What belief do you hold that isn't popular on the internet?

Rotation Advertisements

We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.

If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.

Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk

If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
7

What belief do you hold that isn't popular on the internet?
Tweet Topic Started: Aug 14 2012, 06:49 PM (4,999 Views)
Spirit Metaphor	Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM Post #31
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	I'm a philosopher - unpopular everywhere - naturally. Here's a brief list of the conclusions I support: 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 2. There are no obligations we do not choose. Responsibility requires choice. 3. Determinism is cute, but not true. We possess free will. 4. Utilitarianism is ridiculous, only individuals can determine 'the good' for themselves, it's a subjective preference. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. 6. ...Consequently, to allow for exceptions in the guise of different terminology (war = murder, taxation = theft, etc) is to enable evil. 7. Full personhood must be extended to children if society is to progress. We can all stop spouting nonsense about how children are our number one priority until then. 8. Virtue is never innate, it must be earned. Similarly it is foolish to forgive someone who has not earned forgiveness. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Aug 28 2012, 01:53 PM.



~~Frankie~~	Aug 28 2012, 02:18 PM Post #32
Posts: 573 Group: GTFO Member #593 Joined: August 8, 2005	LSV Aug 27 2012, 02:55 AM Capital Punishment should be used more. No because in depth, you are doing them a favor.



Cal	Aug 28 2012, 02:35 PM Post #33
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade! Posts: 5,259 Group: Member Member #6,087 Joined: April 25, 2011 Gender Female Favourite Anime hentai What Browser do you use? hentaibrowser Favourite Manga hentai	Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. You realize number 1 and number 5 contradict each other? Objective morality is usually based on the ideals of biblical theism, whereas relative morality (how we define what morals are) is subjective. Murder, theft, rape, etc are all based on whatever morals the current era we live in sees as 'good' or 'bad' on a subjective scale. If you go back a few hundred years American citizens had slaves that were beaten, raped, killed, etc all because it wasn't morally wrong in that time period, but as times change so does the morals every ignorant person holds so close.



Spirit Metaphor	Aug 28 2012, 02:41 PM Post #34
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:35 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. You realize number 1 and number 5 contradict each other? Objective morality is usually based on the ideals of biblical theism, whereas relative morality (how we define what morals are) is subjective. Murder, theft, sexual assault, etc are all based on whatever morals the current era we live in sees as 'good' or 'bad' on a subjective scale. If you go back a few hundred years American citizens had slaves that were beaten, sexually assaulted, killed, etc all because it wasn't morally wrong in that time period, but as times change so does the morals every ignorant person holds so close. Aha, my friend, I'm afraid you're confused. Self ownership is the only axiom required for ethics to be objective. By all means, go ahead and prove you do not possess ownership over your own body. It may be typical to hear 'objective morality' in a biblical or cultural context, but the very notion here implodes in on itself, there is nothing objective about heresay, let alone heresay from the flying spaghetti monster. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Aug 28 2012, 02:43 PM.



Cal	Aug 28 2012, 02:50 PM Post #35
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade! Posts: 5,259 Group: Member Member #6,087 Joined: April 25, 2011 Gender Female Favourite Anime hentai What Browser do you use? hentaibrowser Favourite Manga hentai	Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 02:41 PM FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:35 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. You realize number 1 and number 5 contradict each other? Objective morality is usually based on the ideals of biblical theism, whereas relative morality (how we define what morals are) is subjective. Murder, theft, sexual assault, etc are all based on whatever morals the current era we live in sees as 'good' or 'bad' on a subjective scale. If you go back a few hundred years American citizens had slaves that were beaten, sexually assaulted, killed, etc all because it wasn't morally wrong in that time period, but as times change so does the morals every ignorant person holds so close. Aha, my friend, I'm afraid you're confused. Self ownership is the only axiom required for ethics to be objective. By all means, go ahead and prove you do not possess ownership over your own body. It may be typical to hear 'objective morality' in a biblical or cultural context, but the very notion here implodes in on itself, there is nothing objective about heresay, let alone heresay from the flying spaghetti monster. There's nothing wrong with saying that as long as you can keep relative and objective morality in context. Also, I hate the naive comparison of the flying spaghetti monster in relation to a deity. Some people just don't understand the difference in absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Edited by Cal, Aug 28 2012, 02:50 PM.



Spirit Metaphor	Aug 28 2012, 03:27 PM Post #36
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:50 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 02:41 PM FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:35 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. You realize number 1 and number 5 contradict each other? Objective morality is usually based on the ideals of biblical theism, whereas relative morality (how we define what morals are) is subjective. Murder, theft, sexual assault, etc are all based on whatever morals the current era we live in sees as 'good' or 'bad' on a subjective scale. If you go back a few hundred years American citizens had slaves that were beaten, sexually assaulted, killed, etc all because it wasn't morally wrong in that time period, but as times change so does the morals every ignorant person holds so close. Aha, my friend, I'm afraid you're confused. Self ownership is the only axiom required for ethics to be objective. By all means, go ahead and prove you do not possess ownership over your own body. It may be typical to hear 'objective morality' in a biblical or cultural context, but the very notion here implodes in on itself, there is nothing objective about heresay, let alone heresay from the flying spaghetti monster. There's nothing wrong with saying that as long as you can keep relative and objective morality in context. Also, I hate the naive comparison of the flying spaghetti monster in relation to a deity. Some people just don't understand the difference in absence of evidence and evidence of absence. hehe, absence of evidence, evidence of absence. The question of God is not purely empirical. Put it this way, in order to demonstrate the existence of a higher power one must first address: 1. Whether consciousness can exist without matter (Impossible, consciousness is an effect of matter. I cannot breathe without lungs, I'm not conscious without a brain) No need to go further, but I will anyway 2. Infinite complexity arising from absolutely nothing when nature always depicts complexity as a process starting at the most basic levels. 3. The problem of irrelevance vs. infinite regression. If there's a god, what created it? Nothing? So God always existed, why couldn't the universe have always existed? ...or God was created by another god? So then it's turtles all the way down, excellent, we have answered precisely nothing, bravo. I know agnostics tend to remove all criteria for proof by putting higher powers outside space and time, unfortunately not a valid argument because it is the same as asserting that X which does not exist, possibly exists (a contradiction). That which exists must be detectable in some way. The typical response is something like the future potential of science argument which suggests we may be able to detect a higher power with enhanced technology. It's actually quite inaccurate to treat science as if it is a theory rather than a self-refining method. In other words, our understanding of the world through science does not regress. The forward progress of science cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of ghosts and demons. What if there are other parallel dimensions outside our own universe which did allow for the existence of deities? Clearly these dimensions cannot ever interact with us lest they fall within the scope of our own universe, otherwise utterly inconsequential. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Aug 31 2012, 02:46 AM.



Cal	Aug 28 2012, 03:41 PM Post #37
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade! Posts: 5,259 Group: Member Member #6,087 Joined: April 25, 2011 Gender Female Favourite Anime hentai What Browser do you use? hentaibrowser Favourite Manga hentai	Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 03:27 PM FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:50 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 02:41 PM FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:35 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. You realize number 1 and number 5 contradict each other? Objective morality is usually based on the ideals of biblical theism, whereas relative morality (how we define what morals are) is subjective. Murder, theft, sexual assault, etc are all based on whatever morals the current era we live in sees as 'good' or 'bad' on a subjective scale. If you go back a few hundred years American citizens had slaves that were beaten, sexually assaulted, killed, etc all because it wasn't morally wrong in that time period, but as times change so does the morals every ignorant person holds so close. Aha, my friend, I'm afraid you're confused. Self ownership is the only axiom required for ethics to be objective. By all means, go ahead and prove you do not possess ownership over your own body. It may be typical to hear 'objective morality' in a biblical or cultural context, but the very notion here implodes in on itself, there is nothing objective about heresay, let alone heresay from the flying spaghetti monster. There's nothing wrong with saying that as long as you can keep relative and objective morality in context. Also, I hate the naive comparison of the flying spaghetti monster in relation to a deity. Some people just don't understand the difference in absence of evidence and evidence of absence. hehe, absence of evidence, evidence of absence. The question of God is not purely empirical. Put it this way, in order to demonstrate the existence of a higher power one must first address: 1. Whether consciousness can exist without matter (Impossible, consciousness is an effect of matter. I cannot breathe without lungs, I'm not conscious without a brain) No need to go further, but I will anyway 2. Infinite complexity arising from absolutely nothing when nature always depicts complexity as a process starting at the most basic levels. 3. The problem of irrelevance vs. infinite regression. If there's a god, what created it? Nothing? So God always existed, why couldn't the universe always existed? ...or God was created by another god? So then it's turtles all the way down, excellent, we have answered precisely nothing, bravo. I know agnostics love to remove all criteria for proof by putting higher powers outside space and time, unfortunately not a valid argument because it is the same as asserting that X which does not exist, possibly exists (a contradiction). That which exists must be detectable in some way. The answer to this is usually the typical future potential of science argument which suggests we may be able to detect a higher power with enhanced technology. This falls flat on its face because it treats science as if it is a theory rather than a self-refining method. In other words, our understanding of the world through science does not regress. Saying that God did it in response to any problem can never be considered truth, but can be considered truly naive (I make myself chuckle). What if there are other parallel dimensions outside our own universe which did allow for the existence of deities? Clearly these dimensions cannot ever interact with us lest they fall within the scope of our own universe, utterly inconsequential. 1) You're making baseless assumptions. It's impossible to know without being dead or continually not conscious. You're trying to meet an ends without caring how you get there. In logical terms you're assuming x is 2 when you have 2 + x = 4. You never look at other possibilities. 2) I wonder if you know what omniscient and that potential means if real? 3) Science drives you in the same circles even though I tend to agree with science. For example if Cause & Effect is true (you know the basic principle we live our daily lives by) then what is the initial cause and effect for our universe? Oh wait, there can't be one because there would be nothing prior to it which would make the principle fundamentally unsound. Reference my number 2 rebuttal. Also, for your agnostic example the word 'probably' is something you just put there. To admit you don't know doesn't make one side superior or inferior when it comes to some sort of objective truth. Also, the thing that makes science so great is that fact that it does constantly change. It has nothing to do with this or that being theories, it's the ability to go and check infinite amounts of times to see if you reach the same conclusion. Reminds me of an article not too long about the discovery of particles that can potentially move faster than the speed of light, which could totally debunk the Theory of Relativity that kids have been taught for ages and were supposed to take as fact. Your last point doesn't make much sense, so I won't address it. You're again making huge generalizations, which I urge you to not do.



~~Paikuan extreme~~	Aug 28 2012, 04:14 PM Post #38
Posts: 5,568 Group: Suspended Member #5,921 Joined: March 29, 2011 Favourite Anime dbz What Browser do you use? ie9 Favourite Manga akira	Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 02:41 PM FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:35 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. You realize number 1 and number 5 contradict each other? Objective morality is usually based on the ideals of biblical theism, whereas relative morality (how we define what morals are) is subjective. Murder, theft, sexual assault, etc are all based on whatever morals the current era we live in sees as 'good' or 'bad' on a subjective scale. If you go back a few hundred years American citizens had slaves that were beaten, sexually assaulted, killed, etc all because it wasn't morally wrong in that time period, but as times change so does the morals every ignorant person holds so close. Aha, my friend, I'm afraid you're confused. Self ownership is the only axiom required for ethics to be objective. By all means, go ahead and prove you do not possess ownership over your own body. It may be typical to hear 'objective morality' in a biblical or cultural context, but the very notion here implodes in on itself, there is nothing objective about heresay, let alone heresay from the flying spaghetti monster. ethics are based on respect, and self efficacy, taking responsibility. to have objective morality, one must care for others first, and be of the mindset that everyone deserves to be treated with respect on a universal level. subjective morality is more like, spanking your kids, or taking the money in the alleyway when no one sees you. objective takes an outside view of all subjective makes you look within yourself/ and or situation. Human morality in the bible is based on fear, threats, no one is told that getting along works better than not until the new testament. as a moral doctrine, the ten commandments are subjective/objective. Because it dictates HOW you live day in and out. which of course is a choice. objectively the slaves of america past were put in a objective light, as most people misinterpret the bible for their own destructive means. Calling slaves sub humans and marked with cain is their justification for being christian and morally bankrupt at the same time. Its all about choices, nevermind fancy words with no meaning. Taking responsibility for yourself and your loved ones is key to surviving for the short time we have here. If you dont care for others, then you have no objectivity to argue over. Because all you care about is what affects you. so in that sense? even good people can be considered evil.



Spirit Metaphor	Aug 28 2012, 04:56 PM Post #39
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	@FishingTheSky 1) Too vague, what are the baseless assumptions exactlty? We can't have a deep discussion unless criticism is specific. Anyway, it is to my understanding that this is projection, I've already indicated that the idea of god is essentially a wobbly pyramid of willed assumptions without empirical or rational evidence. ...Damn, that almost made me spit out my juice. Impossible to know without being dead? What is consciousness? The ability to process external stimuli and recount experiences, consciousness is to be aware of one's surroundings. How is this achieved? Through our physical sensory organs and physical neurological connections within our brains. To suggest that consciousness is possible without the body is just too funny, sorry it really is. Again, there's no real point discussing passed this point. 2) Omniscience? I don't see how it has anything to do with the points I conveyed. Not to mention that is equivalent to saying the universe is predetermined with an entity who knows exactly what will occur. This invalidates all choice and responsibility from our lives, making ethics void. Would you press charges against a loose boulder which just happened to crush your car? I don't have time to argue against determinism now though, maybe another day. 3) Science focuses our perspective. Sure it may be blurry in some areas, but we can at least make out the shapes ahead of time. I love analogies. Cause and effect, yes logic suggests that there should be a first cause, but I already addressed this, a diety as the prime mover solves nothing. Omniscience is not a solution either. A god can either be all knowing or all powerful, not both. A purely omniscient entity could not have been the prime mover. I typed possibly, not probably. This is accurate to the agnostic position, they do not outright claim that a god exists. Again, science does not constantly change, it only becomes more accurate. Science is a method, not a theory or set of theories. Newtonian physics is still pragmatic in terms of what it made possible in the past, it did not become completely untrue and useless upon the creation of Einsteinian physics, which is far better suited for something like space travel rather than sailing. Unfortunately the whole 'particles moving faster than light' thing was already proven false, the experiment which sparked the controversy was faulty. As for the final point before, I was simply saying that the existence of dieties in alternate realities means nothing for us in this reality. Alternate realities do not exist for us, if they did they would be part of our own reality and thus not alternate. There's also the error of ascribing attributes to a dimension which cannot be observed, like claiming you're watching an episode of Pokemon on a completely static TV screen. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Aug 28 2012, 05:21 PM.



Cal	Aug 28 2012, 05:25 PM Post #40
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade! Posts: 5,259 Group: Member Member #6,087 Joined: April 25, 2011 Gender Female Favourite Anime hentai What Browser do you use? hentaibrowser Favourite Manga hentai	@Spirit: Eh, I don't feel like arguing too much on this type of stuff here. I made this thread for people to talk about things they believe that aren't popular on parts of the internet but we're going way too far off on a tangent. Arguing things this deep on a Japanese cartoon forum does make me laugh though. Feel free to create a new topic though, if you wish. I'll reply there if you do. Edited by Cal, Aug 28 2012, 05:26 PM.



Spirit Metaphor	Aug 28 2012, 05:46 PM Post #41
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Ninjajp247 Aug 28 2012, 04:14 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 02:41 PM FishingTheSky Aug 28 2012, 02:35 PM Spirit Metaphor Aug 28 2012, 01:50 PM 1. There is no god, I repeat, NO GOD, no higher power. 5. Ethics are objective based on the axiom of self-ownership. From this we can accept the reprehensible nature of theft, murder or sexual assault. None of these actions can ever be proved acceptable under any valid (universal) code. You realize number 1 and number 5 contradict each other? Objective morality is usually based on the ideals of biblical theism, whereas relative morality (how we define what morals are) is subjective. Murder, theft, sexual assault, etc are all based on whatever morals the current era we live in sees as 'good' or 'bad' on a subjective scale. If you go back a few hundred years American citizens had slaves that were beaten, sexually assaulted, killed, etc all because it wasn't morally wrong in that time period, but as times change so does the morals every ignorant person holds so close. Aha, my friend, I'm afraid you're confused. Self ownership is the only axiom required for ethics to be objective. By all means, go ahead and prove you do not possess ownership over your own body. It may be typical to hear 'objective morality' in a biblical or cultural context, but the very notion here implodes in on itself, there is nothing objective about heresay, let alone heresay from the flying spaghetti monster. ethics are based on respect, and self efficacy, taking responsibility. to have objective morality, one must care for others first, and be of the mindset that everyone deserves to be treated with respect on a universal level. subjective morality is more like, spanking your kids, or taking the money in the alleyway when no one sees you. objective takes an outside view of all subjective makes you look within yourself/ and or situation. Human morality in the bible is based on fear, threats, no one is told that getting along works better than not until the new testament. as a moral doctrine, the ten commandments are subjective/objective. Because it dictates HOW you live day in and out. which of course is a choice. objectively the slaves of america past were put in a objective light, as most people misinterpret the bible for their own destructive means. Calling slaves sub humans and marked with cain is their justification for being christian and morally bankrupt at the same time. Its all about choices, nevermind fancy words with no meaning. Taking responsibility for yourself and your loved ones is key to surviving for the short time we have here. If you dont care for others, then you have no objectivity to argue over. Because all you care about is what affects you. so in that sense? even good people can be considered evil. I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, but I just want to clarify that when the word 'subjective' is added to 'morality' is automatically becomes preferential bigotry, neither universally true or true across time. Here's objective morality in its entirety, it isn't difficult: Axiom - We own ourselves and the effects of our actions. Rule 1: It is wrong to initiate force/coercion against another moral agent Rule:2: It is wrong to violate the property of another moral agent Rule 3: It is wrong to spread misinformation in a way which compromises the property of other moral agents. If someone wants to interact with others in a productive, ethical win-win manner then they must follow those rules. I emphasize if. Failing to follow those rules or disagreeing with them does not make them subjective (unless it is somehow proved that we do not own ourselves and the effects of our actions). If only they taught this stuff at school, right? @FishingTheSky That last post I made was a bit messy and unclear in places, I apologize Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Aug 28 2012, 05:57 PM.



~~Paikuan extreme~~	Aug 28 2012, 06:10 PM Post #42
Posts: 5,568 Group: Suspended Member #5,921 Joined: March 29, 2011 Favourite Anime dbz What Browser do you use? ie9 Favourite Manga akira	no, only in special schools should this be taught, because then you are FORCING your doctrine on others. objective/subjective morality is living BY a certain set of rules made to live life how you choose, in the beginning, so choosing to accept this lifestyle is the ultimate choice before handing over the keys to your car. basically telling you what to do in all situations involving with the interaction of others. Preferential bigotry is born when you think you have accomplished these things in life, and see them as a destination and NOT a journey, most people who "follow" god fall into this aspect, as self righteousness sets in as they start to see themselves only able to interact with others of the same mindset. Like stated, objective morality is caring for others, you can take it as it is, or expand it till you are blue in the face. but it all boils down to one thing. subjective morality always leads to the sort of thinking that people are superior in their way of thinking, instead of just accepting things for how they are. Most of them rage about how the world is but make no steps to change how people perceive this world and the people in it. Preferential bigotry is how like minds find one another. it happens in one form or another, whether arguing for comic books or saving the life of someone in trouble. Apathy to what you have deemed different to how YOU choose to be is the catalyst, but most people blame this on the other being different instead if taking responsibility for this feeling, and ultimately the resultant action for those who feel so strongly on the subject at hand. Like seeing someone you whos lifestyle you object to getting beat up, do you call the police? or not? most people in that category, most often "dont want to get involved" or actually condem the person being hurt simply because they dont like either what they have seen or heard come from that person. all the time i see or talk to people who insist that stepping outside of their box is so uncomfortable? they would rather not. Its why conservatives hate liberals, and why libs think conservatives are holding up evolutionary progress. There will be no peace until people realize we are all the same. the definition itself is subjective. the same reason why people take so many advantages to fit the rules and how they apply to THEM where they may. religion and religious doctrines being the worse when it comes down to it. im getting off track a little, but i just wanted to say that. initially i was responding to both of you, the issue of ethics and morals doesnt seem to be lost on people who dont use " a spaghetti fairy" to guide their daily actions, or one they can BLAME them on either. just saiyan.



Spirit Metaphor	Aug 28 2012, 06:21 PM Post #43
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Sorry, but teaching is not force. Communication and the sharing of knowledge is something innate to the human experience. If anything it can be treated as fraud if carried out in a harmful way (i.e. the current education system). Initiating force is like pulling a gun to someone's head and telling them to stay seated and LEARN GODDAMMIT :p. The non-aggression principle (rules I outlined previously) is objective in the same way that if I want to live I must breath, eat, drink and sleep. If I want to treat people ethically I must follow the non-aggression principle. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Aug 28 2012, 06:25 PM.



* Crashbreaka	Aug 28 2012, 08:12 PM Post #44
Captain Oblivious Posts: 6,888 Group: Retired Staff Member #7,771 Joined: June 14, 2012 Gender Male Country New Zealand Favourite Anime Onepunch-Man, Gurren Lagann What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga Seven Deadly Sins, Food Wars, Onepunch-Man	Here's one people commonly rage at me for on the internet. 'No-one can truly know anything. We can only think we know things.' Edited by Crashbreaka, Aug 28 2012, 09:20 PM.



~~Paikuan extreme~~	Aug 28 2012, 10:00 PM Post #45
Posts: 5,568 Group: Suspended Member #5,921 Joined: March 29, 2011 Favourite Anime dbz What Browser do you use? ie9 Favourite Manga akira	you said teach it in schools, that means forcibly teaching those who dont want it, like praying or saying the pledge of allegiance. its called indoctrination. thats why i said private schools, where people have free reign to do as they choose and not inflict conflict of interest on others.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
7