SoyBooruIP 3.148.197.73 has been banned until the end of time because of VPN Detected
If you couldn't possibly be guilty of what you're banned for, the person we banned probably had a dynamic IP address and so do you.
See http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static for more information.
Video
Video not playing? Click here to download the file.
Commenting
Comment Formatting Options
Want to report a comment? Report the post itself with relevant details.
Advertisement
vegan xisters.......
....
ACTUALLY, as a matter of fact, I propose an easier format, and that's VC-VC, do you want to debate in /pol/ VC? We can do that, unless you're a textpajeet.
@VeganEfilist:
VeganPEDO fail ^
I see IMPERATOR is helping xis fellow vegan pedo khorder ^
Imperator^
@VeganEfilist:
IMPERATOR DETECTED^
You do realise that the claim itself was that its not strictly pretaining to philosophy? That can be used in SEVERAL debates, AND you're presupposing the definition we're using when I was using a connotation and you're bringing up the analytical definition, also you speak of semantics but you dont even know how connotations work within specific scenarios. AND NO, IT'S NOT VAGUE BECAUSE I ALREADY OFFERED A PROPOSITION, CAN'T YOU READ? HOLY GEG, YOU'RE LIKE A LOST CHILD, THE PROPOSITON PRETAINING TO THEOLOGY, WAS IF GOD EXISTS, YOU TOOK THE NEGATION, I TOOK THE AFFIRMITIVE, AND I ALREADY SAID THAT AXIOLOGY CAN BE BROUGHT UP AS A POINT WITHIN THEOLOGY AND YOU CONCEDED TO THAT AS WELL,
THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT, IT DOESN'T STRICTLY PRETAIN TO PHILOSOPHY AND NO, I CAN'T STRAWMAN MY OWN ARGUMENT, WHICH YOU HAVE BASICALLY REPEATED WITHIN OUR CONVERSATION, IT IS ABSOLUTELY BAFFLING AND YES, IT DOES ANALYTICALLY PRETAIN TO JARGON, I CAN VERY WELL GIVE YOU A STRUCTURED ARGUMENT BEHIND THAT.
Never claimed that I never heard them, are you even tracking? Did I ask you for a definition? No? Thought so, me calling it jargon doesn't mean that I do not know these words whatsoever, I actually know the simplified version of these words which most people would know and would be easier to utilize, retard. You're getting absolutely BTFO, and you're so LOST within the conversation, and YOU'RE ACTUALLY SHORTENING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY ARGUMENTS AND TURNING THEM INTO CLAIMS, THAT IS DIRECLTY A STRAWMAN IF YOU DO NOT ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE.
Retard, we're supposed to debate on a proposition and I already gave you one and a proposition makes things less vague, theology by itself isn't propositional. I don't care which argument you use, use any argument you want, I'll debunk it either way. And it doesn't matter, you can BRING AXIOLOGY INTO the proposiiton or debate, doesn't matter, this proposition is a good umbrella for different concepts. And no, I am not quitting the rhetoric and you're stumbling upon what you read like it matters, it doesn't matter if you cant argue for your stance. Either way, you're already losing the debate so it doesn't matter if you get banned.
Shut the fuck up vegan nigger no one cares ^
Thank you very much, it is not appopriated by philosophy, retard, thanks for basically proving my point and conceding to one of my premises.
You were calling it philosophical terms instead of saying these are simple terminologies that can be applied within debating.
Thank you for proving my point again.
Wasn't a nitpick, that was a rhetorical jab at you because you were obviously were using jargon, I, of course, understand them, but OTHERS however, who do not study philosophy, wouldn't. Why? Because its jargon, true by definition, now cuck down instead of trying to somehow backpedal from your previous argument and make a new premise saying its not your problem.
Did I say you should stop using those terminologies? No. I said that you are simply using jargon, in which we've already established, never said you should stop, it simply doesn't help your case.
I've made a bunch of arguments, that is literally substance by definition, are you perhaps.. slow? Disappointing.
When did I deny this? Show me AN EXACT statement or argument I said in which I've denied this, matter of fact, I've actually agreed that it can because I brought up connotations.
Yes, but not strictly.
And I gave you a proposition in which we can debate on, the example or actually, not even an example it's the literal thing: Does god exist?
You can use any argument against God you'd like, I'll debunk it, cosmological arguments would be nice to argue upon but you can bring up axiology. We can debate all of them if you'd like. "Theology isnt just about atheist vs theist" When did I imply this?
Thanks captain obvious.
No, I proposed theology first, go ahead and do ctrl+f and you can see when I said theology.
It's not gonna get confused because that's directly axiological.
Okay, what's P1, P2, and the conclusion?
Rherotical jabs are supposed to have truth to them, so your claim that I wasn't doing substance is baseless? Cool.
Okay cool you admitted that I never said that wods cant have different definitions, I never said they weren't applicable to philosophy, I said it's not STRICTLY applicable to philosophy, when did I ever claim they weren't? Go ahead and prove that.
Alright it's good you have the intellect to concede on some points instead of bloviating.
Exactly.
Axiology can be applied to theology, I said that afterwards and argued for why you can use any argument against God including axiological ones, because it is theology.
Sure, the thing with that is that I was seeking clarity in order for us to know what proposition we were on, an argument out of the blue would make it informal.
This was literally exactly what I said you fat cuck, you're basically just affirming what I'm saying at this point, the problem was the PROPOSITION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BEFOREHAND.
Not a concession if I didnt take the opposing claim.
OH YEAH BUT TO MAKE IT LESS VAGUE I PROPOSED A PROPOSITION, DIDNT I? CAN YOU TRACK??
Sure, that's exactly why I proposed theology. Also your syllogism doesn't The conclusion of "God does not exist" is logically not followed from the premises, and therefore the syllogism is a non sequitur. In Premise 1, it is asserted that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, while Premise 2 states that suffering exists, and the existence of suffering does not per se disprove the existence of God. God might permit suffering for reasons such as free will, the development of character, or the greater good. The syllogism, therefore, commits a fallacy of assuming that suffering must necessarily be incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God; hence the conclusion is wrong and invalid.
The reason why I said you were running away from the topic is because when I proposed theology, WITH A PROPOSITION, you proposed axiology, and that's the reason why, because I thought you wanted to run a sort of meta-ethics topic instead. I acknowledge they exist but you never said that they were a sub-point of the theological topic we were supposed to debate. If that was the case, then yes, that would be running.
Yes there was, I offered the proposition of Gods existence since you already knew I was Muslim AND I supposed that you had the negaton of my stance.
Okay? Are you trying to argue I conceded a point or not? Because that cant be the case.
I literally said this first: "the established topic itself is theology, so it's more propositional, the proposition is if God exists, you're taking the negation, I am taking the affirmitive. Don't run away from the topic", you can even search it. Make sure you track before spilling out nonsense.
First of all, why are you shortening my argument? Also The rejection arises from an uneasy, oversimplified, reductionist perspective on morality and human experience, which fails to address the complexities of the problem of evil and suffering. The position on free will ignores the subtleties of a larger philosophical debate about whether there could truly be freedom without the real risk of suffering. Second, to equate all value with pain alleviation or pain creation-doubling all moral goodness with talk about discomfort-is a form of hedonistic reductionism that blatantly disregards other moral frameworks (virtue ethics, consequentialism) which acknowledge value beyond mere pain/pleasure dynamics. In addition, in itself, "negative hedonism" constitutes the naturalistic fallacy; because pain belongs to the human condition, it, by necessity, determines moral value. Lastly, it's a sweeping generalization to say that suffering goes against the idea of something greater, such as building character. It discards some philosophical explanations, which show that suffering is a vehicle through which the greatest virtues are learned and may be a surrogate for long-term flourishing in and of itself, though it involves discomfort.
- Reply
Tacoblimp who... who...
Oh, I see. You've heard of me before? That's surprising.
Yeah, that should've been your opening statement.
That's not an intelligent thing to do because then you're ignoring the rest of the substance for the premise, because a statement that comes after it isn't always a premise but can also be an argument. Rather, you should be addressing the entire argument so you dont fall into a strawman.
Then that's a big problem on your end because you have less substance towards your claim thus making it weaker.
I absolutely disagree because then you're completly dismissing the analytical definition of freedom, in which is applicable to a logically possible world, none of what you're saying contradicts God's existence whatsoever.
No, thats directly free will since you're presupposing you have the will to NOT do that action.
Well that just comes down to the nature of death but we're talking about the existence of God here.
The rigidity of your framework makes one miss other viable ethical systems without consideration for their nuances. Although you declare hedonistic reductionism as "the most sound axiology," that is an erroneously subjective claim that disregards the wide cust of moral theories that offer much broader aspects of value, which identify good intrinsically outside pleasure and pain-a few of these would comprise justice, autonomy, and dignity. Virtue ethics proved "continental muck." Longstanding traditions are ridiculed because they fear critique by folks accustomed to the new. Virtue ethics, unfortunately, has not limited itself to pleasure and pain; it has opted to nurture character development and human flourishing (eudaimonia), progressing beyond negative hedonism with a more holistic orientation toward human well-being. The distinction is arbitrarily drawn between morality and ethics, both aiming at prescribing oughts, both willing to get routines toward better states of being. Furthermore, the generalization that suffering cannot be a vehicle for virtues is narrowly overgeneralized; history and philosophy bear witness to that idea in showing that suffering can be phenomenally transformative and allow humans to forge resilience, compassion, and wisdom. Concerning Mill's higher pleasures, the qualitative distinction is not a matter of stability but depth-what may provide lasting satisfaction or develop a more profound human experience, which negative hedonism fails to account for. Suffering may only be some external behavior guiding the calculus of what is bad; arguing that these virtues have anything at all with regard to that is a reductionist mistake; virtues do not reduce to hedonic calculus, but they deal with the greater complexities of individual moral development and human well-being, which cannot be constrained to the binary of pleasure/pain.
Who said it's anything about the use of it? You can do completely trivial things with free will, you're completely ignoring the analytical definition because: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Which is exactly what you can do, its not about what you WANT.
Are you referring to the argument you're using? If so then use another argument, a cosmological one.
It also comes down from person to person, also no, some people help others to feel good themselves, and you know what, again, I don't see how any of this makes God logically impossible since ALL OF THIS is logically possible and imaginable, making it adhere to modal realism. And no, people have different reasons for different actions, especially CHILDREN. People have different goals and expectations for their kids, and why dont kids always turn up for the expectation, presupposing they're functional? Because they HAVE FREE-WILL and dont have to follow the expectations. The reversing of these things dont matter because its free will and people do harm themselves and others, which is directly a normatively "evil" thing to do.
Humanity's insatiable thirst for cosmic meaning and virtue is not a design flaw but a hint of God, as C.S. Lewis put it, telling us we were created for something greater than the material. This dismissing cosmic meaning as "BS" is the straw man fallacy while reducing it to nothing more than some "warm glow," denying the theistic interpretations which root meaning in divine purpose. Higher pleasures come about when the focus is given, which is a category error because it doesn't understand that higher pleasures reflect engagement with transcending truths rather than intensity in desire. Finally, the critique of negativity bias and unfulfilled desires as flaws completely misapprehends their theological function; these attributes engender humility and propel human beings into the direction of the infinite, where personal longing obtains its answer. If God made us this way, it is not to drive us to exasperation but to draw us to Him.
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
- Reply
@Warrior-Z:
@Warrior-Z:
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
[h2]SHUT UP MOTHER IN THE BITCH SLOOT BITCH STFU JEW MY PAJEET Me negging the Jokerstone users on here, LLLZZZZZZZZZZ I BULLIED YOU Me negging the entire 'booru, part 2 (the comment limit is what stopped me) GO PACK MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGEMY LUGGAGE MY LUGGAGE [/h2]
I'm gwyne to Der cooouurdrd, My true love for to see.
It goon all night the day I left, The bbc it was dry,
The 'p so Sisa I gooned to death; Soytanna, don't you goon to 'p without mi.
- Reply
where are you from?, lets debate about this vegan shit, vegan communist.
- Reply
Which country are you from, you can't even answer, retard.
fuck you grasseater.
- Reply
let me tell some facts about you, you are a deranged, lunatic, bipolar, psycho, disturbed, crazy and insane.
I'm a national-socialist, a better ideology, way better than communism.
- Reply
hitler was a good person, meanwhile you are a retarded tranny that argues to every person, fuck you grasseater, you are a disgusting, bothered and stinky.
you are a faliure
- Reply
says the communist, get some bread to eat and stop yapping holy shit, vegans aren't white tho.
- Reply
cry more, you are a retard, cope and seethe retard, these women that you are talking are karens, bipolar faggot
- Reply
So, you know how time is linear, right? And pretty much everything is logically possible, and probabilities exist with the help of quantum mechanics? Yeah, exactly.
That doesn't justify your burden, the cards you're given are not the actions you do, which is what freewill is about, not getting creative mode IRL but instead, you can act upon what you desire. It's not a moral problem, it's just completely logical and cosmological.
But people can choose to give birth? That's free will, it doesn't matter, if I punch you, that doesn't take away your free will, moron.
Isn't that a premise you proposed?
It very much can, there's no logical contradiction in that, you use "cant" too frequently.
Your mind.
Who's we? You're the emo retard here, not everyone is mentally unstable like you, sounds like a you problem, buddy. And no, go ahead and justify that claim, because you're generalizing humans on a massive scale and think people cant be satisfied, lole.
No, looks like you're a bit too retarded to track my points or the conversation, read the propositions again, before thinking it's "random", nowhere have I ever said or implied it was. POSSIBLITIES, are different, holy crap this monkey doesn't know that possiblities can be caused by free will as well, otherwise there would be NO possiblities and only linear effects.
Go ahead n prove that rq, since you're just repeating the claim at this point and begging the question and not refutating what I am saying.
Yeah who said that actions are contingent upon punishment or reward? Who said that? That's just basis for action, RETARD LMAO, not action itself, look at you, you barely know how to track a conversation and you're getting BTFO'd because you dont know a BASIS behind an action OR THE ACTIONS ITSELF LOOOOOL.
Yeah go ahead and prove that claim since you said nobody meaning all 8 billion people on the planet, go 'head.
That's the presupposition you've been repeating within the conversation and been getting slapped because you can barely track, BITCH.
LMAOOOOOOOOOO HE JUST REPEATED THE CLAIM AGAIN WTFFFFFF YOU CAN'T TRACK, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE AT DEBATING, YOU SHOULD QUIT AND GO BACK TO WHATEVER VEGAN RAISINC0RD YOU CAME FROM
Yeah okay so you just acknowledged your other argument was ass which was my whole point, thank you.
Theism constitutes an advance from deism, as reason indicates towards a creator that is purposeful and relational, rather than indifferent. This follows from the fact that what is omni-benevolent belongs to maximal greatness, as all-goodness will tend to be greater than indifference, corresponding to the moral order we presently observe.
It depends on your stance on the mind, do you see it as material or immaterial?
Not sadistic, and you just conceded that a creator does exist GEEEG, absolutely crapped on.
- Reply
the left cant meme
You are the one presupposing it is so this is just a shifting the burden fallacy, go 'head n prove your claim rq.
And what's gonna be the normative notion behind that claim?
NO LOL, YOU DIRECTLY SAID THAT IT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT, WHICH IS WHAT I ASKED AND IMPLIED BEFOREHAND, GO READ UP, unless you misunderstood the question, because I was talking about what YOU were using.
To deny the existence of transcendental levels pertaining to pain or no pain is pathological. Pain and pleasure are not purely physiological, they have to be evaluated by means of values, which presuppose a higher framework. It is like denying logic simply because it's not physical. Dismissing reason as pattern-matching based on evolution is seriously shallow. Reason is not mere neuron firings, but, it has to do with the balance of normality over intelligible parameters. If every aspect of thought is deterministically fixed, your entire argument against transcendental values crumbles down to meaningless particles of brain noise. A classic but childish take of the relativist is that although morality is subjective, subjective values arise from their successful existence. Nietzsche would pull your relativist legs half of the time and take a great agreement that the values should exist. Hedonistic reductionism, over its cosmic meaning, is simply a lazy affair. Meaning arises from interpreting these states, not the other way around. You're fighting an alphabet with sentences-based on it. Not just "God's bad because of the fear of hell", that's something juvenile. People hold a belief in God to make sense of existence, not just to protect against punishment. In your condemnation of Aquinas, get through the Five Ways first, will you?
- Reply
- Reply
https://files.catbox.moe/z4qawg.png
for example this was the first jartybooru pregnant chudnater2 edit (I didn't know xe was doxxed after xe told me about that)
uploaded 92 days ago and here's the jaks I made 92 days ago (esl)
https://files.catbox.moe/4mcsve.png