Leaderboard

pretend she is from syria

This is from California right?? Have you SEEN the mess California is in (well not all of it, just the cities with over 5,000 people for some reason), could it be any worse? I fully support California in their pursuit to become an independent country...PLEASE support them, it is the only thing that may save the rest of us.

We are kind of ignoring jews here because they are kind of tricky and don't agree, so we're going with the Jesus thing. God is a real jerk and he causes lots of people to suffer. He kills a lot of people. He lets a lot of people get raped and tortured. But he's actually really nice and none of those things are bad. He loves you and all that terrible stuff is good for you. No laws necessarily apply to god outside of logical consistency, i.e., God cannot move anything and simultaneously create things that he cannot move.He can only move what he can move and he can only create what he can create. If he can create anything, then he can create an immovable object, at which point, god cannot "do" absolutely anything, but that doesn't become relevant. I'm pointing out that anything that god can do, he can do and unless clearly stated otherwise, he can do anything. Got it? Anything means, "pretty much anything." God created everything. God created morality. All laws, rules, and morality are whatever god says they are. Your perceived universe has the physics and all laws that you perceive it to have because god chose for that to be that way. All you know, think, and perceive, god allows you to. The ten commandments were laws bestowed upon men and only men. They do not apply to god. Murder is only wrong because god said that it is wrong for you to do it. Not for monkeys, not for god, for humans. Humans may not murder other humans. You do not own yourself and you do not own your soul. God owns all of everything that you are. All property rights are those of god. You do not own your labor and you do not own even your own thoughts. Property of god, all rights reserved. If a person kills you or rapes you, it is not a sin against you, it is a sin against god, because it was a sin against his property. Just like if you cripple my human slave. You repay me and the slave can suck a big one. Where we apply personhood and property rights, it bypasses yourself and goes to god. All of you is an extension of him and he consents to it all. Different Christian sects have varying ideas on how to get into heaven, hell, and anything in between. Basically, the only path to heaven is through Christ. Rapists... go to heaven and get there by sucking up to the boss man. So do murderers, pedophiles, and all other types of crap. Their sins, meaning all the immoral things that they did were simply immoral to them because god said it was immoral to them. They didn't necessarily do anything wrong, they simply did what they were told was wrong. The government can tell you that it is wrong to be a jew, but that doesn't make it true. The soul is supposedly separate from the physical form. Any physical, mental, psychological damage is physical and does not go with the soul. In other words, all damage is temporary. Despite your feels, you will get over everything. if you don't like it, too bad because god does and your feelings are his property too. Raped? Beaten as a child? Mutilated? Oh, you'll be completely fine - better than fine. Time. You are here for like 80 years. You spend eternity in heaven. Can you count to infinity? Can you comprehend it? I didn't think so. If your friend punches you in the shoulder, it hurts. Momentarily. You consented and you are fine. You forget it happened. it still hurt when it happened. it took a fraction of a second. Over the course of that 80 years, you can say that it meant nothing, had not effect on you, and was completely irrelevant. In 16 billion years, do you think that you will remember this 80? Supposing god and heaven are real, no, you won't remember it. Now, please pick it apart.

But apparently in a deterministic universe, you can choose to feel despair and meaninglessness?

I think you're misunderstanding me, outcomes in a deterministic universe are set. There is no changing the outcome of anything, even those in the next moment. Your "actions" have no point or purpose because you can't do either X or Y you must do X. Your actions only have 'meaning' if they can determine the outcome. Meaning is a concept dependent on the assumption of free will and value i.e if I value something it is up to me to manifest that value in reality. If you value nothing, but have free will, you don't act, if you value something and don't have free will then whether or not what you value is manifested or not is not in your control, but has been predetermined. Beings that neither value nor have free will are animals or robots, therefore the lack of meaning in their behavior. This is a misunderstanding of knowledge which assumes that there is no action in learning. Look up the machine paradox of determinism. As well, cause and effect doesn't eliminate the concept of Free Will. Everything you pointed to is man made and rely on a conception of meaning dependent on human existence and human meaning which is itself dependent on Free Will as I pointed to earlier. What is the meaning of these things if humanity is taken out of the question? Action independent of choice is action which is independent of value and your ability to manifest that. This feels as if you keep moving the goal-post and you're assuming determinism, which faces not only the burden of proof but the epistemological problem. This argument is getting a bit.....pointless. Determinism is an epistemological contradiction and I don't think I have to argue these points over and over again when determinism faces so many other problems, it's like debating a theist while ignoring the basic metaphysical contradiction.

Assuming she is in her early 20s, is there a reason she can't wait for you to get a full time job ?

You mean like Patreon, Bit coin, etc?

Yeah, my biggest problem is dedicating the time for this. And also I expect to be demonetized the moment I go viral (if that happens) so I really can't afford to take much time off to make it look good.

Does the first amendment allow for pornography? Meh, probably, the constitution is designed to restrain the power of government, not be an exhaustive list of rights granted to the public, but who cares. I never signed that social contract so I don't respect it as legitimate. That said, virtue only exists in the face of abstaining from vice--there'd be no such thing as sobriety if alcohol wasn't cheaply available at every corner store. So I'd say it's probably a net benefit. Virtue has to be difficult to obtain. It's not a virtue to abstain from rubbing the head of your penis with sand paper, but now it can be legitimately claimed that chastity is a virtue with the ease of access to virtually unlimited hd porn and the prevalence/normalization of hookup culture.

There's a few different ideas of love in Western philosophy. Romantic love - This fairy tale idea of love at first sight. In the old days it was used as an excuse for shot gun weddings. It's an ideal pushed by Hollywood as an excuse to justify a culture of casual sex. Bourgeois love - This was the old worlds Bourgeoisie ideal of matching based on wealth and power. Western love - "This assumes that personailities are dynamic and flexible things formed largely by experiences in the past. Love and marriage between such personalities are, like everything in the Western outlook, diverse, imperfect, adjustible, creative, cooperative, and changeable. The Western idea assumes that a couple comes together for many reasons (sex, loneliness, common interests, similar background, economic and social cooperation, reciprocal admiration of character traits, and other reasons). It futher assumes that their whole relationship will be a slow process of getting to know each other and mutual adjustment - a process that may never end. The need for constant adjustment shows the Western recognition that nothing, even love is final or perfect. This is also shown by recognition that love and marriage are never total and all-absorbing, that each partner remains an idependent personality with the right to an independent life. (This is found throughout the Western tradiction and goes back to the Christian belief that each person is a separate soul with its own, ultimate separate, fate)." - Quigley (Tragedy and Hope)

1.) Does a deaf person have freedom of speech? They communicate non-verbally. Speech is the expression in any form and therefore encompasses art. 2.) I'd argue they would say the government shouldn't be involved - it is a social issue, not a state issue. 3.) Is that in reference to "I can't define pornography, but I know when I see it."? Or is that saying visual-only communication shouldn't be covered as free speech? Ever read a novel describing sex? You can translate porn into a written message if that's your measuring stick. Saying it cannot be written down is just incorrect. 4.) 18 year old girls sign up and masturbate on camera from their own homes. They make pretty damn good and easy money doing so. Their lack of "civilized" career prospects is offset by their good looks or willingness to perform a niche fetish for disturbed individuals. How is that -not- capitalism? 5.) Incoherent and unrelated sentences. What are you trying to say? 6.) -That- is the defining feature of civilization? Clothes? I don't understand your reasoning. Are nude beaches uncivilized? If I'm walking around my house naked at 2 A.M., am being I uncivilized? When I shower am I uncivilized? When I have sex with my wife am I uncivilized? What exactly do clothes have to do with civilization?

How are you going to get your relative out of being raped? Ask the rapist nicely? Suppose he is in the process of stripping her and exposing himself, all the while she's screaming "Help!". So what do you do? You're a chickenshit pacifist who throws down the gun and what, tries to pull the rapist off of her? He's a hundred pounds heavier than you are and knows how to fight, so he punches you bloody, picks up the gun and shoots you, and then goes back to committing rape. Where is your third option here? Are you really stupid enough to believe that there are always pacifist options to any situation that don't involve people getting traumatised and killed? If you don't realise the right to self-defense you are retarded, and dangerous as well. In fact, if this is what your belief system amounts to, I correct myself, it is not amoral and flaky, it is immoral and flaky. If you are not willing to stop a rape happening right in front of you but instead try to paw the air at him or something, you are actually evil.