₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: Lolzzzzzz...... later bruv

One last thing though. It occurs to me it's rather weird you'd quote yourself like that, unless of course you thought the original post was still there. In other words, you intended to quote yourself in a new post to bring home the point. Instead you accidentally overwrote the ol....

gaddamit you've been drinking again...

Later, good ser...

Deep Sight: Ciao, my dear random amigo. . . and I hope you do not take my barbs and jibes to heart. . . na so I dey play with everybodi. . . .

This is far more annoying than anything else on this thread to me. You need not take my somewhat barbaric mannerisms seriously abeg

Less headache with stout, I've never bothered to find out why...

aManFromMars: Actually, the only person I'm interested in holding this discussion with is Weigraf. I suspect we may be the only ones here that hold no faith in humanity, lol. And a really serious discussion with him on this section might be unpalatable for most readers.

And I don't even make the laws, so I fail to see the problem. They should be mad at logic and nature, not me

That said, another Herr einstein is something like; nature is indifferent, not malicious

Deep Sight: I am going to drop this discussion with you pretty soon.

There are too many cardinal questions that have been raised for you to answer, which you have ignored: and as such you have little right to pose questions in lieu of answers.

I will give you a simple answer to the question of predator and prey: I say that it is natural order. The same way it is natural for a Lion to eat cattle, but unnatural for a Lion to make fellow Lions its standard feed. That is as simple, direct and non-escapist a response as you can get. Please return the favor, with reference to my many unanswered questions. And also Reyginus' question, which you lied about having addressed. You have not addressed it. Either address it, or show where you addressed it.

You addressed nothing with this nonsense, and feel free to run to where ever you go to cry. For one, are you saying its natural for the prey to want to be eaten?? What about its desire to live?! That's not natural? Who even gets to decide what's natural? Shall males now kill the kids of the children of single moms if they're interested in some action? You do know that's what a lot of nature indulges in, no?

Your 'natural' is not my natural. This is patently obvious, so what are you on about?

As for your 'poser', erm, problem where? I've already told you its all subjective. You then ask a senseless question. i've alteady stated this; my f%*$*% standards, society's, whatever the context is, simple. And note, there is absolutely no such thing as a universal context. Impossible even conceptually because of tje fact above; values differ. I could not have been any clearer through this thread. We all do this, just some label it something else. You're here trying to pass your nonsense off as objective , no? Well, it clearly isn't. It then becomes a battle of 'wills'.

So damned simple....

texanomaly: First of all, I did not address the homosexual issue. I was only addressing the in.cest. I do not support homosexuality, for the record. My post was very practical, actually, until the end comment. If you think either issue can be addressed without emotion, you are fooling yourself.

Good, so we should leave it to emotions. In that case, my emotional response to your nonsense is rather dipleasurable. I shall now proceed to locking you up on those grounds.

As for homo.sexuality, that's your opinion, and I don't care. I am simply showing you why reasoning is silly by 'modern' standards. Similar nonsense to what you put up can be applied to homosexuality, and we condemn it when used there, see?

Reyginus: Lol. Ad hominem.
Why is it so difficult to tackle the most important thing at this point?

Google translate

deep Sight: Seriously. Which post? And what did I change? Let me know, I am actually curious.

As I said, I did add to some posts to make them clearer, but cant recall changing the content of any post in a different direction. . . .

All the stuff i mention on my immediate reply, I didn't make it up. I notice the last paragraph of that post is what you now quote as the opener of the current version of the post.

Deep Sight: Oh, the post about the armed robbery experience, I could have made that post much earlier, if truly I was looking to appeal to emotion.

Rather the post is directed at the fact that we can sit comfortably in an arm chair and detach ourselves from reality and make empty postulations.

Direct experience often enables more realistic assessment of reality.

And how does this affect the fact that is an appeal to emotion?

Here's the truth, to many those involved in that episode, their actions are justified. There is no way their actions van be classified as intrinsically, or objectively evil

It might scare you or make you sad, but that's the fact.

If you want to hold onto this mythological good you're high on, again, the same high Messrs Hitler et all were on (see, it works both ways), if you want to even dream of holding on some semblance of a point, simply show how the right to live of a predator overrides that of its prey. Simple

Reyginus: Lolololol. Interprete my statement as it suits you. I'm not sorry for your butthurt. My intentions were good.
All I demand is the post that dealt with my question. I'm serious.

You seem even more confused than usual. A great achievement

Deep Sight: Changed which post? I did not change any post, there are some posts I have added to, for clarity, but did not change any post. . . . .

You now resort to telling outright lies

You're a disgrace

texanomaly: condoms break, and contraceptives are not 100% either. Sex with a parent or sibling is irresponsible.



My views on homosexuality, and on in.cest are definitely influenced by my religion and cultural biases. I will, for the purpose of this argument, try to set them aside. I find this thread disturbing. Not so much because of homosexuality, but because of the in.cest angle.

Okay. Let's say sex between adult parent, and adult offspring, or siblings is considered acceptable. My concern is this. If we take an indifferent,or negligent stance here, where does it stop? That parent or sibling, who is now free from any legal, societal or moral obligation to stay away from their children or siblings has no boundaries. What's to stop them from thinking, its not that big a deal to take their teenage daughter or son? Heck, they are almost adults. What's the harm?

Are you kidding me with this? You fall my hand. There comes a point when rational thought becomes down right idiotic. I'm sorry.

And what happens when we let to adult males stick pipis down their backsides? What's next, they'll stick it down yours? Or they'll stick it down boys? Think of the children??

Silly appeals to emotions are just that: silly

Pedophilia, incest, homosexuality; different issues.

You clown you can ignore my talk about wills as much as you, how the f.uck does that affect reality? Gravity is still there regardless of your opinion.

And you talk about murder being different to killing due to justification. Well, justification by who's standard??

Don't you dare think I'm ignoring rape. I'm on mobile atm and its a chore. Not to mention its already been dealt with....

I repeat, your faith in humanity is appalling, among other things.

Edit : Lol I wish I quoted your earlier post? Why did you change it?

You now replace it with another of your standard issue appeals to emotion

Really...

Reyginus: Lolololol. If I don't know you as I do I would have concluded that you've been drinking.
Please where did you address it? Help me with the post number, please.

As usual, astronomically confused yet confident..

Don't worry your pretty head about it. Just know it isn't the end of the world

Deep Sight: @ All, witness profound reasoning. Have you ever seen this in your life?

It is said that this - >



Addresses this - >



- - -> In a discussion about morality. . .

[size=30pt]WOW.[/size]

What ate you doing
Looking for support from Satan's little helpers?

I already told you I have no crayons. If you're too fo.olish to get it, that's not my fault.

Really, do you think anyone with half a brain doesn't get my point? You've even been asked to demonstrate this your objective code, you cite murder and rape... In case you missed the obvious, those are not objectively evil in any form. For one, you murder every time you eat meat.....

Aaaaannnddd like I said, that's already been addressed.

You have a stronger will? Use it

I do NOT make the laws. No one does actually. Dreaming them off won't make them dissapear. You cannot wish away 1+1=2

I do not have crayons here

Image123: What are the important things, pessimism? Once man is created or born, he lives forever in a sense. There are only two destinations, heaven and hell. Heaven is for overcomers, for those that are refined by the tests. The qualifcations for overcoming are glaring, plain and accessible. It is faith in God. What do you do with what you do not need? What do you do with corrupt files on your computer?
i've seen a brilliant inventor invent unbrilliant things. They say genius is 99% perspiration. Thomas Edison managed to make many useless things befre he got it right. Today's dullards can carry out greater calculations than geniuses like Einstein and Newton could. How manage? These things do manage to happen. However, God the perfect One never made man imperfect. Man was created good. He became imperfect in the event popularly known as the fall.

You too, is Yahweh subject to reason please?

Deep Sight: What a lamentably weak, cowardly, escapist, lying and disgraceful response to a very strong point.

What point you clown? Do you require a diagram as well? I don't have any crayons here so that could take while

David!!!

Still barking nonsense?

In before I'm here just to shut you up. You've not posted anything of merit.

There is no case against incest except popular disgust. Not by modern standards

There is a case against parents and kids of course, but that's pedophillia

Uyi Iredia: Goot ! Goot ! So is belief in Santa a philosophy ? And is belief in Jesus a philosophy ? In fact what is a disbelief ? And umm ! Did you forget I just changed my mind on the matter.

No, I thought you were trolling.

Iirc I've bashed you over this before, yet here you just changed your mind like that?

Reyginus: Lol. I am still not convinced that you have sufficient information on the implication of your previous post.

Your first sentence betrays the point you were making. To suggest that morality can be rightly pronounced relative, and also infringes on the values of fellow man, is suggestive of the absence of a moral law.

If you conscribe morality to such a relative and amoral position, with what standard do you think you can trust your words over mine if in my subjectivism, which you alluded to, I view it as objective?

I've already addressed this, in English. Use Google translate, assuming it speaks , if you still don't get it

Deep Sight: Good work. . . . but you are wasting your time with this man.

I can only imagine the task at hand gives you sleepless nights. You want to prove your square circle on a 2 d platform exists outside your head. And for backup you have the likes of.... Josh and this harbinger of genius

I ought to tell you to save what little self respect you have left. Perhaps. It might help you sleep better for instance. But i'm rather enjoying this.

Please carry on

And fairly importantly, I won't give anyone any clear signs as to what the right religion

It adds to the suspense

While I make the (mostly brainless) cowards that chose the right religion, sing

Yes, they'd be singing while they watch me put some hot irons on babies, among other things.....

...... I would then roast them forever when they reach my spiritual abode

I would decree that anyone caught wearing clothing made of more than 2 different types of fabric should be stoned to death

I would send bears to kill children for calling a bald man........bald

I would write a story book, ridiculous as is, just to troll

I would make a donkey talk

I would come down to fight mere mortals, but retreat because they used iron chariots

^^^
I still can't see your point? What does the philosophy of atheism entail? You assert a belief that there's no god? Does that make believing santa does not exist a philosophy? Or is 'skepticism' in general a philosophy? Even if you squeezed that through, skepticism != atheism.

Ranchhoddas: pls read my complete post! I am on ur side...sort of!!

I never said you weren't, I was highlighting the point. Though I can see how it would seem otherwise. You're an agnostic, are you not?

@ihe, can you come and address your folly please?