Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Sculptor
"Does ANYONE like you??"
I like Mannie.
Don't much care for you, though
I like Mannie.
Don't much care for you, though
Re: Walker
I'll answer when you ask a question that makes sense.
Re: Sculptor
Ah cute little sock puppethenry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:51 pm "Does ANYONE like you??"
I like Mannie.
Don't much care for you, though
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"Ah cute little sock puppet"
Is my hand up his bum or is his up mine?
Who's the puppet master and who's the puppet?
What say you, Mannie (don't let 'em see your lips move).
Who's the puppet master and who's the puppet?
What say you, Mannie (don't let 'em see your lips move).
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: "Ah cute little sock puppet"
I'd say I'm sitting comfortably, and I assume you are, cuz I've got two hands free.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:51 pm Is my hand up his bum or is his up mine?
Who's the puppet master and who's the puppet?
What say you, Mannie (don't let 'em see your lips move).
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Mannie
So: neither of us is a tube sock.
Good to know.
Good to know.
Re: Mannie and the caveman
Because you're both full of crap and play dishonest games? And you both think that's impressive somehow?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Mannie
*waves of relief*
I notice that some people just cannot resist the ad hominems. When they're really disconcerted, they usually pepper them with obscenities as well, in the hopes that that will make them more effective somehow.
It reminds me of those old gangster movies where the bad guys were trying to escape the cops, and they would run out of bullets, and then...they'd throw the gun.
That's how they did it: no bullets, throw the gun. It never did much. For sure, if the bullets hadn't worked, no way the thrown gun would do anything. But it was the last-ditch effort, and the bad guys always have to make that last gesture.
I see ad hominems like that: they're sure proof that the thrower's mental "gun" is just plain out of bullets.
Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Absolutely right especially the 'proven' part. There never was or will be a defined purpose to life as if there were some preexisting paradigm which envelops the living with a meaning external to themselves. There never was a manual or roadmap which defines the objectives of existence. Purpose like god always existed as OUR question and never as a response from a Source.
Therefore the best an agnostic can do regarding any perennial uncertainty is to say the glass remains half empty allowing the question to repeat itself in all of its historic formats by those to whom a proper Wittgensteinian silence was never an option.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Oh...terrific!
I had almost despaired of anyone even trying to defend such a claim. But now, somebody is claiming incontrovertible proof -- not just "right," but "absolutely right." Wonderful!
I can't wait to see that. It must be really, really good.
Go ahead, Dube...give us what you've got.
What's the proof?
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
If you know of any after a few thousand years of inquiry going nowhere, please advise. I mean if I'm wrong kindly provide the reasons why that is. I'm willing to be educated on something so fundamental.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:29 amOh...terrific!
I had almost despaired of anyone even trying to defend such a claim. But now, somebody is claiming incontrovertible proof -- not just "right," but "absolutely right." Wonderful!
I can't wait to see that. It must be really, really good.
Go ahead, Dube...give us what you've got.
What's the proof?
...or at least supply a reason as to WHY a purpose would need to exist even if you can't specifically denote one yourself?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?
Awww....come on! You promised me "absolute proof." You said you knew. And this is what you've got? That you haven't ever heard an answer, so your assumption is that there must be none?
Like, "I've never been to the Grand Canyon, therefore the Grand Canyon doesn't exist"? That's the kind of logic you want to offer, as guarantee of "absolute proof"? And then a reversion to, "Well, if you can't offer absolute proof of your own, then there's no answer"?
Most disappointing. I was hopeful I would hear something new...or at least something that potentially could add up, at least from some perspective.
Still, I shouldn't have been so hopeful.
However, if you come up with something, please let me know. I'm always in the market for new arguments from the other side.
In response to your inquiry, I should point out that I made no claim to anything as definite as absolute proof. I have arguments-to-the-best-explanation, and I have experiential testimony; but I'm pretty sure you'll choose to reject them anyway, even when they turn out to be sincere and highly probable. And I've already offered some of them, on other strands of conversation here. So I guess we're back to square one on that.
However, as to WHY a purpose would have to exist, I can say this: that if you were to consider it possible that a Creator exists -- an intelligent First Cause of all things, if you will -- then it would be a simple deduction that He must have had some purpose in creating the world. There wouldn't be another plausible assumption, in fact. One couldn't say the Supreme Being did something "by accident," and still have Him being "supreme." So there really would be no other reasonable way of thinking about it.
Re: Walker
I made no claimImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:04 pmWell, it was your claim.
So if it doesn't make sense to you, I guess there's no more to be said.
You can fuck off like everyone else in the Forum of morons