Karl

You mean you are actively discriminating against males answer in a general forum thread ?

More rubbish. You are you built upon all your life experiences. You derive all your values and beliefs from those experiences. Your entire Nihlist philosophy is built from those experiences.

You need to study economics. Many countries and geographies are unsuitable for large scale agriculture. Mountainous areas with poor weather struggle to grow much more than grass/scrub. Humans can't eat grass and scrub but animals can. They are also a source of wool/leather/glue and provide milk, eggs, iron rich meat. Where it is easy to grow crops then that's what will generally be grown. It's important to understand how the world actually works rather than an idealist view of it. Animals are reared at a cost. If it's less expensive and more economically viable then crops will be grown instead. Do we write of all land that is unsuitable for crops and the people who live there ? In the places where there is poor crop growth other resources and different production occurs.

'we need to educate people' 'We need a new value system' Implicit in those statements is the use of force. I've discovered that these sort of edicts generally indicate the proposes need for the state to make this happen. They believe people must be forced to see the error of their ways and be forced to adopt a value system that the state decrees is the right one. People must be educated by the state to ensure they accept this ideology without question. Oops. That's exactly what we have today. If this is what you mean, then you are parroting the same old hierarchical systems -democratic, collectivist, totalitarian, tyrannical, communist, fascist, Royal-that have existed for over 5000 years. If you always do what you always did, then you will always get what you always had. Even Nazism began with the ideology of nature conservation, no animal cruelty, vegetarianism, shared wealth, ending the supposed greed of capitalism, mutual respect, sexual equality, preventing religious extremism, bodily purity and health.

"Why do you rob banks"? "Because that's where all the money is" Or as Jeff Goldlum correctly observed in the film Jurrasic Park "nature will find a way"

Why not let people choose what they value ? That is the way of peace, freedom and love. Imposing values on others is the way of violent oppression and hatred.

Rule 3 then :-)

Do something you enjoy doing. Get married and work at it. When everyone else runs in one direction, walk the other way. Don't rush and notice all the mundane things. Challenge yourself constantly. Eat well Walk a lot Read. Learn to play an instrument. Never stop learning. Sing or dance.

Everything in balance

That video is sponsored by the who's who of the human genome, human biochipping mafia. The Alfred P Sloan foundation is the brainchild of the Rockerfeller foundation and had its name changed from the eugenics society and its Darwinism. It's full of corporates posing as 'educational'. The video was chock full of NLP anchors and hypnotic suggestion. One of the common trance techniques I used during sessions was to get the client to walk down a staircase and at the bottom to discover two corridors and a doorway of some unusual design. Inside would be a pleasant, safe, relaxing place to spend some time. I love the 'where past, present and future are no longer distinct' and 'game changer'. It's not particularly the science, it's the metaphor of a 'new reality' what you believe is now redundant. Follow us to a land of exciting bars, pretty girls, snooker balls in a space that looks remareably similar to any computer game players environment. It would make a cracking propaganda 101 piece. I haven't reviewed it all.

I know, but eventually it's boring. Someone tefusing to get in the ring stands there saying how he is beating you to a pulp with virtual punches and invisible jabs. I want to tell him to start hitting for real. Sure he will get a few blows but it's not like it causes any real pain. It's colourful, exciting and self affirming.

@Kubba Your final words say it all really. It is a craving for emotional entertainment. It's exactly like a drunken partygoer who does not like the idea of life without alcohol. It's an addiction. Something got you hooked. I would suggest you get off it and break the addiction. I already know that is an unwelcome suggestion, but what the heck, it needs saying.

No, just bored with your nihilist conversation.

Just when you thought it was safe to think. In comes mental piracy. That really is blatent.

As long as it's how you see it then that's fine by me. I don't happen to agree with you. To me you sound like a born again mystic that believes in a religious deity you refer to as 'mother'. Christians refer to a deity called God in much the same way. Where you went wrong the first time was 'believing' in logic instead of seeing it merely as a tool with no special properties. If you got stuck on a deified version of logic then any other deity is going to appeal.

Assume bored.

That's called the non aggression principle. Essentially don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. The right to defend your own property and to voluntarily associate freely and peacefully with whoever you wish. It's not really a new value system we need, just get rid of the idea we need rulers.

That you agree there cannot be proof of proof is sufficient.

I don't think I said they were ridiculous statements. I asked how you could believe something that neither human senses nor science has been able to prove ? The proofs that you accept are insufficient as proof for me, circus or not. I don't discount the possibility except from a logical perspective. The media and scientific papers are not full of stories of people rising from the dead, or reanimated human corpses.

As long as you are arguing then you are proving the axiom.

So, everything is not mother as you first proposed. As I am a male, then it's fair to assume that the entire male species is excluded from your original premise. With no male species there can be no female species so now we have no complex life at all.

You are already proving the axioms by trying to argue there are no axioms.

I'll have my morning dew washed down with a lamb shank, fillet steak and a leg of pork with crackling and apple sauce. Other types of meat are available and will be eaten with relish....mmmmmm chicken.

In the literal sense it could be said not to have words as it denies existence of them.

You did well even to attempt it. Once the basic premises are revealed that underpin the philosophy it's time to decide if there is further sense in reading something like that. I like the condensed version, the executive summary. Kant harks back to the primacy of consciousness so he can be safely ignored and his book consigned to the hearth.