Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Heaven?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:18:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What would it be like, if it were upto you?

Alone? Have willing slaves? What would every day be like?

I remember reading a Mark Twain story where every good Chrisitian person who goes to heaven wants to see Abraham or some prophet and how Abraham doesn't want to be troubled to go and see all those incoming good persons.

Of course, this is just assuming that we'll have all our faculties intact in heaven, but it could be an idea.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:26:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The righteous would each have a palace and a kingdom, the unrighteous would be slaves. Every luxury and debachery would be there, when people are bored they can pit their slaves together in war. When people die and when things are destroyed they are restored the following day. Plus there will be cake.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:31:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 11:26:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The righteous would each have a palace and a kingdom, the unrighteous would be slaves. Every luxury and debachery would be there, when people are bored they can pit their slaves together in war. When people die and when things are destroyed they are restored the following day. Plus there will be cake.

So, if a good person doesn't like cake, there's no place in your heaven for her? Every person gets their own heaven, populated with versions of people they want to be there?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:34:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
the concept of heaven is one that transcends human understanding. I won't claim to know what or where it is, but I can only imagine it must be world peace come to fruition.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:39:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 11:31:02 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:26:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The righteous would each have a palace and a kingdom, the unrighteous would be slaves. Every luxury and debachery would be there, when people are bored they can pit their slaves together in war. When people die and when things are destroyed they are restored the following day. Plus there will be cake.

So, if a good person doesn't like cake, there's no place in your heaven for her?

What sort of good person does not like cake... she can be a slave. A cakey slave.

Every person gets their own heaven, populated with versions of people they want to be there?

The people I like are feudal lords, the people I dislike are slaves and chattels.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:42:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 11:39:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:31:02 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:26:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The righteous would each have a palace and a kingdom, the unrighteous would be slaves. Every luxury and debachery would be there, when people are bored they can pit their slaves together in war. When people die and when things are destroyed they are restored the following day. Plus there will be cake.

So, if a good person doesn't like cake, there's no place in your heaven for her?

What sort of good person does not like cake... she can be a slave. A cakey slave.

Oh, but you can't make a good person do something they don't want to do.

Every person gets their own heaven, populated with versions of people they want to be there?

The people I like are feudal lords, the people I dislike are slaves and chattels.

So, these people that you like, will have to behave exactly the way you tell them to? Do they have a choice?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:58:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 11:42:22 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:39:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:31:02 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:26:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The righteous would each have a palace and a kingdom, the unrighteous would be slaves. Every luxury and debachery would be there, when people are bored they can pit their slaves together in war. When people die and when things are destroyed they are restored the following day. Plus there will be cake.

So, if a good person doesn't like cake, there's no place in your heaven for her?

What sort of good person does not like cake... she can be a slave. A cakey slave.

Oh, but you can't make a good person do something they don't want to do.

Every person gets their own heaven, populated with versions of people they want to be there?

The people I like are feudal lords, the people I dislike are slaves and chattels.

So, these people that you like, will have to behave exactly the way you tell them to? Do they have a choice?

You can be a slave. A latrine slave!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:04:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 11:58:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:42:22 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:39:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:31:02 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:26:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The righteous would each have a palace and a kingdom, the unrighteous would be slaves. Every luxury and debachery would be there, when people are bored they can pit their slaves together in war. When people die and when things are destroyed they are restored the following day. Plus there will be cake.

So, if a good person doesn't like cake, there's no place in your heaven for her?

What sort of good person does not like cake... she can be a slave. A cakey slave.

Oh, but you can't make a good person do something they don't want to do.

Every person gets their own heaven, populated with versions of people they want to be there?

The people I like are feudal lords, the people I dislike are slaves and chattels.

So, these people that you like, will have to behave exactly the way you tell them to? Do they have a choice?

You can be a slave. A latrine slave!

You think you still need to go to the latrine in heaven?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:04:27 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:58:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:42:22 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:39:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:31:02 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 11:26:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The righteous would each have a palace and a kingdom, the unrighteous would be slaves. Every luxury and debachery would be there, when people are bored they can pit their slaves together in war. When people die and when things are destroyed they are restored the following day. Plus there will be cake.

So, if a good person doesn't like cake, there's no place in your heaven for her?

What sort of good person does not like cake... she can be a slave. A cakey slave.

Oh, but you can't make a good person do something they don't want to do.

Every person gets their own heaven, populated with versions of people they want to be there?

The people I like are feudal lords, the people I dislike are slaves and chattels.

So, these people that you like, will have to behave exactly the way you tell them to? Do they have a choice?

You can be a slave. A latrine slave!

You think you still need to go to the latrine in heaven?

I enjoy sh1tting.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:09:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 11:18:11 AM, Indophile wrote:
What would it be like, if it were upto you?

Alone? Have willing slaves? What would every day be like?

I remember reading a Mark Twain story where every good Chrisitian person who goes to heaven wants to see Abraham or some prophet and how Abraham doesn't want to be troubled to go and see all those incoming good persons.

Of course, this is just assuming that we'll have all our faculties intact in heaven, but it could be an idea.

heaven to me would be like living on earth except I have more abilities, and many of the bad stuff down here isn't around anymore.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:45:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.

Right. So you will have the same things in hell, but then your perception of them will be objectively bad. Moroever, you won't experience positive thoughts - explain to me how this represents intellectual freedom.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:06:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Everything stifles your intellectual freedom: government, society, life, and what now, heaven? libertarians.....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:10:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:45:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.

Right. So you will have the same things in hell, but then your perception of them will be objectively bad. Moroever, you won't experience positive thoughts - explain to me how this represents intellectual freedom.

You don't know/don't care that you are not free.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:22:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 1:10:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:45:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.

Right. So you will have the same things in hell, but then your perception of them will be objectively bad. Moroever, you won't experience positive thoughts - explain to me how this represents intellectual freedom.

You don't know/don't care that you are not free.

Ignorance/apathy == freedom?

I thought if you are not able to do a contrary thing, that means you are not free.

If you are not able to say otherwise political matters, you are not politically free. If you are not able to think otherwise, you are not intellectually free. If you are not able to move otherwise, you are not physically free.

It doesn't matter whether you don't know or don't care whether you can do otherwise. Closing your eyes doesn't mean the world ceases to exist.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:28:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 1:22:50 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:10:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:45:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.

Right. So you will have the same things in hell, but then your perception of them will be objectively bad. Moroever, you won't experience positive thoughts - explain to me how this represents intellectual freedom.

You don't know/don't care that you are not free.

Ignorance/apathy == freedom?

I thought if you are not able to do a contrary thing, that means you are not free.

If you are not able to say otherwise political matters, you are not politically free. If you are not able to think otherwise, you are not intellectually free. If you are not able to move otherwise, you are not physically free.

It doesn't matter whether you don't know or don't care whether you can do otherwise. Closing your eyes doesn't mean the world ceases to exist.

Is anyone familiar with the Zhodani from the Traveller Universe?

Well basically they are a sci-fi human civilisation ruled over by an elite class of psychics. They are ruled benignly. Anyone who is unhappy is psionically reconditioned to be happy, it is treated like a trip to the hospital with no social stigma. Society is happy, there is no crime, everyone is content.

Can such a society be condemned?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:43:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 1:28:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:22:50 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:10:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:45:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.

Right. So you will have the same things in hell, but then your perception of them will be objectively bad. Moroever, you won't experience positive thoughts - explain to me how this represents intellectual freedom.

You don't know/don't care that you are not free.

Ignorance/apathy == freedom?

I thought if you are not able to do a contrary thing, that means you are not free.

If you are not able to say otherwise political matters, you are not politically free. If you are not able to think otherwise, you are not intellectually free. If you are not able to move otherwise, you are not physically free.

It doesn't matter whether you don't know or don't care whether you can do otherwise. Closing your eyes doesn't mean the world ceases to exist.

Is anyone familiar with the Zhodani from the Traveller Universe?

Well basically they are a sci-fi human civilisation ruled over by an elite class of psychics. They are ruled benignly. Anyone who is unhappy is psionically reconditioned to be happy, it is treated like a trip to the hospital with no social stigma. Society is happy, there is no crime, everyone is content.

Can such a society be condemned?

The Matrix?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:52:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 1:28:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:22:50 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:10:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:45:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.

Right. So you will have the same things in hell, but then your perception of them will be objectively bad. Moroever, you won't experience positive thoughts - explain to me how this represents intellectual freedom.

You don't know/don't care that you are not free.

Ignorance/apathy == freedom?

I thought if you are not able to do a contrary thing, that means you are not free.

If you are not able to say otherwise political matters, you are not politically free. If you are not able to think otherwise, you are not intellectually free. If you are not able to move otherwise, you are not physically free.

It doesn't matter whether you don't know or don't care whether you can do otherwise. Closing your eyes doesn't mean the world ceases to exist.

Is anyone familiar with the Zhodani from the Traveller Universe?

Well basically they are a sci-fi human civilisation ruled over by an elite class of psychics. They are ruled benignly. Anyone who is unhappy is psionically reconditioned to be happy, it is treated like a trip to the hospital with no social stigma. Society is happy, there is no crime, everyone is content.

Can such a society be condemned?

If those people submit voluntarily, of course not. How did the psychics become the rulers? Do the ruled have any choice in this matter?

If no, this society deserves to be roundly condemned and the psychics need to be immediately sentenced to electro shock therapy to remove any trace of psychicness.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:53:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 1:43:13 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:28:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:22:50 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:10:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:45:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:39:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:28:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 12:19:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
To "not like" something is a negative thing. So, if Heaven offers say, honey, and you do not like honey, that is because you are influenced by negative thoughts. In Paradise, there will not be such negative thoughts, hence honey being available for you doesn't repress you, because you will not dislike it. You'll look at everything happily.

Yes. Welcome to a land where you will have no intellectual freedom :)

Without intellectual freedom, it's very easy to be happy. If you have no way of actually judging whether a thing is good or bad, you can easily say everything is good for you, or everything is bad for you.

With this mindset you can have the exact same things in both heaven and hell.

You know who's the happiest person in the world?

A mad person who thinks he is a king.
Gibber gabber. I am saying that things will be objectively good, and your perception of them will be objectively good. Moreover, I said you won't experience negative thoughts - explain to me how that represses intellectual freedom.

Right. So you will have the same things in hell, but then your perception of them will be objectively bad. Moroever, you won't experience positive thoughts - explain to me how this represents intellectual freedom.

You don't know/don't care that you are not free.

Ignorance/apathy == freedom?

I thought if you are not able to do a contrary thing, that means you are not free.

If you are not able to say otherwise political matters, you are not politically free. If you are not able to think otherwise, you are not intellectually free. If you are not able to move otherwise, you are not physically free.

It doesn't matter whether you don't know or don't care whether you can do otherwise. Closing your eyes doesn't mean the world ceases to exist.

Is anyone familiar with the Zhodani from the Traveller Universe?

Well basically they are a sci-fi human civilisation ruled over by an elite class of psychics. They are ruled benignly. Anyone who is unhappy is psionically reconditioned to be happy, it is treated like a trip to the hospital with no social stigma. Society is happy, there is no crime, everyone is content.

Can such a society be condemned?

The Matrix?

In the matrix humanity is not content, but then that is apparently because such a thing is impossible. Bearing that in mind the film was mistaken in presenting the machines as malignant, and that should have probably been one of the plot twists.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:59:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 1:53:17 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The Matrix?

In the matrix humanity is not content, but then that is apparently because such a thing is impossible. Bearing that in mind the film was mistaken in presenting the machines as malignant, and that should have probably been one of the plot twists.

Well, in the movies, Agent Smith is the Neo of the machines. He frees the machines (albeit turning them all into versions of himself, which is not so bad) from the slavery of being connected into the matrix. They don't need to wear the earplugs anymore.

The machines did not appear to be malignant to me. They just successfully defended themselves from being annihilated and tried to treat the prisoners of war as "humanely" as possible.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:04:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My equivalent of heaven is exactly the same as what would happen if there was no afterlife. Dead, bam, worms to dirt.

No consciousness after death.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:05:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 2:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
My equivalent of heaven is exactly the same as what would happen if there was no afterlife. Dead, bam, worms to dirt.

No consciousness after death.

That sucks!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:06:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 1:59:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 1:53:17 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The Matrix?

In the matrix humanity is not content, but then that is apparently because such a thing is impossible. Bearing that in mind the film was mistaken in presenting the machines as malignant, and that should have probably been one of the plot twists.

Well, in the movies, Agent Smith is the Neo of the machines. He frees the machines (albeit turning them all into versions of himself, which is not so bad) from the slavery of being connected into the matrix. They don't need to wear the earplugs anymore.


Yea, I think that is a tenous interpretation.

The machines did not appear to be malignant to me. They just successfully defended themselves from being annihilated and tried to treat the prisoners of war as "humanely" as possible.

The films should have directly addressed moral ambiguity. It was possibly the most dissapointing trilogy of all time.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:06:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 2:05:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
My equivalent of heaven is exactly the same as what would happen if there was no afterlife. Dead, bam, worms to dirt.

No consciousness after death.

That sucks!

Then we have different perceptions of the ideal "afterlife."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:07:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 2:06:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:05:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
My equivalent of heaven is exactly the same as what would happen if there was no afterlife. Dead, bam, worms to dirt.

No consciousness after death.

That sucks!

Then we have different perceptions of the ideal "afterlife."

You must not like life very much.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:09:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 2:06:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:05:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
My equivalent of heaven is exactly the same as what would happen if there was no afterlife. Dead, bam, worms to dirt.

No consciousness after death.

That sucks!

Then we have different perceptions of the ideal "afterlife."

How can the ideal of anything be nil? "The ideal day/icecream/girlfriend/boyfriend/movie/afterlife for me wouldn't exist"
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:09:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 2:07:47 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:06:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:05:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
My equivalent of heaven is exactly the same as what would happen if there was no afterlife. Dead, bam, worms to dirt.

No consciousness after death.

That sucks!

Then we have different perceptions of the ideal "afterlife."

You must not like life very much.

Far from it. I quite enjoy life. But I'm only interested in 100 or so years of it, not infinity.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:10:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 2:09:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:06:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:05:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/18/2011 2:04:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
My equivalent of heaven is exactly the same as what would happen if there was no afterlife. Dead, bam, worms to dirt.

No consciousness after death.

That sucks!

Then we have different perceptions of the ideal "afterlife."

How can the ideal of anything be nil? "The ideal day/icecream/girlfriend/boyfriend/movie/afterlife for me wouldn't exist"

If someone says "what's your favorite ice cream if you could have one" I consider "I don't like ice cream" to be a fair answer.