The purpose of all life

[Ecmandu]

I mean, by your own logic, you're violating my consent right now and therefore you're a rapist.

I'm not violating your sexual consent. You're the one violating sexual consent.

Besides, I've many times stated on these boards that when there are mutually exclusive consents, such as someone always wanting sunny weather and someone always wanting rain and snow, that the solution is not who is correct, the solution in an instance like this is that we live in a consent violating reality at the meta level. Our squabbles are not proof that someone is right or wrong on a particular level, it's that reality itself is wrong.

[Ecmandu]

For the record, I stopped because you're too dense to absorb anything outside your tunnel vision. When you're citing 30 year old studies with small samples from far away places with homogeneous political beliefs....I just can't help but to think that you're scouring the Earth for things to confirm your biases.

Oh sure, I'm being dense.

Every evolutionary psychologist, every social scientist, and every cultural anthropologist, and every sex researcher considers it a species fact that sex dimorphism triggers aversive behavior in women relative to men:

Try these simple studies which have been shown to apply cross culturally in all human societies on earth.

Get a cute girl and a cute guy.

Have them take off their clothes in public settings such as streets, sidewalks, busses, bars, strip clubs, grocery stores, Macy's etc... the women will be escorted out, the men will have the police called.

Try the study where a cute guy and a cute girl walk up and down streets asking "wanna fuck me now?"

Watch how quickly the police get called on the men, and how quickly men say yes to women.

What I'm stating is a species fact.

What you're stating is that we don't all know this, when, in fact, you and Mowk and MagsJ all three know this.

I don't think you're dense, I think you're afraid to admit the necessary logical conclusion which is that you're all shallow hearted rapists.

Even if someone accepted all this as the honest truth, it still doesn't mean that everyone is a rapist. When someone says, "rapist", this isn't what they mean. You're trying to change the definition of a rapist to suit this weird thing you've concocted and in the process you're defying common sense.

The problem, which I explained earlier in this thread, is that men and women are trying to use big people terms, like a child playing with Barbie and thinking she's a real princess - men and women constantly refer to their realationships as consensual when they can be proven as fact that they are nothing even close to consensual ... the illusion is made that much more convincing that they have adult bodies.

They have no clue what real consent is, they just pretend to be grown ups

[Artimas]

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

Life has no other purpose.

If this never happens or is impossible, then life can be objectively concluded to be meaningless.

Lol the purpose of life is not to eradicate consent which is a very human concept in society. The purpose is to experience, which one can experience aspects of life regardless of other humans. The idea of Consent, no, due to its very nature of needing a human to give or not give in the first place.

The meaning of life would make no logical sense to revolve around humanity, that's naive.

Your personal experience can be made into what you want your life to be. The best reason for it being experience as the meaning to life is that every individual or living thing gets to make a conscious choice to the best of their ability on what they want their own life to be.

So you get to choose, but your idea of eradicating consent is not my own personal meaning. I assume you mean it in a sexual context and I don't care if a woman rejects me because life isn't based on sex, instinct and continuing the species is, but we have a lot of time to worry about breeding. If life were about breeding we would be identical to cells, pass away after breeding. I imagine.

[Ecmandu]

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

Life has no other purpose.

If this never happens or is impossible, then life can be objectively concluded to be meaningless.

Lol the purpose of life is not to eradicate consent which is a very human concept in society. The purpose is to experience, which one can experience aspects of life regardless of other humans. The idea of Consent, no, due to its very nature of needing a human to give or not give in the first place.

The meaning of life would make no logical sense to revolve around humanity, that's naive.

Your personal experience can be made into what you want your life to be. The best reason for it being experience as the meaning to life is that every individual or living thing gets to make a conscious choice to the best of their ability on what they want their own life to be.

So you get to choose, but your idea of eradicating consent is not my own personal meaning. I assume you mean it in a sexual context and I don't care if a woman rejects me because life isn't based on sex, instinct and continuing the species is, but we have a lot of time to worry about breeding. If lifoe were about breeding we would be identical to cells, pass away after breeding. I imagine.

Tell the universe and yourself "I want my consent violated against my consent forever and ever"

Get back to me on that one.

Personally, since you laughed at me about it, I think you should experience a drop of the hell life can do you to, just to wipe that smirk off your face forever

[Meno_]

This has been rehashed over and over since the 18th century where against Hobbs, Rousseau argued for the Noble Savage, who instinctively would not violate anyone's consent.

Hobbes turned out right, but life is not about consent violation but about the will to power. The individual will to become a person.

Civilisation itself is at stake, and whether it is mass Democracy or techno Oligarchy, the traps are set, and the problem is, how to avoid them.

That democracy can not rule for itself speaks for it's self.

[Artimas]

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

Life has no other purpose.

If this never happens or is impossible, then life can be objectively concluded to be meaningless.

Lol the purpose of life is not to eradicate consent which is a very human concept in society. The purpose is to experience, which one can experience aspects of life regardless of other humans. The idea of Consent, no, due to its very nature of needing a human to give or not give in the first place.

The meaning of life would make no logical sense to revolve around humanity, that's naive.

Your personal experience can be made into what you want your life to be. The best reason for it being experience as the meaning to life is that every individual or living thing gets to make a conscious choice to the best of their ability on what they want their own life to be.

So you get to choose, but your idea of eradicating consent is not my own personal meaning. I assume you mean it in a sexual context and I don't care if a woman rejects me because life isn't based on sex, instinct and continuing the species is, but we have a lot of time to worry about breeding. If lifoe were about breeding we would be identical to cells, pass away after breeding. I imagine.

Tell the universe and yourself "I want my consent violated against my consent forever and ever"

Get back to me on that one.

Personally, since you laughed at me about it, I think you should experience a drop of the hell life can do you to, just to wipe that smirk off your face forever

Hell doesn't exist and if it does its from my own creating it and projecting it from my own mind your hell would never match mine, sorry to burst your bubble.

I don't worry about consent because nature is trial and error, the only consent one has to deal with is through humans, which life does not revolve around us.

Consent violated about what? Because if you violate my personal consent I'll violate your face with my fist or take it to authorities. People shouldn't violate others consent and I'm not saying it shouldn't be focused on but it is not the entire meaning of life. It could be the meaning to your life, but it isn't my meaning.

[Artimas]

This has been rehashed over and over since the 18th century where against Hobbs, Rousseau argued for the Noble Savage, who instinctively would not violate anyone's consent.

Hobbes turned out right, but life is not about consent violation but about the will to power. The individual will to become a person.

Civilisation itself is at stake, and whether it is mass Democracy or techno Oligarchy, the traps are set, and the problem is, how to avoid them.

That democracy can not rule for itself speaks for it's self.

I have to agree with you and hobbes, the will is the only thing any conscious individual truly has, most sacrifice theirs and are unknowingly enslaved by societies systems.

Although it is not a free will, it is still a will regardless, we choose to the best and extent of our abilities or awareness.

Keeping your will Imo is knowingly shaping yourself and knowing your environment has effects on your person as well.

Having no will or sacrificing it is to be shaped by your surroundings, purely.

[Ecmandu]

Artimus,

Hell is defined as the place that you don't want to be, the circumstance you don't want; otherwise the word would be meaningless.

I've been to hell. I can tell you for 100% sure that it exists.

You can take that for what you will.

[Ecmandu]

Artimus,

Hell is defined as the place that you don't want to be, the circumstance you don't want; otherwise the word would be meaningless.

I've been to hell. I can tell you for 100% sure that it exists.

You can take that for what you will.

I'll tell you a secret about hell. Not even a hair on ones body needs to be touched to be in incomprehensible hell.

I'll tell you something about will to power:

Nobody wants it to violate their consent.

[Artimas]

Artimus,

Hell is defined as the place that you don't want to be, the circumstance you don't want; otherwise the word would be meaningless.

I've been to hell. I can tell you for 100% sure that it exists.

You can take that for what you will.

I'll tell you a secret about hell. Not even a hair on ones body needs to be touched to be in incomprehensible hell.

I'll tell you something about will to power:

Nobody wants it to violate their consent.

No one wants it but that isn't the meaning to life. Experience is. Have to take both good and bad.

Hell is subjective. My hell could be rainbows and ponies and yours could be fire and Devils

[Mowk]

Ecmandu, you are being pulled in too many directions.

Focus on "your" hypothesis. The purpose of all life.

I still don't think you've thought it quite through.

[Mr Reasonable]

They have no clue what real consent is, they just pretend to be grown ups

So everyone is a rapist, and anyone who doesn't agree is just a child pretending to be a grown up. And you're not redefining consent or rape, it's just that no one else has a clue what real consent is? Am I following you here?

[Ecmandu]

They have no clue what real consent is, they just pretend to be grown ups

So everyone is a rapist, and anyone who doesn't agree is just a child pretending to be a grown up. And you're not redefining consent or rape, it's just that no one else has a clue what real consent is? Am I following you here?

I do. I know exactly what sexual consent is in a sex dimorphic species. It's whatever doesn't in any way send the subliminal message that no means yes.

[Ecmandu]

Ecmandu, you are being pulled in too many directions.

Focus on "your" hypothesis. The purpose of all life.

I still don't think you've thought it quite through.

When someone keeps having their consent being violated ceaselessly for decades on end and gets glimpses of foreverness, and is also an empath, and so suffers when others consent is being violated...

It becomes self evident what supports life from misery and even suicide... it becomes self evident that this is a lack of consent violation for all beings.

It is the observation that the only respite is when life is less, not more zero sum.

You can't argue self evident facts, you can only ask them to be clarified.

People like to sound tough by saying they want their consent violated against their consent, but it's not true. People are terrified of the existential hole when the ego of their narrative is challenged, without their specific sufferings, they wouldn't be who they are, so they make excuses unending for how important suffering is for them and others

[Mowk]

it becomes self evident that this is a lack of consent violation for all beings.

Plants are a form of life. Use a plant as the example for your argument.

[Ecmandu]

it becomes self evident that this is a lack of consent violation for all beings.

Plants are a form of life. Use a plant as the example for your argument.

Like all forms of life, plants have desire/aversion.

Many plants move in semi circles with the sun as the day transpires. Plants have defense mechanisms, poisions, thorns, they heal when scraped. On some rudimentary level, they have consent.

Now, if you want to talk about the old world, plants have spirits that communicate with us. Tribes in South America still talk with the plants, and the plants tell the people which ones are edible to humans. That's their lore for how they found all the edible plants.

Many people can sense personality in plants.

This type of awareness is lost on most moderns.

It is however very obvious that plant have at least a rudimentary for of desire/aversion. Light being the most obvious. All plants grow toward sunlight when cast in the dark.

[Mowk]

You are actually attempting to claim plants have desires or aversions.

Well then I guess you can make any claim you'd like. Plants told us which ones are edible? Suppose they also told us some are really tasty cooked too, and not to eat this particular one, uncooked.

Photosynthesis, light is their energy source, it's not like a plant is exercising any choice in the matter.

If that is what you call reasoning, we are wasting each others time. Thanks for playing.

[Artimas]

You are actually attempting to claim plants have desires or aversions.

Well then I guess you can make any claim you'd like. Plants told us which ones are edible? Suppose they also told us some are really tasty cooked too, and not to eat this particular one, uncooked.

Photosynthesis, light is their energy source, it's not like a plant is exercising any choice in the matter.

If that is what you call reasoning, we are wasting each others time. Thanks for playing.

I agree with you on plants but I also have to say that plants are a lot more aware than what we give them credit for. They can hear, feel, see. They just don't have the emotions and complex system as us or mammals/animals. I do not think they fit into the consent category though. If it causes pain it's in our nature as living things to not enjoy it, that has nothing to do with consent though in my opinion, more so instincts because even pain can be numbed or boiled down to a receptor/mind.

[Silhouette]

You are actually attempting to claim plants have desires or aversions.

Well then I guess you can make any claim you'd like. Plants told us which ones are edible? Suppose they also told us some are really tasty cooked too, and not to eat this particular one, uncooked.

Photosynthesis, light is their energy source, it's not like a plant is exercising any choice in the matter.

If that is what you call reasoning, we are wasting each others time. Thanks for playing.

I agree with you on plants but I also have to say that plants are a lot more aware than what we give them credit for. They can hear, feel, see. They just don't have the emotions and complex system as us or mammals/animals. I do not think they fit into the consent category though. If it causes pain it's in our nature as living things to not enjoy it, that has nothing to do with consent though in my opinion, more so instincts because even pain can be numbed or boiled down to a receptor/mind.

This is why I am not vegan or even vegetarian.

We recognise animal reactions so much more instinctively, and understand their physiology so much better because it is so much more similar to our own. Yet none of this is necessarily any indication of the ability of plants et al. to be experiencing any less intensely than animals. What if we cause organic non-animal much more "pain" in their experience of it than we do animals?

[Mr Reasonable]

They have no clue what real consent is, they just pretend to be grown ups

So everyone is a rapist, and anyone who doesn't agree is just a child pretending to be a grown up. And you're not redefining consent or rape, it's just that no one else has a clue what real consent is? Am I following you here?

I do. I know exactly what sexual consent is in a sex dimorphic species. It's whatever doesn't in any way send the subliminal message that no means yes.

You didn't actually respond to this post. You just typed out some nonsense.

[Artimas]

You are actually attempting to claim plants have desires or aversions.

Well then I guess you can make any claim you'd like. Plants told us which ones are edible? Suppose they also told us some are really tasty cooked too, and not to eat this particular one, uncooked.

Photosynthesis, light is their energy source, it's not like a plant is exercising any choice in the matter.

If that is what you call reasoning, we are wasting each others time. Thanks for playing.

I agree with you on plants but I also have to say that plants are a lot more aware than what we give them credit for. They can hear, feel, see. They just don't have the emotions and complex system as us or mammals/animals. I do not think they fit into the consent category though. If it causes pain it's in our nature as living things to not enjoy it, that has nothing to do with consent though in my opinion, more so instincts because even pain can be numbed or boiled down to a receptor/mind.

This is why I am not vegan or even vegetarian.

We recognise animal reactions so much more instinctively, and understand their physiology so much better because it is so much more similar to our own. Yet none of this is necessarily any indication of the ability of plants et al. to be experiencing any less intensely than animals. What if we cause organic non-animal much more "pain" in their experience of it than we do animals?

That is very possible because we not only harvest from plants we chop them up to grow more, we snap stems, mow grass, etc.. We don't give plants the credit they deserve to be honest. The largest organism on earth is a parasitic mushroom thriving in Oregons forest, consuming the pine trees nutrients from the root systems.

I like that idea you have though because we really are ruthless with plants and that ruthlessness is or could be based on a misconception about them not being conscious. They definitely feel pain.

[Mowk]

They definitely feel pain.

that is pretty far out there, like a flat earth out there.

How would you design an experiment to test that hypothesis? What data could we collect as evidence?

Suppose if they can talk we could always ask them. LOL. I can't even figure out what my cat is trying to say but I sure know when I've accidentally stepped on his tail. Yet he doesn't mind having his claws clipped, or his fur trimmed.

[Ecmandu]

Mr. Reasonable:

It's not nonsense and since you've read the entire thread, it accesses context.

Do you want the answer?

All the sex that human heterosexuals (including mine) has been rape. I'm not making the same mistake again, and you show that you're not ready to own your behavior and it's contribution to a consent violating reality.

[Mr Reasonable]

I'm saying that you've hijacked the definition of rape and of consent for your own silly purposes, which are to conclude that everyone's consent is always violated and that all sex is rape. It's not philosophy to make a basic syllogistic argument, especially if you just define the terms however you want, and more so in a way that flies in the face of common sense and of the actual definitions of the terms that are established. And it certainly isn't good science to use small samples of respondents in places with homogeneous political beliefs in an isolated place 30 years ago to make generalizations about all of humanity today or at any other time.

These are some of the basic flaws with your whole thesis here. You should consider addressing them instead of calling me a child and a rapist and telling me that I need to own my behavior.

You can see how doing that doesn't further the dialogue or constitute any kind of review of your work right?

[Ecmandu]

I'm saying that you've hijacked the definition of rape and of consent for your own silly purposes, which are to conclude that everyone's consent is always violated and that all sex is rape. It's not philosophy to make a basic syllogistic argument, especially if you just define the terms however you want, and more so in a way that flies in the face of common sense and of the actual definitions of the terms that are established. And it certainly isn't good science to use small samples of respondents in places with homogeneous political beliefs in an isolated place 30 years ago to make generalizations about all of humanity today or at any other time.

These are some of the basic flaws with your whole thesis here. You should consider addressing them instead of calling me a child and a rapist and telling me that I need to own my behavior.

You can see how doing that doesn't further the dialogue or constitute any kind of review of your work right?

The common definition of rape is "no means yes"

The STUDIES (plural) have all proven sex dimorphic aversion.

You and I both know these studies aren't flawed.

You're looking like a jackass here.

Expose yourself as a male in the general population and find out how fast you end up in prison.

Have a female do it and find out the non-prison preferential treatment she receives.

That's global, cross culturally ...

You're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with axioms of social science:

Evolutionary psychology
Cultural anthropology
Sex researchers

Yes, you like to rape women.

You are a coward.

All the facts prove you wrong.

You're not a man, you're a no means yes man, a coward and rapist, by the only definition of rape that exists.