Zierro

You'd think people would be serious in a topic like this rather than bring up zombies. :?

Everyone I met drank for this reason. I didn't know some people only drink for the taste until I saw a thread about it on TIF.

If god made everything then isn't the answer already quite clear?

I heard about internal batteries and now it made me not want to play Pokemon anymore. :(

Happiness isn't the point of life, but it is the thing we're all geared towards seeking which can be described as the next best thing. I never liked that answer though. Wouldn't that mean eating is also the point of life?

You're speaking of things with more than only two qualities, so of course there are a different means to understanding the concepts. For example, you never have to see black in your life to understand white. You do need another color but it doesn't have to be black. What my point was is that if you only see white - no other colors - then you would not understand the concept of color. White wouldn't be a color to you - it would just be the natural default. As long as you have at least one other thing to reference you then you will discover the potential for differences (blue looks different than white) and then you will understand that you are looking at two distinguished concepts which qualify for distinguished definitions. Plus we're speaking of subjective terms, where someone's hot can be someone's cold, so everyone needs to define these aspects in their own terms. So what I'm saying does not mean you need to understand the opposite of something to understand that something, but when it comes to subjective abstract nouns like hot, big, good, pleasant (not mass or color) where you are technically the judge of its definition then a reference tool is needed and it has to be the opposite because that's the only reference available - unlike concepts like color where there are tons of different qualities. Technically speaking, there is neither. We create what is good and evil in our minds (as does god). Lack of evil is good and lack of good is evil. The two words are dependent on each other.

Well, let's just say my RS str lvl is about 90 higher than in real life. :?

9017

Totally with ya, man. If I could shove them out of my way, I would. You could always say "excuse me" ??... Whenever I'm stuck behind people it's at school where we have 3000+ students and the hallways are as packed as a slaughterhouse so there isn't a very good chance of them hearing you or of caring. Plus I don't like the idea of using manners to people who walk slow just to look cool, at the expense of everyone else. Yes, people at my school walk slow to look cool...

Nice quote. I think that pretty much sums up the proof for god, except there is one point I do disagree with. Science doesn't push us away from god - people just manipulate science to make it seem that way.

It doesn't matter. The point is that they claimed you are a waste of resources in their eyes and to them your rebuttals don't matter at all - much like our rebuttals of "the baby contributes happiness" doesn't matter to you. I guess what I'm trying to say here is you're no more of a supreme judge than anyone else. This is the same foundation of Hitler's ideals. Call me immature but it's true. If the emotional bond has the capability of "peaking" then what makes you so sure that the mother and daughter's bonds hasn't already reached this point? You say that she is a new addition to her life. Well in the eyes of a 70 year-old-man, couldn't he just as easily say that your daughter is merely a new addition to your life and shouldn't be put on the same level as the much longer bond he's had with his daughter? She is a person and whether she bonds back or not is besides the point. People have had emotional attachments to mentally handicapped people, animals, and even inanimate objects since the beginning of time. This doesn't mean people who cherish their pets need to give up loving them because pets don't live long and cannot love them back. In a sense, we're all setting ourselves up for emotional pain, unless we completely isolate ourselves from society and become hermits. There are going to be losses in everyone's lives, especially in the context in which we're speaking. Great point. =D>

Because time is limited and the future always come far sooner than we would have ever expected. I probably have a really bad case of this to the point where time actually scares me. I get pissed too easily at people in front of me who walk really slow and also when I'm sitting around doing nothing while waiting on someone else.

If it was a common thing for people to learn their lessons the world would be a much better place. :lol:

Luigi's Mansion

I've come to the point in my life where RPGs aren't fun anymore. :( Where do I go from here?

Good ol' Natty Ice lol.

What if someone came up to you and said you are a waste of resources? Does that justify them murdering you? That argument can be used for any terminally ill patient. If your daughter was diagnosed with a deadly cancer and she had six months to live, I doubt you'd think it would be in your best interest to have her die ASAP to "prevent the bond from becoming stronger and the loss from becoming greater".

The purpose of that could be to demonstrate our imperfections (temptation, disobedience to god) and show us what things are like when you don't follow god. You raise a good point though. The story of Adam and Eve has always came as a gigantic mystery to me.

The mother is the one who gets to decide whether it is warranted or not - not you. Maybe you are just under the assumption that love is supposed to be rational... :lol: What might appear as stupid to you can be wonderful to someone else, because it is their emotions we're dealing with - not someone from outside of the entire situation. Whatever happened to equality? The moment you prioritize who's life is more important is the moment you put a price on human life. I mean this is a mother and daughter we're talking about, where the bond is a lot stronger than the bond between a person and a wall. Of course not. You can't ask that question to someone who is experiencing a normal life and has the capability to formulate a preference. It's like asking a human if they would want to be a plant. However, if I were in her shoes and didn't know anything else outside my own life, would it really matter? As long as it wasn't painful it would be like being a plant. Plants can't think or act but they seem to be fine with living and people seem fine with caring for them. :P

I don't agree with that. Our whole nature is based on this principle. If we do something that triggers a positive stimulus then we will continue to do it. On the other hand, if we do something to trigger a negative one then we will stop. It's in our nature to seek the positive.

It makes her happy. That's the point. You just choose to ignore this fact. If staring at a wall triggers love and happiness then you're right. However, I've never seen a case of this to date. Way to fling the blame on me. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work when you do stuff like this: Plants don't know about their existence either. That doesn't mean we should go uproot all of them. Way to miss the point. The child is only existing because of reflex reactions and wasting resources. Plants, however, actually contribute. You said it's not really living because it doesn't even know it exists. I said plants don't know they exist either. Then you go on an irrelevant tangent and tell me plants contribute. This does not logically follow. At a human standard, she is alive. She's not dead, therefore she is alive. If what you mean is that she isn't living a normal life, then you are right, but either way she is still alive. Oh and I like how you refuse to answer my question. \

No, not because you don't see the point - because you claim one doesn't exist altogether. The doctors get paid. The food is paid for and besides, do you know how much food is wasted everyday anyways? You can't honestly tell me you've never ate something even though you weren't hungry before. This is all besides the point anyways. The mother is the only one in the position to claim whether it's worth it or not - not you. What does this have to do with the state of being alive? I was saying that not being productive doesn't make you dead. You keep changing your arguments. You make it seem like the less you waste, the more "alive" you are. Like I said, living doesn't have to do with how much you produce or consume - it has to do with biology. Even if you waste 50 meals a day and give nothing back to society, you'd still be alive. And if the soil under a plant was removed, it would die too. Oh and how is this relevant? I said I will agree that complexity =/= life if you can agree that not being able to acknowledge your existence =/= being dead. So, do you agree that flowers are alive or do you really think that if you can't acknowledge your own existence then that means you're dead? Then wouldn't that make the doctors more at fault than yourself?

Really? Kill anyone who takes more than they put in? Go ahead and bring up Godwin's Law on my [wagon], we all know what's coming next.

Thanks, you painted a very vivid and barbaric picture about what your stance is. That will be helpful in this debate. Which means you are claiming that you know how much joy she gets from the baby - something that only she can tell us. Umm... let's stick to the point, shall we? Having the potential to contribute to society doesn't make you alive - biology is what makes you alive. Hell, I could be in the middle of the woods and eat berries and fish to survive and I wouldn't be contributing anything to society at all - does this mean I'm not alive? No, it does not. And how do criminals who are in jail for life have the potential to be productive anyways? What was the point in that? If I didn't read that post then why would I respond by saying we're using the same approach to our logic and we should both come to an agreement on one instead of picking and choosing which one to go by. I will agree that being complex doesn't make something alive, as long as you agree that not being able to acknowledge one's existence doesn't make something dead. You can't have both though. Economic cost incurred by society would be too great? Umm, you'd be paying the doctors to do it so it wouldn't be a waste for them... only for you.