Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:42 pm
ken wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:22 pm
Don't be a complete fanny mate. Hand over the formula.

It's either true or it's bollocks, but if it's a mathematical formula it doesn't need an open mind to be true or false.
Just more proof of how assumptions lead human beings so astray from the actual truth.

If you stopped assuming that your perception of "mathematical formula" is much to do with what I have been talking about here, then you would stop believing that what I am willing to show you is impossible.

How could I make it any clearer? IF YOU WANT ANSWERS, THEN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
There's only one clarifying question that remains: Are you taking the piss?
No. And, if that was the last one remaining clarifying question from you, then so be it.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:42 pmWhat you clearly don't understand is that Utilitarianism is by definition a quantitative theory, and SF pointed out that nobody has a model for quantifying it. "100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place" quantifies the square root of fuck all. Now we learn you aren't offering anything more quantitatively solid than that. So you were quite wrong in you reply to SF and you are wasting the limited attention I am willing to spend on you as well.

Nobody needs to be told by you that 'To Me, obviously "happiness" would be for ALL, and not just some.', unlike you we are educated and have read Jeremy Bentham who wrote that shit 200 years ago. I'm sure I pointed out to you some months ago that none of the grand ideas you think you are going to change the world with are new to us. They are new to you because you are ignorant, and with it arrogant.

Likewise, some fluffy shit about honesty and openness answers precisely no question at all other than "what insipid hallmark card worthy bland truisms might some uninspired, shallow little man offer up as his Ultimate Grand Philosophy?"
Are you asking Me a question here, or are you expressing a thought?

If you are asking Me a question, then I have no idea what it is.

If you say 'honesty and openness' answers no question at all, then that would depend on the question of course. By the way, if you want questions answered, then you need to be able to formulate questions correctly.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:44 am Greta: Nazism can be "justified" by utilitarianism, as can feeding Christians to the lions, etc. All one has to do is come up with some basis for saying that the enjoyment of the majority outweighs the harm to the minority, and all is fair game under utilitarianism. It is impossible for anyone to actually know what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number or how to even go about calculating such a thing.
Why can you not understand the 'majority' mean ALL?

Please stop assuming that no one actually knows what causes the greatest happiness for the 'greatest number', which IS ALL. Until the discussion is had, you do not know what is possible or not. How to calculate such a thing AGAIN IS very easy. I have done it numerous times already but you completely want to ignore that fact.
Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:44 amI'm not even sure why anyone wants to attempt an answer to a moral question based on utilitarianism. If a lady gets an abortion, and if someone thousands of miles away, living in a different country, would be upset if she found out about the abortion, how do we measure that? Why should we even care to do so?
Why do some people put such ridiculous example questions into some thing that it has no relation to?

If you would like to have a discussion about morality and/or utilitarianism, then you can start by choosing the definitions of these words and laying them down for all of us to see. Then we can begin to have a proper discussion. (I leave it up to you to provide the definitions so that I am not then accused of favoring any side nor any thing.)
Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:44 amAnyways, this is my last post here. I'm sticking with another philosophy forum, where the members are not permitted to insult each other. Frankly, I just can't stand the personal attacks from Harbal and Veggie anymore. I'm an adult, not a child.
Oh. I wish i read this before I replied above.

By the way I thought a "grown" adult could see through and past attempted "personal" attacks before a child ever could.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:57 pm
Are you asking Me a question here, or are you expressing a thought?
If I feel like bothering to ask you any more questions I will indicate such by forming sentences as questions
I was explaining to you why your answers are boring, stupid obvious and irrelevant all at once.
If those are the answers you have to previous questions, and if they are the best you can do, then there is little reason to ask new ones.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:35 pm
ken wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:57 pm
Are you asking Me a question here, or are you expressing a thought?
If I feel like bothering to ask you any more questions I will indicate such by forming sentences as questions.
That was the issue I was bringing to light. I was eshowing how you finished your sentence with a question mark, which indicated that you were asking a question, however what you posed was not a clearly defined nor formed question at all.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:35 pmI was explaining to you why your answers are boring, stupid obvious and irrelevant all at once.
You talked about "fluffy shit" as though that actually explained some thing. Obviously what you are actually doing here does not need to be pointed out.

If you believe that I have absolutely nothing new at all to add here, then for you to read any thing further under the identity 'ken' would then show just how you truly are.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:35 pmIf those are the answers you have to previous questions, and if they are the best you can do, then there is little reason to ask new ones.
I have very rarely been asked any real clarifying and challenging questions, especially from you. Most of the time I am just told what is believed to be true, just like what 'you' do.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:29 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:35 pm
ken wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:57 pm
Are you asking Me a question here, or are you expressing a thought?
If I feel like bothering to ask you any more questions I will indicate such by forming sentences as questions.
That was the issue I was bringing to light. I was eshowing how you finished your sentence with a question mark, which indicated that you were asking a question, however what you posed was not a clearly defined nor formed question at all.
That's stupid. The text you quoted contained exactly one question mark, which was between quote marks and clearly was not me asking you a question. There's no issue in that text for you to bring to light, but this all does indicate that you are much more interested in replying than you are in comprehending the thing to which you reply.
ken wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:29 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:35 pmI was explaining to you why your answers are boring, stupid obvious and irrelevant all at once.
You talked about "fluffy shit" as though that actually explained some thing. Obviously what you are actually doing here does not need to be pointed out.

If you believe that I have absolutely nothing new at all to add here, then for you to read any thing further under the identity 'ken' would then show just how you truly are.
I already don't read most of what you write. It is too boring.
ken wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:29 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:35 pmIf those are the answers you have to previous questions, and if they are the best you can do, then there is little reason to ask new ones.
I have very rarely been asked any real clarifying and challenging questions, especially from you. Most of the time I am just told what is believed to be true, just like what 'you' do.
And you are certain (ready to assume) that none of this your fault, right?

You are the one that decided to tell SF you had the answer for his question even though you didn't understand the question at all.
You show no sign of being willing to accept that you didn't get the point of the question, you've just decided that the invalid answer you gave must be perfect.
And somehow you think it is the job of other people to ask you further questions to find out how fucking amazing you are.
When the only evidence we've ever had for your fucking amazingness is your personal conviction it is so.
Eventually you will need to understand the writers maxim of show don't tell applies very much to all claims of genius.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pm
ken wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:29 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:35 pm

If I feel like bothering to ask you any more questions I will indicate such by forming sentences as questions.
That was the issue I was bringing to light. I was eshowing how you finished your sentence with a question mark, which indicated that you were asking a question, however what you posed was not a clearly defined nor formed question at all.
That's stupid. The text you quoted contained exactly one question mark, which was between quote marks and clearly was not me asking you a question.
So why put the one question mark in the sentence?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pm There's no issue in that text for you to bring to light, but this all does indicate that you are much more interested in replying than you are in comprehending the thing to which you reply.
I comprehend that you believe I have nothing new at all to say and my answers are boring, already obvious, and irrelevant to you. You insist that I am ignorant because I have not read every thing that you have and that I am arrogant also, and you suggest that I only talk about loving stuff. Is there any thing else that I need to comprehend?

There may be no issue to you, but to Me there was. You put one question mark at the end of a sentence, which was clearly not formed as a proper question, so all that I did was ask you a clarifying question, which you are making into an issue. If a person puts a question mark at the end of a sentence, then I either answer it or clarify.

If you want to continue on with this issue, then go ahead.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pm
ken wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:29 am

You talked about "fluffy shit" as though that actually explained some thing. Obviously what you are actually doing here does not need to be pointed out.

If you believe that I have absolutely nothing new at all to add here, then for you to read any thing further under the identity 'ken' would then show just how you truly are.
I already don't read most of what you write. It is too boring.
If I am boring, then maybe you could entertain and enlighten us. Have you got any thing either entertaining or enlightening that you can provide here? I have not seen you provide any thing new at all.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pm And you are certain (ready to assume) that none of this your fault, right?
Not at all. If you had read more of what I have wrote, then you would see that I accept and take full responsibility for absolutely every thing I write here. I have explained many times that I am just in the process of learning how to express better. I admit that I am very slow and simple and that I am not able to communicate with human beings properly. I am so useless at communicating and being understood that when I do say it is My fault when people do not understand Me because of what I write and the way I write it, then I am told that is not correct because I can not be responsible for how and what others think. Human beings try to confuse Me a lot. For example I am told one thing by one person and the exact opposite by another. I am not really sure what it is that human beings want Me to see and understand, when to Me they appear so confused and conflicted themselves.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pmYou are the one that decided to tell SF you had the answer for his question even though you didn't understand the question at all.
Seeing as though I do not understand the question at all as you propose, then you write the question again so everyone here can see it, and then I will provide an answer for that question. I think science fan has left the room, so it is up to you to provide the question, that is if you are able to.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pmYou show no sign of being willing to accept that you didn't get the point of the question, you've just decided that the invalid answer you gave must be perfect.
I will readily accept and admit right here and now that I did not get the point of the question that you so fully understand. You keep wanting to say that My answer was invalid, without any actual evidence for this provided by you yet by the way, however if and when you provide the question again, and I am allowed to continually clarify from you if I am understanding the point of the question properly, then after that then like I said, "I will provide an answer for it".

The reason I have shown no sign of being willing to accept that I do not get the point of the question IS because I did not know I had to show a sign that I do not get the point of the question from YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I obviously got the point of the question from MY PERSPECTIVE. But just to make things clear I am willing and WILL accept that I do not get the point of just about all you are trying to express. The contradictory and distorted beliefs that you try to express as being true come across very confusing. May be from now on you can make your views much clearer.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pmAnd somehow you think it is the job of other people to ask you further questions to find out how fucking amazing you are.
You do not understand. I want people to ask Me further questions NOT to find out how fucking amazing 'I' really am. I do this so human beings can see and understand what I am writing, and then they will be able to argue against it with sound valid arguments or accept it for what it is. By the way, the true and real 'I', which is within 'you', IS pretty amazing when 'you' are open to see and understand It. If you think there is any difference or any separation with the 'I', then you are sadly mistaken. But if you continue to believe and assume you know who and what 'I' am, then you will continue to remain as lost and confused as 'you' are now.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pmWhen the only evidence we've ever had for your fucking amazingness is your personal conviction it is so.
I do not recall ever saying any thing about My fucking amazingness, that is prior to this post. If you could show where I have allegedly done this, then that would be interesting to take a look at. Maybe you are seeing and understanding Me better then I have ever let on before.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pmEventually you will need to understand the writers maxim of show don't tell applies very much to all claims of genius.
But, again, I do not recall making any claim of genius. If you had comprehended what I have actually been writing and saying, then you could plainly see that the only thing I claimed previously was that I am very slow and simple, which is rather very contradictory to what you are seeing and saying here?

Have you ever wondered why human beings can not come to an agreement on things?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:05 am I will readily accept and admit right here and now that I did not get the point of the question that you so fully understand. You keep wanting to say that My answer was invalid, without any actual evidence for this provided by you yet by the way, however if and when you provide the question again, and I am allowed to continually clarify from you if I am understanding the point of the question properly, then after that then like I said, "I will provide an answer for it".
FFS, this is the limit my patience for you. If I take some time to explain this to you you had better not just hit reply right away and start writing irrelevant shit without reading and comprehending this whole post. In fact you need to stop doing that as a rule because stupid shit like this is not good enough.
ken wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:10 pm Oh. I wish i read this before I replied above.
Seriously, you have many failings, but the way you make no attempt to understand a whole before you reply to the disjointed parts is really a list topper.


First up. You don't seem to understand what the claims of basic utilitarianism are, or else you don't appear to know what quantitative means. Both seems likely.
You might start therefore by googling those words and seeing if you learn anything.

That's a problem because SF was raising the issue that Utilitarianism is a quantitative theory based around an unquantifiable objective.
The problem SF posed can only be solved by providing a means by which to quantify pleasure and pain in a population of people.
Your answer was nothing to do with that, so it was by definition not an answer.

I'm not here to teach you basic shit. I am not going to drum into a disrespectful ignorant pissant such things as something that works on quantities is quantitative. If you need to ask qualifying questions, I will expect them not to be amazingly stupid which has been your level thus far.

The sheer arrogance that allows you , without any understanding of the question, to announce "I will provide an answer for it" is pathetic by the way.


ken wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:05 am But, again, I do not recall making any claim of genius. If you had comprehended what I have actually been writing and saying, then you could plainly see that the only thing I claimed previously was that I am very slow and simple, which is rather very contradictory to what you are seeing and saying here?
Don't bullshit me you cheeky ball bag.

You also write this....
ken wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:55 pm Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19183&p=267569&hil ... re#p267569

And a whole bunch of self-aggrandising shit like it.





And seriously, if you cannot go back and read that previous post and work out for yourself that I was not asking you a question, there is nothing that can be done to help you anyway. I am done with that now.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pm
ken wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:05 am I will readily accept and admit right here and now that I did not get the point of the question that you so fully understand. You keep wanting to say that My answer was invalid, without any actual evidence for this provided by you yet by the way, however if and when you provide the question again, and I am allowed to continually clarify from you if I am understanding the point of the question properly, then after that then like I said, "I will provide an answer for it".
FFS, this is the limit my patience for you. If I take some time to explain this to you you had better not just hit reply right away and start writing irrelevant shit without reading and comprehending this whole post. In fact you need to stop doing that as a rule because stupid shit like this is not good enough.
I had no idea what ffs meant. Was I meant to know what it meant when you wrote it? Am I meant to see everything and know everything that you know and understand, in the exact same way that you see and understand them?

You write like I am expected to know everything that you are assuming/thinking/believing. How do you propose I can actually do this? If you do not write what you are actually referring to and meaning, then I am not going to start assuming just for you, and your sake. Have you ever noticed how you write?

"... is not good enough", in regards to who/what exactly?

Who are you to tell Me what I "need" to do or stop doing? If I want to reply and when I do reply is My decision alone, not yours. Or, did you really believe that I was going to do what you wanted Me to do? I will reply how I want to, when I want to, and in the way that I want to. If you read it and/or want to read it is completely up to you and your decision. And, as I have already explained if I am not completely and fully understood how I want to be understood, then that is completely and fully 100% My responsibility, which I will and do admit and take full responsibility for. However, in saying that I am not able to know what is not fully understood if people do not express that and/or ask clarifying questions to Me.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pm
ken wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:10 pm Oh. I wish i read this before I replied above.
Seriously, you have many failings, but the way you make no attempt to understand a whole before you reply to the disjointed parts is really a list topper.
Your writings show that you obviously do not understand some posts that you reply to also, yet you still respond, AND at the same time you expect Me to understand every thing that I respond to, when in fact you do not.

Do you know exactly why I wished I read the whole post that time, which by the way had nothing at all to do with the understanding of the whole post anyway.

Also, thanks for showing and highlighting some of My many failings. I am sure others in a philosophy forum are interested and like to see your perceptions of the failings of others also. Also because you like to point out how I do not really understand things, then I will readily admit that I understood that the whole purpose of philosophy was to become wiser. I did not realize that judging the behaviors of others and attempting to attack them personally, as you seem to do more often then logically reason things out, was also part of philosophy. Thanks again for the "insight" that you provide us here.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pmFirst up. You don't seem to understand what the claims of basic utilitarianism are, or else you don't appear to know what quantitative means. Both seems likely.
You might start therefore by googling those words and seeing if you learn anything.
So, by you not providing an answer, an explanation, nor the question that I asked you to provide, is showing Me that either you are to lazy or that you do not understand this yourself, and that is why you are unable to actually explain it yourself. Obviously if you could, then you would have just written some thing in your own words down yourself.

What is it exactly in My google search of 'utilitarianism+quantitative' do you want Me to actually see and understand?

You do realize that ALL human beings can read and/or hear the exact same thing, AND, come to see and understand completely different things and/or meanings, especially when they are viewing the perspectives of others, right? You do realize that if you do not clarify exactly what another person says, then all you are doing here is jumping to conclusions, which are based on your assumptions, which are solely based on your past experiences, which no person other than yourself has any real actual knowledge of. Therefore, "to understand what the claims of basic utilitarianism are", as you would put it, then I would need to know what A person's understanding of what the claims of basic utilitarianism are. I do not want to assume any thing, so I will not assume what the claims of basic utilitarianism are unless of course I can ask the person providing the basic claims some clarifying questions. Now if you want to provide your perspective of what your understanding of the claims of basic utilitarianism are, then feel free to provide them. But as I usually say expect some clarifying questions and/or challenging. That is what I would seek if I was you also.

I read some of google's interpretation and nothing really new nor exciting there. But again maybe I am far to simple to see and understand what it is exactly that you see and understand. By the way to Me that is just another example, of a multitude of examples, of how and where human beings make very easy and simple things very hard and complicated.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pmThat's a problem because SF was raising the issue that Utilitarianism is a quantitative theory based around an unquantifiable objective.
You have explained this already but obviously you are unable to actually realize how nonsensical a statement this is.

How could a quantitative theory POSSIBLY BE based around a non-quantifiable objective?

Obviously the theory is not true and/or will not work if it is non-quantifiable. I have shown how it is quantifiable by providing the quantities in relation to how many people, for how long, and for where the theory is based upon.

You obviously do not understand what I am saying and getting at, but this is very understandable because of the way you look at and see things. You obviously need to understand other things before you are able to progress to being able to see and understand where I am at and are coming from. But do not worry about it to much, 'you' are not alone.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pmThe problem SF posed can only be solved by providing a means by which to quantify pleasure and pain in a population of people.
Your answer was nothing to do with that, so it was by definition not an answer.
How can My answer of 100% of the population, for example, not be an answer? It might not be the answer you are looking for but it is an answer.

I took it that you already understand that the quantity of pleasure and pain is to reduce pain to 0% and increase pleasure to 100%, but I should know better then to assume any thing. Did/do you really need to be told what the means IS by which to quantify pleasure and pain? The answer to that is obvious. What causes 'you' pleasure and pain IS the answer? Now, obviously only you can provide that, which is the answer to what means causes you pleasure and pain.

Once you have done that properly, then you will know what the means are by which to quantify pleasure and pain. You will know if you have done that properly, because you will obviously have and thus know the answer. But, if you are not prepared to look at yourself and/or you do not want to share, AND you still want to know the answer, then just ask the question. I will then provide an answer for 'you'.

To Me the means that solves the so called "problem" posed by science fan is easily known, once you know how to pose a proposed "problem" AND know how to find the answer, which IS the solution, to ALL so called "problems", then 'you' can do it easily and simply.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pmI'm not here to teach you basic shit.
That is obvious. I also do not want to know basic 'shit' (whatever that is).
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pm I am not going to drum into a disrespectful ignorant pissant such things as something that works on quantities is quantitative.
If you are not going to do it, then so be it.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pm If you need to ask qualifying questions, I will expect them not to be amazingly stupid which has been your level thus far.
But I have not asked qualifying questions. I ask clarifying questions. I do this in order to clarify where the person is coming from and what their understanding is. Also, I do not see questions as being stupid, let alone amazingly stupid. To Me questions are just asked so that a person can learn more. All human beings since their birth come into the world not knowing about the world. They learn about it, and one of the best ways to learn any thing is to ask any and/or all questions. To Me asking questions, and listening to the answer, while remaining completely and fully open, is one of the easiest and best ways of learning, understanding and becoming wiser. By the way, and contradictory to popular belief in the year this is written, being and remaining open while listening to every thing another says does NOT lead to believing in things that are false. If one listens to ALL of what another says while remaining completely and fully open does not mean that that one has to necessarily accept, agree, and/or believe (in) what the other says. In face the more open one is the opposite is more true, in that that one is able to see and understand what the actual truth IS. Not what is just told them to be what is true.

If My questions so far are amazingly stupid, to 'you', then I am not surprised at all really.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pmThe sheer arrogance that allows you , without any understanding of the question, to announce "I will provide an answer for it" is pathetic by the way.
What exactly do you think is so arrogant about saying that "I will provide an answer ...?" If you think the answer is adequate or not, or if you listen to it or not, and/or if you understand it or not is another matter. But I do not see how just saying "I will provide an answer for it" is arrogant. But I can see how saying, "I will provide the answer for it" could very easily be seen to be arrogant though.

I will be the very first to admit that ANY and/or ALL of My answers could be inadequate, wrong, false, and/or incorrect. But that does not matter at all. I am NOT saying My answers are adequate, true, right, and/or correct. I am just expressing the answers that I see, which by the way, fit together perfectly to form a big picture, which I also see is the one and the answer to what adult human beings for centuries say they have been looking for. If it is or not is another matter.

If, by the way, that answer and picture that I see does end up being the one that human beings have been and are looking for, then it is NOT because i was more special, more unique, nor more intelligent then any other person. In fact the opposite is far more true. I am far more inferior than others are. If you need anymore evidence of this, which you see and already believe is true anyway, then all you have to do is just ask others and they will tell you that I am more stupid and less than what they are.

So, the answer and picture that I have is not because I am more better. It was just revealed to me because of the different experiences that i had had. I was more stupid, more open, and more honest than others were/are, and from that I was exposed to things others are not, and thus i was seeing and learning different things. If you even began to think that I am any better or superior to another, then again you are very sadly mistaken. If you began to think that way, then that is because of the way I write and how I express things.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pm
ken wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:05 am But, again, I do not recall making any claim of genius. If you had comprehended what I have actually been writing and saying, then you could plainly see that the only thing I claimed previously was that I am very slow and simple, which is rather very contradictory to what you are seeing and saying here?
Don't bullshit me you cheeky ball bag.
If by "bullshit" you mean that I am lying to you, then provide some evidence of this. If you do not mean that, then I again I do not know what you are talking about and meaning. I, once again, do not understand you. What do you really mean by "bullshit" and by "cheeky ball bag"?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pmYou also write this....
ken wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:55 pm Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19183&p=267569&hil ... re#p267569

And a whole bunch of self-aggrandising shit like it.
Is there any other evidence of what you presume and believe is happening here? We can only see evidence if you provide it. Or, are we just expected to believe there is evidence because you say and propose it is there?

What I said above still stands, the evidence of this still can only be found in and from future generations. The way I write here in this forum, in this day and age, is more for future generations to understand. Only those more evolved human beings can see and understand this. The way you are writing here is also excellent for Me as it provides more proof of what I am talking about. Your writings also provides more evidence for future generations to fully understand what it is that I learning in how to say and express now and in here.

When, and if, I do learn how to express properly, then I can use these writings as I see them now as the evidence and proof I could use to support My findings.

If that is the "self-aggrandising shit" you are referring to, then so be it. The only thing I am trying to enhance and/or increase is the curiosity within human beings. Curiosity leads to seeking, and, seeking leads to finding answers. So, we will just have to wait and see when this happens. I am certainly in no hurry.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pmAnd seriously, if you cannot go back and read that previous post and work out for yourself that I was not asking you a question, there is nothing that can be done to help you anyway. I am done with that now.
If you are really done with that, we will have to wait and see.

If, however, you still do not understand, or you just do not want to admit to yourself, that putting a question mark at the end of a sentence is usually done because that sentence is, or within that sentence lies, a question. Or, there is another thing, which most people do not seem to recognize, is that within writings there are subliminal messages, which can be seen. Within that sentence you wrote, with a question mark at the end of it, there was an obvious question that you had in "mind". (I am using the word "mind" here in a way that human beings, in the days of when this was written, use it.) If you can not see that question, then I would not worry about it at all.

"There is more than one way to skin a cat", as it is said, and, "Curiosity killed the cat", is also some times said. Curiosity will get the better of 'you'. (This might not be fully understood until much later on. But the more intelligent a person is the quicker they could very simply and easily work this out and thus be able to fully understand what I mean by this. I could give another hint right here and now. But I have repeated the hint many times throughout this forum already. The truly intelligent ones will work it out soon enough.)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

FFS.
Post Reply