• Last Seen: 11 yrs ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 2579 (0.58 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. So Boerd 12 yrs ago

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

I have no objections. If I had any, they would be about the particulars.
Brovo said
Hm. To quickly rebuttle without derailing.1. In a universe where any entity can know the future with any sort of certainty (omniscience) and shape it with absolute certainty (omnipotence), there is no such thing as free will, in the same sense that no matter how well designed an AI is in a computer game, it will always perform the functions you programmed it to.2. A God may or may not exist. I don't know. That God may or may not be perfect. I don't know. It may not even be a God, it may be space aliens, or it may be nothing at all and we simply formed as a natural process. I don't really know... But on a topic as sensitive as suicide, God should take a back seat to the person's well being first and foremost. Family, friends, counseling, psychiatric evaluation, medical assistance--all far more important than a god in the case of suicide. If your best argument against suicide is that it might make a being whose mere existence is unprovable frustrated that things didn't go accordingly to plan, .But, free will. The person will do as they may. The best one can do is support them emotionally and try to guide them to a healthy course, then respect whatever decision it is they end up making for themselves, so long as they do it with a sound mind.


I believe this is what MDK is talking about.
Everyone could be genuinely right about this issue you know.

It is about Schwarzchild discovering space lions, obviously.

There are no right answers, but there are a whole lot of wrong answers.
To cut to the point, Brovo, you agree with me. You (you were not the target of the hypothetical) wouldn't want to live in a place where every nonviolent behavior is tolerated, which is what I was describing. The only question is where we draw the line, the point beyond which the behavior is too repugnant to be tolerated and not actively discouraged and derided. Behaviors up to this point could be considered normal, the determination of normal being the whole point of this thread.
Epiphany: I can avoid making a terminator, if I made a futuristic main battle tank. That would give a reasonable volume for fusion reaction and allow a serious gun.
Brovo said
There are plenty of things I don't agree with, like most religions, that I easily tolerate day to day.Agreement =/= Tolerance.But as I've seen from the above you're using the strawman argument again, so debating is pointless.


In other words, exactly what I said. How in the world you managed to read "You have to agree with things to tolerate them" out of "If you already agree with it, you aren't tolerating it, so a tolerant society would tolerate what it doesn't agree with", I'll never know, but it's impressive.
yoshua171 said
Why? Wanna fight Arkaeis ;D


I do!
Just reduced the weapon yield by 100. You should all on the ground see a very bright flash, auroras, but there is no EMP.
Yay, another flier!
Again, so the whole point of tolerance is lost if you only tolerate what you agree with. If you already agree with it, you aren't tolerating it. So the tolerant should tolerate bigots.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet