Thanks for dropping by for your wank.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think most people on the Forum think of him as a completely different species.Arising_uk wrote:You think yourself a different species?.Dalek Prime wrote:My own? ...
Intro, not for the weak of heart
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
-
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
9 pages of an Intro - are you trying to set a record?
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
I think I've already achieved that. Funny you mention it though. I was just contemplating having one of the mods close comments on it. It's become a vomitorium.marjoram_blues wrote:9 pages of an Intro - are you trying to set a record?
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
It seems that you think that the book is the end all and be all of the topic, in that case, you're on your own, I am satisfied with the other material I have on the subject.Dalek Prime wrote:Why bother. You haven't read the book. Oh right, it doesn't matter to you.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
Well, you think the bible is the be all and end all of your faith, and expect people to read that in order to discuss it rationally, no? So why is my request any different? Fuck you and your ignorance then. I don't want to hear any of you ever whine about a person not up on the topic sources ever, you stupid hypocrites.thedoc wrote:It seems that you think that the book is the end all and be all of the topic, in that case, you're on your own, I am satisfied with the other material I have on the subject.Dalek Prime wrote:Why bother. You haven't read the book. Oh right, it doesn't matter to you.
Now, lets all of us discuss a topic we all have never read. Won't that be a fucking lark.
Anyways, the shop is now closed. Get off my lawn, the lot of you.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
If you believe that, then I can understand why you are getting everything else wrong. Do you believe that everything is black or white, yes or no, absolutely one thing or the other?Dalek Prime wrote: Well, you think the bible is the be all and end all of your faith,
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
Why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Now piss off. We're done here.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
I think you just need to get back on your spaceship and set the controls for Skaro.Dalek Prime wrote:Why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Now piss off. We're done here.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
Skaros, twat. Do drop in for a wank and vomit soon. On se one thought, the toilet is broken. Good find another washroom to regurgitate and purge.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you just need to get back on your spaceship and set the controls for Skaro.Dalek Prime wrote:Why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Now piss off. We're done here.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
Seems the mods are enjoying the show here. They won't close comments, so I will.end up with the longest intro, if not longest thread. What is the longest thread here, anyways?Dalek Prime wrote:I think I've already achieved that. Funny you mention it though. I was just contemplating having one of the mods close comments on it. It's become a vomitorium.marjoram_blues wrote:9 pages of an Intro - are you trying to set a record?
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
Jesus! Your obsession with wanking is starting to make you look a bit gay.Dalek Prime wrote:Skaros, twat. Do drop in for a wank and vomit soon. On se one thought, the toilet is broken. Good find another washroom to regurgitate and purge.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you just need to get back on your spaceship and set the controls for Skaro.Dalek Prime wrote:Why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Now piss off. We're done here.
Whatever next a gay dalek.
BTW, you are even ignorant about where the Daleks come from, fuckwit.
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Skaro
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
Oh no, Hobson's Choice just called me gay! Ouch! Ow!
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
For most people, most of the time, the desire to reproduce, as well as the desire to have sex without counting the costs, as well as the long term benefits, has, is, and will continue to trump the fear of 'imposition', as you put it, in all likelihood, and to think this'll ever reverse itself, is a little naïve.
While the birthrate is declining globally, I believe, especially among whites, most whites are still having 1-2 children, and this declining birthrate is due much more to other factors, such as convenience, egoistic hedonism and materialism, the break up of the family, economic decline and so on, than people adopting antinatalist beliefs, or beliefs about overpopulation for that matter, although the fact that there are so many of us, might be mostly subconsciously contributing to declining birthrates, and people having fewer children because children are less likely to die prematurely.
As for whether it is an imposition or not, it could just as easily be seen as a gift and an opportunity, life itself could be seen as a gift, the gift of life, and people are free to subconsciously, or consciously when they come of age, do with this gift and opportunity as they please.
The fact that an infant breathes, is a subconscious, intuitive and organic affirmation of the will to live, and as children's brains develop, they can always commit suicide if they so desire, or become antinatalists.
All that being said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I know that's near impossible, I'm not even sure I'd want to convince you of anything even if it were possible, I'm merely sharing my thoughts and feelings about this subject with you, and you can do whatever you wish with them.
I'm an individualist in some senses, we're all human, but we're all different, and we can't, nor should we necessarily all think and feel about things the same way.
The line between objectivity and subjectivity is finer than most people suppose.
And that being said, I think we can both agree that it's highly unlikely most people will ever become antinatalists, although you are free to stand by your principles.
If I could get you to see anything, I would just get you to see the subjectivity, and the non-cognitive factors at play in either position, antinatalist or Pronatalist, as well as how subjective cognition itself can be, when we choose to label something a this or a that.
Some minds lump, some split, some broadly define some words, terms and concepts, and some narrowly define the same words, terms and concepts, there's a lot of flexibility and variability in language and thought, and thought needn't be bound by conventional language.
Language is always mutating, and is both a collectivistic and individualistic enterprise.
Myself, I may someday want to have children, but I have no wish to turn my desire into a kind of absolute moral imperative, to convince everyone that they should have children, just because they can.
Like the more biological asexual or gay, the more philosophical or psychological antinatalist will almost certainly remain a minatory, a radical extremist principle, position and sentiment, a kind of runaway liberalism, that runs counter to, and is completely at odds with biology and the cultures which have sprung up around it.
While the birthrate is declining globally, I believe, especially among whites, most whites are still having 1-2 children, and this declining birthrate is due much more to other factors, such as convenience, egoistic hedonism and materialism, the break up of the family, economic decline and so on, than people adopting antinatalist beliefs, or beliefs about overpopulation for that matter, although the fact that there are so many of us, might be mostly subconsciously contributing to declining birthrates, and people having fewer children because children are less likely to die prematurely.
As for whether it is an imposition or not, it could just as easily be seen as a gift and an opportunity, life itself could be seen as a gift, the gift of life, and people are free to subconsciously, or consciously when they come of age, do with this gift and opportunity as they please.
The fact that an infant breathes, is a subconscious, intuitive and organic affirmation of the will to live, and as children's brains develop, they can always commit suicide if they so desire, or become antinatalists.
All that being said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I know that's near impossible, I'm not even sure I'd want to convince you of anything even if it were possible, I'm merely sharing my thoughts and feelings about this subject with you, and you can do whatever you wish with them.
I'm an individualist in some senses, we're all human, but we're all different, and we can't, nor should we necessarily all think and feel about things the same way.
The line between objectivity and subjectivity is finer than most people suppose.
And that being said, I think we can both agree that it's highly unlikely most people will ever become antinatalists, although you are free to stand by your principles.
If I could get you to see anything, I would just get you to see the subjectivity, and the non-cognitive factors at play in either position, antinatalist or Pronatalist, as well as how subjective cognition itself can be, when we choose to label something a this or a that.
Some minds lump, some split, some broadly define some words, terms and concepts, and some narrowly define the same words, terms and concepts, there's a lot of flexibility and variability in language and thought, and thought needn't be bound by conventional language.
Language is always mutating, and is both a collectivistic and individualistic enterprise.
Myself, I may someday want to have children, but I have no wish to turn my desire into a kind of absolute moral imperative, to convince everyone that they should have children, just because they can.
Like the more biological asexual or gay, the more philosophical or psychological antinatalist will almost certainly remain a minatory, a radical extremist principle, position and sentiment, a kind of runaway liberalism, that runs counter to, and is completely at odds with biology and the cultures which have sprung up around it.
Re: Intro, not for the weak of heart
Someone noticed this earlier, your thinking is very black/white.
That's fine, there's always going to be such thinkers in the world, as well as those who attempt to transcend it.
Now, even if antinatalism couldn't be seen as anything other than an imposition, which it easily can, I'm maintaining, sometimes we impose things upon others for both selfish reasons, and/or the greater good.
Some people are very selfish, and the people who aren't, nearly all of them will argue that imposing some things on others, like fastening children's seat belts and so on, is a necessary imposition.
This is because we're always weighing our desire for freedom, against our selfish desires, as well as against our desires for fairness and the greater good.
All these, whatever you want to call them, sentiments or values factor into our decision making to greater or lesser extents, depending on the person and the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Even you impose things upon others for selfish and selfless reasons.
No one could always refrain from infringing upon the 'rights' of others, and there's a fine line between what is, and isn't an imposition.
For example, listening to rap music on the bus, and me having to hear it, could be seen as an imposition.
Staring at someone could be seen as an imposition.
Where do we draw the line, why draw lines at all?
Where we draw lines says a lot about our human thoughts, feelings and values, just as much or more than it says about the world, which is not a collection of things with rigid borders and boundaries, so much as it's akin to a haze.
So imposition, for selfish and selfless reasons, is an inevitable aspect of nature, as well as say, hierarchy, nor can we ever all agree on what constitutes imposition, or for that matter, what constitutes property, or whether the concept property is even necessary.
At best, all we can do is reduce imposition in our lives, we can never eliminate it, and with everything we do, or don't do, there's trade offs, take one step 'forward' here, take another two steps backward there.
People have desires to refrain from imposing things upon others, but they also have desires to nurture, raise and rear children, to carry on their line, to leave a legacy.
Just because we choose to impose 1 thing in 1 instance, does not mean we're being contradictory if we then don't choose to impose all things in all instances whenever we can or are inclined to.
That's absolutist thinking...which you may carry on with.
That's fine, there's always going to be such thinkers in the world, as well as those who attempt to transcend it.
Now, even if antinatalism couldn't be seen as anything other than an imposition, which it easily can, I'm maintaining, sometimes we impose things upon others for both selfish reasons, and/or the greater good.
Some people are very selfish, and the people who aren't, nearly all of them will argue that imposing some things on others, like fastening children's seat belts and so on, is a necessary imposition.
This is because we're always weighing our desire for freedom, against our selfish desires, as well as against our desires for fairness and the greater good.
All these, whatever you want to call them, sentiments or values factor into our decision making to greater or lesser extents, depending on the person and the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Even you impose things upon others for selfish and selfless reasons.
No one could always refrain from infringing upon the 'rights' of others, and there's a fine line between what is, and isn't an imposition.
For example, listening to rap music on the bus, and me having to hear it, could be seen as an imposition.
Staring at someone could be seen as an imposition.
Where do we draw the line, why draw lines at all?
Where we draw lines says a lot about our human thoughts, feelings and values, just as much or more than it says about the world, which is not a collection of things with rigid borders and boundaries, so much as it's akin to a haze.
So imposition, for selfish and selfless reasons, is an inevitable aspect of nature, as well as say, hierarchy, nor can we ever all agree on what constitutes imposition, or for that matter, what constitutes property, or whether the concept property is even necessary.
At best, all we can do is reduce imposition in our lives, we can never eliminate it, and with everything we do, or don't do, there's trade offs, take one step 'forward' here, take another two steps backward there.
People have desires to refrain from imposing things upon others, but they also have desires to nurture, raise and rear children, to carry on their line, to leave a legacy.
Just because we choose to impose 1 thing in 1 instance, does not mean we're being contradictory if we then don't choose to impose all things in all instances whenever we can or are inclined to.
That's absolutist thinking...which you may carry on with.