Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 9:56 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 9:42 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 9:35 pm he'll prevent you from offing yourself if you're suffering,

A flat out lie, guy.

My bad. Maybe you just prefer people to go in pain by brute means instead of less pain from assisted suicide. Wow! I totally thought it was a matter of principle that you were against suicide. At least that's been cleared up.

He's the same with abortion too. He's fine with it as long as it's not safe and legal. Back street ones that kill the mother and the foetus are perferctly ok. He claims differently now of course, since he got in the thrall of IC, but that's what he actually thinks.

''Hex,

As I say up-thread: if Joanne is knocked up and wants to abort, then abort away!

Me: not caring' 'why' she got knocked up (rape, consensual sex, whatever).

I only object to havin' to pay for her procedure (if I didn't park my car in her garage, can't see how the status of her garage is my problem).''

''In the unlikely event I knock up some broad and -- instead of aborting -- she keeps it and then comes lookin' for me to support her, I'll tell her 'nope, I don't owe you jack...your body, your choice, your baby (to finance)'.''

''Well, I'm not for or against cuz I don't give a shit.

If Jane is knocked up, she can do as she likes: keep it, abort it, cook it up and serve it for dinner, for all I care.

As for rubbers and pills and IUDs (oh my!) I'm all for 'em (that's why I don't make babies), but, shit happens and birth control can fail.''



Just the kind of man any woman would want to have control over her reproductive choices
And as only the rich would be able to afford it then the only alternative for poor women is illegal backstreet abortions.
I don't know why Henry pretends to be such an arsehole. Perhaps he thinks it's 'manly' or something.

Yep, I changed my mind, with good reason. More to the point: I was flat-out wrong then.

You are a hypocrite.

And you're a hateful snake.

'nuff said.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 7:30 pm You are a hypocrite.

I think we should support the changing of views -
otherwise, we're rewarding those who entrench their views, despite reason.
i.e. asking people to be unreasonable

Now, you can go from one disagreeable position to another,
and that's fair game - but, it's not the changing of views that should be criticized.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:08 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 7:30 pm You are a hypocrite.

I think we should support the changing of views -
otherwise, we're rewarding those who entrench their views, despite reason.
i.e. asking people to be unreasonable

Now, you can go from one disagreeable position to another,
and that's fair game - but, it's not the changing of views that should be criticized.

Give me a break. That doesn't apply here at all. So he went from saying women can 'cook and eat' babies for all he cares, to someone who cries buckets over 7 week emybryos? Mind your own beeswax Pollyanna.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:15 pmMind your own beeswax Pollyanna.

Is that the pet name you've bestowed on me, dear?
I wonder how often you'd kick a puppy..

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:32 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:15 pmMind your own beeswax Pollyanna.

Is that the pet name you've bestowed on me, dear?
I wonder how often you'd kick a puppy..

Never. I don't see the connection. Are you comparing yourself to a puppy?

Actually Henry hasn't changed his mind at all--just his approach, along with turning the hyposcrisy level up to 'off the scale'. That's what happens when you take lessons from a master in hypocrisy like IC. It's still the same nasty, woman-hating viewpoint he's always had.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 8:32 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 8:08 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 7:15 am Yes. That's obvious. That's a given. I don't think it renders the poll completely meaningless, however, if that's part of your point.

I wasn't saying the poll was meaningless -- I was simply answering the question from my own perspective. I'm not feeling conflict over whether or not it's better to be in this life: it's just something to choose to experience or not.

As I see it, we have no choice but to experience life. And a lot of the time, it's not a very pleasant experience.

Well, there's always ankle biting to ease the agony.

https://images.fineartamerica.com/image ... -hwang.jpg

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 10:21 pm
Never. I don't see the connection. Are you comparing yourself to a puppy?

No, I think it means that ankle biters chase philosophy with ad homs.

Not so bad thanks. Could be worse. Worse things have happened at sea. Reasons to be grateful. You?

Schopenhauer, " Life is something that should never have been." Think about the amount of suffering over the eons in a world where life lives upon life, where at least some of its creatures are aware of the sublime horror of it all, and mesmerized by its sublime beauty. Life is a struggle for existence by creatures that do not even know what they are. Looking for a meaning other than the effects of the physical world altering one's biology, giving us experience/meaning relative only to itself as an island unto itself, locked into its subjectivity. Religious insanity is an alternative, I suppose; fantasy can always trump reality, the grimmer it is. Nothingness has to be peaceful, but energy itself is not; it is a boiling cauldron of creation. Still, it might just be the best of all possible worlds---lol!!

Ask yourself Gary, would you rather…live for 100 years or less with the inescapable company of your own “thoughts”

Or to have Never been born?

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 12:38 pm Ask yourself Gary, would you rather…live for 100 years or less with the inescapable company of your own “thoughts”

Or to have Never been born?

The capacity to still thoughts removes their power.

Meditation puts a perspective on thoughts
so that thoughts loosen their control
then lose their control.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 2:10 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 12:38 pm Ask yourself Gary, would you rather…live for 100 years or less with the inescapable company of your own “thoughts”

Or to have Never been born?

The capacity to still thoughts removes their power.

Meditation puts a perspective on thoughts
so that thoughts loosen their control
then lose their control.

That is partially true. Thoughts have zero power. It’s how we react to them that counts. I know my thoughts have no control over me. I can intentionally Will myself to act on a thought or not.

But there’s no eliminating thoughts permanently from our awareness is there. They are still going to be with you even during silent meditation. Ignoring them is fine, they cannot kill you, but they can agitate the fuck out of you, which can be very annoying.
We all carry our life’s experiences called baggage around with us all the time, sometimes it’s positive thoughts,and sometimes it’s really negative or traumatic thoughts. We cannot just erase our memories away permanently.
Human nature is not like the film “Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind” is it?

A still mind is like a still wind. Have you ever experienced a totally thought-free awareness Walker?

I haven’t.