 'justify' and/or 'rationalize' otherwise. And, if absolutely anyone would like to try to, then let us have a full, open, and honest discussion here.

There are, by the way, other examples of moral concepts that 'every one can, and do, agree with and accept'..
Sorry, illogical.

'We' will wait, to see.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am Right now 6% of Americans hunt animals (over 14 million individuals). The number who NEED to hunt, for food is almost zero. Thus the vast majority do so for "sport", which is another way to say: for "fun".

Which is what is, consciously, Truly illogical, and Totally barbaric, to some.

Let 'us' not forget that burning so-called "witches" and/or watching human beings getting eating alive by lions was also some thing 'done for fun', by human beings, in days long gone. Just like the so-called 'hunting', and killing of animals was 'done for fun', back in the very, very 'olden days', when this was being written.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am We both agree that hunters consciously think killing animals is NOT wrong,

I think this only in regards to before those "killers" have been questioned and challenged, and they have been Totally open and honest.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am but you're saying that they unconsciously believe it is wrong, but they haven't yet "learned" that it's wrong.

I would not use the 'believe' word, and if you had replaced that word with the 'know' word, then yes, this is more or less, exactly, what I am saying here.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am The logical problem with this view is that you decide what is right and wrong, then describe those who agree and disagree with your assessment as either consciously agreeing with you or unconsciously agreeing (if they, in fact, disagree).

But, there is, literally, no 'problem' at all here.

Also, and furthermore, when you Ali's know how to arrive at what is, actually universal or objectively, Right, and Wrong, in Life, as well, then you also see that there is no 'problem', illogical or not, here, at all.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am Shazam! Everyone agrees! Using your technique one could just as easily "prove" the exact opposite of anything you'd care to propose.

But, your whole way of 'looking' and 'seeing' here is not logical at all. As, what you have just proposed here has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am actually talking about, and meaning.

What you are talking about here is nothing I have even thought about, let alone proposing is the way things be done.

Posted: **Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:15 am**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 6:05 am
Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:38 pm Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Is ... rs_Immoral
I wonder if he asked about his use of computers/internet, which he used when asking the question:

Direct Environmental Impacts
Energy Consumption: 1) Electricity Usage: Operating computers, data centers, and network infrastructure requires significant amounts of electricity, often generated from fossil fuels, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. 2) Cooling Requirements: Data centers need extensive cooling systems to maintain optimal temperatures, which further increases energy consumption.

Resource Extraction: 1) Raw Materials: Computers and electronic devices require various metals and minerals (e.g., rare earth elements, gold, silver, copper) that need to be mined, leading to habitat destruction, soil erosion, and water contamination. 2) Water Usage: Mining and manufacturing processes consume large quantities of water, contributing to water scarcity in some regions.

Manufacturing Impacts: 1)Chemical Pollution: The production of electronic components involves hazardous chemicals that can pollute air, water, and soil if not properly managed. 2) Carbon Footprint: Manufacturing processes emit significant amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

E-Waste:
1) Disposal Issues: Electronic waste contains toxic substances (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium) that can leach into the environment if not properly recycled. 2) Resource Wastage: Valuable materials in e-waste are often not recovered, leading to inefficient use of resources.

Indirect Environmental Impacts
Infrastructure Development: 1) Land Use: Construction of data centers, communication networks, and other infrastructure can lead to habitat destruction and land-use changes. 2) Resource Consumption: Building and maintaining this infrastructure requires significant materials and energy.

Operational Emissions:
1) Internet Usage: Streaming services, cloud computing, and other online activities increase the load on data centers, leading to higher energy consumption and associated emissions. 2) Transportation: The logistics involved in distributing electronic products (from manufacturing to end-users) contribute to transportation-related emissions.

Supply Chain Impacts: 1) Global Logistics: The international nature of electronic supply chains means that environmental impacts are distributed globally, including emissions from shipping and air transport. 2) Manufacturing Locations: Many electronic devices are manufactured in countries with less stringent environmental regulations, leading to higher pollution levels.

Electromagnetic Interference: The proliferation of wireless devices and networks can cause electromagnetic pollution, potentially affecting wildlife.

The cumulative energy consumption and emissions from the IT sector contribute significantly to global climate change.
Resource Depletion: 1) The extraction and consumption of finite natural resources for electronic production contribute to resource depletion and environmental degradation. 2) Biodiversity Loss: Habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change driven by the IT sector's environmental footprint contribute to the loss of biodiversity.

But just hang in bed surfing the intenet on one’s IPAD, isnt that still better than driving around in a car from a Greta POW? Aint saying that surfing is all that clean.

Posted: **Sun Jun 16, 2024 12:08 pm**

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:15 am But just hang in bed surfing the intenet on one’s IPAD, isnt that still better than driving around in a car from a Greta POW? Aint saying that surfing is all that clean.

The direct effects of you hanging in bed surfing are less. But the process of making that device and supporting surfing, which involves all sorts of manufacturing, mining, server plants and so on, goes beyond what you're doing lying in bed. I don't really know the full effects of the various metals and chemicals that support surfing, but I would guess that, yes, the individual surfer is doing less harm than the average driver. But the OP makes the argument that we should stop doing what causes harm. I don't think it mentions how much harm, and the irony that the mode in which this person spread his message also does harm (or relies and creates a demand harm) called for me to point it out.

I live in a city these days. I hate all the cars. It's all so unnecessary also. People hurt themselves, financially and physical-health wise to add noise, pollution, congestion, taxes for road upkeep and more. I wish they'd stop. Of course some are disabled, others have commutes without public transport etc. But most of the driving is bad for pretty much everything including the driving/status addicted, perhaps especially them.

It's not that I disagree with the OP, but I suppose I have a generalized sense that many people don't really how enmeshed they are in harmful causal chains, while at the same time pointing fingers at others. This may not apply to the article writer, and, well I didn't attack him or her.

Posted: **Sun Jun 16, 2024 5:40 pm**

who needs cars? bring back horses...

just think of all the new jobs that would create! unemployed? you are the new city shit sweeper...

smell the utopia...

-Imp

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 7:32 am
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 6:23 am

Yes, but by 'existing' this could be a point of contention here.

See, to me, there is an already 'existing knowing' within every human being.
However, this already existing 'knowing' is, still only, 'unconsciously known' by most human beings, in the days when this is being written.
Human beings can only 'know' some thing 'consciously' after they have learned/experienced that thing.
So, if one has not, yet, experienced, nor learned, a 'moral concept' they may not 'consciously know' it, but 'deep down's, as it is sometimes referred to, they 'know' it, unconsciously.

For example, every human being knows it is Wrong to kill animals, when it is unnecessary to. (But, if someone thinks or believes that it is okay or all right to kill animals, then please speak up and tell 'us' how and/or why it is.)

Therefore, what this means is that every one 'knows', unconsciously, that it is a 'morally Wrong concept' to eat animals. Although, and obviously, lots of human beings in the days when this is being written will try to 'justify' and/or 'rationalize' otherwise. And, if absolutely anyone would like to try to, then let us have a full, open, and honest discussion here.

There are, by the way, other examples of moral concepts that 'every one can, and do, agree with and accept'..
Sorry, illogical.
'We' will wait, to see.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am Right now 6% of Americans hunt animals (over 14 million individuals). The number who NEED to hunt, for food is almost zero. Thus the vast majority do so for "sport", which is another way to say: for "fun".
Which is what is, consciously, Truly illogical, and Totally barbaric, to some.

Let 'us' not forget that burning so-called "witches" and/or watching human beings getting eating alive by lions was also some thing 'done for fun', by human beings, in days long gone. Just like the so-called 'hunting', and killing of animals was 'done for fun', back in the very, very 'olden days', when this was being written.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am We both agree that hunters consciously think killing animals is NOT wrong,
I think this only in regards to before those "killers" have been questioned and challenged, and they have been Totally open and honest.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am but you're saying that they unconsciously believe it is wrong, but they haven't yet "learned" that it's wrong.
I would not use the 'believe' word, and if you had replaced that word with the 'know' word, then yes, this is more or less, exactly, what I am saying here.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am The logical problem with this view is that you decide what is right and wrong, then describe those who agree and disagree with your assessment as either consciously agreeing with you or unconsciously agreeing (if they, in fact, disagree).
But, there is, literally, no 'problem' at all here.

Also, and furthermore, when you Ali's know how to arrive at what is, actually universal or objectively, Right, and Wrong, in Life, as well, then you also see that there is no 'problem', illogical or not, here, at all.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am Shazam! Everyone agrees! Using your technique one could just as easily "prove" the exact opposite of anything you'd care to propose.
But, your whole way of 'looking' and 'seeing' here is not logical at all. As, what you have just proposed here has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am actually talking about, and meaning.

What you are talking about here is nothing I have even thought about, let alone proposing is the way things be done.

Oh really? Well I have declared that killing animals is not only not wrong, it's right. Of course you disagree with my declaration, but from my perspective your conscious disagreement is because you haven't yet learned what your unconscious mind knows (and that I, the Enlightened One, know), which is that killing animals is right. It doesn't matter what argument you put forward in disagreement, that's just your conscious mind flailing about, because your unconscious knowledge that I am correct, just hasn't yet learned I'm correct. If you're lucky, you'll learn I'm right, then we'll both be learned. If you never get there, that's okay too, your unconscious mind knows I'm right, even if you (meaning your conscious mind) never do.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:13 am**

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am Oh really? Well I have declared that killing animals is not only not wrong, it's right. Of course you disagree with my declaration, but from my perspective your conscious disagreement is because you haven't yet learned what your unconscious mind knows (and that I, the Enlightened One, know), which is that killing animals is right. It doesn't matter what argument you put forward in disagreement, that's just your conscious mind flailing about, because your unconscious knowledge that I am correct, just hasn't yet learned I'm correct. If you're lucky, you'll learn I'm right, then we'll both be learned. If you never get there, that's okay too, your unconscious mind knows I'm right, even if you (meaning your conscious mind) never do.

LOL
I am anticipating future responses starting with 'This one.....'

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:40 pm**

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 7:32 am
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am

Sorry, illogical.
'We' will wait, to see.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am Right now 6% of Americans hunt animals (over 14 million individuals). The number who NEED to hunt, for food is almost zero. Thus the vast majority do so for "sport", which is another way to say: for "fun".
Which is what is, consciously, Truly illogical, and Totally barbaric, to some.

Let 'us' not forget that burning so-called "witches" and/or watching human beings getting eating alive by lions was also some thing 'done for fun', by human beings, in days long gone. Just like the so-called 'hunting', and killing of animals was 'done for fun', back in the very, very 'olden days', when this was being written.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am We both agree that hunters consciously think killing animals is NOT wrong,
I think this only in regards to before those "killers" have been questioned and challenged, and they have been Totally open and honest.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am but you're saying that they unconsciously believe it is wrong, but they haven't yet "learned" that it's wrong.
I would not use the 'believe' word, and if you had replaced that word with the 'know' word, then yes, this is more or less, exactly, what I am saying here.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am The logical problem with this view is that you decide what is right and wrong, then describe those who agree and disagree with your assessment as either consciously agreeing with you or unconsciously agreeing (if they, in fact, disagree).
But, there is, literally, no 'problem' at all here.

Also, and furthermore, when you Ali's know how to arrive at what is, actually universal or objectively, Right, and Wrong, in Life, as well, then you also see that there is no 'problem', illogical or not, here, at all.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 am Shazam! Everyone agrees! Using your technique one could just as easily "prove" the exact opposite of anything you'd care to propose.
But, your whole way of 'looking' and 'seeing' here is not logical at all. As, what you have just proposed here has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am actually talking about, and meaning.

What you are talking about here is nothing I have even thought about, let alone proposing is the way things be done.
Oh really?

Yes, really.

you are so far off here.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am Well I have declared that killing animals is not only not wrong, it's right.

So, even if "luckyr" declares that it is right that I kill its brother, sister, mother, father, children, and/or any other animals, then this, certainly, still does not take absolutely any thing away from what I have said, and claimed, above here.

Again, the way that you are 'looking' here and what you are assuming, and 'seeing', here is so, so far away from what I have been saying, and meaning, here and thus so far away from what the actual Truth is, as well.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am Of course you disagree with my declaration,

But I, certainly, do not disagree that that is what you have chosen to declare. However, if you are under some sort of conclusion that just because you, alone, or with some others, have decided to declare some thing, and that this makes what you have declared right, or good, then I think you will find that you are very sadly mistaken.

And, worse still, if this is what you thought or believes that I was saying, and meaning, then, again, you are way, way off here.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am but from my perspective your conscious disagreement is because you haven't yet learned what your unconscious mind knows (and that I, the Enlightened One, know), which is that killing animals is right.

There are so many things False and/or Wrong here I am not sure yet where to begin, if I could even be bothered.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am It doesn't matter what argument you put forward in disagreement, that's just your conscious mind flailing about, because your unconscious knowledge that I am correct, just hasn't yet learned I'm correct. If you're lucky, you'll learn I'm right, then we'll both be learned. If you never get there, that's okay too, your unconscious mind knows I'm right, even if you (meaning your conscious mind) never do.

Again, there are so many Falsehoods here I think this is best left to you and your Wrong thinking and beliefs alone here.

Just so you become aware, what you are presuming or believing I am saying and meaning here is absolutely so Wrongly and Falsely twisted and distorted that I cannot even be bothered unraveling them all, for you.

However, if you show curiosity and seek out clarity, then I, certainly, will.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:42 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:13 am
LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:37 am Oh really? Well I have declared that killing animals is not only not wrong, it's right. Of course you disagree with my declaration, but from my perspective your conscious disagreement is because you haven't yet learned what your unconscious mind knows (and that I, the Enlightened One, know), which is that killing animals is right. It doesn't matter what argument you put forward in disagreement, that's just your conscious mind flailing about, because your unconscious knowledge that I am correct, just hasn't yet learned I'm correct. If you're lucky, you'll learn I'm right, then we'll both be learned. If you never get there, that's okay too, your unconscious mind knows I'm right, even if you (meaning your conscious mind) never do.
LOL
I am anticipating future responses starting with 'This one.....'

You can 'anticipate' anything you like, and all you want.

So far your 'anticipation' has been absolutely Wrong, and Inaccurate, for you.

And, if you also thought or believes that 'that' was what I have been saying, and meaning, here, then you, also, are so, so far off what I have been actually saying, and meaning, as well. But l, then again, this has been a very common habit and occurrence of yours, with me anyway.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:15 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:42 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:13 am LOL
I am anticipating future responses starting with 'This one.....'
You can 'anticipate' anything you like, and all you want.

So far your 'anticipation' has been absolutely Wrong, and Inaccurate, for you.

Anticipation can be, yes, a prediction. But it has other meanings, including a positive outlook and eagerness for something to happen. It need not be considered a guarantee. And one doesn't have to go digging into the etymology of anticipation to find some no longer used definition.

And I was absolutely correct in my description of my attitude. A correct assessment in the Present Continuous tense of what I was doing at the moment it was written.

Perhaps this one has a limited view of what the word anticipate means. Perhaps Age, like other people like him and/or from whatever time you are from, have very narrowed and closed views and perspectives of things.

There, it happened, that which I anticipated. LOL. Not that that was necessary, but thanks for providing a fun opportunity for it to happen.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:32 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:15 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:42 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:13 am LOL
I am anticipating future responses starting with 'This one.....'
You can 'anticipate' anything you like, and all you want.

So far your 'anticipation' has been absolutely Wrong, and Inaccurate, for you.
Anticipation can be, yes, a prediction. But it has other meanings, including a positive outlook and eagerness for something to happen. It need not be considered a guarantee.

If you are eager and/or are having a positive outlook, then okay. But, if you are not, then okay also. However, what you are anticipating, like what you expect, may well never ever happen and occur.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:15 pmAnd one doesn't have to go digging into the etymology of anticipation to find some no longer used definition.

And I was absolutely correct in my description of my attitude.

I never meant that you were not.

In case you were unaware I meant that what you were anticipating had not, yet, occured.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:15 pm A correct assessment in the Present Continuous tense of what I was doing at the moment it was written.

Perhaps this one has a limited view of what the word anticipate means. Perhaps Age, like other people like him and/or from whatever time you are from, have very narrowed and closed views and perspectives of things

'Maybe', and 'perhaps', there are other things, as well.

Also, 'perhaps having very narrowed and closed views and perspectives of things, is different 'from having very narrowed and closed perspectives of things', like you adult human beings do have, in the days when this is being written.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:15 pm There, it happened, that which I anticipated.

But, a 'future', from when you write, with a response starting with 'This one.....', has not yet happened. Why did you just say, and claim, that it did happen?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:15 pm LOL. Not that that was necessary, but thanks for providing a fun opportunity for it to happen.

Did you, really, find that 'fun'?

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am**

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:32 pm If you are eager and/or are having a positive outlook, then okay. But, if you are not, then okay also. However, what you are anticipating, like what you expect, may well never ever happen and occur.

Sure, of course. I'll let you know if I think I am an infallible clairvoyant.

I never meant that you were not.

In case you were unaware I meant that what you were anticipating had not, yet, occured.

You said..

So far your 'anticipation' has been absolutely Wrong, and Inaccurate, for you.

which is a poor and incorrectly absolutist way to say the other quote above - if that's what you really meant - and otherwise was incorrect. It's treating the attitude as if it was necessarily a factual assertion about the future, which it might include or might not. And in this case didn't. I hope in any case you do not have generalized negative judgments of emotional states.

Did you, really, find that 'fun'?

Yes. There's the conversation with you at the forest level and there's the conversation with you at the tree level. I notice more and more the humor at the forest level.

If that is hard to understand I suggest you take this up with someone you can talk to in person, where there are more modalities. Not just to increase the likelihood of conversational success, but because I think this will make it easier for other issues to be dealt with. That's a gut sense on my part. Please don't ask me if these or other statements of mine are ones I consider infallible or irrefutable. You have some confused notions of what absolutist language is and I have repeatedly answered your questions when you asked me if I considered my belief or statement that way. I think an inventory of your own absolutist assertions, such as me having been absolutely Wrong, would be a better focus for your questioning.

So, do you think driving fossil-fueled cars is immoral?

This one has posted about the OP topic in a primarily questioning approach. I wonder if this one will actually take a position on the issue, here in the thread. This one seems to still have very strong negative judgments of the people at the time this is being written and often seems to revel in what he considers demonstrations of these negative judgments by individual members of this time period.

But I would like to praise you, Age, for including more qualifications when you talk about humans at the time this is being written....

This, really, was how stupid some human beings were, back in the days when this was being written.

Lovely. This is a good trend.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:14 am**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:32 pm If you are eager and/or are having a positive outlook, then okay. But, if you are not, then okay also. However, what you are anticipating, like what you expect, may well never ever happen and occur.
Sure, of course. I'll let you know if I think I am an infallible clairvoyant.

If you want to, but there, really, is no need to. 'We' all already know, agree upon, and accept what the irrefutable Truth is here, anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am
I never meant that you were not.

In case you were unaware I meant that what you were anticipating had not, yet, occured.
You said..
So far your 'anticipation' has been absolutely Wrong, and Inaccurate, for you.

Yes, if that is, exactly, what I said, and wrote, here, then that is, exactly, what I said, and wrote, here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am which is a poor way to say the other quote above - if that's what you really meant - and otherwise was incorrect.

What is the 'poor' word here in relation to, exactly? And, is what is 'poor', relative to you, also 'poor', relative to another, or even all?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am It's treating the attitude as if it was necessarily a factual assertion about the future, which it might include or might not. And in this case didn't. I hope in any case you do not have generalized negative judgments of emotional states.

If this is what you hope, then okay.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:15 pm There, it happened, that which I anticipated.

But, a 'future', from when you write, with a response starting with 'This one.....', has not yet happened. Why did you just say, and claim, that it did happen?
I think to explain something so basic would be insulting to you.

But, what is, well plainly obvious, to me, is that there was absolutely no response starting with, 'This one ...', at all above here.

As can be clearly seen and clearly proved True, and Correct, by the very words above here.

So, I am very interested in seeing you trying to explain what you claim is 'so basic' here, and which you also would be insulting to me.

Would you like 'me' to explain, to 'you', and to the 'readers' how no one, including you, as started a response with, 'This one ...'? Or, would doing so insult 'you', and maybe also the 'readers' here?

To me, you seem to not comprehend, or just plain miss, so much of what I say, write, and mean here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am I suppose a bit like when you decided it was silly to ask about what absolute meant.

Here we have another assumption of yours, which is absolutely False and Wrong, again.

I never once decided that it was silly of you, nor absolutely anyone else, to ask about what 'absolute' meant.

What would even make you presume such a thing as this?

I will, once again, suggest that you seek out and obtain actual clarity first, before you start presuming things. And, again, because doing so you will not be so Wrong, so often, as you continually are here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am If you can't understand my previous post, I think it's best not to talk more about the topic.

Once again, you seem to 'not want to talk about' some thing, after I have shown and proved where you were Wrong.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am Perhaps someone who can talk to you in person can handle such things.

Have you, ever, considered that it could, actually, be you here who has been failing in reading, and comprehension, here?

Or, have you never considered this at all here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am
Did you, really, find that 'fun'?
Yes.

Okay. 'Each to their own', as some would say, here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am There's the conversation at the forest level and there's the conversation at the tree level. I notice more and more the humor at the forest level.

If only you knew "iwannaplato". If only you knew.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am If that is hard to understand - and I admit it is harder than the what I suggested above it would be better to take up with someone you know in person, which was obvious - I suggest you take this up with someone you can talk to in person, where there are more modalities. Not just to increase the liklihood of conversational success, but because I think this will make it easier for other issues to be dealt with. That's a gut sense on my part.

Could that be a Wrong gut sense, on your part, at all?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am So, do you think driving fossil-fuelled cars is immoral?

This one has posted about the OP topic in a primarily questioning approach. I wonder if this one will actually take a position on the issue, here in the thread.

But, I already have a so-called 'position', on this issue. Which, by the way, some would have ascertained, or partly ascertained, by now.

However, there are others, like "iwannaplato" who, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue at all.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:31 am This one seems to still have very strong negative judgments of the people at the time this is being written and often seems to revel in what he considers demonstrations of these negative judgments by individual members of this time period.

But I would like to praise you, Age, for including more qualifications when you talk about humans at the time this is being written....

This, really, was how stupid some human beings were, back in the days when this was being written.
Lovely. This is a good trend.

Well, obviously, well to me anyway, there are those of you who were really very, very stupid, at times, while there were those, who were never ever stupid at all. Those one were, always, just being Truly intelligent, only, and will always remain so.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:32 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:14 am

Same gut reaction on my part. I think you are missing the forest for the trees. I think it would be good if you sat down with someone IRL showed them some of the interactions you have here at PN and got some feedback. If you do this (not merely have done this) great.
In such a situation the other person can see body language, hear voice tone and there is no delay in formulating responses - or at least it is minimized.

Philosophy Now Forum

Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

Re: Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?