Karl

You are just fiddling with words. If there is no death there is no life. Life is not the absence of death, death it is the meaning of life. The dead neither fear death, nor crave life. The living must fear death in order to live. To be indestructible would not be life, it would be to act as a rock. Dying is integral to living life, to know that you cannot die, to be eternal would be as a rock. A rock does not require senses for it does not fear danger, need to seek food, nor recreate. A rock has no stomach or blood flow because it has no need for substance and oxygen. A rock has no muscles because it has need of doing nothing. Why would you need eyes or ears ? there would be no purpose so none of those things that make us living entities would exist, just as they don't on the indestructible rock.

Don't know what to think about that. It appears to be a back door method of dehumanising the suspect. They will be gagging people next.

It does and I do :-)

I'm absolutely sure I am not sure what you are saying ;-) However I am absolutely sure about what I am absolutely sure about. And as I'm not relegating you to the ignore list you can be sure that I do read what you write, even though I don't always agree with it I do find your arguments interesting- except when you say you are 'yanking my chain' as you put it. That's boring and stupid, but I can forgive those lapses of reason ;-)

If only they left that ignore button pressed. I have a sneaking suspicion that they have an overwhelming need to peek from behind the cushions just to see what unpleasant thing is happening on the screen. Ive put people on pause and they don't get switched back to play. I decide they have nothing worthy of reading or replying to so click and they are disappeared.

It wasn't a double bind, you created one. There was no implicit, nor explicit alternate answer 'I'm ok with you'. That you don't like my style, tone, opinion is irrelevant to me, I only care about the argument itself. I don't like being insulted though, I take great exception to it, I try not to insult others. When I ask 'is it confidence' ? this isn't an insult but a genuine inquiry because the argument is getting bogged down in personal emotional issues and petty concerns over tone. Each time the argument falters it becomes 'Karl's fault' for being such a monstrous thread hogger, being narrow minded, bigoted and all manner of horrors, but this is not used within the context of the discussion itself which is fine-I can refute it and do so through argument. Instead it is an ad hominem aside. I get accused like the man at the card table that's winning the hands. It just has to be a trick, I'm cheating, there are cards up my sleeve, I must have a calculator, I'm hypnotising the players or intimidating them with an evil stare, casting spells, I've got voodoo dolls and pins, I'm devoid of emotion, I'm too passionate...the list grows daily. :-) Here's a really horrible thought, it might be because I'm right and you have been unable to disprove or dislodge that truth and that it is true what they say 'the truth hurts'. So, instead, I get the crucifixion treatment, stoned to death for being a heretic, for daring to speak what it is forbidden to speak.

You find it intimidating ? Isnt that my problem and not yours ? If I have an opinion then I orate it in my own style. Some will like it and some won't. I'm not trying to win friends. People can just apply the ignore function, or ignore my posts. I wonder why you don't ?

When life dies there is no living. Death can't die, it's a terminal state. You cannot have a bluer blue, or a chaireer chair.

There is no requirement for 'friendly' discussions because we aren't friends. We can be civil, but we needn't be polite, nor weak. Resorting to psychologising on a forum by picking on a specific member is not discussing anything, it is a direct attack and is not part of the ongoing discussion. As I understand it, that behaviour is unacceptable. If I had been modding here- as liberal as I was-you would have received a warning. I don't need the mods to enforce the rules, I prefer to do that face to face and ask you very nicely to desist.

I never yank yours, be assured of that.

They aren't concurrent statements.

What ? You have been pummelling me for over a year to tell me I have an opinion and you have an opinion ? Are you sure ? I thought your last line summed it up very well. We don't need to state that it is an opinion because it is implicit. I don't really know why I even have to explain this on a forum. It's like explaining why there is writing in the pages of a book.

I'm not your friend Ralis. We don't need to agree.

Narrow mindedness suits me fine. ;-) Does no one find it interesting that you all hold opinions, but seem threatened by mine ? Its just another opinion, so, here I ask, is this because you aren't confident of your opinion ?

Yes I know. I nearly didn't bother to answer that post so it was half hearted.

I disagree completely. ;-)

Oh look it Ralis's Kangaroo court. I think you are probably circling pretty close to the edge of the forum rule book at this point. If I was a mod you would now be on a warning.

Yeah, you got there in the end :-) I had a little chuckle at the stepping stone of thoughts. We all have an opinion and if someone's opinion means anything then it's a strong, consistent and well reasoned one. That's the point of a forum, to aire our views, seek other views to test our own view and modify/re examine our own opinions if needed.

"Do you beat your wife"

You are completely wrong about that ;-)

Funnily enough I gave Ralis that example previously but he said it wasn't that kind of logical fallacy (which is a complex question version of petitio principii-a loaded/leading question. If I understand what Ralis means it is the false alternative fallacy. As an example 'do you want that in red or blue' which assumes the sale and excludes any other option. I don't see it in my arguments, but I'm not averse to using it having spent many years in sales.

Oh OK well then there is some truth in that. However it's not necessary to have a revolution, or a major event unless the change was to be rapid. It is unnecessary for it to be rapid, so it only requires a change in philosophy over a longer period. The global economy is already done for, change is dynamic. It took several years to get Brexit, but we got it despite the array of money, influence, politicians and corporations arrayed against us. People are fed up of the current system so a change is now possible and likely.

Cant wait. :-/

That isn't 'reality' we are bound by reality. I don't know why you believe it's a 'utopia' as I've never suggested it was, I only said it was a moral way of living.

That isn't a reality, that's a policy. Government workers will have to start producing instead of being middle men in the theft of production. You may as well ask what would should become of criminals. Corporatists rely on the state to provide protection and regulation. Without the state they wither and die. It is not to say all corporations are bad, most woukd simply adapt and get used to more competition. Entrepreneurs adapt to the circumstances. Companies that hold only state contracts will find they have no work.