Karl

Funny how Star Trek eventually cottoned on to the power of the collective cyborg consciousness and went all Borg. Instead of messing around with multi coloured aliens all you really need is to strap some mechanicals onto the human body and connect to a 'hive mind'. Funny also, that it is the BBC that makes horror out of the idea of a collective consciousness when it's a very socialist broadcaster. I suppose it's because they believe that it isn't the collective consciousness that's bad, just the loss of emotional steering. Loss of emotion trumps loss of freedom.

Depends who the 'deleted' happened to be. I can think of many positive deletions.

'Delete' is one of those words than could be substituted for 'eliminated', 'terminated' or 'liquidated'.

That's true, though you also feel 'the pain' of the OP.

You gave yourself a good advice: "people need to ask themselves the right question". Now, ask yourself why this is important to you ? What is in it for you ? How would deleting your account accomplish it ?

Then don't prove it. No one else will. So what are you left with ? A hand full of magic beans to everyone else's handful of magic beans. Their beans will be stronger if you walk away, and It's because you threaten to walk away that your bluff is called. To me this qi stuff is fantasy, I'm calling it as I see it. Basically this is bragging rights because not one of you can prove their beans work. Only you know if it is a product or, your soul that you are selling. I don't know which it is, but to me it looks suspiciously like the latter. You want to be admired for having the best magic beans and as the beans are simply a form of currency, without actual value, then, perhaps your aim is to be respected and admired first ? So, you can walk away -thus giving all the other magic bean holders the chance to hold onto their positions here and wondering what your purpose was for coming to the forum in the first place :-/ or you can push your beans and see if you can get some position for yourself :-/ or you can just keep pushing your beans regardless of what anyone here thinks, completely unconcerned with your position. I strongly suggest that the third position is the better one, it's the Noah position if you like. You build the boat and let others join you if they like what you say and if no one comes then that's how it will be.

Of course you are, which is why you DO have to prove it. You haven't been banned, no one is preventing you posting, so, if you believe what you are saying, then carry on saying it. You have a platform to speak, so speak or be damned. The problem is that you are in conflict with your purpose, by saying that you don't want to get anything out of posting, when in fact you do-we ALL do. It might make you the most unpopular person here, but then, it's not your purpose to be popular, it is to stand firmly behind your product.

Promoting reason and laissez faire capitalism.

He saw nihilism as the result of religious morality. Morals were the preserve of the church and were based on altruism. He was railing against altruism and the nihilism that he believed inevitably resulted from it. Basically he was attempting to sweep away the old, prevent the new becoming directionless stagnation in order to usher in the dawn of a new age of man. He didn't explain exactly where this new man would get his morals, it was easier for him to dismiss morality completely and instead tie everything up in a kind of master craftsman approach-like a master painter uses brushes, lines, paint, canvas to create a master works, so the new master man (superman) would carve out his life from whatever whim (emotion/character) was required. There wouldn't be one set of morals (slave mentality/altruism), instead there would be the right morality as the result of the master at work through his will to power. He wasn't a moral relativist, but neither was he of the belief that there could be any rational basis for morality or we would end up back in the world of Plato's untouchable forms in a moral sense. Essentially he did not see ethics as a science but as a necessity of whim (will to power). Hence, unlike Hegel who made altruism a feature, not of God, but to the collective-creating the possibility of Communism/fascism, but as a personal force . In other words, selfishness based entirely on whim, but a whim supposedly of the right, creative kind which blossoms from some innate character feature just as a master painter emerges from a host of other less talented artists.

I don't deny much of that, but the problem here isn't simply one of personal abuse. Many of the recent 'terrorist' incidents which have been attributed to everything to the EU referendum, to Jihadhism, have been perpetrated by people who were taking drugs which included cannabis. It's not like smoking which results in potential self harm, or climate science-although I see why you would use that as an example-it looks like it might be the cause of spurts of violence that result in multiple deaths. Would we wish to consider this again at a later date after the state has effectively accepted the drug as more or less harmless, then have a major incident in which the cause is traced, in full, or part to cannabis use ? Should we really just accept a recreational drug that can cause permanent brain damage ? I'm not convinced that big business isn't pushing an agenda which has a greater potential effect than to the health of the user. If there was a potential for a bus driver, airline pilot (and we have had two such incidents of deliberate mass murder by drug taking pilots) to kill multiples of people because he was one of the few that was effected by cannabis, then, should we be quite so cavalier ?

You edited it you cheat face :-) I don't know why anyone calls themselves libertarian. That was one of the reasons Rothbard began referring to himself as an anarcho capitalist. Yes, she did become schitzophrenic after smoking weed. What's more, my cousin is a clinical psychiatrists who claims that this is a common occurrence which he ends up treating. I know it's easy to dismiss it, I was very much a sceptic myself until recently. There is enough reason to look at the effects more carefully. After all, if it was proven that some people can have a form of permanent brain damage after trying it once, then that at least should make us all reconsider if it is as harmless as we thought.

Now you appear to be quoting me for some unfathomable reason Joeblast ?

I'm not sure why you are addressing your comments specifically to me ?

I don't know what a libertarian is these days. He is for small state and nominally Laissez Faire markets. Personally I wouldn't vote for any of them as I don't vote in UK elections, but if you must vote and your head is with republican principles he would be a fairly solid alternative and, it is not impossible for him to get sufficient states to vote his way, to a least get him in the debates. I'm only suggesting this if the other two candidates are so unpalatable that you really don't want -the better of two evils'. As far as cannabis I think it means more study. I used to take the view that it should be legalised as the state should keep out of the decisions about what one puts in ones body. The problem is that there are sufficient instances of this drug causing serious, permanent mental changes. My niece became schitzophrenic as a direct result of trying it once. A lot of the 'so called' terrorists appear to be regular users who have been in and out of mental care. Maybe it isn't cannabis alone, perhaps it's the effects with other drugs such as steroids, mood control drugs, or a cocktail effect, but we don't want to condone people taking something supposedly harmless which later results in an irrational action which harms innocent people.

If you don't like either of the candidates but vote republican, then vote Garry Johnson, if you can't bring yourself to get beyond left wing, then Jill Stein. Johnson seems to have done pretty well for his democratic state as a republican as has his running mate. If making the US great again is a high priority, those two have proven they are up to the job.

They and many previous elections have been even worse. It's not a new phenomenon. The ultra PC offendism culture of the modern West sees these things greatly magnified and the press like to play into the narrative. Presidential elections have always been ugly, rough and thuggish.

It was a bar you set not me. I said there was no way to know, that we all had to get on and figure out how best to survive, what we needed, what principles would be the best way of doing so.

I don't hate that you think these things. I dislike that you lack the honesty to admit that this is what you think.

It wasn't so late in my part of the world. Most of you are posting when I'm in bed then in the morning it's like the post arrived.

:-)

Because we don't know everything-unlike you who believes he has a super natural connection with the planet that tells him what exactly he must do, most of us have to figure out for ourselves what works, that doesn't always mean we have the perfect solution, we might need to adapt it over time. Sometimes we don't know we shouldn't piss into the wind, but we do it the first time. It's your continued use of words like 'rely' on the planet and 'live in harmony ' with the planet that reveal your position. Please clarify exactly what you mean and how you would achieve it for everyone in the entire world. How would it work in practice. Let's have your thesis belt and braces without the pretty lines.

Oh the irony.

I was giving an example of the likely hood of that occurring to me. The planet does not spring to my defence, it does not sustain me, it neither brings me food nor shelter, clothes nor water. That's precisely the point. I must do these things for myself. I must figure out how to survive, absolutely nothing on the planet tells me what to do. I can take what I have learned from my own experiences and knowledge from other men, but there is no 'harmony' about it. This is precisely the situation that all men face. We have to make the best of it, we cannot go around trying to figure out if our actions are in harmony, our only thought is to survive, or to give up.

Just read that. Surely a body count that high, plus the emails, plus all the fraud, plus Hillarys brothers, plus Bills allegations of rapist, the rigging of the Bernie vote ....surely something :-/ This is like watching a rerun of Hitler getting elected.

I can only blame myself for that.