Should we treat the over 70s?

[Willieh]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

 

No it didn't, you missed the fact that in Hierarchial society, power is very, very relative, and that human thought does have value if it is that of a powerful person. My opinion is fact when I hold the gun. I can decide what contributes to society, I can decide what is wasting resources, and I can decide what has value, and what value is, simply because I have the ability to annihilate you if you disagree. It might not be "Universally True," but given the current circumstances, the ones that need immediate improvement, opinions of power hold much higher ground.

 

You said we shouldn't dig into things that we don't need to know. It is with knowing that we will make the best decisions, the most truth based decisions (and enough with the truth isn't relative, in this society, perceptive truth is VERY relative) will be the ones that will get us the furthest from the problems because they are more rooted.

 

With knowing enough, and being powerful enough, and there are many that fit this bill, and they should be allowed to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed to die, if the decisions are rooted in the intellect and deduction of the powerful, and the powerful has the power to act on it and do it the right way.

 

But our opinions are useless in the long run. In theory, killing a dog = killing a human. It's just killing an animal of it's evolved sub-species trying to survive it's life. So above all, we're all worthless, meaning we can't put a worth on life. Power has nothing to do with natural value.

 

But it does have to do with social value.

 

Which is what the men who control our lives are going to base social change on.

 

Meaning it is prevalent when applied, though in theory, like if the world thought of this world as a dream to a greater existence in which ones actions were irrelevant, then you would be correct, but as long as people are allowed to think freely, and not be raised and told what is good and what is not, there will be no universal judgment.

 

Universal judgement is existent whether we want to think it or not. Which, in a way, further proves my point.

 

We're all sheet in our own special way. ;)

[HORUS]

Activate T4' date=' everyone is happy.

[/quote']

 

High five.

 

 

Aktion Tiergartenstraße 4 for the win.

[Izaran]

What most of you do not realize about this that this argument is redundant. Either result, killing infants or elderly, screws mankind over and rob us of precious things. And dont tell me the 'possible' contributions. Because, ANYONE and EVERYONE contributes whether your admit it or not. The way of thinking that just because some one is poor, or a criminal means that they arent working a 9-5 job makes them NON-Contributors is old world, biased, wrong, and DEEPLY Conservative. Basically:EVERYONE deserves to live to the end. we have no right to make someone without fault end there lives or make someone who has yet to live die either. So end this topic, the point is clear: No one deserves to be killed by another, it is not mans place to judge the value of ones life.

[SSJ3Goku]

Well,If you Grandparents are over 70, I'll just go to there house and kill them. You say this but If we did kill everyone over 70, I know you would regret it. Some of them may have been in war. Killing someone that saved our country isn't verypolite. I say, keep everyone.

[「tea.leaf」]

' pid='1153217' dateline='1222139409']

Activate T4' date=' everyone is happy.

[/quote']

 

High five.

 

 

Aktion Tiergartenstraße 4 for the win.

 

Right back at you~

[2sick4u]

What most of you do not realize about this that this argument is redundant. Either result' date=' killing infants or elderly, screws mankind over and rob us of precious things. And dont tell me the 'possible' contributions. Because, ANYONE and EVERYONE contributes whether your admit it or not. The way of thinking that just because some one is poor, or a criminal means that they arent working a 9-5 job makes them NON-Contributors is old world, biased, wrong, and DEEPLY Conservative. Basically:EVERYONE deserves to live to the end. we have no right to make someone without fault end there lives or make someone who has yet to live die either. So end this topic, the point is clear: No one deserves to be killed by another, it is not mans place to judge the value of ones life.

[/quote']

 

You cross-fire age-contribution with situational presence.

 

Being poor or jailed is situational, thus, not applying towards Euthanizatoin. Especially towards the elders in society.

 

Life holds barely any value, as is. Consider it, the trade-market system. You trade currency for something of need. However, this currency is of greater value than the goods that the seller is in possession of. Thus, people trade when the opposing offer has more individual value towards them as apposed to what they possess.

 

Now, we must consider what is of greater value to us, and logically, not emotionally.

 

1) The elder's lives. The failed contributors. Once prime, now, requiring resources and money from the government in order to sustain life.

 

2) Societies stronghold. The grander picture. Placing society closer to that Nirvana position we desire.

 

Of course, this requires a generation of selfless humans, which is unnatural as is.

 

Either way, saying the elderly contribute is bullshit.

 

=/.

[JesusofChaos™]

People saying things are wrong and right are commiting a fundemental philosopical error. Right and Wrong are theoritical concepts that are illusions created by society to offset blame

 

I am a Atheist Existentialist. Saying you cant do something because it goes against values of our community is commiting an act of Bad Faith.

 

Bad faith is seen as any denial of free will by lying to oneself about one's self and freedom. This can take many forms' date=' from convincing oneself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where one acts as "one should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm.

 

This doesn't mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is bad faith: The main point is the attitude one takes to one's own freedom, and the extent to which one acts in accordance with this freedom. A sign of bad faith can be something like the denial of responsibility for something one has done on the grounds that one just did "as one does" or that one's genes determined one to do as one did. Exactly how one lies to oneself is hard to get a hold of. Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to him/herself has to be aware that he/she is lying - that he/she isn't determined, or this "thing" he/she makes him/herself out to be.

 

[/quote']

 

So basically by saying that killing someone is wrong, you are shifting responsibilty of your decisions onto societies values.

[Wuu.]

dude how are we gonna keep our society's running when we kill babys...yeah disabled and children with a huge illness are better to be killed!they should run big tests on every baby that is born and the children of a monarch family or how you call it,they deserve to die...wath do those kids do for us?nothing FRIGIN nothing!

[JesusofChaos™]

dude how are we gonna keep our society's running when we kill babys...yeah disabled and children with a huge illness are better to be killed!they should run big tests on every baby that is born and the children of a monarch family or how you call it' date='[b']they deserve to die[/b]...wath do those kids do for us?nothing FRIGIN nothing!

 

They do not deserve to die. It is a nesscity to improve the quality of the world.

[Static]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

 

No it didn't, you missed the fact that in Hierarchial society, power is very, very relative, and that human thought does have value if it is that of a powerful person. My opinion is fact when I hold the gun. I can decide what contributes to society, I can decide what is wasting resources, and I can decide what has value, and what value is, simply because I have the ability to annihilate you if you disagree. It might not be "Universally True," but given the current circumstances, the ones that need immediate improvement, opinions of power hold much higher ground.

 

You said we shouldn't dig into things that we don't need to know. It is with knowing that we will make the best decisions, the most truth based decisions (and enough with the truth isn't relative, in this society, perceptive truth is VERY relative) will be the ones that will get us the furthest from the problems because they are more rooted.

 

With knowing enough, and being powerful enough, and there are many that fit this bill, and they should be allowed to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed to die, if the decisions are rooted in the intellect and deduction of the powerful, and the powerful has the power to act on it and do it the right way.

 

But our opinions are useless in the long run. In theory, killing a dog = killing a human. It's just killing an animal of it's evolved sub-species trying to survive it's life. So above all, we're all worthless, meaning we can't put a worth on life. Power has nothing to do with natural value.

 

But it does have to do with social value.

 

Which is what the men who control our lives are going to base social change on.

 

Meaning it is prevalent when applied, though in theory, like if the world thought of this world as a dream to a greater existence in which ones actions were irrelevant, then you would be correct, but as long as people are allowed to think freely, and not be raised and told what is good and what is not, there will be no universal judgment.

 

Universal judgement is existent whether we want to think it or not. Which, in a way, further proves my point.

 

We're all s*** in our own special way. ;)

 

And yet we are all gods in our own special way too. That is the only way to claim universal judgment exists, and being one who thinks the Law of Attraction actually works because of the way the mind does, I will not deny this. However, to claim a universe beyond our minds exists is flawed, our universe is in our head, reality is just an image of the universe we have perceived. There are no sounds in the deaf mans world.

 

Being Cynical and claiming to be unbiased is not helping your point, especially if you cannot prove that Cynicality is infact a provably truthful truth, which it is not.

[Willieh]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

 

No it didn't, you missed the fact that in Hierarchial society, power is very, very relative, and that human thought does have value if it is that of a powerful person. My opinion is fact when I hold the gun. I can decide what contributes to society, I can decide what is wasting resources, and I can decide what has value, and what value is, simply because I have the ability to annihilate you if you disagree. It might not be "Universally True," but given the current circumstances, the ones that need immediate improvement, opinions of power hold much higher ground.

 

You said we shouldn't dig into things that we don't need to know. It is with knowing that we will make the best decisions, the most truth based decisions (and enough with the truth isn't relative, in this society, perceptive truth is VERY relative) will be the ones that will get us the furthest from the problems because they are more rooted.

 

With knowing enough, and being powerful enough, and there are many that fit this bill, and they should be allowed to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed to die, if the decisions are rooted in the intellect and deduction of the powerful, and the powerful has the power to act on it and do it the right way.

 

But our opinions are useless in the long run. In theory, killing a dog = killing a human. It's just killing an animal of it's evolved sub-species trying to survive it's life. So above all, we're all worthless, meaning we can't put a worth on life. Power has nothing to do with natural value.

 

But it does have to do with social value.

 

Which is what the men who control our lives are going to base social change on.

 

Meaning it is prevalent when applied, though in theory, like if the world thought of this world as a dream to a greater existence in which ones actions were irrelevant, then you would be correct, but as long as people are allowed to think freely, and not be raised and told what is good and what is not, there will be no universal judgment.

 

Universal judgement is existent whether we want to think it or not. Which, in a way, further proves my point.

 

We're all s*** in our own special way. ;)

 

And yet we are all gods in our own special way too. That is the only way to claim universal judgment exists, and being one who thinks the Law of Attraction actually works because of the way the mind does, I will not deny this. However, to claim a universe beyond our minds exists is flawed, our universe is in our head, reality is just an image of the universe we have perceived. There are no sounds in the deaf mans world.

 

Being Cynical and claiming to be unbiased is not helping your point, especially if you cannot prove that Cynicality is infact a provably truthful truth, which it is not.

<_<

 

I scoff at something like that. People are far from gods. We can not bend a literal reality. We can only shape our on opinions on what we think reality should be using our minds. If I think that the moon is made of cheese, then it is for me. But it's not a literal reality.

 

So people are flawed. We aren't perfect.

 

We are just an evolved species. Deal with it.

[Static]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

 

No it didn't, you missed the fact that in Hierarchial society, power is very, very relative, and that human thought does have value if it is that of a powerful person. My opinion is fact when I hold the gun. I can decide what contributes to society, I can decide what is wasting resources, and I can decide what has value, and what value is, simply because I have the ability to annihilate you if you disagree. It might not be "Universally True," but given the current circumstances, the ones that need immediate improvement, opinions of power hold much higher ground.

 

You said we shouldn't dig into things that we don't need to know. It is with knowing that we will make the best decisions, the most truth based decisions (and enough with the truth isn't relative, in this society, perceptive truth is VERY relative) will be the ones that will get us the furthest from the problems because they are more rooted.

 

With knowing enough, and being powerful enough, and there are many that fit this bill, and they should be allowed to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed to die, if the decisions are rooted in the intellect and deduction of the powerful, and the powerful has the power to act on it and do it the right way.

 

But our opinions are useless in the long run. In theory, killing a dog = killing a human. It's just killing an animal of it's evolved sub-species trying to survive it's life. So above all, we're all worthless, meaning we can't put a worth on life. Power has nothing to do with natural value.

 

But it does have to do with social value.

 

Which is what the men who control our lives are going to base social change on.

 

Meaning it is prevalent when applied, though in theory, like if the world thought of this world as a dream to a greater existence in which ones actions were irrelevant, then you would be correct, but as long as people are allowed to think freely, and not be raised and told what is good and what is not, there will be no universal judgment.

 

Universal judgement is existent whether we want to think it or not. Which, in a way, further proves my point.

 

We're all s*** in our own special way. ;)

 

And yet we are all gods in our own special way too. That is the only way to claim universal judgment exists, and being one who thinks the Law of Attraction actually works because of the way the mind does, I will not deny this. However, to claim a universe beyond our minds exists is flawed, our universe is in our head, reality is just an image of the universe we have perceived. There are no sounds in the deaf mans world.

 

Being Cynical and claiming to be unbiased is not helping your point, especially if you cannot prove that Cynicality is infact a provably truthful truth, which it is not.

<_<

 

I scoff at something like that. People are far from gods. We can not bend a literal reality. We can only shape our on opinions on what we think reality should be using our minds. If I think that the moon is made of cheese, then it is for me. But it's not a literal reality.

 

So people are flawed. We aren't perfect.

 

We are just an evolved species. Deal with it.

 

Gods cannot bend reality...... Nothing can change what is predetermined to happen, not even conscious celestial beings if such things exist, they are just as prone to fate as we are simply by existing, unless they exist in a dimension higher than ours or a world of different physics.

 

We can change the way we think. Changing the way we think changes the way we see the world, which may not change it in the way that we would see the change, but to them, to their universe, it is different.

 

Literal reality, since it cannot be defined as "real," technically does not exist, it is an idea that people commonly accept as real because they think that color, sound, people and god are all that makes up the world. As far as we know, there is no reality, it is just an illusion, and you could not disprove that, because it is technically arguing opinion.

 

And now I ask, if reality doesn't exist for all intended purposes, then why take a realist approach? The idea of Realism is a complete fallacy in itself, because it tries to define what people define for themselves between different minds. The extent of realism is that of consciousness and unconsciousness, of energy and void, and that is all we can be certain of.

[JesusofChaos™]

Gods can not bend reality...... Nothing can change what is predetermined to happen' date=' not even conscious celestial beings if such things exist, they are just as prone to fate as we are simply by existing, unless they exist in a dimension higher than ours or a world of different physics.

 

We can change the way we think. Changing the way we think changes the way we see the world, which may not change it in the way that we would see the change, but to them, to their universe, it is different.

 

[b']Literal reality, since it cannot be defined as "real," technically does not exist, it is an idea that people commonly accept as real because they think that color, sound, people and god are all that makes up the world. As far as we know, there is no reality, it is just an illusion, and you could not disprove that, because it is technically arguing opinion.[/b]

 

And now I ask, if reality doesn't exist for all intended purposes, then why take a realist approach? The idea of Realism is a complete fallacy in itself, because it tries to define what people define for themselves between different minds. The extent of realism is that of consciousness and unconsciousness, of energy and void, and that is all we can be certain of.

 

Bold 1: It depends if the being is a 'being-in-itself' or a 'being-for-itself'. A being in itself would be any inanimate objest which has a predetermined existence, i.e. it does not have freedom and cannot change. For example a chair cannot decide to remove some of its legs and become a stool. However a being for itself has freedom to change the course of its life. It has freedom to make choices and too choose an alternative life. For a being for itself there is no pre-determined course of life only the course that we choose to take and must be responsible for.

 

Bold 2: For something to be considered real you must first be subjective rather than objective. The only thing we are sure to exist is ourselves. How can we tell this? We think and percieve the world around us. Basically leading to the phrase "I think therefore I am". Outside this we cannot guarntee that anything is real. Therefore we can only make deductions through data collected through our senses. The world itself appears to be a self conscious being. We cannot pretend to be dispassionate observers of the world, rather than we admit our own personal engagement in the world and our commintment to it.

[Static]

At #1: Free will does not exist for beings like humans. All of our thoughts, beliefs and such are predetermined. We do not really "choose." All of your feelings and choices were the result of what has happened prior, and are thus independent entirely of free will.

 

I'll reply to #2 when I'm not busy, I didn't even read it tbqh.

[JesusofChaos™]

At #1: Free will does not exist for beings like humans. All of our thoughts' date=' beliefs and such are predetermined. We do not really "choose." All of your feelings and choices were the result of what has happened prior, and are thus independent entirely of free will.

 

I'll reply to #2 when I'm not busy, I didn't even read it tbqh.

[/quote']

 

When you stand on the side of a cliff looking over you get a feeling of dread. Dread is a point at which a human can make fundemental free will descisions. You are feeling dread because you think there is nothing stopping me from throwing myself off this cliff. At this point it proves that humans are free to choose there own course. This also proves that each branch of philosphy should start with being subjective rather than objective. Precieving the world around can only be made with the evidence we have and the evidence we have is from the conciousness of the human itself. Thus one should understand the truth of ones self before trying to understand the world around us.

 

Existentialist and Sartre ftw

[Static]

At #1: Free will does not exist for beings like humans. All of our thoughts' date=' beliefs and such are predetermined. We do not really "choose." All of your feelings and choices were the result of what has happened prior, and are thus independent entirely of free will.

 

I'll reply to #2 when I'm not busy, I didn't even read it tbqh.

[/quote']

 

When you stand on the side of a cliff looking over you get a feeling of dread. Dread is a point at which a human can make fundemental free will descisions. You are feeling dread because you think there is nothing stopping me from throwing myself off this cliff. At this point it proves that humans are free to choose there own course. This also proves that each branch of philosphy should start with being subjective rather than objective. Precieving the world around can only be made with the evidence we have and the evidence we have is from the conciousness of the human itself. Thus one should understand the truth of ones self before trying to understand the world around us.

 

Existentialist and Sartre ftw

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

Your perception of the world and how it works is different than mine. I will claim that the path of all things in time is certain, and you will claim that things like dread can actually change what was set in motion to happen.

 

To me, time does not branch, to you it does, because you're an existentialist and believe that people are capable of taking different paths because somehow, human emotion & thought and the things that affect it aren't certain or something like that. It has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, because either way, it helps justify killing the old people. If you want to have the argument, I'd be more than happy.

 

@ #2: Admitting to being active members of the world means admitting to its existence, that objective reality exists. We all assume it does, but I am saying that no one can prove it does beyond what their senses tell them.

[JesusofChaos™]

At #1: Free will does not exist for beings like humans. All of our thoughts' date=' beliefs and such are predetermined. We do not really "choose." All of your feelings and choices were the result of what has happened prior, and are thus independent entirely of free will.

 

I'll reply to #2 when I'm not busy, I didn't even read it tbqh.

[/quote']

 

When you stand on the side of a cliff looking over you get a feeling of dread. Dread is a point at which a human can make fundemental free will descisions. You are feeling dread because you think there is nothing stopping me from throwing myself off this cliff. At this point it proves that humans are free to choose there own course. This also proves that each branch of philosphy should start with being subjective rather than objective. Precieving the world around can only be made with the evidence we have and the evidence we have is from the conciousness of the human itself. Thus one should understand the truth of ones self before trying to understand the world around us.

 

Existentialist and Sartre ftw

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

Your perception of the world and how it works is different than mine. I will claim that the path of all things in time is certain, and you will claim that things like dread can actually change what was set in motion to happen.

 

To me, time does not branch, to you it does, because you're an existentialist and believe that people are capable of taking different paths because somehow, human emotion & thought and the things that affect it aren't certain or something like that. It has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, because either way, it helps justify killing the old people. If you want to have the argument, I'd be more than happy.

 

@ #2: Admitting to being active members of the world means admitting to its existence, that objective reality exists. We all assume it does, but I am saying that no one can prove it does beyond what their senses tell them.

 

Am I right in assuming that you are agnostic?

[Static]

At #1: Free will does not exist for beings like humans. All of our thoughts' date=' beliefs and such are predetermined. We do not really "choose." All of your feelings and choices were the result of what has happened prior, and are thus independent entirely of free will.

 

I'll reply to #2 when I'm not busy, I didn't even read it tbqh.

[/quote']

 

When you stand on the side of a cliff looking over you get a feeling of dread. Dread is a point at which a human can make fundemental free will descisions. You are feeling dread because you think there is nothing stopping me from throwing myself off this cliff. At this point it proves that humans are free to choose there own course. This also proves that each branch of philosphy should start with being subjective rather than objective. Precieving the world around can only be made with the evidence we have and the evidence we have is from the conciousness of the human itself. Thus one should understand the truth of ones self before trying to understand the world around us.

 

Existentialist and Sartre ftw

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

Your perception of the world and how it works is different than mine. I will claim that the path of all things in time is certain, and you will claim that things like dread can actually change what was set in motion to happen.

 

To me, time does not branch, to you it does, because you're an existentialist and believe that people are capable of taking different paths because somehow, human emotion & thought and the things that affect it aren't certain or something like that. It has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, because either way, it helps justify killing the old people. If you want to have the argument, I'd be more than happy.

 

@ #2: Admitting to being active members of the world means admitting to its existence, that objective reality exists. We all assume it does, but I am saying that no one can prove it does beyond what their senses tell them.

 

Am I right in assuming that you are agnostic?

 

I am not agnostic.

 

I believe in "unconscious god." It isn't god like agnostics claim might exist, I have determined that almost certainly, god from the bible cannot exist, and that consciousness is the gift of the mortal, and unconscious the gift of the immortal. To me, God or Brahma is the essence of everything that manifests the void, the energy that exists in our world, and that everything that exists that is not the void is in fact of the same thing.

 

I see agnosticism as weakness, that people who think sensibly don't wish to deny a conscious god because they fear the possibility of its existence. To me, that's like fearing that a 9 year old girl on a bike is going to come through a portal and burn you to death while you're walking to school. It simply does not make any sense for conscious god to exist to me.