Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
- Does the past exist?
Well, the definition of the past is something that used to exist, but no longer does. However, we can have memory of it, records and such. We usually base our future decisions on our past.
- Does the future exist?
Not yet. Maybe not at all. World can stop existing at any moment and we cannot know if future will actually exist.
- Do abstractions exist?
This is the question that I cannot really answer. Our world may be a product of someone's imagination. Therefore, our imagination could be a world of its own, a reality for our imagined characters. If our brain cells are alive and represent things we imagine, then what we imagine is a reality for our brain cells. Mind blowing.
- Do thoughts exist?
Probably. I dont see why wouldnt they exist.
- If something will never be observed, does it exist?
Well, the existence is irrelevant of observation. Observation is just evidence of existence, not cause of existence.
- If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
Maybe, but I dont like believing in things I cant observe myself. Sometimes I have to believe, but still, I prefer to be there to observe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I will do it after these other topics go away. Dont wanna be spamming topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Judaism doesn't teach any idea of "saving" so telling non-Jews they can be saved "also" makes no sense.
It makes sense, since Jews expected that if someone can be saved, it would be just them. They believe they are chosen people.
And Judaism doesn't believe that non-Jews can't read the bible but I'm not sure what you mean by "give the bible".
In the Bible, there was an entire section dedicated to God convincing disciples to give teachings (Bible) to non-Jews.
You are confusing what Jews think today with what Jews thought back then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
He also thought he was like a son of a God.
It helped spread the message.
He Thought that virgins can have babies.
Well, it helped spread the message.
Along with.He thought his mom was a virgin.
As long as it helps spread the good message.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Jews hated Jesus because he gave Bible to non-Jews and claimed that non-Jews can be saved as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
not final time in which he failed to return right after saying how long he’d be gone
1. Jesus said he would return to his disciples after he dies. He did return. He literally talked with them after he rose from the grave.
2. Jesus said he will also return at the end of the world. Didnt say when and didnt say that his disciples will be alive at that time. Therefore, him not yet returning doesnt make him a liar since its obviously not yet the end of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
he hasn't delivered on any of the major promises meaning he lies as bad as any Republican
Every US president lied about something. Choosing between republicans and democrats is really choosing between two evils.
You have two options (who decided that you can only have two options?), but both options suck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@jamgiller
The main problem in democracy is that each side tries to justify its evils by saying that other side is evil too.
Whataboutism is a standard in democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@jamgiller
So, who is your favorite person to be president?
Bernie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
u should start a debate on masturbation
My view on masturbation is contradictive.
On one hand, I find masturbation bad. I feel much better after a month of no masturbation.
On the other hand, masturbation has benefits, and the urges get too strong over time to the point where you have to masturbate.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I think users should be allowed to have about 15 active debates. Thats just about enough to stop spam, while allowing mass debates to happen.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
As long as we place value on life, it is not acceptable to destroy life under any circumstances.
However, realistically, If it were me, I would prefer to die than to live and suffer all the time in such extreme pain.
Created:
Guys.
Stop using insults and stop responding to insults with insults.
If someone insults you, report.
If you insult back, it makes you almost just as guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Bible 1 Corinthians 7
"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
Basically, you should only marry if you cant control urges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The purpose of a man's seed in Christianity is to procreate.
Actually, the New Testament teaches that its better not to marry, not to procreate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Except he told the people there he’d be back before the last of them passes.
Umm he did come back during their lifetime. He literally visited them several times after dying.
Created:
Posted in:
No, so-called Trans rights are special rights.
Oh, very special to have the right to be free from pain, to be called the way you want to be called. Surely no one should have such rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What did 'be mine' mean?
To fight on her side. I heard the expression in anime.
What does the original post have to do with transgender issues?
Well, the title is support to trans persons.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I mostly get my information from "The Trauma Myth" book.
It includes stories about children who liked being in relationships with adults.
Statistically, 90% of adult-child relationships dont include any pain, threats or violence.
An adult knows enough about the danger of STIs to make an informed decision regarding whether or not to have sex. A 8 year old child doesn’t even know what an STI is.
True. However, children usually get sexual urges at age 12-14.
I believe legally allowing children to marry would be beneficial.
The best way to prevent STI is marriage. Children cannot be protected from sex, since some of them actively seek sex.
However, they can be educated, guided and being allowed to marry.
Its not that children cant know what an STI is. Its that nobody really tells them anything about it.
In marriage, they would have sex with just one person, which is the safest type of sex.
STI are mostly spread by having multiple partners.
So its not that children shouldnt be allowed to have partners. They are going to have partners anyway.
However, bonding them to just one person with marriage would reduce STI to the greatest.
Like anecdotaly, my dad laid on me when I was 7 I think the way I would with a consenting woman now (I think it would feel good; but my personal morals prevent me from wanting it) (but we had clothes on; if it wasn’t, it would have been sex). I hated when Dad did that. I wouldn’t say I’m traumatized from it because I didn’t know what it was, but I didn’t like it. Ironically, he’s against pedophillia even though I think he’s a pedophille. My sister told me that and I reliezed that I was sexualized as a kid. This is before I knew pedophillia was a thing, so I hated it.
There are monsters in every group. There are monsters among straight people. There are monsters among gay people. There are monsters among MAP. There is no denying that.
Map is a euphemism to normalize having sex with kids. You can use it if you want, but I’ll use pedo.
MAP is name to decrease stigma. About 15% of MAP are children and teenagers who feel pressure because of society's judgment.
Fair point. But if the kid doesn’t like it (I don’t think kids would), then it is rape. You think kids can consent. If the kid didn’t want the pedo prosecuted, in court, the kid would have defended the pedo and said that it was consensual. If that was the standard, I don’t think pedophillia would be as stigmatized as it is now because there would be reports done by mainstream media about how kids are in trauma about their adult lovers being killed.
There are plenty of stories about children loving their adult partner. However, those stories dont make it to the mainstream media.
And how far does the claim, “children can consent” go? Like would you be okay with legalizing having sex with very drunk people that are awake but loony (like how children usually act)? I’ve never been drunk, but I’ve seen drunk people in videos before. They are going to regret any sex they have when they become sober.
Autonomy is not just about person's current choices, but also about his future choices. So if we know that a person will regret something, then better not do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Its only a lie if he never returns. We must wait.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
God killed lots of puppies because of Ernest.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Every time you masturbate, God kills a puppy.
Created:
Okay, I have a really important debate coming up, all well and prepared text, but I cant start it because the site wont let me.
It says I reached maximum number of allowed debates.
I didnt mass debate before, so I noticed that now after mass debating for the first time.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Exactly. He was God, not human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
He trusted the world and its future way too much. Now there are still evil capitalists and greedy leaders and gangbangers running in society, Jesus did not die for that
He died so that his message could be spread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
They lie. They have no predictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Jesus didn't do that either
Jesus conquered the world by offering people nothing on this Earth.
Billions of people for thousands of years followed Jesus and spread his message.
We know that Jesus performed miracles. For example, he predicted the future.
There are also thousands of witnesses of him performing miracles during his time.
Plenty of Christians today witness miracles.
Created:
Posted in:
She is a girl with a heart so pure
Living her life as she wants to do
She says "Be mine" and you can't deny
Say no and your soul would die
Under this sky
She carries the might
She is the future,
The future is bright
She is a girl
and that's all there is to it
Can you accept,
and watch her shine through it.
Don't let your hate bring you so low
Just let your love shine and flow
She's a girl who is meant to be
A light for everyone to see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Firemen didnt conquer the world, didnt die on a cross.
Jesus also performed miracles.
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus as just one man improved the world and gave comfort and rescue to many.
Thats why I believe he is the true God while God of The Old Testament isnt.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Thats why Jesus is the truth. Literally no human would choose 1.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you believe that we would still be morally obligated to increase life if life was net negative, or do you think that increase of life is irrelevant and only happiness counts?
If you value life more than happiness, then yeah.
But yes, there is a point at which life becomes not worth living, such as living in extreme pain constantly. At that point, many would wish to die and if there was a button that kills them instantly, they would press it.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Technically, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
A big fat liar.
Created:
-->
@Savant
These are two killing options, not "doing X to prevent Y."
When you have only 2 mutually exclusive options, doing one prevents the other. Thats what I meant.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Again, consequentialism would kill just 3 people, since that results in greatest overall good.
8 billion people = 8 billion hours when just 1 hour each.
3 persons = 1.8 million hours total.
8 billion people = 8 billion hours when just 1 hour each.
3 persons = 1.8 million hours total.
Just treatment would kill everyone equally.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Well, there would be a point where lifespans would be too short for everyone.
With over 600,000 hours of lost life for each individual, which is a lifetime, the individual would be born just to die one hour later.
Of course, it would still be unjust to kill 3 random people to prevent that, especially if its not the fault of those 3 people.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Its utilitarian, since it deals with the right action being that which, as a consequence, increases human life the most.
Created:
If I had to choose between:
1. I get badly tortured
2. Six billion people get badly tortured
I would always choose 2.
Consequentialism may say:
Choosing 1 results in least pain, as only one person gets tortured.
However, the problem is that the one person getting tortured would be me.
Option 2 hurts six billion people, but it doesnt hurt me.
I dont feel pain of other people. However, I feel my own pain.
So logically, the only morality I am interested in is reducing my own pain and increasing my own happiness.
I dont give a shit if any number of people suffer if the choice is me or them. I will always choose to save myself.
Think of it this way.
Example:
I will get tortured for all eternity. It will be really painful.
However, there is a button that I can press so that I stop my torture. However, six billion people will be tortured for all eternity instead of me, each same as I would have been tortured.
I would press the button.
This doesnt make me some monster. No, I would still feel bad that people are getting tortured. But at least its not me who gets tortured. Better them than me.
Created:
Consequentialism is only fun while its the others who get tortured. When its you, then its no longer fun.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I think it likely, that if I could live substantial longer, say 200 years (Though preferably 'much longer), there might be 'no amount of people, I'd not be willing to sacrifice, if all it took was a word.
I have a similar moral problem.
For example, if I had to choose between:
1. Me experiencing great pain
Or
2. Millions of other people experiencing great pain
I would always choose 2.
I dont like experiencing pain myself, and pain of other people doesnt hurt me.
Created:
-->
@Savant
You are the life fairy, a magical being who can extend lifespans. You can choose any number, denoted as X, and X random people will have their lifespans extended by 20/X years. You can increase the lifespans of billions of people by fractions of a second, increase 1 lifespan by 20 years, or something completely different. Assume that all of these people would appreciate an increased lifespan. What number do you choose, and how does equality factor in?
Equality would choose same for all. Consequentialism would likely choose 20 people to extend their life each by 1 year or something like that. Maybe extend the lives of 240 persons by one month?
Created:
-->
@Savant
Interesting. What about causing X/100 amount of pain to 200 people? Or 1,000 people? (vs causing X amount of pain to 1 person.) Does utility ever outweigh equality as a value, in your opinion?
In an ideal world, utility should never outweight justice and equality.
Yes, in an ideal world.
The main two moral theories are:
1. Ban that which does more harm than good (consequentialism).
2. What is banned for one is banned for all (justice, equality).
In your case, it is a case of equality vs utility.
1. Causing 1 person X pain
2. Causing 200 persons X/100 pain each
2 causes more pain. So from a consequentialist point of view, choosing 2 is wrong.
However, from a point of view of equality, choosing 1 is wrong since it is not an equal treatment for all.
There is a point where utility makes equality undesirable.
For example, being forced to decide to 1. Torture the entire world with X amount of pain or 2. Torture just 1 person with X amount of pain.
From a point of equality, 1 is equal treatment for all. From a point of utility, 2 is an obvious choice.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Justice means:
What is banned for one is banned for all.
I dont see how you can ban one person from not feeling pain, and not ban same for everyone else, and call that justice.
I also dont see how you can ban one person from living without banning all from living, and call that justice.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
how much of a spammer you are over the time.
I like good spam.
Created:
Posted in:
That is stating an observable FACT, not an ad hominem.
Some people are ugly. Calling them ugly is an observable fact. Yet still an ad hominem.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Maybe remove the forum post leaderboard.
But I like that leaderboard 🥺
Created: