Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 27, 2017, 06:24:00 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

 on: Today at 02:30:41 am 
Started by 3D X 31 - Last post by Lok1999

 on: Today at 02:29:29 am 
Started by Senator Scott - Last post by Senator Scott
Nonexistence means you do not experience pleasure either, but the denial of pleasure is only bad if you exist to experience that.

Sure, and the absence of pain is only good if you exist to experience that. If you don't exist, nothing can be "good" or "bad" for you, because there is no "you" it could be good or bad for! Therefore, you can't make an argument that nonexistence is better than anything (or worse than anything). There is no grounds for comparison.

But if you don't exist, then you cannot experience pain.  Absence of pain is a given if you do not exist.  It's not supposed to be a question of comparison, of course.

The word "better" in this thread's title implies a comparison. You are claiming that the condition of non-existence is preferable to that of existence. This question only makes sense if you can compare the two conditions and decide which of the two is more appealing.

So the problem is that you can't experience non-existence and compare that to, well, existence.  But you don't need to in order to understand or comprehend the idea of non-existence.  You know that you didn't exist before you were born.  You have no memory of the time before you entered this world, and that's all that is necessary to know in order to make this type of judgment.  Here we are choosing whether a bad state of consciousness is better or worse than no consciousness at all.

As a person who's suffered their entire life with clinical depression, I can tell you that I feel like I'm in a much better place being asleep than being awake, because it is only when I am awake that I feel real pain.  When I am asleep, I have no knowledge of my surroundings, but for me it is sufficient because I do not experience pain.  (Unless I'm having a nightmare, of course, but that is not a typical occurrence.)

 on: Today at 02:24:49 am 
Started by 3D X 31 - Last post by Alex

 on: Today at 02:15:08 am 
Started by Crumpets - Last post by Cashew
All hate crimes are false flags until proven otherwise. This is always an excellent rule to follow in 2016 America.

I see you hit the liquor cabinet already.

-I don't drink. I even suspect supposed hate crimes against conservatives are hoaxes until proven otherwise.

You really think a Jew or a liberal would desecrate a Jewish cemetery just to make Donald Trump and the Republicans look bad?  Are you sick?

-Of course. Stuff just like this happens every other week, so far as I can tell.

Despite your use of loaded language, I will have to agree with him. There have been several cases that prove just the opposite of what you imply. While I believe this specific case is true, I am also sick of being humiliated by liars like Dorian Johnson.

 on: Today at 02:14:42 am 
Started by MT Treasurer - Last post by MT Treasurer
I feel like people are seriously overestimating how Republican Montana is.

No. I know quite well, that Montana elects Democratic governor and one Democratic Senator, and so on. But it's not an Montana of mid-late-70th, when i began to study American politics.  THAT Montana elected predominantely Democrats, present day - not

That's definitely true and the state isn't solidly Democratic anymore, but it's also not solidly Republican and still perfectly fine with electing a Democrat. Republicans did well in 2014 and 2016, but those were GOP wave years (and Clinton was a comically bad fit for the state). Honestly, it's quite similar to pre-2014's Maine in the sense that it's a state that is much less solid for one party than might appear at first glance. It's like a mix of North Dakota, Vermont, Colorado and Wyoming.

I think 2018 and 2020 will be quite telling. If Tester goes down and Daines gets reelected, it will be the first time since 1911 that he state has 2 Republican Senators. If they can then win the gubernatorial race in 2020 in addition that, it'll be safe to call MT a Republican state. But before that? No.

 on: Today at 02:10:16 am 
Started by Crumpets - Last post by Devout Centrist
Much angrier; ready to defend myself in the very slim possibility things go to sh*t.

 on: Today at 02:09:55 am 
Started by JAIL FOR FLYNN - Last post by Chickenhawk
When it signals further cooperation between disparate parties? Why yes, yes I do.

But do you know what I like more? Continuing fights on the internet long past their expiration date.

Also, I have no idea why you think that the "preserving ethnic heritage and cultural traditions" thing is an effective talking point.

 on: Today at 02:08:49 am 
Started by Mr. Morden - Last post by Eharding
jfern is on the same side as Eharding. Very progressive.

-I have long had respect for genuine progressives. I have long had contempt for those progressives and conservatives who sell out at first opportunity.

 on: Today at 02:04:08 am 
Started by Blue3 - Last post by Lok1999
Australia get's a record amount of nominations, but still gets mostly shafted... Bastards...

 on: Today at 02:01:53 am 
Started by Non Swing Voter - Last post by RaphaelDLG
Both get slightly more protectionist.  Republicans move to the left on LGBT issues.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines