Philosophy

[Age]

Absolute truth is all one and indivisible.

EXACTLY. And it is because of this HOW, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY absolute Truths are found, or uncovered, and WHAT makes up or constitutes what absolute Truths are EXACTLY.

This is also HOW and WHY absolute Truth is absolutely IRREFUTABLE.

All those 'clarifying questions' you always go on about but you aren't asking wtf "indivisible" means in that sentence?

Just so you become aware I have ALREADY been SHOWN the ABSOLUTE ERROR, ABSURDITY, FOOLISHNESS, and RIDICULOUSNESS in my way of saying "clarifying question".

So, I do NOT go on about them anymore.

And, because I ALREADY KNOW what 'indivisible' means and refers to, EXACTLY, in that sentence, I chose to not ask a question, for clarification here.

However, if you do NOT YET know what that word means here, then you are absolutely free to ask a question, in order to obtain clarity here.

[Belinda]

I think she was referring to Moral Relativism, and in that context, logical contradictions don't carry the same weight.

In other words, people hold directly contradictory views and beliefs, yet claim them as truth, such as cultural relativism.

For beliefs which are not scientific, and not empirical, there is a far less stringent rigor with regard to 'truth'.


I'll wait for Belinda's response though, don't want to misspeak her position.

I can offer a shortcut. Normally anyone who writes what she does is a relatvist, but Belinda can't commit to that because then she would have no reason to suddely invoke God for F knows what reason this time as per this recent example...

You are a moral realtivist who keeps banging on about moral facts.

I don't even care why you suddenly invoked a bunch of relgion

I credited you with the understanding that God is another name for moral realism.

I "invoke" God hypothetically. I don't preach.
God is a useful idea and may be true. It's as useful to hypothesise God as it is to hypothesis no God.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think she was referring to Moral Relativism, and in that context, logical contradictions don't carry the same weight.

In other words, people hold directly contradictory views and beliefs, yet claim them as truth, such as cultural relativism.

For beliefs which are not scientific, and not empirical, there is a far less stringent rigor with regard to 'truth'.


I'll wait for Belinda's response though, don't want to misspeak her position.

I can offer a shortcut. Normally anyone who writes what she does is a relatvist, but Belinda can't commit to that because then she would have no reason to suddely invoke God for F knows what reason this time as per this recent example...

I credited you with the understanding that God is another name for moral realism.

I "invoke" God hypothetically. I don't preach.
God is a useful idea and may be true. It's as useful to hypothesise God as it is to hypothesis no God.

Oh please, you throw out the G word to change the conversation any time you're confused. In that one from that quote you had been spouting a bunch of moral realtivisim / value pluralism and then you just spammed God talk to reverse ferret and make yourself a realist.

[Belinda]

I can offer a shortcut. Normally anyone who writes what she does is a relatvist, but Belinda can't commit to that because then she would have no reason to suddely invoke God for F knows what reason this time as per this recent example...

I "invoke" God hypothetically. I don't preach.
God is a useful idea and may be true. It's as useful to hypothesise God as it is to hypothesis no God.

Oh please, you throw out the G word to change the conversation any time you're confused. In that one from that quote you had been spouting a bunch of moral realtivisim / value pluralism and then you just spammed God talk to reverse ferret and make yourself a realist.

You misrepresent my intention . If you don't understand my intention, which I tried to explain to you as well as I can, just be quiet.

[FlashDangerpants]

I "invoke" God hypothetically. I don't preach.
God is a useful idea and may be true. It's as useful to hypothesise God as it is to hypothesis no God.

Oh please, you throw out the G word to change the conversation any time you're confused. In that one from that quote you had been spouting a bunch of moral realtivisim / value pluralism and then you just spammed God talk to reverse ferret and make yourself a realist.

You misrepresent my intention . If you don't understand my intention, which I tried to explain to you as well as I can, just be quiet.

Your main intention is to have your cake and eat it too.
Your other intention is to never answer difficult questions that this provokes.

[Belinda]

Oh please, you throw out the G word to change the conversation any time you're confused. In that one from that quote you had been spouting a bunch of moral realtivisim / value pluralism and then you just spammed God talk to reverse ferret and make yourself a realist.

You misrepresent my intention . If you don't understand my intention, which I tried to explain to you as well as I can, just be quiet.

Your main intention is to have your cake and eat it too.
Your other intention is to never answer difficult questions that this provokes.

Difficult questions don't have answers. If you were less cantankerous you might be able to accept that you can't know everything.

[FlashDangerpants]

You misrepresent my intention . If you don't understand my intention, which I tried to explain to you as well as I can, just be quiet.

Your main intention is to have your cake and eat it too.
Your other intention is to never answer difficult questions that this provokes.

Difficult questions don't have answers. If you were less cantankerous you might be able to accept that you can't know everything.

After you've eaten the cake, the question "where is the cake?" is not unknowable.

[Wizard22]

Name one thing that "science" has supposedly studied and recorded the 'meaning of', exactly?

Biology literally means the "Study of Life".

What you wrote here is nonsense, and because you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that what you said is like what I said, then OBVIOUSLY you would claim what I said is nonsense.

But if you KNEW what I actually meant, then you would think differently.

And, it would only take one worded added into your nonsensical sentence to make it absolute and purely perfect sense.

It's your job to mean what you say, not mine.

Hallelujah. FINALLY.

I prefer the adults, myself.

i have NOTICED. And this is the VERY REASON WHY 'you' have become so CLOSED, TWISTED, and DISTORTED.

If you want a 5-year-old to teach you Algebra, then by all means, do so.

Is that foolish, or wise, though?

Did ANY body say ANY thing about ANY one mentioning abusing children?

You mentioned it, own it.

LOL Who is a so-called "Winner in survival? And,

LOL Who is a so-called "Loser in survival"?

The winners are the survivors; the losers are the casualties. To win is to live, to lose is to die, in Nature.

Is this not common sense? How have you not learned this already in your life? Or are you putting on a show, pretending to be ignorant?

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that 'a lion' and 'a gazelle' are the SAME 'life'?

In the most abstract, absolute, and Universalist perspective, yes...hypothetically if "All Life is One".

But pragmatically, each manifestation of Life is not the same. The difference is its Speciation. Life struggles to survive, and in so doing, separates from itself, into new shapes and forms. This is Evolution.

So, if 'you' deem 'your life', "wizard22", to "yourself" and to "others" to be important, significant, and meaning, then that is 'The value of life', correct?

What happens if one who uses drugs deems to "themself" and to "others" that 'their life' is far more important, far more significant, and far more meaningful than "wizard22's" 'worthless and useless life', then does this mean that this one has far more of 'The value of life'?

By the way, can you REALLY NOT YET RECOGNIZE and SEE just how TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, and NONSENSICAL your attempts at just clarifying my questions posed to you LOOK here?

As I stated earlier, these things cannot be boiled-down or attributed to mere opinion. It cannot be my opinion, nor yours, nor a third-party, nor a group of people. There has to be a deeper, much more significant and 'objective' method of identifying any potential Meaning of Life.

But the EXACT reason WHY 'you', human beings, commit suicide is for a far more fundamental reason.

As there are a countless number of 'you'', human beings who see absolutely NO meaning in their lives, and they do NOT commit suicide, NOR even have suicidal impulses, what you said and claimed here does NOT follow.

Also, according to your so-called "logic" above, ALL 'life' that is NOT a 'human being life' would have NO 'value' and NO 'meaning' and absolutely NONE of them have suicidal impulses, which you just CLAIMED would manifest as a suicidal impulse.

I have also NEVER observed the life of young child, which OBVIOUSLY has NO sense of ANY value nor of ANY meaning, manifesting into a suicidal impulse.

You keep saying "you humans" as-if you yourself are not human. Why are you against your own Nature?

And I agree, it's an important observation to note and admit here, that children are not Suicidal or generally depressed to the degree of hopelessness.

Therefore, how does this connect with the Meaning of Life? How is it fundamentally different between child and adult?

THANK YOU. It is VERY, VERY RARE for someone here, in this forum, to continue seeking clarity, or answers.

ALL children are blameless because only SOME human beings are responsible for what happens in Life. And, only adults, or human beings from a certain age, are meant to be responsible for their behaviors.

I asked you, "WHY"? Your answer "some human beings are responsible" does not suffice.

Explain to me, to yourself, to others here, WHY children are blameless....

I'm not going to ask a third time.

But I care for EVERY one EQUALLY.

WHY do you ASSUME I do NOT?

Because it's physically impossible, as I already demonstrated to you. If you feed one child, but not another, then that is UNEQUAL. You should admit this to yourself.

Ah okay. So, you only LIE to those who you do NOT care about, correct?

Also, is there a human being who you have NOT LIED to?

If yes, then WHO was that, EXACTLY?

In fact, have you EVER LIED to "yourself"?

If yes, then are you SAYING that 'you' do NOT care about 'you', NOR "yourself"?

Or, do 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you' have NOT LIED to, and thus NOT DECEIVED, "yourself" NOR some "others"?

By the way, BECAUSE 'I' can CLEARLY SEE that 'you' are LYING here, does this mean that 'you' do NOT care for 'I'?

That's the rub, isn't it? A person has to be most honest with him or herself. I didn't claim to be perfect, so don't imply that I did.

Okay.

So, absolutely ANY one can MISTREAT 'you', ANY way they like, just like 'you' can MISTREAT absolutely ANY one, ANY way 'you' like, correct?

After all, 'life' is UNEQUAL.

Yes, and because life is Unequal, mistreating others has consequences. It is only under your presumed "Equality" that mistreating a person has NO CONSEQUENCE.

Isn't that interesting??

OF COURSE NOT.

BUT xy does NOT necessarily mean male. Which is what we WERE talking about BEFORE.

Chromosomes do not necessarily PROVE one from the other.

Incorrect, Chromosomes do prove gender and sex.

Is this an IRREFUTABLE Fact?

Yes, scientifically, it is irrefutable. A scientist can look at your chromosomes and determine your sex and gender.

People can lie about it. A young boy or teenage male can "transition", castrate himself, and pretend to be female or a woman.

But it's only Pretense; it's only a Lie. It's a deception.

You are SO USELESS at this.

So, what, now, does 'over-indulge' mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Look, you can NOT take back what you previously WROTE and SAID, and if you do NOT want ADMIT just how Wrong or STUPID it REALLY WAS, then so be it. But the WAY you WRITE and TALK is HERE for ALL to LOOK AT, SEE, and HEAR.

SO, I suggest you think MORE about what you are GOING TO WRITE, BEFORE you put it down here for ALL to be ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE.

This is common sense.

If a man has a few beers in a month, then he is not an Alcoholic. So over-indulgence is the definition of addiction and abuse.

If we take the 'indulge' word to refer to 'partake', then what does the 'over' word refer to, EXACTLY?

What is the VERY 'thing', which the 'over' word is in relation to, EXACTLY?

Is having, or partaking in, a few beers a week, mean that that one IS an "alcoholic"?

If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

And remember what I SAID:

I suggest you think MORE about what you are GOING TO WRITE, BEFORE you put it down here for ALL to be ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE.

Don't blame me for your own misunderstandings.

A pint of beer has a different effect on a 100 lb. woman than a 250 lb. man.

Again, there's no "equality". Some people have lower and higher tolerance to drug-effects. Some are more prone to Addiction and Abuse, than others.

I NEVER said NOR implied that you SAID nor IMPLIED that you KNOW what absolute Truth is. In fact it is VERY OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'absolutely Truth is', And, it is JUST AS OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'the absolute Truth IS' here.

Anyway, by CLAIMING that 'Life is NOT equal', this is INSISTING that you KNOW what the absolute Truth IS here.

No, because you cannot prove a Negative claim.

You're the one claiming Equality; I'm the one doubting it. Your claim is Positive, mine is Negative.

Show and prove your so-called "Equality". Tell me how a 5' woman is "equal" to a 6' man. Go ahead.

Well if 'you', adult human beings, STOPPED LYING TO, DECEIVING, AND BETRAYING children, then they would NEED to LEARN when they are being DUPED, LIED TO, DECEIVED, OR BETRAYED, by 'you', adult human beings.

SIMPLE. REALLY.

Are you implying that children don't lie???

Lol

LOL WHY do 'you', human beings, ADD the 'philosophical' word into places where it REALLY is NOT necessary?

And, WHY PRESUME that MOST people are lying, from the VERY start?

This is a CLEAR SIGN of just how MUCH DAMAGE has been done to you ALREADY.

Furthermore, WHO are in the 'MOST' group? And, how do you DISTINGUISH them apart, from the VERY start?

You implied that gender or sex cannot be deciphered from chromosomes.

So this validates my presumption that people do tend to lie from the start.

If you cannot distinguish man from woman, then what Authority do you really have in life?

Why should anybody listen to your philosophical interests or opinions, if you don't know common sense?

Do 'you' LIE about 'your gender'?

If no, then HOW do you KNOW?

Have you gone and got 'your chromosomes' CHECKED?

If no, then HOW can 'you' be SO SURE of what 'your gender' IS, EXACTLY?

Because I'm certain about myself.

Why would a man pretend to be a woman, or a woman pretend to be a man? Explain that.

[Wizard22]

All minds have the capacity for independence.

Then why are there so few individuals in Nature?

A child is Dependent on parents and adults, to survive. Why does human child weaning take several years compared to other mammals that are born already able to walk?

Surely you don't believe that independence is "Equal", correct?

Normal is relative and arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary, as-if different species have equal capacity.

Try and think for yourself.

Am I not? Are you thinking for me?

[Wizard22]

OF COURSE they do. But this is ONLY because 'you', adult human beings, TAUGHT them TO BULLY.

And, 'you' do this because 'you' have some sort of DISTORTED VERSION of what 'normal' IS, EXACTLY?

YET if one was to ASK ANY 'child' or ANY of 'you', adult human beings, 'What is 'normal', EXACTLY? Then 'you' can NOT provide ANY accurate True answer, well not in the days when this was being written anyway.

ALL of 'you', adults and older children alike, will ACT in certain ways, which are PERCEIVED to be 'normal', but when QUESTIONED ALL of 'you' can NOT tell 'me' what 'normal' IS, EXACTLY.

And, especially 'you', "wizard22", as you are SHOWING and PROVING absolutely True here.

If you don't know that children bully each other, without being "taught", then you are truly deluding yourself.

In Nature, newborn animals regularly kill their siblings. They are not "taught" to do so. How do you explain that??

[Wizard22]

Oh please, you throw out the G word to change the conversation any time you're confused. In that one from that quote you had been spouting a bunch of moral realtivisim / value pluralism and then you just spammed God talk to reverse ferret and make yourself a realist.

Maybe I missed it, but which instance do you mean particularly, that Belinda brought in 'God' to justify a point?

[Belinda]

Wizard22 wrote:

A scientist can look at your chromosomes and determine your sex and gender.

A scientist or a midwife or any layman determines your sex according to certain criteria which may or may not include chromosomes, and may include only external genitalia.

Gender is a role you play. Most people are subtly taught their gender during very early childhood and some are subtly taught that they may change their gender role at will. Gender is not biologically attached to chromosomes or genitalia.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh please, you throw out the G word to change the conversation any time you're confused. In that one from that quote you had been spouting a bunch of moral realtivisim / value pluralism and then you just spammed God talk to reverse ferret and make yourself a realist.

Maybe I missed it, but which instance do you mean particularly, that Belinda brought in 'God' to justify a point?

She doesn't do it to justify anything, she just does it to introduce confusion into a topic where she's lost her way. It's her Uno Reverso card.

[Belinda]

Oh please, you throw out the G word to change the conversation any time you're confused. In that one from that quote you had been spouting a bunch of moral realtivisim / value pluralism and then you just spammed God talk to reverse ferret and make yourself a realist.

Maybe I missed it, but which instance do you mean particularly, that Belinda brought in 'God' to justify a point?

She doesn't do it to justify anything, she just does it to introduce confusion into a topic where she's lost her way. It's her Uno Reverso card.

I'll try once again to get through to you that when a philosopher refers to God the name 'God' is shorthand for fixed facts or fixed moral code which are eternally and objectively the case, and are not relative to transient situations.

[FlashDangerpants]

Maybe I missed it, but which instance do you mean particularly, that Belinda brought in 'God' to justify a point?

She doesn't do it to justify anything, she just does it to introduce confusion into a topic where she's lost her way. It's her Uno Reverso card.

I'll try once again to get through to you that when a philosopher refers to God the name 'God' is shorthand for fixed facts or fixed moral code which are eternally and objectively the case, and are not relative to transient situations.

You were talking recently about your god and my god. So that's just kinda stupid.