Blackhawk

I see. Thanks. Maybe that is the case, I'm open for that possibility.

Try to explain? Not just "you have to experience it yourself"..

I think all other spiritual teachers would disagree about that. (I disagree too.) For example impermanence is a cornerstone of Buddhism. Imagine someone having a deformed body because of cancer or something. Must suck to be stuck with the deformed body forever.

@Topann I agree that life sucks. But the biggest reason to not committ suicide is that it would hurt other people. Imagine doing a math calculation about which choice would create the least amount of total suffering in the world, (you+other people), and then choose the option which results in least amount of total suffering for everyone. But you are of course free to do whatever you want. Since you didn't ask to be born you don't owe anyone anything. Before parents create a new conscious being they should be aware of the risk that their child might for example committ suicide.

@Mannyb Do you ever take painkillers? What painkillers? Or some other medicine?

@trenton Other examples are cleaners, construction workers, berry pickers.

@trenton Yeah, so yes buying and selling sex should be legal. I think the law is there only because many people look down on people who buy and sell sex. They think it's disgusting. And I don't believe in the human trafficking thing. Trafficking exists in many many jobs, so why aren't those jobs illegal then? And why aren't porn illegal then? I don't think human trafficking would increase if buying/selling sex would be legal.

Either make it legal, or make all porn illegal too, because otherwise it's inconsistent. It makes no sense that having sex for money is legal as long as there's a camera recording it (porn).

People are so paranoid. Who cares. Just take the vaccine and stop caring and thinking about it. There's so much bigger things to worry about than potential microscopic risks with a vaccine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism "Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is the ethical view that negatively values coming into existence and procreation, and judges procreation as morally wrong. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally wrong (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally wrong). In scholarly and in literary writings, various ethical foundations have been presented for antinatalism. Some of the earliest surviving formulations of the idea that it would be better not to have been born come from ancient Greece." https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5670/anti-natalism-is-global-and-growing "The decision to not have kids on ethical grounds is no longer a fringe, Western trend. "Life is full of suffering” is a sentiment that resonates with many. The doctrines of most of the major religions of the world concede or assert it. But if life is full of suffering, and suffering is avoidable, a simple syllogistic conclusion that follows is “life is avoidable”. Obviously, this stand has few takers. But that is changing, all over the world. The idea is often seen as a trait of highly-developed societies who have achieved relative stability and prosperity in terms of living standards, and can focus on finer ethical and lifestyle issues and concerns. Google Trends Analytics indicates that “antinatalism” as a search term has steadily grown in search volume in this decade." For example Arthur Schopenhauer was a antinatalist. This guy sued his parents for giving birth to him without his consent: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change Another thing is that without humans also the environment would be saved. I think Buddhism is a form of antinatalism, since it recognizes that life is suffering and it advocates celibacy and it's about stopping the cycle of rebirth (Samsara) https://www.quora.com/Does-Buddhism-have-antinatalism-ideas David Benatar has written a book about this subject, titled "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence". https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence-ebook/dp/B000TODSCY/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 I found this somewhere on the internet: "If a being exists, suffering is bad and pleasure is good. However, if a being does not exist, missing out on pleasure isn't bad, however missing out on suffering is good. In other words, life is suffering. Suffering is bad. Therefore, it's better to not be born, so that we never experience suffering." A more extreme version of antinatalism is efilism. Which says that all sentient life should be exterminated in a humane and painless way. This person has a idea with self-replicating nanobots which could euthanize all life on earth, and they would also make sure that life can't re-emerge: https://www.theantinatalist.com/frontpage/on-efilism-1 I know everyone in this forum will be against antinatalism, because you are invested survival, so you will immediately violently attack this. I will try to not argue for antinatalism, at least not without getting a permission from Leo first, because I would probably get banned if I would argue for antinatalism. I just wanted to bring up this topic and ask you all: what is your thoughts about this whole antinatalism thing?

@Emerald Yes, you're sharp and beautiful like a emerald/diamond/crystal.

@TheDao Ok I'm done with this discussion. There is no point in talking with someone who denies both experience and scientific evidence.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html "New technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work."

No those aren't socially programmed. Our brains are since birth hardwired with differences.

Women are more emotional, they cry much more, they are physically less violent, they get turned on by different things than men do, they value social stuff more, etc.

I disagree. Not only their bodies are obviously different, also their minds works differently. Men and women will always be different. I don't understand why some people in this forum don't want to accept this obvious fact. I seriously do not understand it. Even a 3 year old knows there's a difference. Probably even animals notice the difference.

"I am holding you all in my heart, you who find yourselves in this same strange place as I. Now, say it with me: 'Namaste. F**k this sh*t!'" That's a good one. Actually I will use the last sentence as my signature.

So now you are taking suffering seriously? Sometimes I think some "spiritual gurus" are sitting on high horses, so they need suffering to become humble and realize how important it is to end suffering for as many beings as possible, and how cruel God is and how powerless we are...

I have never understood how it's possible that a book is able to change someone's life. I have read many books but no book has ever changed my life. Actually nothing has changed my life, not videos, not relationships.. nothing. Or hm, my job has changed my life, since it steals my spare time and it gives me money so I can buy stuff. That's the only thing I can think of.

What would the benefits be of being a organ donor? Having money inside the coffin so you can trade with the worms? Why wouldn't you want to be a organ donor? I registered myself as a organ donor early in my life. It's a no-brainer, literally.

@trenton Thanks. Yeah.

Argument #1: The fact is that since Nato is a intergovernmental organization Sweden wouldn't be forced to do anything at all. All 30 (it would be 31 with Sweden) member countries must agree on that article 5 should be activated. But sure, the pressure would be big that Sweden should say yes for activating article 5. Argument #2: Even when article 5 gets activated, it's up to the member country to decide how it will help. Argument #3: It would be selfish (morally wrong) to not help your friends who you share democratic values with. To not defend the free world/the good side. Argument #4: Since Nato is so powerful, the sheer power of it would eliminate most threats anyway. So what is the big deal even if Sweden would go into war together with Nato? The exception is nuclear war, then we would all get annihilated, but that leads to argument #5: We have already chosen side, we aren't neutral anyway. We would assist Nato and the western world even when we aren't members of Nato. In the "solidaritetsförklaringen" (declaration of solidarity) which I mentioned before Sweden has officially promised to assist Nordic countries and EU countries. Sweden is so close with Nato that in case of a war the attacker would treat us pretty much as a Nato member. But since we aren't a official member we lose out on the 3 main benefits (there's more) which only a real membership can give: defense guarantees from Nato, decision power in Nato, and a pre-planned defense planning with Nato. Sweden haven't really ever been neutral. In WW2 we managed to stay outside of the war because we helped Hitler (if you don't believe me: google it). That's not really neutral. And it shows that "neutrality" forces you to do ugly things. And in the cold war we weren't really neutral. Our "neutrality" was a lie because we had secret agreements with USA, we were a secret ally with USA (again, if you don't believe me: google it.) Article 5 in Nato has only been activated one time: when the 9/11 attacks happened. Sweden went into Afghanistan despite our lack of membership. About the 2% of GDP thing: It's not a requirement. So you can just ignore that 2% recommendation. Very few Nato countries spend 2% or more anyway.

If someone starts a thread here where the person says that God is evil and a murderer, then none of you would respond with stuff like "YES." And the thread would get locked and that person would probably get warning points or get banned.

So then God is evil and a murderer?