(I'm consolidating all these dang posts.)
58636
>and so, we are back to my criticism of your criticism of Michelle. Your "shoulds" and if they "woulds" don't wash with anyone else if they are just based on what "you" think best for your self in the world.<
Well you see this is precisely what I have been trying to tell you all along. I am well aware my "shoulds" and "woulds" are not objective. I am equally aware that likewise your magical "self-evidence" is not objective also. This is exactly what I have been saying.
Now of course I do believe my "shoulds" and "woulds" are better than everyone else's (grin). And I certainly believe it by far superior to your Islamic brand of hocus pocus. My "shoulds" and "woulds" are based on my perceptions of existence, and they aim to as closely as possible use one's assumptions on daily life to compelled one to accept them.
>On what do you base your opinion.<
I have here made the argument many times enough, and am therefore not interested in going into it again in any kind of depth. In a nutshell the point goes something like this.
1. Our objectively distinguishing our fundamental nature from that of the human conceptus is, by our basic daily sense of reason, impossible. (i.e. if you can kill a baby that is minutes away from birth, then philosophically you can kill it when it is seconds away. If seconds, then nanoseconds, if nanoseconds then you can when it is born because there is nothing about the change of residence precipitated by birth that objectively and fundamentally changes the nature of a human. If you can kill it when it is nanoseconds born, then you can kill it when it is seconds born. If seconds then minutes, if minutes then hours, if hours then days...)
2. Given a set of ethical assumptions that allow for killing the conceptus on demand, we are then philosophically able to kill other humans.
3. This sort of philosophical system (namely, abortion philosophy) is no basis for civilised human society because a society wherein folk are ethically allowed to kill one another out of convenience, and as a matter of course, runs contrary to our notions of human civilisation.
4. That which runs contrary to our notions of civilisation is barbaric.
5. Abortion philosophy is then barbaric.
6. If you insist on embracing such barbarism, then dad gabbit, do it on your own dang dime!
Of course there is no objective proof to any of this, as, for example, none of us ultimately has authority to claim anything "barbaric." But it does hold truer to our daily assumptions on civilised life than your "self-evidence."
You can criticise my criticism of Michelle however you please, but it will always ring goofy whenever you bring up that dang goofy "Quran" junk and all them dang "messengers" as your "objective proofs." I don't mean to make fun of your Johnny-come-lately religion and all, but you go presenting it as if its an objectively determinable thing when it ain't got a self-evident thing about it. When you do that, you open the thing up to be kicked. So don't push it, man.
58637
>The limiting factor of your temporality is evidence of your limitations, mine, and everybody elses?.<
Firstly, these things are all based on assumptions. None is proven to be eternally and ultimately etched in stone. Secondly, my alleged temporality, presents evidence of only my alleged temporality, as there very well may exist a limitless Person. So much for the existence of this "self-evidence."
I think life here is just one great big assumption. There simply is no objective meaning anywhere under the sun. The best we can do is rely on our perceptions of our own existence and of things around us, making assumptions about them. But we can never know they are ultimately true. Life is a theory, and can be supported such that we have various "measures" of confidence in it, but it and nothing in it can ever be "proven" in an absolute sense. Hitler was as right as anyone else.
58638
>I claim only that the truth concerning the human condition is self evident and gave ample evidence outside of my self for an objective judge to draw the same conclusion.<
Some dang evidence. You bring up all this towel-headed religion and hocus pocus stuff and call it evidence. I can respect this stuff as your belief and on this level I would not dare assault it, but I certainly can't respect it as anything even coming close to self-evident truth. I'm just being honest with you. I have read your crap more times than I care to remember, and I would definitely not put my dang life on it. But you obviously would, and that's just grand. Nevertheless when you throw it around as if its just like gravity, I'm gonna think you are a friggin' goofball. Sorry.
>Feel free to ignor the evidence I gave but you sacrifice your objectivity in the process.<
hehe. Well thanks for the freedom. I'll take it over them dang goofy "messengers" any day.
>Other folks that don't see the truth whether in scriptures or in their hearts, typically are driven by some popular social agenda or another. The things of the human condition that are pertinent here are for "those who have eyes to see." Seeing of course in the scriptural sense. You don't want to look there?....Your choice, its a free country.<
Hehe. Right brees. You say all this mumbo jumbo as if I can put it under a microscope. I say folk generally don't even have real eyes to see. I believe folk really don't be seeing the truth because they sincerely cannot see it. In fact I believe this is the way it has to be. I believe folk are naturally built such that they really cannot see the truth (though deep down they perceive it and know they do), even though it is right in front of them. But hey. I see the truth and I see there ain't a dang thing I can do to help you see it. So you believe your junk, I will believe mine, and we will all see how the thing works out.
>Nice economy we're having today, don't you agree?<
Wonderful, and getting even better. Did dang nicely on oils. Been collecting metals for a while now. Gotta wonder why silver ain't through the roof. We'll see.
58639
>I have nothing to loose to them or anyone like them.<
Hehe. Sure, brees. You spout all this "holy man's" horse hockey, but you sure are doing whatever you can to stay alive and live comfortably now. And this is exactly what I am talking about.
>Though you gain the entire world I have still won, if I have taken care of my eternal soul.<
Yeah sure. Problem is, whether you have "taken care" of your soul is certainly not self-evident (no matter how much you claim to the contrary). Dead folk can't take care of a dang thing. (grin)
(gotta run) |
