Esoteric Chat

you asked a question, it seemed as though you were expecting a response.
Perhaps you've just learned that anyone who looks to you for a sustained conversation is desperate.

I have spent a lot of time creating a moral framework for myself.
I studied Mormons, Quakers, Scientologists and Jehova's Witnesses by going to their places of worship for months and speaking to the people about their concept of morality. Beyond just that field work I read the quran and both the old and new testaments along with modern texts noted to have "cult followings" for their moralistic themes like The Lord of the Rings, Atlas Shrugged and others.
After a couple of years working through all of this wisdom I collected I found the most effective way of presenting a comprehensive synthesis of this diverse set of beliefs was a set of archetypal sociological beasts along with the concept of adamance.

I can fully understand that there would be skepticism to what I propose simply because no one should so easily submit to someone claiming to have solved the problem of morality more effectively than the thousand monkeys on typewriters have tried to do before. Yet, I insist that this is the case and for you to refute it you would have to read everything I've read and gone to speak with all the people I have and manage to find a different conclusion. It's logistically unreasonable to expect that of you but until then you will simply have to either dismiss me at your own peril and with no valid cause or fully submit also at your peril and again with no valid cause.

The most effective way I could communicate this is saying it is a manifestation of the beast Simia. It's as good as me telling you Bigfoot is real and it's impossible to provide any better evidence in favor of my beast/Beast while also being perfectly impossible to dispute the reality of Simia or Bigfoot.

You're frustrated and the only way to resolve it is either fully denying or fully admitting my position and there cannot ever be any valid argument for or against.

It's just objectively unfair to expect you to read all of the books in this picture, a collection I call "Prism of Death" but when answering the question of morality I have found these to be critical for even beginning to have any meaningful discussion.

When I say death it is in reference to 10+ million words of literature.
You simply aren't using the same language as me.
You haven't gone through the effort and you couldn't have known what effort was necessary to establish yourself as seriously concerned.
I don't think you need to talk to all of the various religious groups and read through all of the ancient texts.
I would say that if we're going to have a discussion on morality it would require that you have at least read through what I call "Prism of Death" at least once.
That's logistically possible but it would require an immense investment from you for something that you have no rational cause to dedicate yourself to.
So long as you're concerned with rationality it will never occur that you and I could discuss morality so long as you are unwilling to fully submit to my wisdom without question.
This might seem like an extreme expectation of you but with every robust and time tested system of morality they all require it as do I.

Moderation - go to this post

Do not double post use the Edit function.

You have been warned.

New definition then I suppose, Vogon slug.

Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post

Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post

12yearold - go to this post

Nice quote job fuck ass.

thnx <3

justin - go to this post

hey bro where's your two steel balls and jackoff machine?

They're copper balls and it's not a jackoff machine, it's a harem of pubescent girls.
I'm currently trying to sort out how I'm going to manage to fertilize them.