The right to exist

[golightly]

You seem to have some personal issues with my posts.
Maybe one of the reasons is that you fail to make the simple observation that posing a question incorporates admitting one doesn't know the answer. (hint1: the OP is a question. Hint 2: read OP and my follow up posts.)

salaam.

My issue with your posts is that you tell people what they are saying rather than allowing them to say what they mean themselves. Case in point:

Doesn't answer the quesiton why you think light has to be valued over darkness. (If darkness is present, light is absent).

salaam.

I've read your posts and to be quite honest they strike me as rather naive, which is fine in itself because we are all naive when tackling new topics, but when its combined with arrogance it is rather charmless. I accept that you may be very intelligent but I've seen little evidence of it in your posts.

If you want to have a useful debate rather than your adolescent ramblings try having a look at Quantum Theory and the Many worlds Theory. Shrodingers Cat is a good start.

 

[Gmart]

Am I to understand that I don't have the right to exist?

I was born on this planet the same as any other!

Shouldn't we learn to be more accepting of other people rather than turning them into robots in the name of fear???

 

[Aldebaran]

Am I to understand that I don't have the right to exist?

I was born on this planet the same as any other!

Shouldn't we learn to be more accepting of other people rather than turning them into robots in the name of fear???

I didn't say that you persoanlly or anyone else can't claim the right to exists.
I think it a problem to do so because by doing this you deny others, who don't exist because you exist where they could, the same right. It doesn't touch only human existence either.
(I don't see what "fear" has to do with anything posted in this thread.)

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

My issue with your posts is that you tell people what they are saying rather than allowing them to say what they mean themselves. Case in point:

Your "case in point" quote has absolutely nothing to see with what you say it does. So in fact you are the one telling me what I am saying.

I've read your posts and to be quite honest they strike me as rather naive, which is fine in itself because we are all naive when tackling new topics, but when its combined with arrogance it is rather charmless. I accept that you may be very intelligent but I've seen little evidence of it in your posts.

Why don't you put me on ignore if you don't want to follow my line of thinking?

If you want to have a useful debate rather than your adolescent ramblings try having a look at Quantum Theory and the Many worlds Theory. Shrodingers Cat is a good start.

So now you are telling me what I should debate and you - at that - assume I have no clue of what you talk about.
Interesting. Especially in the light of your pointless, baseless "accusations".

Thank you for your concern, but I am used to decide for myself.

salaam.

 

[Gmart]

I just was reacting to the implication that sin (for want of a better word) is inherent. We all have the right to exist and none of us asked to be born, so I'm sorry if i'm getting the wrong end of the stick.

We are all born on his planet and have a basic right to be here, that would seem self-evident. I see no reason to tell people they need to apologise for their existence and would suggest that it would be unhealthy to do so.

What others am I denying? the other sperm who didn't quite make it? Or the future generations who won't have as many resources to consume?

 

[golightly]

Your "case in point" quote has absolutely nothing to see with what you say it does. So in fact you are the one telling me what I am saying.

Or that a vacuum is the absence of cheese.

From your reply I gather you value light over darkness. Why?

salaam.

I don't know about 'value'. The enigma of the world we live in is that there is 'something', since it seems increasingly that the likelihood of their being nothing at all vastly outweighs the chance of things existing. So I suppose presence is the remarkable thing, and absence the typical state of affairs.

Doesn't answer the question why you think light has to be valued over darkness. (If darkness is present, light is absent).

salaam.

Looks to me like your telling people what they said rather than accepting what they say.

I have no desire to put you on ignore. It's not as if reading your posts are causing me any distress.

I take your point regarding you deciding how you will debate. It's fair enough that you carry on the debate as you see fit. Off you go then. I'll read with interest.

 

[Jazzz]

How to solve the problem that although we have no right to exist, no right to intrude on other's space, no right to occupy a niche by which we prevent others to exist in it, we can't prevent that we exist and must exist until we die.

But there is no problem here. We simply have the same right to exist as everyone else.

How can we have 'no right to exist' because it may infringe on someone else, who by the same proposition has no right to exist also?

Yeah, sure we'll get in each other's way occasionally, that's a matter of politics.

 

[goldenecitrone]

What 'right' to exist do you mean. There is no 'right' to exist. What a bizarre concept.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

well you could always consider the possibility of the alternate universe

there is the possiblity that this is simply branch universe in which it has come to pass you exist. in that reasoning every possible existence is given the right to exist just not all at once..

The concept of a 'right', is a human construction.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

From which follows that not only every unique existence competes with every other .

What if they complement each other, so that they aren't in fact competing, just working together as part of a unified whole?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

(By the way: you can also state that light is merely the absence of darkness.)

salaam.

Except that light has stuff in it, waves, particles, etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

From your reply I gather you value light over darkness. Why?

salaam.

Because I have eyes. With light, I can see, get around.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't place it within the limited human concepts only. The question goes far beyond that but the only way to discuss it (by humans) is by using human language with all its restrictions/limitations.

salaam.

During the age of the trilobytes and nautiloids, who decided what was 'right'?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There is still a ranking. Nothing can exist occupying the place a present existence takes at that very same moment. Only when that existing ends there is room for an other one..

How many of these 'life slots' are there?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

. If there is no cold the heat has no competition and if there is no heat the cold hasn't.

salaam.

"Heat' and 'cold' are human concepts. All there is, is the relative excitation of molecules.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think it a problem to do so because by doing this you deny others, who don't exist because you exist where they could, the same right..

Are their souls in heaven, watching and waiting for a spot to open up?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We are all born on his planet and have a basic right to be here, that would seem self-evident.:

It's not self evident to me. You just happen to be here.

 

[Aldebaran]

I just was reacting to the implication that sin (for want of a better word) is inherent.

There was no such implication at all. Why do you think that?
My approach is not "religious" (I said so in the OP) and the question is not limited to human existence.
I also said that the use of the word "right" can be replaced by whatever other word that has the same implication: An existence takes the niche of an existence that can't exist because of that.

We are all born on his planet and have a basic right to be here, that would seem self-evident. I see no reason to tell people they need to apologise for their existence and would suggest that it would be unhealthy to do so.

No, it isn't self-evident because it can't be a "right".
A mountain has no more "right" to be there than the plain or valley who's niche it takes, or than every other mountain that could be there in its place.
Existence - no matter its shape, origin or history - could be called coincidence, but that doesn't solve the problem.
(Who is telling who they need to "apologize"?)

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Looks to me like your telling people what they said rather than accepting what they say.

mmm... Your idea of discussion or debate is that whatever anyone said everyone must agree with, without any comment or question ever added to the discussion or debate?

I have no desire to put you on ignore. It's not as if reading your posts are causing me any distress.

It would be would I start expecting everyone to reason like I do, looking at things with the angle I take on them.
I do my very best to avoid that. It is not always easy... This thread can serve as an example.

I take your point regarding you deciding how you will debate. It's fair enough that you carry on the debate as you see fit. Off you go then. I'll read with interest.

You should re-read your post because that was not my point.
The point was that you were telling me "what" I "should" debate, while at the same time assuming I even had no clue about the subjects you raised.

salaam.

 

[CJohn]

We exist because we came into existence...In my view that doesn't mean we have the right to exist

Equally it doesn't mean we have the right not to exist*. Existence is meaningless, and our values, moral and ethic standards our collectively negotiated once we thrown into the world. They are something we arrive at after the fact, and in that sense it is pointless to apply these judgements to the fact of our existence. It is what we make of our lives, how we choose to live, that is of importance.

*though of course once we're here, so to speak, I think we have the right to end that existence.

 

[Aldebaran]

Equally it doesn't mean we have the right not to exist*. Existence is meaningless, and our values, moral and ethic standards our collectively negotiated once we thrown into the world. They are something we arrive at after the fact, and in that sense it is pointless to apply these judgements to the fact of our existence. It is what we make of our lives, how we choose to live, that is of importance.

*though of course once we're here, so to speak, I think we have the right to end that existence.

Judging is not involved here.
It is a simple question how to solve the problem that once an existence is a fact, it is equally a fact that no other can exist in and at its place.
Hence how could existing be a right applying to all past and future existence when at the same time that right inevitably is denied to the present non-existing.
In my view it is impossible without accepting that there is an inequity involved. But yes, that equally counts for the fact of non-existing.

salaam.

 

[Gmart]

No, it isn't self-evident because it can't be a "right".
A mountain has no more "right" to be there than the plain or valley who's niche it takes, or than every other mountain that could be there in its place.

I think we have a different view of the word 'right'. I see it as the opposite of wrong, ie no one can tell me that I am 'wrong' in my existence and therefore I have a 'right' to be, the same as any other.

The onus is thus on others to accept my behavior unless I break the law, a duty I accept.

Being free to act as I see fit is part of being in a free society, and if I needed to consider people beyond my immediate vicinity continually, this would impact too much on my life.

I believe in 'treading lightly' on the world; to expect people to stop themselves from treading at all would be impossible!

 

[golightly]

mmm... Your idea of discussion or debate is that whatever anyone said everyone must agree with, without any comment or question ever added to the discussion or debate?

No. That's not what I said. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you know what I said better than I do.

It would be would I start expecting everyone to reason like I do, looking at things with the angle I take on them.
I do my very best to avoid that. It is not always easy... This thread can serve as an example.

Even excusing the typographical errors this sentence makes no sense.

You should re-read your post because that was not my point.
The point was that you were telling me "what" I "should" debate, while at the same time assuming I even had no clue about the subjects you raised.

salaam.

I was not telling you what you should debate I was just saying that your debating style seemed to me to be like adolescent ramblings. There's a difference. As for the subjects I suggested, it's fine with me if you don't take my suggestions. It was dig at you and it clearly worked.

 

[Aldebaran]

golightly, the moment you can construct a post that makes sense, do not hesitate to try again. So far nothing what you wrote here makes sense but to you alone. Which might be enough for you though and rightly so... everyone is entitled to have a hobby.


salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think we have a different view of the word 'right'. I see it as the opposite of wrong, ie no one can tell me that I am 'wrong' in my existence and therefore I have a 'right' to be, the same as any other.

There is no "wrong" involved. Wrong implies guilt. Existence can't be guilty of its existing.
Like I said (already twice) you can replace "right" with any other word that brings across a similar intend. Probably there are better English words I could have used, but I can't think of an other one.

salaam.

 

[golightly]

golightly, the moment you can construct a post that makes sense, do not hesitate to try again. So far nothing what you wrote here makes sense but to you alone. Which might be enough for you though and rightly so... everyone is entitled to have a hobby.


salaam.

I think you post nonsense. You think I post nonsense. Oh dear. I think we'll cope.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can't escape the thought that people who spend so much time and energy on posting that I post nonsense are somewhat nonsensical.

salaam.

 

[golightly]

I can't escape the thought that people who spend so much time and energy on posting that I post nonsense are somewhat nonsensical.

salaam.

Because everything you say is so erudite, so therefore anyone who questions the logic of your statements must clearly be in error? Oh dear, you really do have an inflated view of your capabilities don't you?

 

[Aldebaran]

You now demonstrate you don't even understand the meaning of a simple sentence and therefore make up that it contains meanings and intentions that aren't remotely there.
Say again why that is my fault?

salaam.

 

[golightly]

You now demonstrate you don't even understand the meaning of a simple sentence and therefore make up that it contains meanings and intentions that aren't remotely there.
Say again why that is my fault?

salaam.

Do I? Please explain.