So My Highschool "European History" Teacher

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

To whom or to what does it mean nothing? You, me, or the teeth and ashes of what was once the victim or something else?

Here's what I think; to me, the matter is of average importance. I won't lose sleep, but I'll mull it around in my mind for a while and think it shouldn't have happened. You, well, you'll state that he's dust in the wind. Ah, and the victim. The remnants will be drank accidentally by a fool in the mood for chocolate milk, thus becoming possessed by the man's soul. Or not, either way he didn't like what happened and should he still exist in a supernatural form, he would possibly still not like it.

I guess what I'm getting at is "why" it doesn't matter. Does something need a ripple effect to count? Or does it not matter because what happened is over, or did it even mean anything as he was consumed? I don't understand your point exactly, and I'm sure that the majority of the fault lies with me.

The world doesn't stop, things happen. It's unfortunate. And like I said, I'd never wish upon anyone such a way to die. But if it can't be helped, then that's too bad. What can we do about it once it's said and done?

But does the world have to "stop," figuratively speaking? How much of an impact does something need to make to matter? Or does it technically never matter? Did the Hollocaust "stop" the world? Will a nuclear WWIII do the trick? I just want a barometer.

With all of this "subjective" talk, it looks like one could argue that the creation of the universe is of relative importance.

[Random User]

But does the world have to "stop," figuratively speaking? How much of an impact does something need to make to matter? Or does it technically never matter? Did the Hollocaust "stop" the world? Will a nuclear WWIII do the trick? I just want a barometer.

With all of this "subjective" talk, it looks like one could argue that the creation of the universe is of relative importance.

No, the time continues no matter what. I guess the question would be how much does it matter to what? To people, it matters plenty I'm sure, but universally not much matters really.

If we want to be subjective, I wouldn't be happy nor sad that the people died. Just indifferent. Like "oh that sucks but there's not much we can do about it now."

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

^ So you personally value human life, in general, quite little then. Why? Because we mean squat "universally" or something else? Just trying to understand your position.

[Deepfake]

To whom or to what does it mean nothing? You, me, or the teeth and ashes of what was once the victim or something else?

Here's what I think; to me, the matter is of average importance. I won't lose sleep, but I'll mull it around in my mind for a while and think it shouldn't have happened. You, well, you'll state that he's dust in the wind. Ah, and the victim. The remnants will be drank accidentally by a fool in the mood for chocolate milk, thus becoming possessed by the man's soul. Or not, either way he didn't like what happened and should he still exist in a supernatural form, he would possibly still not like it.

I guess what I'm getting at is "why" it doesn't matter. Does something need a ripple effect to count? Or does it not matter because what happened is over, or did it even mean anything as he was consumed? I don't understand your point exactly, and I'm sure that the majority of the fault lies with me.

Your thinking is backwards. Something must have a subject to matter to before it matters to anything. There's no negative implications on an objective level, because objectivity negates preference. So preferential value is assignable on a subjective level, but value is subjective by definition.

But does the world have to "stop," figuratively speaking? How much of an impact does something need to make to matter? Or does it technically never matter? Did the Hollocaust "stop" the world? Will a nuclear WWIII do the trick? I just want a barometer.

With all of this "subjective" talk, it looks like one could argue that the creation of the universe is of relative importance.

Of course the universe is of relative importance. Everything is relative. It's funny that you should mention barometer, because it is a type of gauge. I wrote about this directly; gauges of importance are all preferential. Values are a circular logic. You must first value values for values to be of any import to you.

[Random User]

^ So you personally value human life, in general, quite little then. Why? Because we mean squat "universally" or something else? Just trying to understand your position.

I value human life generally quite little because the human race generally harms the planet and we already have so many of us on the planet as it is. If any other animal population had numbers as high as ours, I'm certain we'd be containing it ourselves.

[Deepfake]

^ Sounds more like a quality versus quantity thing, to me.

[1-up Salesman]

See, I just don't agree with that because there's a lot more to it emotionally than just "Eh, they're gone. Oh well." Don't agree with me? I don't care too much anymore due to the fact that almost everything seems to be responded to with the pondering of relative value and subjectivity in matters.

[Random User]

^Well, our views of morale in itself is subjective is it not? I personally don't agree, but that's simply my opinion and nothing else.

[Deepfake]

See, I just don't agree with that because there's a lot more to it emotionally than just "Eh, they're gone. Oh well." Don't agree with me? I don't care too much anymore due to the fact that almost everything seems to be responded to with the pondering of relative value and subjectivity in matters.

Who are you addressing?

You are the one asking the question, after all. If the answer is no answer at all, and you dislike that, perhaps you should ask a more pointed question, rather than "What if someone was hurt?"

The only honest answer I can deliver is that it would have no effect whatsoever on my dislike of Walmart, and in wondering what I think about death, I would conclude that death is whatever value I've assigned it. Subjectively, to me, I will likely never know about the person and at most I might be inundated with reports on the matter, in which case I will ignore them. I would reason just as well that irrational and aggressive people attack anywhere at any time, because they create the context of their attack.

Using a strong basis for rationale, you (or I) could conclude that actually attacking a building, or a fundamental meaning which we believe that building represents, will never accomplish what we desire. That is because the problem lies in the will of the public to embrace docility and never think a single thing about the consequences of idea-worship. That creates problems for a person like me, who finds the ready acceptance of predefined concepts to be an irrational practice.

Simply existing breeds unstable people. Dude wasn't setting anything on fire when I knew him, and then one day he was. There wasn't some single snap judgement that led to this; circumstance has been adding up since well before he was born to create the version of him that sets fire to department stores.

[CaptHayfever]

If any other animal population had numbers as high as ours, I'm certain we'd be containing it ourselves.

Lots do; they're just very small.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

I value human life generally quite little because the human race generally harms the planet and we already have so many of us on the planet as it is. If any other animal population had numbers as high as ours, I'm certain we'd be containing it ourselves.

The planet is here for our use. We shouldn't be nuking it, for the most part we're supposed to use the earth. As for our numbers, there's enough food to feed everyone and enough room to house everyone. There's no reason for our numbers to be an issue.

Animals are beneath us. We can do most anything we want with them You're viewing us as equals.

[LOOT]

You... overestimate the livable areas on Earth.

[Deku Tree]

Here's the thing; you're speaking from an Atheistic point of view. God dictates what does and does not have meaning. So what you may say has no meaning, or has only the meaning we assign it, that isn't true. If God says something matters, it does. Now it's a matter of perspective.

It's not necessarily an atheistic viewpoint. You can assign different meaning to something than God, or you can try to align your value system with God's. Having a different value system than God just might get you in more trouble than having a different system than some random person.

[Random User]

The planet is here for our use. We shouldn't be nuking it, for the most part we're supposed to use the earth. As for our numbers, there's enough food to feed everyone and enough room to house everyone. There's no reason for our numbers to be an issue.

Animals are beneath us. We can do most anything we want with them You're viewing us as equals.

So basically all humans are here to do is be a parasite and suck the Earth's resources dry?

Care to elaborate on what separates humans from animals? Other than humans have superior technology I can't think of any.

[X-3]

Well, we do have that "more intelligence" thing going on...

[LOOT]

I dunno, you ever think cats are smarter than they look? They sure know how to properly piss you off and then make you forgive them instantly. They're, like, evil geniuses. They're probably building an empire that will rise one day and annihilate Canada in their demonstration of power.

Those poor Canadian shmucks.

[1-up Salesman]

I know what you're saying now, I have a lot of time on my hands so I've actually pondered this subject myself. It's just that I don't have an outstanding education, so understanding your posts was tough.

Here's the thing; you're speaking from an Atheistic point of view. God dictates what does and does not have meaning. So what you may say has no meaning, or has only the meaning we assign it, that isn't true. If God says something matters, it does. Now it's a matter of perspective.



The planet is here for our use. We shouldn't be nuking it, for the most part we're supposed to use the earth. As for our numbers, there's enough food to feed everyone and enough room to house everyone. There's no reason for our numbers to be an issue.

Animals are beneath us. We can do most anything we want with them You're viewing us as equals.

I actually do pretty much agree with you, IRHP. The thing is, if AI chooses not to believe in God than he sees it as his choice on how to value everything. As someone who does believe in God rather than choosing to consider anyone that might say otherwise some sort of a fiend, I choose to make friends and have some sort of a positive effect on at least one person in the world, because I think that's part of the reason we're all here right now.

To be honest, AI, I don't think I'm going to debate this too much farther because I'm pretty fond of you and don't really want to let an argument get too heated.

[Deepfake]

None of you believes in God. Simultaneous eternity and omnipotence are just words for things you can't comprehend. You believe in the effects of God, and have no concept for God.

Sorry to say it, but even if you could, any understanding you have of anything is created by yourself. You are created by a circumstantial existence - you are the concentration of its effects. Reality shapes and builds your perceptions, causing you to react and then react to your reactions. Your ability to perceive and to form concepts are ultimately flawed. To actually claim to have any understanding of motivation via the statements of God is untrue, because language is entirely contextual. You are pretending to a context that is not yours.


If you were to understand my perceptions, you would realize that applying a value is a choice made. The failure to apply value is not a choice, though, it is a default. I'm not capable of it, not as I am. If I do, then I am capable of it.

Here's the thing; you're speaking from an Atheistic point of view. God dictates what does and does not have meaning. So what you may say has no meaning, or has only the meaning we assign it, that isn't true. If God says something matters, it does. Now it's a matter of perspective.

I know you're trying, so I'm not going to be rude about this. The application of "because God" is a subjective judgement. There's nothing wrong with making subjective judgements, from an objective standpoint. They are simply all equal in merit or value, objectively.

And it's not especially Atheistic. I am interested in absolute truth. This is an agnostic point of view. The difference here, is that I am able to evaluate based on the situation: God creates earth, God creates time, God causes effects - rainstorms, eruptions, whatever you want - and it has the same result as if it did on its own. So from my objective standpoint, it's an irrelevant discussion. Instead, I observe two different sides argue themselves bloody over what word to use for a situation, when the end result is ultimately pointless.

That beside, I understand the possibility of simultaneous truths, because things can be true and untrue on a base level. That means I acknowledge all Gods and all truths can exist but not exist simultaneously, and all truths could be valid, but you will only ever witness a limited fraction of the entire truth.

[Random User]

Well, we do have that "more intelligence" thing going on...

Eh, true, though that is what gave us our technology and kind of ties in with that. But if anything we've been harming the planet with our technology, so in the end humans are more or less a parasite to Earth.

[DarkZero]

Eh, true, though that is what gave us our technology and kind of ties in with that. But if anything we've been harming the planet with our technology, so in the end humans are more or less a parasite to Earth.

Also, I find it amusing that we're having a deep philosophical debate about Wal-Mart.