Belluavir

If I have a virus, destruction of that virus is preferable to me. Your proposition is not universal and your 'should' does not logically follow.

Christians are persecuted minority don't ya know

They're also only 'plus sized' when compared to ridiculous and vain womens clothing sizes, not compared to women who are obese. They dont have guts that hang over their knickers, they dont have cellulite, they are mobile, etc. I doubt you would ever see these 'plus sized' women sitting in McDonald's scarfing down three big mac combos. If you have eaten so much that you cannot walk anymore, can hardly breathe and are so addicted to food its pretty much all you think about, you are not beautiful, you are revolting and pitiable.

I am guessing there wont be too many lawful evils in this group

Does anyone know if he or his wife beat their children? If not then he is considerably less evil than the vast majority of the worlds population who do or would.

In this scenario you've got a robot body. The robot wouldn't consume as many resources as a human and wouldn't have the capacity to over induldge in resource consumption. There is plenty of energy from the sun and in radioactive materials lying around and likely the reduced need for farming would be postive for the environment. Socially I wonder how this would work. Suicide is quite frowned upon in our society, not taking the immortality option if it's available to you would be tantamount to committing suicide. It also makes me wonder how long people would decide to live. Would I really want to live forever? Having never been faced with the option I don't know if I can honestly answer that question. I don't want to die nearly as soon as I will. But after the first couple million years, will I change my mind? How long do you think you'd want to live?

Goddamn feminism shit is infecting everything. The athiest community and now the gay community. What's going to be ruined next I wonder. Wouldn't it be more just to be disgusted by how the straight community has presented it's opinion about the existence of gays?

But all you've got is a hypothesis! You haven't done any of other other work! You certainly haven't sought to disprove it either . You're going around and around in these circles of just insisting that X is true therefore Y is also true, without having actually proven X, not even a tinge of evidence, nor a hint or a shadow. Complete, thorough, utter unsubstantiation. And there's no curiousity in this as you first claimed, no seeking answers to challenging questions, you're trying to come up with post-hoc rationalizations for what you already believe. I'm going to try to go over this again to make it more clear. 2. It's more helpful to be concise with definitions rather than using leading questions to further a point. I presented two possible definitions of creation and you make it seem like you agree with both of them. The act of making or producing something that did not exist before could fall in line with the magic based definition. 1 or more atoms which did not exist before in any way, now exist, thus they have been created. That is different than creation meaning reforming existing matter into a different shape, which again does not require consciousness. A definition that adds intent, that the matter was formed to serve a function, is a definition that necessarily requires consciousness, the other two presented above do not. 3. Jellyfish are not conscious, they have no brain, yet they eat, breath, swim around, hunt, form into collectives, reproduce. Consciousness is not a prerequisite for a living creature to perform work. 4. You've largely ignored my argument here which is frustrating. No, we don't know where the universe came from. What that means is that we don't know where the universe came from. It does not logically follow that an extreme complexity arises from nothing and is responsible for it. This proposition raises not only the same questions that its supposed to answer, but it raises quite a few new ones, what's the point? And more importantly, there's no reason to consider it as a possibility because it's based on nothing but the whimsy of a layman. 5. Nope, sorry, you've made no progress towards proving your assertions. 6. Ah so I was wrong. You know what the thing I was wrong about and what you actually meant have in common? They're completely baseless, senseless and useless. 7. Not even close. 8. You keep saying 'has to' and 'must have' but you offer no reason for this assertion. The origin of the universe is an unknown and these idle musings put us no closer to solving it. All you've done so far is restate your position. Reword some things, incorporate some language from other people's arguments, including mine, into your response without understanding what they're talking about and then just restate what you already said. This isn't curiousity, this is a tactic.

I thought minarchism was a cure for baldness since Stef had more hair when he was a minarchist. I don't know much about baldness.

Your first presupposition is that 'God' (capitalized for some reason) is a valid thing to 'search' for. You haven't defined God or even justified why you've used a singular. Not saying that these things are wrong, but it's a better starting point. 1. Can't argue with that. 2. Okay so what do you mean by creation? Is that *poof*ing things into existence that didn't exist before? Is that taking existing things and altering them to meet a particular end? Robots can do that and they don't have consciousness. 3. Or they could be robots? Biological robots programmed by abusive parents, brain frazzling drugs and oppressive education. Maybe they're not actually conscious, I mean, they walk around and they go to work and function and all that but when you try to talk to them its like talking to a chat bot. I'm not saying that this is actually the case, but its a possibility, .001% maybe. But you use the word must when this point is built upon the shaky ground of the previous point. Again, my argument here does not necessarily invalidate yours. 4. How do you know that? None of your previous points suggest that, there is no evidence that I'm aware of brought forward by the scientific community that suggests that. This point perhaps sheds some light on your definition of creation, if creation can include such things as the formation of the structures of the universe, then that certainly does not require consciousness. We understand quite a bit about how things like stars and planets and solar systems come to be, even if we can't observe them directly. We understand enough about the universe to where we can make predictive models. Some things we can test directly, some things we can observe as they happen and other things that have already happened we can still know about because of extrapolations based on our understanding which also conforms to bits and pieces of data left over from the past. From that a scientific theory is born and we can use that to make predictions about future events, and as those unfold it sheds even more light on our past. 5. This supposition is invalid, see above. 6. Consciousness does indeed exist outside of the human mind. Other animals exhibit signs of consciousness. The rest of your supposition is invalid however. I think you're fundamentally missunderstanding how the natural world functions, and that it does so without consciousness. Unlike other animals, non-living matter does not exhibit signs of consciousness. 7. This supposition is invalid, see above. 8. Agreed, but I don't get what the point of this one is. I'm kind of responding as I go here so maybe that will become more clear in the upcoming long bit. This isn't a criticism of your argument but you're example isn't very good, no one person is capable of producing a particle accelerator. I just can't see an astro physicist mining his own iron, driving his own train to his own foundry, etc. etc. etc. The Long Bit: When vastness became aware of itself? So... basically, *poof* magic, is what you're saying. Are you sure you can't see any holes in this? None of this vast paragraph has any basis. Even if your previous eight suppositions were correct, you'd still be a long way off from proposing a specific deity, you might be able to pull off some deist shit or a Joe Rogan acid trip but that's about it. You've got nothing, there's no saving this line of reasoning (if you can call it that), cut your losses and start over.

There are some furry porn games that penetrate very deeply indeed. Final Fantasy Tactics is neither indie nor new, but it has a pretty deep and interesting story (although it gets a bit too JRPGish around chapter 5). The updated translation on the PSP version overall is easier to follow and it makes a bit more sense but I enjoy the original english translations' quirks and use of the word God in place of something less controversial. Also the cut scenes are really cool, they look like stage performances. I don't know if that was intentional or because of the game's limitations, but it's cool nonetheless I think. I've thought it would be cool to do a reenactment of it.

The burden of proof for such evidence would fall upon the person making the positive claim "one ought to call the police in cases of child abuse." It being "all we've got" or the fact that it's the status quo that we're used to operating under is not sufficient. I think we can all agree on the fact that the street gang we call "the police" is a pretty monsterous organisation. Why would I want to get them involved in anything if I wasn't being compelled to do so? I could be off base but it sounds to me like fighting fire with gasoline. Roads are not sufficiently analogous. Sure the roads and the police were put in place by the same mechanism, but one is actively malevolent in and of itself and one just kinda sits there wearing out faster than it can be replaced. Sicing the government attack dogs on bad parents adds a whole new level of escalation to the situation that I'm not sure is helpful (perhaps it is, but that's where evidence needs to come into play to at least show some kind of correlation between bearucrates, the barbarians in blue and positive outcomes for children). Doing something is not necessarily a good idea, especially if we have no idea what the outcome is or if the outcome turns out to be worse than completely ignoring the problem. We're certainly not immune to the hammer and nail fallacy and I think we should be more thoughtful and cautious and less hysterical and reactionary, especially when it comes to using state institutions like gunmen and rape cages. And weren't the police called on Elliot Roger? What did they do again? Nothing? Worse than nothing, they provided a false sense of security! Hey if a bunch of thugs who failed an IQ test says he's a cool dude, then everything must be hunky-dory, right?

wtf @ #4

Thanks for sharing that. Really fucking annoying people, he's quite something to be able to keep his cool in the face of people who ask questions and expect responses but ignore the responses and continue on with their talking points.

Well the money is fictitious, the fed fictitious, the government itself is a fiction, perhaps it makes sense that she'd be really into just making a bunch of shit up to suit her own needs...