Why do you think

Debate Room
443

No, it was and is an absurd claim. Holding subjective morals does not make one amoral.

Your hatred for them was caused by their threat to your family, and your love for them.

Or be driven by them, again this simply shows the emotions are relative.

I just gave you examples of how the strong emotions associated with love can prompt people to act violently. Crimes of passion would be another example.

You have not clearly, your hatred for someone who might threaten your family was manifest, and prompted by your love of your family. Would you sit by while a child was raped? How do you generally feel about people who would intestinally harm a child?

[quote=“rat_spit, post:441, topic:3719”]

You agreed with me in an earlier post, are you saying you don’t think it was morally justified?

Ok, you must have misunderstood me earlier then as that’s not what you said. I can’t say I agree either, but you’re entitled to believe the axis of fascists were no less immoral than those who fought them.

I am dubious, but it is an example of moral relativity nonetheless. For example whilst the loss of life was appalling, and under any other circumstances would be labelled evil, I am of the opinion it doesn’t compare to the Japanese sacking of Nanjing in 1937, for sheer barbarity and quite deliberate cruelty, though my opinion that cruelty and barbarity are immoral is of course a subjective one.

People have claimed to have seen them, just as you claimed to have a feeling you’d experienced “other dimensions”. You seem to be setting two different standards for belief, and bizarrely to be unaware of your bias.

I have never remotely implied such emotions are not possible, or that I haven’t experienced them?

I don’t agree, the comparison is entirely apropos, you are emotionally invested in one claim and not the other, that is why you find the comparison stupid, but that is simply bias on your part.
Now since the dearth of objective evidence for them is precisely the same as for your claim, I’d love to know how you’re measuring the relative plausibility of the two claims? Can you even offer any objective difference between those who claim to have seen mermaids and your claim to have a feeling other dimensions exist? I seriously doubt that you can.

Love describes a range of emotions, the emotions can prompt both behaviours clearly, you even described them as two different kinds of love… quod erat demonstrandum.

The Nazis loved Germany and their specious notions of a perfect “Arian race”, you are not I hope going to suggest this love was devoid of cruelty? So no love is not always devoid of cruelty, I have demonstrated this. Also the notion that something is immoral because it is cruel is subjective anyway.

That’s a subjective claim, they would likely not believe their actions malicious, but borne of love for their child, have never heard the adage spare the rod spoil the child? What did you think it meant? Love describes a complex range of emotions, and these are relative.

Because I am baffled why you keep making the same erroneous straw man claim over and over, even after I explain the error. I was not labelling the subjective morals of others as moral or immoral, merely pointing out that morals are subjective.

No, a choice, can be both definitive and subjective. Red is definitely my favourite colour. This statement also means something. So morality is not an empty concept just because our morals are subjective. Do you believe your morals have lost all meaning now that you’ve accepted the fact they are subjective?

I don’t understand the question? Is my favourite colour better than other people’s favourite colours? To me yes, but that is subjective.

You ignored my question?

What shots?

Correct.

I’d imagine it’s because my subjective values are less likely to motivate me to violate the laws of the land, were it Germany in the 30’s and 40’s our relative positions would likely be reversed.

I don’t understand the question, you seem again to be equating subjective morality with being amoral? They’re not the same, I am not sure why you need this explained more than once, let alone in every single post?

Did I claim they were? In your subjective view, would you prefer to live under a totalitarian dictator who can start wars on a whim, or would you prefer to live in a society where power was vested in leaders by and for the people, and was limited in both scope and time for the benefit of those people, rather than to satisfy the whims of a single leader?

Yes of course.

Why wouldn’t I, don’t you?

Since I have been trying for weeks to help you understand this very fact, I am baffled by the question?

Those are still subjective opinions.

444

Funny how every time you’ve brought one of his assertions here, I’ve destroyed it by reference to actual peer reviewed scientific papers. Perhaps you might want to rethink your attachment to this charlatan.

2 Likes
445

Oh, the “747 from a junkyard” strawman caricature of scientific postulates … which has been destroyed repeatedly of course, not least because it is a straawman caricature of actual scientific postulates.

No scientist asserts that modern life forms emerged de novo from prebiotic chemistry. Instead, they state explicity that the first life forms to emerge were simple protocells, which acquired addiional features later in incremental steps. Which of course is why the prebiotic chemistry literature now includes experiments on possible simple protocell emergence mechanisms.

I cover this issue in more detail, of course, in my exposition on the dishonesty of “design” apologetics.

3 Likes
446

Meanwhile, look what I’ve just found!

This scientific paper provides an insight into the possible role of mechanochemical synthesis being implicated in sugar formation. The link above provides the full text of the paper (which is also downloadable as a PDF from the same webpage), and full exposition of the chemical reactions involved and the experiments conducted to test them.

First, the citation:

Mineral Mediated Carbohydrate Synthesis By Mechanical Forces In A Primordial Geochemical Setting by Maren Haas, Saskia Lamour, Sarah Babette Christ and Oliver Trapp, Nature Communications Chemistry, 3: Article No. 140 (2020)

From the paper:

Nice.

Some additional comment is required here - first of all, the term umpolung refers to reactions in which polarity reversal of asymetrically charged functional groups plays a part (the word is actually German for “polarity reversal”). Second, mechanochemical reactions are reactions that are activated and driven forward by the presence of mechanical emergy - in the laboratory, ball mills are used to investigate such reactions, but several natural processes can produce the required energy input - movement of gravel in tidal currents in an aqueous setting, or wind-blown tumbling of relevant material in an aeolian setting with no aqueous phase.

Such mechanical action can even occur in space, during meteorite debris collisions, and thus this set of experiments provides a menas by which sugars can be synthesised on meteorite bodies (which, of course, occur in vacuo). Though the authors of the paper also demonstrated that the requisite reactions are insensitive to atmospheric constitution.

Note in addition that this reaction mechanism has been a part of the scientific corpus of knowledge for three years.

Of course, any attempt to dismiss this result apologetically is destroyed before the fact, courtesy of the fact that the scientists demonstrated that the reaction process worked, and produced readily detectable sugar molecules in reasonable quantities after just 90 minutes of operation.

I love it when a result like this lands in my lap. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
447

In honor of the thread title…

Why do I think?.. :thinking:… Well, I’ve given this some thought, and I think I think because the thoughts in my head require thinking to process said thoughts. Now, we all know people who DON’T think, or at least think the thoughts they think are worth thinking, even though we all think the thoughts they think are considerably thoughtless. Granted, I think some of the time others may think my thoughts are derived from thoughtless thinking. Then I thought about it, though, and I think it doesn’t really matter what others think about my thoughts as long as I think my thoughts are thoughtful. Think about it, and let me know your thoughts about my thinking.

448

So what then makes one amoral?

Hatred is an underlying tendency. As I explained, you and I can both root out hatred.

My decision to end a man or pity him depends solely on my personal values. Uprooting hatred would specifically uproot the tendency to cause harm.

My love for my family is not conditioned by outside forces, nor do my violent tendencies stem from my love for my family.

Look. I am and have been advocating a type of love that does not allow for cruelty. We are bargaining here in different currencies. You still do not acknowledge the type of love I am advocating.

I hate them. I don’t need to know the child or love the child in any sense, in order to despise such an act. This shows how love has nothing to do with my attitude towards others harming children.

Dropping atomic bombs on the innocent civilians of Japan … ? No! I think it was highly unjustified. We’d already beaten the Nazis by that time. It was a tactical decision to save the lives of their own troops, rather than draw the war out with Japan. It was an act of war. Not love! You actually think it was an act of compassion? To incinerate all of those people?

Thank you! God. That’s all I’m asking. (Kidding)

Of course it compares. Everything is “relative”. Nothing is “quantitatively” better or worse than anything else!

Here’s a question. Do you believe that schizophrenics hear voices? That they believe they’re being monitored by the government? Shirley, you’re aware that such symptoms exist and you would be of the consensus that such experiences (whatever the nature of them) are experienced by certain people? And yet you have no idea what it’s like to experience that …

I also claim to hear voices! Why would you confirm that experience and not others? Are you calling me a liar? Where’s the “objective” evidence that I hear voices? What allows you to believe that claim?

Quit playing stupid. I’m not taking about the same bargain bin definition of love you are!

You believe that I hear voices don’t you? You take my word for it. You accept it because it’s widely accepted in the medical community.

It’s widely discredited that mermaids exist. It’s not widely discredited that other dimensions exist. It’s postulated in physics. In order to explain reality.

Seriously. Get a clue, man. I’m not talking about “a range” of emotions. I’m talking about one distinct emotion. Get on board. This is becoming tiresome.

They also “hated” other races. I’m proud to be Scottish. I love my heritage. Does that entail that I would hate other races?

Clearly, the Germans had to “hate” in order to do what they did. They did not act out of national pride. They acted out of a perverse hatred for other certain races.

Not the love I’m advocating, Sheldon.

Like the way you keep bringing up a dictionary definition of “love” when it bears no relation to the emotion I’m describing?

I’ll address the rest later. I have a morel mushroom picking trip to go out on. Not to be confused with a moral mushroom picking trip, which isn’t as fun because whereas morels exist in an objective sense, morals do not.

Honestly though, wish me luck :mushroom:

449

Yea. I’m having a moral crises. I don’t know what to do :person_shrugging:

Okay. Your favourite “colour” is helping old ladies cross the street. And Manson’s favourite “colour”
is brainwashing groupies into murdering people in Hollywood.

You don’t hold your favourite “colour” in higher regard than his?

Who gets punished?

So, does he deserve to be punished for his actions?

Those damn laws of the land!

450

I think you can Google a word definition on your own without my help. Subjective morality is not the same as being amoral though, that is clear enough.

Indeed, and like all human emotions is relative and subjective.

Well there you go, subjective and relative which is exactly what I have been saying. This kind of emotion has it’s precursors in our evolved fight flight response in all probability.

You mean claimed, not explained, and I remain dubious, though again this seems irrelevant to the fact that such emotions are relative, and subjective. We have some autonomy over how we react to our emotions, but I’m not sure we can stop experiencing emotions, or that we even should.

Not always no, but the evidence of your own posts demonstrates that it can, as with everyone else.

Why have you changed the word violent to cruel, they’re not the same thing obviously? Either way it has been demonstrated with multiple examples that experiencing love, does not negate the possibility of being violent, or cruel though that would a little more subjective. Indeed even a cursory examination has demonstrated examples of love motivating violence, and whether we deem that violence to be cruel would be subjective. For example a parent beating a child, I would find this immensely cruel, but others do not.

I have seen no objective evidence to support your claims, that love is infinite or absolute, or that it can eradicate hatred and violence, indeed the evidence demonstrates it cannot be infinite, as we as individuals and as a species are not, and also demonstrates it can lead itself to acts of violence. All you have offered by comparison is a bare claim.

Rather refuting your claim to have “destroyed the tendency to hate” You seem to making contradictory claims in tandem again.

That wasn’t the assertion you agreed with, you agreed that fighting Nazism was morally justified despite the appalling violence it led to, I was using it as yet another example of how love and compassion can prompt us to acts of violence, because the emotions are relative, and our morality subjective.

Indeed, so compassion for their own troops and people, prompted many appalling acts of violence towards the people and troops of Japan. Actions that in the normal run of events most people would consider appallingly immoral, demonstrating again that morals and the emotions that drive our actions are both relative and subjective.

NOT ME You’re doing it again, I am citing examples of other people’s subjective moral choices. In this example, which you raised not me, the compassion would have been towards their own troops and people, and the many people who had suffered at the hands of the Japanese fascist regime.

I don’t agree, as one was an act of war, as you yourself have stated in this very post, whereas the sacking of Nanjing was not, it neither had any strategic value nor was it in the heat of battle, and I was of course offering a subjective opinion, I said so twice in that post (emboldened for clarity). Just because morals are relative and subjective doesn’t negate anyone offering a subjective moral opinion, you don’t seem able to grasp this, why I’m not sure.

Yes, since auditory hallucinations are a medical fact, and it is a medical fact that schizophrenia increases the likelihood of such auditory hallucinations, but I don’t believe the voices are real, nor the mermaids people claim to have seen, nor the “other dimensions” you claim to feel you’ve experienced, and all for the same reason. The fact remains you cannot imply something is real and I only doubt it because my perception is flawed and cannot experience it, then deny identical claims to have experienced something others make, without setting an obviously biased double standard. My standard for belief remains the same for all claims.

Obviously because there is objective evidence that auditory hallucinations exist, and that schizophrenics are far more likely to experience such hallucinations.

However there is no objective evidence to support your claim that you have experienced “other dimensions”, and when I said I was dubious you claimed it was because of my flawed perception.

FYI My criteria for belief is and always has been that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support any claims. The mermaids and your claim to “experience other dimensions” do not achieve this as neither are supported by any objective evidence.

I have posted medical sites demonstrating that auditory hallucinations are not uncommon, and are very common among people suffering from schizophrenia. There is of course no objective evidence the voices are real, that is why the evidence demonstrates they are hallucinations.

This is your claim verbatim:

I answered what you posted, if you had some vague woo woo notions in mind, then obviously I can’t address what is in your mind, only what you posted, and I did. I have experienced love and compassion, and never denied they exist.

Does physics evidence that you have experienced other dimensions? Otherwise this is shifting of the goal posts to create a straw man, as that was your claim, and what I asserted not to believe.

I accept the scientific evidence that schizophrenics are far more likely to experience auditory hallucinations, I do not accept they are real obviously, and I don’t accept that you have experienced other dimensions, and for the same reason, they are unevidenced anecdotal claims. Your claim about mermaids being “widely discredited” is of course an argumentum ad populum fallacy. I disbelieve they exist for the same reason I disbelieve your claim to have experienced other dimensions, no objective evidence has been demonstrated to support the claims.

What emotion is that? I can only respond to what is posted, if the emotion you’re describing is not love then use a more appropriate word is all I can suggest, but the word love describes a range of empoions.

Well there you go, love and hatred are relative, and not an absolute. The one does not negate the other.

Did I remotely claim it would? Dear oh dear but how you love to create straw man fallacies.

hatred and national pride are not mutually exclusive, so you’ve lost me there, and are you seriously going to suggest nationalism was not a core tenet of Nazism and fascism? However you are missing the point again. Experiencing love does not negate hatred or violence, and strong emotions like love can prompt us to acts of violence.

Love
noun

  1. an intense feeling of deep affection.
    2.a great interest and pleasure in something.

I am dealing with the real range of emotions that define the word love, if you are imaging something that you can’t evidence, or are simply trying to define love in a way that supports your argument, but is at odds with the actual definition of the word, then it has no relevance, as it has no real meaning. I have offered examples of the relative and subjective nature of love, quod erat demonstrandum. I don’t even know what you’re trying to describe, or what relevance it has?

Then you’ll need to explain what emotion you’re describing as if what you mean isn’t what the word love defines, then this is entirely your error. Use another word is all I can suggest, one that means what you think you’re describing. Arbitrarily assigning characteristics to the word love that are at odds with what the word is commonly understood to mean, renders it meaningless. The constant straw men that imply I share every subjective moral I cite as examples of subjective morality, speaks for itself.

The question is tautologically redundant. You’re asking if my subjective opinion is “better” than someone else’s? Better according to whom?

For what?

Do you mean do I think he should be punished, based on my subjective morality? If so then yes, obviously.

Without them large societies would be impossible. I suppose we could try going back to small groups of feral hunter gatherers, but at my age that doesn’t hold much appeal.

451

You are quoting Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Faith in greek is πίστις (πίστις - Wiktionary, the free dictionary) & is needed for life and it is the very things you have listed.

452

Dragons, unicorns, flying pigs, mermaids, Loch Ness, and Big Foot can’t be seen either. Are you saying you have faith in those things too? How fascinating.

2 Likes
453

Religious faith, that is “strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof” is not needed for science, and it is not needed for logic, and it is not needed in order to disbelieve a claim, so it is not needed for atheism.

You can peddle this lie all you want, and if you think the Greek etymology of the word is fooling anyone, then you are very mistaken.

So one could have that faith in things that are demonstrably not real then, something of an own goal there.

3 Likes
454

Lock Ness can be seen and its beautiful, the lock Ness monster however…

1 Like
455

Read that to yourself and then read out aloud… jeez.

2 Likes
456

The bible was in greek and the fact you found a catch-all synonym does nothing to the fact that you are using insufficient language. It’s like using a pronoun before a proper noun has been introduced. It’s like saying, I’m going to the store when you mean walking, driving, jogging, flying, skipping, hopping, crawling, staggering, taxiing, or blindly meandering in a drunken stupor.

1 Like
457

Yet you have a clear problem explaining how hatred is moral for one man and amoral for another.

Indeed. And hatred is not love, nor does the one manifest as the other.

I enjoy having a hate free perspective on the world. I enjoy detaching my self from that feeling. There is a certain sickness associated with hatred. It brews, and intoxicates, and predominates the mind. It’s a fever of sorts. Like a rancid piece of meat, it should be distanced from. Hatred is like throwing shit at the monkeys. Sure you get to throw shit at monkeys, but you’re hands are covered in shit too!

What do they say, “spare the rod, boil the child”?

Let me take you down, cuz I’m going to
Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever

A nice little song inspired by LSD and another type of trip to see the rshis in India. Have you tried LSD, Shelly? And - oh. Cog was born in ‘49 or ‘50. Let’s see how that one pans out :wink:

Are you kidding?

Take the proposition, “If I suck a dick, I am gay.”

This is not a claim that I have sucked anyone’s dick.

Nor is the statement, “if I eradicate hatred how could I … etc.” a claim of my ability to eradicate hatred. It’s a simple if/then proposition.

I did no such thing. I compared the Nuremberg Trials to the Atomic Bomb - pointing out how absurd war can be when the winners get to make the treaties afterwards.

The appalling acts of violence towards the Japanese on the part of the Americans was self defence initially. It was convenient that the bomb had been invented. If the bomb had not been invented, the compassionate thing would be to pull the troops out. Even with the bomb, the compassionate thing to do would be to pull their troops out and not drop the bomb.

You don’t see America dropping nukes on Vietnam during that war. Where’s all the compassion for their troops. Oh! I guess Nixon just didn’t have the same compassion as Rosevelt?

Your understanding of compassion and your use of the word is so flimsy that I could tell you that I jerked off all over a beached lobster out of “compassion” - and you’d probably let it slide.

You’re taking your understanding of compassion and you’re extending it to acts of atrocity. Take a little credit.

That’s not compassion. Compassion would be to pull their troops out. Not drop the bomb. Make paper cranes with candies inside and drop them from the sky. That is what would have reversed the war waged on the Chinese by the Japanese. That is the definition of “compassion”.

Who says it’s a hallucination. Can you trigger a part of someone’s brain and cause them to have a hallucination of an industrial strength toilet with omnipotent powers.

It’s a documented symptom of what the medical world calls “a mental illness”. For me, it’s a daily reality.

Clearly you’ve never heard one. Nor does your “medical fact” account for their underlying mechanism.

You claim to believe in something you’ve never experienced and also do not understand.

Getting sleepy :yawning_face:

458

No I absolutely do not have any such problem, since amoral and subjective morality are demonstrably two entirely different things. I think perhaps you ought to learn what both mean before you accuse others of a lack of understanding. As your use of amoral in that quote makes no sense whatsoever.

I never said it was so another straw man fallacy…

One can prompt the other, just as the multiple examples I offered amply demonstrated.

Oh dear, you don’t have a hate free perspective:

What should one infer from any rationale that produces endless contradictions like that?

You haven’t detached yourself from hatred at all, as we can see from the quote above, and you also said it was an underlying trend, so you seem to be making endless contradictions, again the inference is clear.

I’m reposting this:

“I have seen no objective evidence to support your claims, that love is infinite or absolute, or that it can eradicate hatred and violence, indeed the evidence demonstrates it cannot be infinite, as we as individuals and as a species are not, and also demonstrates it can lead itself to acts of violence. All you have offered by comparison is a bare claim.”

As your response ignored it, and offered some disjointed non sequitur about a song and drug use. However and FYI, a drug induced altered state of mind, is not objective evidence that one has experienced “another dimension” as that seems to be what you implied there.

FYI the song Strawberry Fields had nothing to do with LSD or drug use, it was a reminiscence from Lennon’s childhood, and Strawberry Fields was the name of a Salvation Army children’s home situated close to where John Lennon lived in Woolton.

Not remotely, as this quote amply demonstrates:

You certainly did say that, but your new position is duly noted then you think the allies were as immoral as the Nazis, I can only strongly disagree.

And leave one of the most barbarically cruel regimes in human history carry on with impunity? Again I can only disagree strongly. Compassion like all human emotions is relative and subjective, to erroneously think it an absolute has you defending Nazism and fascism as no more immoral than the forces that defeated them. Give me subjective morality over moral absolutes all day long, the Nazis and their fascist allies dealt in moral absolutes, as do the worst of religious extremists.

It was during the cold war, so I’d imagine trying to avoid provoking a global nuclear conflict could be considered by some as compassion, but then just like love and all other human emotions, compassion is relative and subjective.

No I wasn’t, I was explaining that compassion like all human emotions are relative and subjective. Again you are dishonestly twisting my citing an example of subjective morality as a moral endorsement of it. I can only assume you still can’t understand what subjective morality means.

That’s a subjective view of what YOU consider to be compassionate, it is both relative and subjective, so thanks for proving the point for me again.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence the voices are real, we seem to have arrived back where we started with your unevidenced anecdotal claim to have “experienced other dimensions”? The existence of auditory hallucinations is an objective medical fact, and it is an objective medical fact that among those who suffer from schizophrenia the occurrence of such hallucinations is vastly higher.

Of course I have, not just voices either, auditory hallucinations are pretty common, far more so among schizophrenics.

It’s not my medical fact, and not fully understanding why such hallucinations occur, if that’s what you’re claiming, doesn’t evidence your claim they are real, this is a text book argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I have experienced auditory and visual hallucinations. Also I don’t fully understand gravity, or the big bang or species evolution, or calculus, are you suggesting I should not believe these are valid because I personally don’t fully understand them, and should only believe what I personally understand, that’s a pretty idiotic idea I think you will agree.

Morals like all human emotions are relative and subjective. Nothing you have said suggests otherwise.

CITATION

“Basic emotion feelings help organize and motivate rapid (and often more-or-less automatic though malleable) actions that are critical for adaptive responses to immediate challenges to survival or wellbeing. In emotion schemas, the neural systems and mental processes involved in emotion feelings, perception, and cognition interact continually and dynamically in generating and monitoring thought and action. These dynamic interactions (which range from momentary processes to traits or trait-like phenomena) can generate innumerable emotion-specific experiences (e.g., anger schemas) that have the same core feeling state but different perceptual tendencies (biases), thoughts, and action plans.”

"Emotion feeling (a) derives from evolution and neurobiological development, (b) is the key psychological component of emotions and consciousness, and (c) is more often inherently adaptive than maladaptive.

Emotions play a central role in the evolution of consciousness, influence the emergence of higher levels of awareness during ontogeny, and largely determine the contents and focus of consciousness throughout the life span."

Now from the late Christopher Hitchens:

“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”

459

Kay. I’ll look it up and get back to you

A subjective opinion at best. My subjective alternative to your biased and subjective opinion, is that love which is not accompanied by hate will not manifest in violence or cruelty. Seems pretty obvious and in tune with the definitions of each.

No. Not all the time. Nor did I imply that I did. I enjoy cultivating a hate free relationship with the world. This doesn’t imply that I am free of hate all the time.

It’s not a contradiction. You’re simply reading it in your own subjective manner and then projecting your flawed view into me. There was no definitive statement there that I am always hatefree. I said I enjoy having a hate free perspective. I didn’t say I “constantly” enjoy it.

Not only can I detach my self from hatred on a temporary basis, but also - I do, and I enjoy it.

Nor did Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds lmao :joy:

No. I think violence is immoral. I don’t condone violence from anyone. Let those who hate be their own undoing.

Yes. It’s called pacifism.

Yes. Yes. Compassion. Clearly. Quite unfortunate for America that the Russia got the bomb as well. Otherwise, in all of their compassion, the United States and the Allies could have dropped atomics with impunity. Compassionate impunity of course. In a somewhat subjective sense of course.

No. I understand your position far better than you understand mine.

Somewhat less subjective than the idea that dropping a nuke on innocent civilians counts as an act of compassion, I would wager.

Can you demonstrate that they’re not?

How so? Please, humour me.

Hmm. And did they have personalities? Did they exhibit intention, intelligence, or agendas? Or did you think your phone was ringing in your pocket and pulled it out only to find that you were hallucinating?

Indeed your understanding of these voices is rudimentary and uniformed. On top of that, the medical authorities you bow down to for your basic unintelligence has no definitive way of explaining how these voices exist - merely that they must be hallucinations, since the existence of higher beings must be ruled out as a cause. It’s simply not kosher, now is it?

[quote=“Sheldon, post:458, topic:3719”]and not fully understanding why such hallucinations occur, if that’s what you’re claiming, doesn’t evidence your claim they are real
[/quote]
Yes. And it certainly fails badly at explaining the underlying medical “fact” that they are, according to you and others, “unreal”. They’re making a claim of their own. A very rational one at first glance. And yet they doing a shit job of accounting for it. It’s the ones experiencing it who have to account for it, not the doctors and the pharmaceutical industry which lines their pockets.

I’ll address your quote later. A pleasure as always, Sheldon. Cog was born in ‘49 or ‘50!!! Oh Cog! Oh Cog! Care to falsify that? I know you’re reading this very stimulating back and forth, you lurker you.

460

Not even close. I’m a baby boomer. Anyone reading my posts could figure that out. In your wildest dreams, can you seriously imagine me to be a part of the “Silent Generation?”
Traditional values. (Not me.)
Financial prudence. (I’m a gambler and a risk taker.)
Interpersonal respect. (I’m a foul mouthed monkey.)
Determination: (Especially if I think you have treated me unfairly.)
Resilience: (Anyone living in foreign countries develops this or moves back home.)
Work Ethic: (Damn, another one that has me by the tail.)
Analog sensibilities. .(Not so much.)
Self-sacrifice. (Ha ha ha ha ha ha … fuck that. Take care of number one first… THEN… share. )
Flexable Rescheduling: (Not likely. Do what you say your going to do when you say you are going to do it.)

Baby Boomers on the other hand, fits nicely.
Independent: Yep, and plan on staying that way.
Competitive: What was your first clue?
Goal-oriented: How is that NOT obvious?
Resourceful: You would be surprised.
Experienced. Yep, That’s what happens when you are independent and don’t rely on others.
Self Assured: To a fault. Hence the apologies now and again.
Value Relationships: Only if you are lucky enough to establish one. I am a true introvert.
Enjoy Quality and Excellence: (Demand your best effort is more like it. Shit or get off the pot. Quality and Excellence in effort and ideas, not in things. I have no sense of value when it comes to things.)

Sorry ratty boy, you missed the mark. Happy to comment.

461

In my defence ‘49 and ‘50 fall in the 1946 to 1964 cohort of baby boomers.

The EvilOne did not assist me well in this display of supernormal power.

But wait! I have determined your consciousness is located on the Korean Peninsula. I see … I see … I see NORTH KOREA!!!

462

Right! Ole Kim Jong Il and I are best buds. We blow up million dollar tanks on the weekends for target practice and laugh about people eating roots and shrubs while we chow down on steaks.

2 Likes