Allegory takes a little trip (was forum=28)Follow

And they're both frigid ********

Yeah, but Republicans still don't really give a **** about them so it's okay.

That is merely a personal view that is not universal. Some things simply do not appeal to others. I do not want to wrestle with a crocodile and I don't think my life is in any way degraded by me not doing that. There are things that I like to do and in order for me to excel at them or to enjoy them, I have to spend more time doing them.

There simply isn't enough time in life or available resources to efficiently experience everything, especially if you have a job and a family. There are things that people should experience, but within the boundaries of their current life, i.e finance. Because of that, there is no reason to experience something harmful just to fulfill the thought of experiencing everything when the concept in itself isn't plausible.



You are disagreeing with the definition of the word, which is ok, but the concepts of the words intelligence, stupidity, ignorance and common sense exist. There is no denying that. We will have to agree to disagree because some things are just stupid. I will give you credit that certain activities themselves may not be "stupid", but at the same time, the concept that is applied is indeed stupid.



The best balance would be to maximize your life while doing the things that you find enjoyable. There is absolutely no reason to do things that you don't find enjoyable or that will harm you. Doing things that can potentially kill you or handicap you completely contradicts the idea of experiencing everything because you may have prevented yourself from doing future activities.



Guns are definitely not a "necessary tool for survival" and I don't believe that you seriously believe that either. I live in Korea where personal fire arms are banned and they live just fine.I mentioned the gun argument. There is a reason why people fight for the ban of guns but not for knives even though knives are deadly tools.

Knives, or the concept of a knife, is a "necessary tool for survival", hence why even though you can effectively kill someone with a knife, they are still legal with restrictions. There is no need for an everyday average citizen to have a pistol other than to shoot somebody rather for defensive measures or not. That is why some people push for the ban. It's the same concept for "illegal drugs". There is no "need" for an everyday average person to smoke crack cocaine or to use meth and results in more harm than good.



According to Arg, there is nothing stupid, so you just denied the purpose of life, which means your life is meaningless.

It's ok.. Finding out that your life is meaningless is like being told Santa Claus isn't real. It's a very emotional moment.

Hang in there champ!!

What is? I said exclusively from a logical point of view, that disregards any sort of personal connection. Logic is universal however, and given enough thought any creation's purpose (if there is one) is to be used to it's absolute fullest in whatever way that may be. Life included. One can look at it another way, saying that if the choice was given it would be illogical to do less than more as long as more doesn't result in any negative outcomes.



Which is why I changed "everything" to "as much as possible", with the key initiative being positive outcomes. Generally things that provide positive outcomes come from things that appeal to someone, so to clarify, what I said earlier was that it's best doing as many things that appeal to you as you possibly can in your life time in order to provide you with the most positive and fulfilled life. Logically speaking.



This is a great example! Especially because I do not want to wrestle with a crocodile either! hahah
However, you cannot say that someone who has wrestled a crocodile before hasn't experienced something more than what you have because it would be untrue. Furthermore, say that you actually do end up wrestling a crocodile in your life at one point and survive with no injuries, it will be a memory that you will now have of something you have experienced that you will not only never forget but most likely could say that you were glad it happened "looking back at it". Not only that, but if you were to ever get into a situation where you would have to wrestle a crocodile again you would most likely perform better due to having some extra knowledge of what to do in the situation.

My point being, although you and I do not want to wrestle crocodiles. As long as we don't get injured doing so, it would do less harm than good for us to wrestle a crocodile logically speaking because we would gain more from the experience than lose. Disregard the idea of appeal, because that is subjective and personal.



I agree completely. That is why I was speaking ideally, knowing that accomplishing everything is truly impossible and that there is so much to do that is positive that I don't see the need to do things that are negative if I can avoid them. I believe I already stated this in my first post when speaking about bestiality. That being said, if it were possible to experience everything (both positive and negative) in a life time, than the ultimate goal/purpose of life would be to do so, once again speaking exclusively from a logical point of view.

The reason why? Because positive and negative is also subjective and personal so you can disregard it completely. What is positive and negative differs from person to person. However, the amount of experiences they had can always be measured on one scale, and the further along someone is on the scale the more they have fulfilled in their given life. That is the only non-subjective, therefore logical perspective on living. But no, this can not be practiced it is only correct in theory..however one's aim at life can be oriented toward this with the goal in mind to do all of the positives first...because they will die before they get a chance to do even that much in their short life anyways.



I agree that the concept of the word "stupid" does exist, but I explained in quite significant detail how that concept works. If you agree that things by themselves are not stupid, than you understand that the concept of stupid derives from the outcome. I.e, A chair is not stupid. Breaking a chair over your own head is stupid. Sitting on a chair reading a book is not stupid. This can be applied to anything, so I don't really see where you are disagreeing with me but perhaps you can better explain yourself.



This is pretty much the same as what I explained earlier so I feel that we are coming to some sort of an understanding.



This is my fault because in my mind I was generalizing all guns with all weapons in my statement. There is a reason for that which I will explain in just a minute, but perhaps I got ahead of myself in my last post by not clarifying there.

First I will say that in today's world, in most civilized nations NO guns are NOT a "necessary tool for survival". This is a proven fact because I have managed to live/survive this far without ever owning a gun or having anyone in my family own a gun.

I was rather defending the creation of guns/weapons, because many like to bash guns saying that it would be better if they never existed. Well, perhaps yes or perhaps not, but the reasons they were created are very valid and useful for survival.

The reason I categorized Guns with weapons in general was because of the following. At an extremely early time of existence, a knife or spear was a necessary tool that was created for survival because people needed to hunt or defend themselves with it. Knives for example can be used for an endless amount of things even passed the basic idea of hunting or defense. The bow and arrow came along as an even more useful tool for hunting and made people's life even easier. Well a gun is a much better tool than a bow and arrow for the same basic uses. And for that same reason if I had a choice I would rather have a gun than a bow and arrow, I would rather have a bow and arrow than a spear, and I would rather have a spear than a knife. But all can prove to be useful, and in certain cases even necessary for survival. That's why I was defending weapons in general and happened to include guns in there since guns seem to be a hot topic for many...even though the bottom line still is that gun's don't harm anything without a person behind them.


There is no "need", in fact I never said there was. But there may be a reason, and it may be a very valid reason, that's all I am saying. Also, why would it automatically result in more harm than good? I have never done neither but I can still probably give you plenty of examples where no or less harm would be done. Of course the possibilities vary and it could be very harmful, but it depends on the person and doesn't automatically mean one or the other. You yourself said "more harm than good" so you do realize that there can be a possibility for "good", why do you think that it will always be less good then harm? Certainly that's not the case with all people.

Hahah, perhaps, but I don't mind so much. For all I know my posts might be enlightening to some other readers as well.

Well I've tried to explain my position now in a couple of different ways in my posts. But I guess the easiest way to understand my reasoning is to go through a series of examples. If you'd like, feel free to pick any item, or anything really, that exists in the world and we can analyze whether or not what I have been writing is true for it. If you are simply trying to say that certain things have no logical viewpoint behind it at all, I would say that I agree but think that there is always one that can be found to be most logical.

this is the single richest piece of irony on the internet.

Hahahah! You're soooo funny... *cough*

I'll try to be less mean and condescending then.

Take heart; you're young and you have plenty of time. Life hasn't really started yet.

Alma can't be any more than eighteen.