Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

[henry quirk]

"Does ANYONE like you??"

I like Mannie.

Don't much care for you, though

[Sculptor]

Does ANYONE like you??
LOL

So...

A gratuitous ad hominem fallacy, but no answer?

I'll answer when you ask a question that makes sense.

[Sculptor]

"Does ANYONE like you??"

I like Mannie.

Don't much care for you, though

Ah cute little sock puppet

[henry quirk]

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).

[Immanuel Can]

I'll answer when you ask a question that makes sense.

Well, it was your claim.

So if it doesn't make sense to you, I guess there's no more to be said.

[Immanuel Can]

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).

I'd say I'm sitting comfortably, and I assume you are, cuz I've got two hands free.

[henry quirk]

So: neither of us is a tube sock.

Good to know.

[Lacewing]

I like Mannie.

Because you're both full of crap and play dishonest games? And you both think that's impressive somehow?

[henry quirk]

Nope.

[Immanuel Can]

So: neither of us is a tube sock.

Good to know.

*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.

[Dubious]

There can be no "proven purpose" to life.

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]

There can be no "proven purpose" to life.

Absolutely right especially the 'proven' part.

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?

[Dubious]

There can be no "proven purpose" to life.

Absolutely right especially the 'proven' part.

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?

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.

...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]

Absolutely right especially the 'proven' part.

What's the proof?

If you know of any after a few thousand years of inquiry going nowhere, please advise.

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.

[Sculptor]

I'll answer when you ask a question that makes sense.

Well, it was your claim.

So if it doesn't make sense to you, I guess there's no more to be said.

I made no claim
You can fuck off like everyone else in the Forum of morons