Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2023 9:13 pm**

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:51 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:43 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:40 pm

What crimes were committed? You didn’t mention anything illegal.
Typical cunty wonker response.
Typical ignorant deflection.

Again, what crimes did Obama, Hilary, Clinton and the Kennedy brothers commit?

Where did I use the word 'illegal'? Hitler and Stalin didn't do aything 'illegal' either.

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2023 10:47 pm**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 9:13 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:51 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:43 pm

Typical cunty wonker response.
Typical ignorant deflection.

Again, what crimes did Obama, Hilary, Clinton and the Kennedy brothers commit?
Where did I use the word 'illegal'? Hitler and Stalin didn't do aything 'illegal' either.

You didn’t, but you replied to a post that asked what crimes were committed.

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:39 pm**

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 10:47 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 9:13 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:51 pm

Typical ignorant deflection.

Again, what crimes did Obama, Hilary, Clinton and the Kennedy brothers commit?
Where did I use the word 'illegal'? Hitler and Stalin didn't do aything 'illegal' either.
You didn’t, but you replied to a post that asked what crimes were committed.

How are you defining 'crime'?

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:18 am**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:39 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 10:47 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 9:13 pm

Where did I use the word 'illegal'? Hitler and Stalin didn't do aything 'illegal' either.
You didn’t, but you replied to a post that asked what crimes were committed.
How are you defining 'crime'?

Illegal activities.

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:21 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:34 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:20 pm

Putin is not an "it".
What is 'it', EXACTLY, then, if 'it' is NOT an 'it', as 'you' ALLEGE and CLAIM 'it' is NOT here?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:20 pm Putin is a human being. Right?
"putin" is one name PLACED UPON and REFERS TO A 'human being'. And, OBVIOUSLY EACH and EVERY 'human being' can be described by the word 'it'. Just like absolutely EVERY 'thing' can be and IS an 'it'.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:20 pm So when Putin saw that we in the West had grown weak, he decided to attack Ukraine at that point because it is a good "strategy" in military terms.
Did you NOT READ, or NOT UNDERSTAND, the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED you here?

I ASKED, 'HOW do you KNOW that 'this' IS the REASON WHY that human being did what 'it' did and IS DOING?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:20 pm Is that not likely to be correct?
NOT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. BUT, I am STILL WAITING FOR you TO CLARIFY HOW you KNOW that 'the reason' you PROVIDED IS the ACTUAL Truth here?

See, MAYBE you DO HAVE ACTUAL PROOF of WHY "vladimir putin" DID what 'it' DID. Like ALWAYS I AWAIT FOR ACTUAL PROOF.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:20 pm Other than that I do not know what Putin's ultimate motivations were.
Okay, but the one that I have heard, so far, sounds FAR MORE REALISTIC than the one you have provided here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:20 pm But I do suspect that is why he attacked Ukraine when he did.
Okay, but WILL you ANSWER the QUESTION, 'HOW do you KNOW that 'this' IS WHY "vladimir putin" attacked "ukraine" when 'it' did?'

And, if you will NOT ANSWER this QUESTION, then WHY NOT?
"Human beings" are not "its".

TO WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT IS 'it', which MAKES 'this CLAIM'?

Also WHY IS absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE an 'it', TO 'you', "gary childress", BUT 'you', human beings, ARE NOT 'its'?

This seems to be a VERY 'speciesist' VIEWPOINT to HAVE and HOLD.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm If we participate in dehumanization in order to show what dehumanization is (without truly giving ourselves over to the results), then we become dehumanizers.

Okay.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm Replace "you" with "us", Age.

Replace 'us', WITH who and/or what 'you' ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then 'you' WILL BE SPEAKING the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things'. Until then DO NOT INCLUDE 'Me'. That is; UNTIL 'you' KNOW WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, okay?

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am**

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:21 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:34 pm

What is 'it', EXACTLY, then, if 'it' is NOT an 'it', as 'you' ALLEGE and CLAIM 'it' is NOT here?

"putin" is one name PLACED UPON and REFERS TO A 'human being'. And, OBVIOUSLY EACH and EVERY 'human being' can be described by the word 'it'. Just like absolutely EVERY 'thing' can be and IS an 'it'.

Did you NOT READ, or NOT UNDERSTAND, the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED you here?

I ASKED, 'HOW do you KNOW that 'this' IS the REASON WHY that human being did what 'it' did and IS DOING?

NOT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. BUT, I am STILL WAITING FOR you TO CLARIFY HOW you KNOW that 'the reason' you PROVIDED IS the ACTUAL Truth here?

See, MAYBE you DO HAVE ACTUAL PROOF of WHY "vladimir putin" DID what 'it' DID. Like ALWAYS I AWAIT FOR ACTUAL PROOF.

Okay, but the one that I have heard, so far, sounds FAR MORE REALISTIC than the one you have provided here.

Okay, but WILL you ANSWER the QUESTION, 'HOW do you KNOW that 'this' IS WHY "vladimir putin" attacked "ukraine" when 'it' did?'

And, if you will NOT ANSWER this QUESTION, then WHY NOT?
"Human beings" are not "its".
TO WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT IS 'it', which MAKES 'this CLAIM'?

Also WHY IS absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE an 'it', TO 'you', "gary childress", BUT 'you', human beings, ARE NOT 'its'?

This seems to be a VERY 'speciesist' VIEWPOINT to HAVE and HOLD.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm If we participate in dehumanization in order to show what dehumanization is (without truly giving ourselves over to the results), then we become dehumanizers.
Okay.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm Replace "you" with "us", Age.
Replace 'us', WITH who and/or what 'you' ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then 'you' WILL BE SPEAKING the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things'. Until then DO NOT INCLUDE 'Me'. That is; UNTIL 'you' KNOW WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, okay?

When I say "human beings are not its", I'm refering to "human beings". Do you not read anything but sentences and are unable to connect more than one sentence at a time without finding out what one "means" by each word in each sentence first?

Let's try this:

Q1: Are you a human being, Age?
If yes, then Q2a: why are you calling your fellow human beings "its".
If no, then Q2b: what are you?

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:47 am**

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:18 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:39 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 10:47 pm

You didn’t, but you replied to a post that asked what crimes were committed.
How are you defining 'crime'?
Illegal activities.

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:56 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:21 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm

"Human beings" are not "its".
TO WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT IS 'it', which MAKES 'this CLAIM'?

Also WHY IS absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE an 'it', TO 'you', "gary childress", BUT 'you', human beings, ARE NOT 'its'?

This seems to be a VERY 'speciesist' VIEWPOINT to HAVE and HOLD.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm If we participate in dehumanization in order to show what dehumanization is (without truly giving ourselves over to the results), then we become dehumanizers.
Okay.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:55 pm Replace "you" with "us", Age.
Replace 'us', WITH who and/or what 'you' ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then 'you' WILL BE SPEAKING the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things'. Until then DO NOT INCLUDE 'Me'. That is; UNTIL 'you' KNOW WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, okay?
When I say "human beings are not its", I'm refering to "human beings".

'you' seem to have a SEVERE DISABILITY in UNDERSTANDING and COMPREHENDING the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK 'you' "gary childress".

The ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASKED 'you' here were;

1. TO WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

2. WHO and/or WHAT IS 'it', which MAKES 'this CLAIM'?

3. WHY IS absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE an 'it', TO 'you', "gary childress", BUT 'you', human beings, ARE NOT 'its'?

SO, ANSWERS would some 'thing' like;

1. 'us', human beings.

2. 'us', human beings.

3. BECAUSE 'i', "gary childress", SEE 'us', human beings, as NOT 'its' BUT 'i' do SEE ALL other 'things' as 'its'.

Does 'this' make sense to 'you' "gary childress"?

Can you SEE that 'your' reply here does NOT ANSWER ANY of MY QUESTIONS?

Also, 'your' ANSWER answers absolutely NOTHING that was even ASKED, well NOT at least by absolutely ANY 'thing' OTHER than 'you'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am Do you not read anything but sentences and are unable to connect more than one sentence at a time without finding out what one "means" by each word in each sentence first?

I find this type of QUESTION to ANSWER with one word because one part of 'it' my ANSWER would be 'No' while another part of 'it' my ANSWER would be 'Yes'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am Let's try this:

Q1: Are you a human being, Age?

LOL

'you' WANT 'me' TO ANSWER 'your' QUESTIONS, BUT 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER 'mine'.

Now, "age" is just a NAME or LABEL USED here to REFERENCE or SEPARATE some VIEWS from within one particular human body, FROM the VIEWS withing other human bodies, being SHARED here through and by WORDS.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am If yes, then Q2a: why are you calling your fellow human beings "its".
If no, then Q2b: what are you?

It would NOT matter ONE IOTA if 'i' am a 'human being' or NOT.

'Human beings' can still be referred to as 'its', AND as well as 'things'.

WHY do 'you' NOT SEE 'human beings' as 'its' "gary childress"?

Do 'you' SEE 'human beings' as being some 'thing' BETTER, or MORE THAN, other 'things'?

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:04 am**

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:56 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:21 am

TO WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT IS 'it', which MAKES 'this CLAIM'?

Also WHY IS absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE an 'it', TO 'you', "gary childress", BUT 'you', human beings, ARE NOT 'its'?

This seems to be a VERY 'speciesist' VIEWPOINT to HAVE and HOLD.

Okay.

Replace 'us', WITH who and/or what 'you' ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then 'you' WILL BE SPEAKING the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things'. Until then DO NOT INCLUDE 'Me'. That is; UNTIL 'you' KNOW WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, okay?
When I say "human beings are not its", I'm refering to "human beings".
'you' seem to have a SEVERE DISABILITY in UNDERSTANDING and COMPREHENDING the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK 'you' "gary childress".

The ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASKED 'you' here were;

1. TO WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

2. WHO and/or WHAT IS 'it', which MAKES 'this CLAIM'?

3. WHY IS absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE an 'it', TO 'you', "gary childress", BUT 'you', human beings, ARE NOT 'its'?

SO, ANSWERS would some 'thing' like;

1. 'us', human beings.

2. 'us', human beings.

3. BECAUSE 'i', "gary childress", SEE 'us', human beings, as NOT 'its' BUT 'i' do SEE ALL other 'things' as 'its'.

Does 'this' make sense to 'you' "gary childress"?

Can you SEE that 'your' reply here does NOT ANSWER ANY of MY QUESTIONS?

Also, 'your' ANSWER answers absolutely NOTHING that was even ASKED, well NOT at least by absolutely ANY 'thing' OTHER than 'you'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am Do you not read anything but sentences and are unable to connect more than one sentence at a time without finding out what one "means" by each word in each sentence first?
I find this type of QUESTION to ANSWER with one word because one part of 'it' my ANSWER would be 'No' while another part of 'it' my ANSWER would be 'Yes'.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am Let's try this:

Q1: Are you a human being, Age?
LOL

'you' WANT 'me' TO ANSWER 'your' QUESTIONS, BUT 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER 'mine'.

Now, "age" is just a NAME or LABEL USED here to REFERENCE or SEPARATE some VIEWS from within one particular human body, FROM the VIEWS withing other human bodies, being SHARED here through and by WORDS.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am If yes, then Q2a: why are you calling your fellow human beings "its".
If no, then Q2b: what are you?
It would NOT matter ONE IOTA if 'i' am a 'human being' or NOT.

'Human beings' can still be referred to as 'its', AND as well as 'things'.

WHY do 'you' NOT SEE 'human beings' as 'its' "gary childress"?

Do 'you' SEE 'human beings' as being some 'thing' BETTER, or MORE THAN, other 'things'?

WHAT is 'IT'S'? WHAT is A THiNG? WHAT is BETTEr? WHAT is OTHER? WHAT is MORE THAN? WHAT is a HUMAN BEING, AGE?

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:49 am**

These are excellent philosophical questions.

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:29 am**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:04 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:56 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am

When I say "human beings are not its", I'm refering to "human beings".
'you' seem to have a SEVERE DISABILITY in UNDERSTANDING and COMPREHENDING the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK 'you' "gary childress".

The ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASKED 'you' here were;

1. TO WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

2. WHO and/or WHAT IS 'it', which MAKES 'this CLAIM'?

3. WHY IS absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE an 'it', TO 'you', "gary childress", BUT 'you', human beings, ARE NOT 'its'?

SO, ANSWERS would some 'thing' like;

1. 'us', human beings.

2. 'us', human beings.

3. BECAUSE 'i', "gary childress", SEE 'us', human beings, as NOT 'its' BUT 'i' do SEE ALL other 'things' as 'its'.

Does 'this' make sense to 'you' "gary childress"?

Can you SEE that 'your' reply here does NOT ANSWER ANY of MY QUESTIONS?

Also, 'your' ANSWER answers absolutely NOTHING that was even ASKED, well NOT at least by absolutely ANY 'thing' OTHER than 'you'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am Do you not read anything but sentences and are unable to connect more than one sentence at a time without finding out what one "means" by each word in each sentence first?
I find this type of QUESTION to ANSWER with one word because one part of 'it' my ANSWER would be 'No' while another part of 'it' my ANSWER would be 'Yes'.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am Let's try this:

Q1: Are you a human being, Age?
LOL

'you' WANT 'me' TO ANSWER 'your' QUESTIONS, BUT 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER 'mine'.

Now, "age" is just a NAME or LABEL USED here to REFERENCE or SEPARATE some VIEWS from within one particular human body, FROM the VIEWS withing other human bodies, being SHARED here through and by WORDS.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:43 am If yes, then Q2a: why are you calling your fellow human beings "its".
If no, then Q2b: what are you?
It would NOT matter ONE IOTA if 'i' am a 'human being' or NOT.

'Human beings' can still be referred to as 'its', AND as well as 'things'.

WHY do 'you' NOT SEE 'human beings' as 'its' "gary childress"?

Do 'you' SEE 'human beings' as being some 'thing' BETTER, or MORE THAN, other 'things'?
WHAT is 'IT'S'?

Did you mean, 'What are 'it's'?'

If yes, then 'it's' is a contracted word for 'it is'.

BUT, if you meant some 'thing' else, then just let me know?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:04 am WHAT is A THiNG?

ANY of the ALL, including the ALL, Itself, including even 'you', the 'human being'.

Also, and by the way, to KNOW WHEN I AM REFERRING TO the One 'Thing', distinguished FROM ALL of the OTHER 'things' I just USE the capital letter 'T'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:04 am WHAT is BETTEr?

A word to denote 'more than'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:04 am WHAT is OTHER?

A word meaning or referring to some 'thing' else.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:04 am WHAT is MORE THAN?

In relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:04 am WHAT is a HUMAN BEING, AGE?

A 'thing' made up of two other 'things', namely; an able to visibly seen physical human body, AND, the invisible thoughts and emotions, within one human body.

To me, a 'person' is NOT the 'human body'. That is; IF ANY one is INTERESTED.

By the way, THANK 'you' for the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here.

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:30 am**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:49 am These are excellent philosophical questions.

REALLY?

If yes, then what does the 'philosophical' word here even mean or refer to, EXACTLY, to 'you', "promethean75"?

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:58 am**

A long list of calls to violence and sedition by the US Democrats/Liberal-Left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31rXRjryFA

What do you all believe is going to happen the next time Republicans/Conservative-Right takes power?? Will there be retaliation?

How many of these Democrats could be charged under a Conservative Department of Justice?

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:32 am**

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:58 am How many of these Democrats could be charged under a Conservative Department of Justice?

None. The Republicans are squishes. Deep down they just want to be liked, and all the cool kids hate them. When they're in power they don't do anything at all.

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:22 pm**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:47 am
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 12:18 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:39 pm

How are you defining 'crime'?
Illegal activities.

What are you laughing at? MW defines crime as an illegal act.

Philosophy Now Forum

The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

Re: The American Republic has Ended, What Next?