Ichthus.
I don’t care about your game.
Your game is stupid.
I’m working on structural problems for everyone in all existence simultaneously.
I’m actually doing that job.
Focus on yourself first, Ec. Stop stealing other people’s jobs.
You’re retarded. Nobody else even knows the job exists.
You know???
The pleasurable exclusive access problem sends us all to hell and we’re all violating it.
The negative zero sum problem sends us to hell and we’re all violating it.
The consent violation problem sends us all to hell and we’re all violating it.
Let’s talk about problems in general.
How can a problem send anything?
Is it a real problem? Then there’s a solution. The solution is the rule. It’s not possible to really violate what is not a real rule or really solve what is not a real problem.
But.
Assume it’s possible to willingly and knowingly violate a problem… and for that problem to willingly and knowingly send us to hell for it…
…and the fires of hell are made of the love of God…
We willingly and knowingly chose hell.
Maybe because we wanted a divine ass whoopin.
Some people are like that.
Dude named Jacob who wrestled with God & was renamed Israel. Name literally means wrestled.
That’s why you problematize the shit out of everything.
You wanna wrastle.
You’re like Lieutenant Dan on that shrimp boat in the middle of that storm in Forrest Gump.
You’re like Job calling God out.
You’re like Planned Parenthood planning for a “no babies” world.
You’re like crude, unthinking Crapo-Commies trying to cull the herd and brand the survivors.
You’re like Jonah trying to sleep this one out & caring more about a plant than humans (oh holy s***!).
You’re like …
… okay, I could go on. I’ma just stop me right here.
Does god play dirty or fair?
I’m just talking to you about your imaginary friend.
I don’t let my cat outdoors because there are coyotes raccoons skunks and people who’d steal her in my neighborhood.
My cat doesn’t know this.
I’m restricting her moments to that regard because I know better than her.
I know cats love the outdoors.
If I could make a universe where it’d be safe to let her out, I’d do it.
So imagine your hypothetical god.
Omnipotent from your perspective.
Why wouldn’t god create a dimension for me that gives me the greatest joy and satisfaction?
That disproves god. No wrestling required.
Gods name is el. Isra is the word wrestle.
You mean god can’t take all the predators away?
Are you going to correct me on a slight technical detail?
Are you going to correct God on something he does exactly the same as you?
He restricts us in this moment. When it is safe to let us out of just one single moment he lets us in on other moments. Was it horrible? But did you die?
That’s M-a-r-y-a-n-n. No e. Never was. Never will be.
Que será, será.
That’s not a response to what I wrote.
What I wrote is that I know better than my cat not to let outdoors.
If I had gods power I’d give her the joy of being outdoors without danger. I’d give mice and birds to outdoors without danger from her.
I ask the same of hypothetical god as I’d do for my cat, birds and mice if I had that power.
Your god is either evil or impotent. Duh.
If you want to question me on this you’re going to lose.
God could marionette philosophic zombie universes
God could make hyperdimensional mirror realities
God could make hyperplayacting realities.
Instead, we’re in a hell realm and it always goes down from here.
That’s not a response to what I wrote.
Fine.
What I wrote is that I know better than my cat not to let outdoors.
Cats are capable of taking care of themselves. It’s only other humans that try to poison them that make outdoors dangerous. This is a human problem, not a God problem.
If I had gods power I’d give her the joy of being outdoors without danger. I’d give mice and birds to outdoors without danger from her.
So what would everybody do? Be safe all the time? Sounds tantalizing. You want it to be like Demolition Man, don’t you? I want it to be like A Beautiful Mind.
I ask the same of hypothetical god as I’d do for my cat, birds and mice if I had that power.
Ecmandu. Jason. You are the cat in this scenario. You aren’t omniscient. We’ve gone around & around about this. We can’t develop/grow if we have no challenges.
Your god is either evil or impotent. Duh.
We are free to fix the messes we make—or messes we own as stewards (servant leaders). Cats need more care/maintenance than humans. If God cleaned up all our messes like we’re unfree cats, we’d hiss about that. And we will.
If you want to question me on this you’re going to lose.
Lose what? Wait, no, forget I questioned.
God could marionette philosophic zombie universes
God could make hyperdimensional mirror realities
God could make hyperplayacting realities.
How do you know that isn’t the case? If it was, you’d call it a hell realm even harder—don’t even say you wouldn’t!!!
Instead, we’re in a hell realm and it always goes down from here.
Why never up?
Ever reach the bottom?
How far is down from up?
What do you call the exact middle?
This is the greatest of all possible worlds right now. For now. It can get worse or better, but the eternal is always perfect/whole, so—gently introduce some self=other rainbows where they’re most needed until they’re everywhere. Even if you’re the only one who can’t (or can) see them. You know the blindness is temporary.
There are no rainbows in hell.
Hell is a you-blocking-out-heaven thing.
Heaven is dangerous to the ego.
Things you thought you couldn’t live without won’t make it in heaven if they violate self=other.
That’s why it feels like hell … even on earth … until you let those things go.
We all like the sound of the rainbow rule. Applying it…separates the developed from the undeveloped.
There’s always room to develop.
Once you’re developed enough, you will not need to be sheltered like a scaredy cat. You will see the joy in the midst of the challenge. Sometimes the challenge is a deficit of challenges.
Or did you think I forgot, you ninny?
Your mind doesn’t work right.
I’ve even been told by many apologists for existence that when I prove it’s not perfect, they’ll say that it’s the imperfections that make it perfect.
I’ve actually been to the deepest pits of hell. You don’t talk like those people.
I was just given the cliff notes on hell, and even those are worse than you can imagine.
_
No predatory animals —>a world overrun with critters —>no vegetation on the planet, left… only their faeces everywhere, remaining.
What a great visionary, the guy is [not].
I’ve learned much from those who sought or were sought by God, and one of the things I’ve learned is that what we know now is merely a tee up for what’s next when we’re ready, so don’t get too comfortable with your presuppositions 
You think too small. Can you even begin to imagine a world that works without predation.
You’re still in the box.
I’d be down with having no digestive system, feelings of hunger, taste for tender-but-charred meat, so forth.
But.
Until then.
Kill quick. Avoid food that triggers “cute”. Appreciate the life given.
I’d do the same if others were hungry & I didn’t want to endure a slow probable death. Especially in a blizzard.
Pretty sure.
There are worse things. Being willing to give your life because it was done for you puts things in perspective.
_
“You think too small. Can you even begin to imagine a world that works without predation.”
No discussion, just his superiority complex… which seemed to arise around the same time/year that he found out he was part ashkenazi.
Coincidence? 
…the guy doesn’t need to know ‘what’ or ‘how’ I think… coz he lost that right, when he lost his mind circa 2016, and became verbally-abusive and volatile towards I and everyone else on this forum.
And he has the cheek to talk ill about and belittle others’ thinking, when his own thinking only revolves around his superiority complex, hypersexuality, and undermining of others through his made-up mental constructs.
I’m done here/with he… mic drop!
Mag.
If you really want to know…
You’re a toxic narcissist deva .
You can’t stand that I’m protecting your spirit when you can’t.
^
Mag. The problem here is that I’m so hypersensitive that I detected all of these 11 problems myself.
Nobody had taught them before me.
You’re comparing your accomplishments to cosmic accomplishments. Your goals to cosmic goals. Of course a person like you would project upon me.
Not only did I find three separate solutions to these problems.
In the interim, I structurally changed all existence with my four defenses.
I was dragged through the deepest pits of hell for no reason while simultaneously working all of this out.
To be perfectly honest mag. You’re a really big cunt to me and not that sensitive or intelligent.
You’re going to have to swallow your pride in cosmic courts someday.
My four protections are this…
In court.
1.) emotionally and/or mentally defective
2.) behavioral tic disorders
3.) involuntary bouts of joy and laughter
4.) blasphemy is not something you do, it is everything.
_
Aggressor, playing victim [again] never owning his past actions, but only ever referring his blame onto others. =D> #twisted #insensitive #unintelligent
[size=85][the evidence is in his past posts, and yet he rather verbally-abuse others than verify the timeline of events I’ve mentioned… such class… such skill… such, mesmerising, intellect… not][/size]
Greetings to the forum and Lorikeet. I’m Tim and I find the topic at hand intriguing on several levels. Please allow me to interject my humble opinion.
First off Lorikeet your statement invites all of us into a labyrinthine exploration of ideas, a journey in my opinion that traverses the landscapes of ontology, epistemology, ethics, and even humor. It confronts us with a tapestry that defies easy categorization, woven with philosophical, sociological, and linguistic threads. This labyrinth, in essence, represents the complicated dance between what is and what could be, between the inherent solemnity of the questions raised and the potential levity with which they might be engaged.
The initial invocation of “Value Ontology” sets the intellectual stage. This term merges questions about what exists (‘ontology’) with what is meaningful or valuable, thereby engaging us in a duality of inquiry. What is the nature of existence, and how do we come to understand or attribute value to that which exists? This question recalls the philosophical explorations of existentialists like Sartre and Heidegger, who grapple with the meaning and temporality of human existence. It is not simply a question of what is, but of what should be, what could be, and how we come to distinguish among these myriad possibilities.
As we traverse the landscape further, we encounter the “Van Clan,” a term that suggests a form of communal existence characterized by shared values. This invokes notions of societal constructivism, pointing toward how shared narratives shape our perception of reality. However, the accompanying phrase, “which once was and, like love, is no more,” disrupts any romanticization of this communal existence, confronting us with its transient nature. Here, existential vulnerability enters the stage: all that exists is bound by time and susceptible to dissolution.
Yet, Lorikeet’s dialogue takes a fascinating detour into the realm of language, suggesting that words can be “detached from reality” and “reattached to abstractions with no referents, or to emotions, or to sensations.” It is as if language itself becomes a shape-shifter, a chameleon that changes its hues depending on the context. This fluidity of language has been discussed extensively in the field of semiotics, especially by Ferdinand de Saussure and later by poststructuralists like Jacques Derrida. The detachment of signifiers from their signifieds allows for an almost anarchic freedom—a canvas where nihilists can paint new forms of meaning, transforming the very texture of the tapestry we are examining.
This brings us to the intriguing dimension of humor, which was discussed in the subsequent interpretation of Lorikeet’s statement. Could this profound exploration of language and meaning be, paradoxically, an elaborate jest? If humor acts as a subversion of expectation, then it serves as the jester in the royal court of intellectual discourse, pointing out the absurdities and incongruities that might otherwise go unnoticed. This is a dimension of humor explored by philosophers ranging from Plato to Kierkegaard, and most notably by Henri Bergson, who suggests that humor emerges from the collision of the mechanistic and the organic. If this text is a jest, it serves not to dilute its intellectual richness but to enrich its layers of meaning, adding texture to its tapestry.
This duality—of profundity and potential levity—raises compelling questions about the role of the audience in constructing meaning. After all, a joke is only a joke if it is received as such, and likewise, a philosophical idea gains traction only when it engages the intellectual faculties of its audience. This brings to mind the theories of reader-response critics like Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser, who argue that the meaning of a text is not a fixed entity but a fluid construct that emerges through the interaction between the text and its reader.
In the final analysis, Lorikeet’s statement represents an intricate weave of ideas that straddle multiple intellectual paradigms. It challenges us to confront our preconceived notions about existence, value, language, and even the boundaries of serious discourse. The statement serves both as a mirror and a window: a mirror reflecting the complex, often paradoxical, nature of our inquiries, and a window opening onto an expansive landscape of intellectual possibilities.
In embracing both its gravity and its potential for levity, we are invited to grapple with the epistemic complexities of interpretation. Is the meaning of a text embedded within it, or does it emerge through the dynamic interplay between the text and its reader? Can a single statement be both a profound philosophical inquiry and a whimsical jest? In the nuanced interplay between these possibilities, we find a rich soil for continued reflection, a provocation that challenges us to think deeply even as we engage with the surface play of words. Thus, whether as a profound philosophical treatise or a complex jest, Lorikeet’s statement transcends simplistic categorization, inviting us, instead, to continue our intellectual exploration within the multifaceted labyrinth it presents.
Just saying.