bwamp believes that the only thing to human life is human life, because he believes that purpose is an objective abstract, which is directly caused by the western system of beliefs, which holds, even in none-religious circles, that purpose is objective due to the judeo-christain skywizard saying so.
may he never realize that there is seldom difference between the subjective and the objective, amen.
btw if you really didn't value your life, you would just say "whatever" when someone puts a dagger to your throat and threatens to slice it
may he never realize that there is seldom difference between the subjective and the objective, amen.
btw if you really didn't value your life, you would just say "whatever" when someone puts a dagger to your throat and threatens to slice it
Last edited by Deprived_OLD; Feb 14, 2010 at 06:52 PM.
tl;dr: deprived is spergin'
Originally Posted by Marco
Wow, what a joy-filled person you are.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Valentine's Day. Yeah, people shouldn't have to wait until one day in the year when they actually feel the need to do something special for a loved one, but at least there is the one day. Surely that's more of a reason to keep it rather than abolish it?
Leave it alone and stop being so pessimistic.
You've totally refuted her every contention. You definitely did not miss her point about commercial profits in anyway. I think you're an intelligent man with lofty ideals and class.
Originally Posted by Bwamp
Derp, I forgot to add recreation to my list of things that sex is good for. But emotional support and empathy? Again, these are decidedly unquantifiable, human values.
Uh, considering reality as we see it is based upon our perceptions, if I "feel" love for my girlfriend, the emotional support and empathy from sex is pretty important to me. And I do, so it is. Try being in a relationship before commenting on how love doesn't exist.
Originally Posted by Bwamp
That's not love, it's arousal. Which is also necessary for survival and reproduction-- no motivation, no procreation (hurr durr).
No, the two feelings are distinct, as anyone who has felt them will tell you. It's not arousal, it's pure appreciation, acceptance, happiness, whatever. Arousal is more primal, love is more tender.
The rest of your post is just so nihilistic 16 year old that it's pretty much futile to bicker over it. You're upset that there is no objective meaning to the world. Get over it, make your own meaning like everyone else.
Originally Posted by m0o
Quantifiable via chemical changes in the brain and observable in other species. Elephants, for example mourn the dead.
Happiness can be demonstrated through chemical changes in the brain, as can love (with a similar chemical change, although differing physiological responses).
Technology and war.
See "lifeforms", "within our scope".
You're still mistaking chemical changes for human emotion. Just because an endorphin rush makes us feel "happy" it is no more than a series of reactions and myelinated nerves transmitting electrical signals to the brain.
And technology and war will affect the universe in what sense? If we're killing extraterrestrials, that's one thing, but otherwise it's still an internalized conflict- and it is mathematically and physically impossible for any race to colonize the entire universe, even if given billions and billions of years-- and given humanity's tendencies towards self-destruction, I seriously doubt we'll last anywhere near that long, especially with the possibility of adverse cosmic phenomena wiping us out at some point in time.
Originally Posted by Deprived
bwamp believes that the only thing to human life is human life, because he believes that purpose is an objective abstract, which is directly caused by the western system of beliefs, which holds, even in none-religious circles, that purpose is objective due to the judeo-christain skywizard saying so.
may he never realize that there is seldom difference between the subjective and the objective, amen.
btw if you really didn't value your life, you would just say "whatever" when someone puts a dagger to your throat and threatens to slice it
Awesome argument ad hominem that accomplished absolutely nothing, bro.
Objective abstract is an oxymoron. Who are you to say that my beliefs come from Westernization? Very few of my peers agree with my beliefs. And there is "seldom a difference between subjective and the objective"? Yet another contradictory statement, excellent work, Sherlock. You've got a real future in debate.
And if someone put a dagger to my throat and threatened to slice it, I would act on self-preservation and attempt to SURVIVE, which is what I have clearly stated over and over again is the only objective in the life of any organism, which you have failed to note, as have Odlov and a handful of others. Unlike Odlov, however, your argument relies entirely on your false presumptions, whereas his tend to revolve around objective and quantifiable facts and verifiable resources.
And by the way, I achieve gratification through sex and violence, so that's yet another reason for me to yank the dagger out of my would-be attacker's hands and stab him to death with it.
Originally Posted by Clbck
Uh, considering reality as we see it is based upon our perceptions, if I "feel" love for my girlfriend, the emotional support and empathy from sex is pretty important to me. And I do, so it is. Try being in a relationship before commenting on how love doesn't exist.
Perhaps this may be so, but reality is not based around your perceptions. And I've been in plenty of relationships- it's quite easy to pretend you care about the other when using them for gratification. Humans are animals, no less, no more, and while people like you like to think that silly things like meaning and love exist, they are human concepts and do not apply to deer or plants. Plants have "sex" too, you know, but you don't see redwoods and ferns swooning over each other.
No, the two feelings are distinct, as anyone who has felt them will tell you. It's not arousal, it's pure appreciation, acceptance, happiness, whatever. Arousal is more primal, love is more tender.
Again, you're using human emotion and relativistic terms like "tender" and "happiness" to describe something that HUMANS invented to apply value to themselves. Everything related to human "emotion" can be explained chemically or otherwise objectively.
The rest of your post is just so nihilistic 16 year old that it's pretty much futile to bicker over it. You're upset that there is no objective meaning to the world. Get over it, make your own meaning like everyone else.
I'm not upset at all that life has no objective meaning. I embrace it, as a matter of fact, enjoy it. It means that I can do whatever I want without pithy emotions like guilt or "love" into my thought processes. And on the futility of bickering note, the same applies to you. I waste my time arguing objectivity to someone who relies on love to explain his need for human companionship because I have nothing better to do, though. What's your reason?
Last edited by Bwamp; Feb 14, 2010 at 07:10 PM.
Originally Posted by Bwamp
You're still mistaking chemical changes for human emotion. Just because an endorphin rush makes us feel "happy" it is no more than a series of reactions and myelinated nerves transmitting electrical signals to the brain.
And technology and war will affect the universe in what sense? If we're killing extraterrestrials, that's one thing, but otherwise it's still an internalized conflict- and it is mathematically and physically impossible for any race to colonize the entire universe, even if given billions and billions of years-- and given humanity's tendencies towards self-destruction, I seriously doubt we'll last anywhere near that long, especially with the possibility of adverse cosmic phenomena wiping us out at some point in time.
Awesome argument ad hominem that accomplished absolutely nothing, bro.
Objective abstract is an oxymoron. Who are you to say that my beliefs come from Westernization? Very few of my peers agree with my beliefs. And there is "seldom a difference between subjective and the objective"? Yet another contradictory statement, excellent work, Sherlock. You've got a real future in debate.
And if someone put a dagger to my throat and threatened to slice it, I would act on self-preservation and attempt to SURVIVE, which is what I have clearly stated over and over again is the only objective in the life of any organism, which you have failed to note, as have Odlov and a handful of others. Unlike Odlov, however, your argument relies entirely on your false presumptions, whereas his tend to revolve around objective and quantifiable facts and verifiable resources.
And by the way, I achieve gratification through sex and violence, so that's yet another reason for me to yank the dagger out of my would-be attacker's hands and stab him to death with it.
funny because this is discussion.
Get the fuck out if you want to tell everyone you cant feel love, go make your own thread and dont pollute this one, thank you.
Originally Posted by Bwamp
You're still mistaking chemical changes for human emotion. Just because an endorphin rush makes us feel "happy" it is no more than a series of reactions and myelinated nerves transmitting electrical signals to the brain.
Emotions aren't magic or wicked bad voodoo, dude. They ARE the chemical changes and physiological responses. The terms "happy" etc are classifications for the observable symptoms of the change. They are observable in animals other than people.
You are terribly misinformed or misguided.
Originally Posted by Bwamp
And technology and war will affect the universe in what sense? If we're killing extraterrestrials, that's one thing, but otherwise it's still an internalized conflict- and it is mathematically and physically impossible for any race to colonize the entire universe, even if given billions and billions of years-- and given humanity's tendencies towards self-destruction, I seriously doubt we'll last anywhere near that long, especially with the possibility of adverse cosmic phenomena wiping us out at some point in time.
So you're telling me that adding wreckage to space and destroying planets is insignificant?
Regarding "populating the whole universe" there is no impossibility in this. It could very well happen post-technological singularity (particularly if AI is able to bring quantum entanglement into the real world).
Hate to say it but you read like a 14 yearold "edgy" guy
Last edited by m0o; Feb 14, 2010 at 07:10 PM.
