What is the highest principle?

[Skepdick]

You can have "unicorns" in your head. That won't make them exist in reality.

Yes, it will.

Your head exists in reality.
Therefore EVERYTHING that exists in your head necessarily exists in reality.

If you are "rational" and "logical" and "immutable" (as you claim to be) then it's impossible for you to reject this conclusion.

You can wish yourself to be a millionaire, but the bank won't agree.

If I wish myself to be a millionaire my wish to be a millionaire is real and existing. Why does the bank have any say in the "realness" of my wishes?

Too easy to explain. I can't imagine why you're bothering with it.

Great! Then explain it.

I get the feeling you have this burning desire to switch from the declarative to the imperative mood... But you can't Because immutability

[henry quirk]

Does a free will always make life worth living regardless of the quality of said life ?

By definition, a free will strives to reorder, to redirect, to start and stop, so a free will always attempts to make his life worth livin' (unless he's given up...then it's just suicide, slow or fast).


your thoughts of unicorns are real and existing.

The thought is real, the object of the thought is fiction.

[Immanuel Can]

You can have "unicorns" in your head. That won't make them exist in reality.

Yes, it will.

No, it won't.

But now we are reduced to mere contradiction, and I think we are at a very uninteresting point, unlikely to prove controversial in most circles, and unfruitful to pursue.

[Skepdick]

your thoughts of unicorns are real and existing.

The thought is real, the object of the thought is fiction.

The "object of your thought" is still a thought, Harry.

The object of your thought is in your head.
If it's in your head - it's real.

Try again. Give me an example of something that's not real.

[henry quirk]

Humans were responsible for it - therefore its EVIL !!!
The Universe was responsible for it - therefore NOT EVIL !!!

It makes zero difference since that distinction is entirely academic in the grand scheme of things


It makes a difference on the human scale.

The tornado that wrecks my house is just a cluster of blind, heat-driven forces. It's not responsible. It has no intent.

The arsonist who burns my house is a free will. He's responsible. He acts with intent.

The tornado is not evil; the arsonist is evil.

It matters.

[Skepdick]

No, it won't.

You don't just get to say that without an explanation as to WHY you reject the argument bellow, Mannie.

Tell us what's wrong with the argument below. Please!

Your head exists in reality.
Therefore EVERYTHING that exists in your head necessarily exists in reality.

If you are "rational" and "logical" and "immutable" (as you claim to be) then it's impossible for you to reject this conclusion.

But now we are reduced to mere contradiction

Me? I am not reduced to contradiction. I think you might be... IF my argument holds.

Does my argument hold? Show me why not.

and I think we are at a very uninteresting point, unlikely to prove controversial in most circles, and unfruitful to pursue.

It should be extremely controversial in the Circle of Mannie.

Mannie is rational, logical and immutable. Mannie doesn't contradict himself.

So how then has Skepdick found a contradiction in Mannie's "rational", "logical" and "immutable" claim.

[Skepdick]

Humans were responsible for it - therefore its EVIL !!!
The Universe was responsible for it - therefore NOT EVIL !!!

It makes zero difference since that distinction is entirely academic in the grand scheme of things


It makes a difference on the human scale.

The tornado that wrecks my house is just a cluster of blind, heat-driven forces. It's not responsible. It has no intent.

The arsonist who burns my house is a free will. He's responsible. He acts with intent.

The tornado is not evil; the arsonist is evil.

I don't care about evil or not evil, Harry. This is toddler level thinking.

Which one is more harmful to humanity? The tornado or the arsonist?

[henry quirk]

your thoughts of unicorns are real and existing.

The thought is real, the object of the thought is fiction.

The "object of your thought" is still a thought, Harry.

The object of your thought is in your head.
If it's in your head - it's real.

Try again. Give me an example of something that's not real.

nope...unicorns are not real...my thinkin' about unicorns is real...if you can't see the difference, I can't help you

[Skepdick]

nope...unicorns are not real...my thinkin' about unicorns is real...

Harry,

What is a "unicorn" ?

I am not looking for your THOUGHTS on unicorns.

I am looking for the answer to the question "What is a unicorn?"

[henry quirk]

Humans were responsible for it - therefore its EVIL !!!
The Universe was responsible for it - therefore NOT EVIL !!!

It makes zero difference since that distinction is entirely academic in the grand scheme of things


It makes a difference on the human scale.

The tornado that wrecks my house is just a cluster of blind, heat-driven forces. It's not responsible. It has no intent.

The arsonist who burns my house is a free will. He's responsible. He acts with intent.

The tornado is not evil; the arsonist is evil.

I don't care about evil or not evil, Harry. This is toddler level thinking.

Which one is more harmful to humanity? The tornado or the arsonist?

I do

nice try...I addressed evil vs not evil, not severity...my assessment holds

[henry quirk]

nope...unicorns are not real...my thinkin' about unicorns is real...

Harry,

What is a "unicorn" ?

I am not looking for your THOUGHTS on unicorns.

I am looking for the answer to the question "What is a unicorn?"

a fictional magical animal that, as the fiction goes, only virgins (the pure) can touch

[Skepdick]

I do

nice try...I addressed evil vs not evil, not severity...my assessment holds

OK, but I care about harm, not evil so do you mind answering my question?

Which one is more harmful:

The EVIL murder of one person; or the NON-EVIL extinction of humanity?

[Skepdick]

a fictional magical animal that, as the fiction goes, only virgins (the pure) can touch

Harry, that's your DEFINITION of a Unicorn. I told you I am not interested in your thoughts.

I want to know what a unicorn IS. Tell me about its immutable essence.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it won't.

You don't just get to say that without an explanation as to WHY you reject the argument bellow, Mannie.

Tell us what's wrong with the argument below. Please!

I did already. You ignored it.

And you're boring me to death with this line of argument. I cannot be bothered with it. It's too trivial.

[Skepdick]

I did already. You ignored it.

You told me about some nonsense about a bank.

You didn't tell me why you reject my argument.

Are my premises flawed?
Is the argument invalid?
Is it unsound?

Why are you rejecting it?!?

And you're boring me to death with this line of argument. I cannot be bothered with it. It's too trivial.

Mannie, it may be trivial for you, but I don't understand why a rational person is ignoring a logical and immutable argument.

Help me understand?