Noble Dust

Again, no, this comes back to the very argument I'm making. Shaming someone for objectification and abuse will only perpetuate and intensify that obje...

That's no argument for the moral veracity of shame. I'll make a brief argument for the moral impotency of shame: A young, innocent boy is exposed to p...

Why would you think that? The train of thought was: SLX said we should teach the world to be sexually enlightened, you agreed, then I asked how we do ...

Again, you and no one else is actually addressing my argument about shame. Let me try again: Shame is never appropriate. Rather, shame is always the r...

If you're a moderator of the forum, and if you're going to participate in a debate about sexuality, then yes (in order of importance). That's a paltry...

I'm not being sarcastic.

So how do we teach the world that sex is a matter of mutual admirationn, play, and confident interaction? How do you teach that to the porn-addicted w...

How so? You're next sentences are Which either have nothing to do with shame, or you just haven't explained how they're related to the context of sham...

No; no one should ever be consciously shamed. Shame breeds secretivity, which breeds secret desires, which breeds sexual abuse. This is the entire cru...

No worries. I respect you, but I don't respect your argumentative approach here.

This, for me, is very sane, and I can respect it. Now, this is just more of what I mentioned above; shaming your moral opponent for your own sake. It'...

Ok, thanks, that makes sense.

True that you haven't been as involved, as I already said. But you added your own opinion ("disgusting") into the debate with a ban warning for...who ...

I'm saying "shaming someone into seeing your moral viewpoint will always fail", and is therefore pointless. You and SLX, and to a lesser extent, Baden...

The issue with arguments from the likes of yourself and folks like and is not the actual content of the argument; it's the emotional and moralistic at...

Dont you realize that is deeply in love with me? All of your huffing and puffing ultimately amounts to classic INTJ grandstanding; hollow, and made of...

The only possibility I've come up with is that it would be a totally different state of reality, existence, and experience; a state in which the quest...

Hence my inherent, self-imposed deficiency here >:O According to who/what?

And my clan...you can recognize us by how un-photogentic we are.. https://www.personalityclub.com/blog/famous-infp/

Rand, Nietzsche...all your favorites!

Lol; we always end up agreeing more than we realize, you and I. Probably mostly because I'm not as well-read and not as experienced. So I tend to phra...

I don't mind it; I liked it more some years ago in college when it seemed to be more significant. I still identify to some degree with mine; at worst,...

Two of my best friends from my home town were supposedly INTJ's; one clearly so, and the other, not so clearly. You probably have a personality, it ju...

But that's nonsensical; it doesn't apply to experience, theology, or...anything else, as far as I can see. It's purely abstract, which is to say, nons...

What else would God be? That necessary existence in which nothing was created, then, would be something completely incomprehensible to created beings ...

No, you're missing what I'm saying. A creator is not a creator unless something is created. A painter is not a painter until a painting is painted.

Sorry again, but given the use of "being" in this thread, I'm not sure what this means. I think I get the sense; would nostalgia, or the stronger feel...

Nah, speak yer mind brohanaus. Elaine's your fav character tho??

Well, I wrote that response sarcastically, but then re-read it after I posted it, and noticed that it had a sincere meaning as well. Take it as an Art...

Maybe. It just depends on how far you're willing to roll with the concepts of the entire MBTI scenario.

You are such an INFJ >:O

You're right; I routinely declare my inability, and do my best to show that I assume a whole lot of stuff. It's my duty as a philosophy forum member; ...

I just wanted to know what you meant. So you meant emotion, right? That's how I'm reading each instance of the world "feeling" in your subsequent post...

Lots of interesting pop culture info, and some info on your personal preferences. No issue there. But still no argument about the problem of the moral...

I'm not a Thomist, so...I don't know. My concept still stands against what you're saying here, as far as I can see. You asked "why not" originally her...

You're right, thank you. Edited.

Ok, I hate to play this card, but, in good faith, can you define "feeling" here? It would be helpful. First, I don't quite agree, because I don't rule...

Unnecessary identification with what? I don't understand this sentence. "Essence-being" is (are?) otherwise distinct concepts, except for how I'm usin...

Again, that just reflects his personal morals (moral failure in this instance), and I don't see the direct connection between personal morals and arti...

Why is that hard? It's not hard for me; I don't get it. That's why I'm asking.

...yes?

What is this obsession we have in our culture of judging someone's art based on whether or not they we're some ideal form of a "good person"?

Can you describe why you think that? God (Being) creates (emanates) existence (the universe). Right, that wasn't consisent; "gives birth to" is a meta...

Right. For my own conception, I would take it further and say that essence is Being itself. See how language becomes inadequate here? Now we're moving...

That actually looks extremely chillaxable, despite the video editors attempts

Nah, you blew your mind...that's the key...

I'm just sad no one noticed my brilliant Seinfeld post. :’(

No; the gap between philosophy and religion/mysticism needs to be bridged; tell the kids to keep off your lawn, and nothing will ever change.

No problem, I just assumed you meant the logical fallacy. But, what you're describing instead just sounds like a request for a definition of terms, wh...

Sure, the issue is actually that we're dealing with the most fundamental of fundamentals. But that's not begging the question; I'm not using a premise...