RE: Denial of freedom
May 29, 2013 at 8:03 am
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2013 at 8:06 am by dazzn.)
(May 28, 2013 at 11:51 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You're a sociopath, or a devil's advocate for sociopaths everywhere, or a Poe trying to equate moral relativism with sociopathy. We get it. We don't need more threads about it.
i know that subjectivism stems ultimately from sociopathy. kindly prove me wrong, if you can.
also, what makes you so high and mighty? are you so good and benevolent?
(May 29, 2013 at 4:54 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:(May 28, 2013 at 11:00 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You must be a troll, because I refuse to believe that anyone can be this fucking stupid.
Not stupid... but she is a troll. Well, a human dressed as a troll in this case. Problem?I certainly didn't think so.
You're free to do anything of which you are capable, dazzn. Be only aware that all beings are also free to do anything of which they are capable. When you ask "who are you to stop me?", another being need not answer at all (being free to answer or not as they will), but had they deigned provide you the knowledge of who they were so as to stop you, they need answer only thus: "I."
Funny how people who talk about freedom get angry when another would exercise their freedom. Oh well, weirder things happen here all the time, like people unable to explain what makes fucking a child a bad thing
(May 28, 2013 at 11:51 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You're a sociopath, or a devil's advocate for sociopaths everywhere, or a Poe trying to equate moral relativism with sociopathy. We get it. We don't need more threads about it.
The word is solipsist. A sociopath still recognizes the existence of other beings outside of itself (unless it too is a solipsist, but that's the cause here, not sociopathy).
And if she's not such, then she is one who doesn't accept even logic. There is no word that describes this being what accepts nothing and yet does something more than nothing. Maybe there should be, I do not believe that I am the one who should invent this word, seeing as it would be a word without a use, as nobody would apply to it.
She seems to think you need more threads about it
(May 28, 2013 at 11:26 pm)whateverist Wrote: Geezuz fucking H Christ! How many self-absorbed, stupid, shitty threads must we wade through from this idiot?
Zero... you are required do nothing, least of all click on a thread started by Dazzn. But if you find yourself inclined to click on such, I think the answer might be... oh... 23.
"We"?
Oh, I found the word:
Faithless. Simple, to the point... though might be misunderstood. Nevermind, I've only found a temp.
(May 28, 2013 at 11:05 pm)dazzn Wrote: i do as i please. i don't see how that's invalid logic.
You must only please logical things, in that case. If I were to do as I please, I'd be blasting rainbow holes into the universe from the fingertips of a body that makes a California 11 look like an old hag, and training Pokemon. Real Pokemon.
It's invalid logic, because it is not a self-contained circular system of correctness by reason. You do... as you do. This, is valid logic. You please, as you please. This is also valid logic. You do not do as you please, unless it is not a logic-related system.
I could give you a kiss if you think it'll make it all better.
(May 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm)dazzn Wrote: hmm.. so the will to choose is silly?
Yes, by the way. Choice would qualify as being absurd.
Quote:Is a person who chooses to be a doctor silly?
Very. You could no more be a doctor than a doctor not be a doctor. Nobody chooses to be a doctor. A person is either a doctor, or not a doctor.
Quote:or to live in australia?
Also silly. You could no more choose to live in Australia than an Australian choose to live in Australia. Nobody chooses to live in Australia. A person is either an Australian, or not an Australian.
Quote:or to marry a high-caste businesswoman from Mumbai?
You definitely aren't about to manage that one, but it's silly anyway: same as the above, recreate for this. You have a brain, right? Of course you don't.
lol.. fuck you up your backside.
i notice your posts, you like to lord it over all. if this were real life, i'd bitchslap you, woman or not.
you're all fucking babies, why does me getting normal knowledge phase you all so much?
(May 28, 2013 at 11:09 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote:(May 28, 2013 at 10:32 pm)dazzn Wrote: I don't care about "laws".
If you brake a law, the criminal justice system will not care if you dont care.
Quote:I care about attaining normal knowledge, which is my right.
Will you finaly explain what the fuck "normal knowlege" is!!!!
Quote:who are you to prevent me?
I will only try to prevent you from taking actions if these eighter inflict harm on others, me and maybe even yourself.
Quote:my morals cite that anybody can do or have anything. can you categorically disprove this?
How am I supposed to disprove what you think!?
I can only state that this attitude towards sociatial structure creates a releaim for crime to exist and is therefor not acceptable.
because you seemingly endorse privilege. on what basis is your view superior to mine?
i see total right to commit "harm" to others who deny me normal knowledge. nobody can present me a cogent reason why i cannot have it.
