3RU7AL

“it’s fair to question why do we care if the universe is so uncaring, after all aren’t we at our core extensions of the universe?”

Does this suggest you don't know if your life has any meaning?

No, it MEANS I don’t know if I will experience punishment or reward.

What leads you to believe you will experience eternal happiness?

I don’t know what I’ll experience.

What do punishment and reward even have to do with meaning?

It MEANS if you live this way you’ll be punished and if you live another you’ll be rewarded therefore you should live by the latter.

What leads you to believe you will enjoy eternal happiness?

The answer is in the question it’s pretty self explanatory.

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to start that conversation so if you aren't sure about someone's point if view involved, by all means starting with mine, please ask them.

That’s not a promise.

I’m fine with anything as long as heroin is left out.

Bottom Right Libertarians believe that they shouldn't tell others what to do, but also shouldn't be paying taxes for things they won't use.

The two party system itself is failing at it's core.

corporations are the people who help understand the consumer more than the government.

You made a claim, and yet the second I asked you for one shred of evidence... like literally one single name or one single corporation to back up that wide sweeping generalization you made... you couldn't do it lol. 

To put it simply, I trust corporations more than I trust government.

Our personal responsibility demands we recognize the rights of others with equal regard as to our own.

The value you place on something is irrelevant to the violation of having it taken from you.

I don’t think it should be banned from dictionaries, that is in part how we educate people about it.

Cut down on repeat offenders.

Good point. I am also aware of a "reality" where I am awkwardly perched on roller skates while trying ineffectively to perform the duties associated with my dayjob for example. I cannot decisively prove that it isnot a real situation but it is not a "reality" which "exists" reliably or linearly or that gives me any actionable data. I'll let you know if that changes. 

3} those who believe nukes are the answer, even tho nukes to not take any greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere,

(IFF) GOOD = HEAVEN (AND) HEAVEN = HAPPINESS (AND) GOOD = HAPPINESS (AND) HEROIN = HAPPINESS (THEN) HEROIN = GOOD

Heroin may equal happiness but happiness doesn’t equal heroin just like apples equals fruits but fruits doesn’t equal apples.

(IFF) GOOD = HEAVEN (AND) HEAVEN = HAPPINESS (AND) GOOD = HAPPINESS (AND) HEROIN = HAPPINESS (THEN) HEROIN = GOOD

Heroin may equal happiness but happiness doesn’t equal heroin just like apples equals fruits but fruits doesn’t equal apples.

The universe is singular; I am the universe.

You literally said emotions is the sole reason behind your decisions, what did you mean to accomplish by telling me that? That being impulsive is reasonable? Are you suggesting that I should be impulsive in that same regard?

I can however be certain that this is the only reality of which I am aware.

Yes "I" am a logical necessity for me not however for you. 

I  believe that arguments stand or fall on their own and I am reluctant to share details on line. My identity is unimportant to assessing my most basic axiom or any of the arguments that follow from it.

more or less at face value

IF the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy THEN failure to donate a kidney is immoral. 

I do not treat my dog as a contentious actor for example even though it seems to show signs of happiness and unhappiness, memory retention, even property rights (her toys are hers and my shoes are mine).

The woman steers all matters regarding the fetus, unless she ask for others input.

IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist. 

Perhaps you could provide some real-life examples?

Nonetheless, despite the unlimited possibility of the universal sequence, there is still an unanswered magical, GODLESS beginning to consider.

IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist. 

Suggesting a "lesser" of two evils implicates quantity.

Can't we all agree this is a poorly designed world?  Shouldn't God loose his God license?

"self-awareness without doubt" 

This is exactly what I am most interested in although there is a discussion to be had about "partial sentience" and "the moral value" of things with the "capacity to suffer". How do you know you have reached the point of certainty and if it is a gray area do you err on the side of person or potato?

Furthermore, to completely stop would be to take away a large human well-being and derive them of protein and food, so we have to be careful how we do it.

not helping a child is not the same as actively harming it.

The amount of suffering an animal can suffer should equate to their moral being, furthermore their ability to comprehend it, aka personhood also determines it.

Also. if you value your own self, then you have to necessarily value others - because if you want to be valued, then you have to value others - it's a pretty simple concept I think.

But I'm sure that someone must value you, and hopefully some one values me too

Yeah sure but how do you prove to someone that doesn’t that should be the case.

If there is a GOD, then it's purpose would be it's purpose.

Fine, if our purpose is to simply exist then why do you have respect and devotion for others?

And what don't I have an answer for?

Nihilism, I’m sure you don’t consider yourself a nihilist so under the assumption that there is no objective morality what makes your position most reasonable?