There are three problems which are the same problem spoken in 3 different ways.
1.). The negative zero sum problem: meaning for every winner there is one or more than one loser
2.). The consent violation problem; meaning: no matter what you do, you’re hurting people beyond comprehension.
3.) the pleasurable exclusive access problem; meaning: you feel joy when another is hurting
What? Is this too much truth for all of you?
I just had a woman tell me laughter heals the soul.
I’ve heard rapists laughing about raping people.
This was the same woman who told me doesn’t like to be objectified while having sex everyday while wearing shirts the show side boob to the point of revealing nipples:
I confronted her once and said it made my day to see her nipples.
Her response was that they’re just breasts.
I held back on her.
I could have said, “well if they’re just breasts, show them to me”
I can say a lot of things to a lot of people and I do.
I was talking to a man and he asked me about ornamentation.
I told him that my intelligence is ornamentation. Women choose ornamental males for sex in a mammal species.
He looked at me and said, people are trying to assess a personality and whether you deserve it.
And I said to him, why do I deserve intelligence more than others?
I answered you here & you never reply:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=198315
Maybe because I’m not a prostitute/nun that gives free/earned flashes to every personality walking down the sidewalk? Damned if I do/don’t… Don’t it is!
I’m going to answer your link very simply.
If I have sex, it’s statutory rape. Your minds are so small compared to mine.
Since you’re a god person, imagine what it means to be the one and only power and have sex and not have it be statuary rape.
What is wrong with being a loser from time to time? You can’t win all the time. Losing teaches you something and builds strength for further growth and development. And if you can’t even mentally or emotionally handle losing then you probably shouldn’t be playing that particular game (whatever it is).
Winning is only possible because we have standards that we hold ourselves and others to. A winner has achieved a standard by whatever metrics measure that standard, while others did not. And you have a problem with this? You consider achievement and success to be bad, do you. Try to imagine a world without these things, where everyone “wins” all the time and no one ever “loses”. Go ahead, really try to imagine it, I dare you.
I just picked up my cup of coffee and drank from it. Who did I hurt? Maybe I hurt your feelings by providing a counter-example to your point. Which only verifies your point for cases in which a person actually holds the belief that you do. So the easiest way to solve your particular problem here is to simply stop believing in it, at least in cases where it doesn’t even apply.
Why reify and universalize something that doesn’t need to be? There are already plenty of cases where people hurt each other, intentionally or by accident, up close or at a far distance, knowingly or unknowingly. If you want to focus on those types of cases that’s great. But if you want to take those and try to say they apply “no matter what you do” that is defeating your own point by irrationally pushing it into the nonsensical.
We feel joy when we do something of value or achieve something meaningful to us. For example, I make a good argument in a debate and I feel joy from that. I also am aware of the fact that my argumentative opponent, to the extent he is able to understand that he lost the point, feels not-joy or some kind of mental pain/sadness/embarassment/anger or whatever you want to call that feeling. Does this mean “I enjoy hurting him”? No, it means I enjoy achieving meaning and value, I feel good when I win. You are falsely equating two very different phenomena merely because they occupy the almost-same unit of time.
For example, if I beat someone in a game of chess I feel good about that but I also feel bad. I feel good because I achieved and won, I upheld a standard, I did something good. I also feel bad because I know the other person did not win and I have empathy for that, I feel bad because I beat them. These are two separate feelings with their own psychological-phenomenological structure, qualia and causality. The fact that I can experience both of them at more or less the same time doesn’t mean they are the same thing or that one causes the other. They do not cause each other at all, rather they share a common, third cause, in this case the cause is the fact that I won the game. This fact generates two different and in a sense conflicting feelings. At least for me. I understand there are other times where I do not feel bad or I feel less bad when I beat someone, and there are plenty of people who do not feel bad at all when they beat someone. But only a psychopathic person would experience pleasure BECAUSE of another person’s pain. And even that might be a warped and extreme version of the feeling of winning, who knows.
You have some good points but you always reify them beyond their actual boundaries. Trying to make philosophical mountains out of relative molehills. And not even, those hills are interesting and should be discussed. But how do discuss the merits of this particular hill in reality when the other person won’t stop raving and ranting about how it’s really a gigantic mountain with fairies and trolls and dragons all around it? Not easy. Come back to reality my friend, and let’s have some real discussions. And by reality I do not mean to exclude the speculative, metaphysical or spiritual but rather to categorize everything in its proper and actual place, including our ability to know or not know what that might be in any given case or situation/topic area.
It’s not only bad, your method of constant false hypostatic reification of what are actually interesting and important truths in their own right and context, because you are invalidating those truths themselves by distorting them so severely and causing misunderstandings but it is also and perhaps more importantly bad because you are ignoring the entire other side of these issues. You have to ignore counter-examples to your points because you are trying to force your points to be universal, which they are not. And the more positive counter-examples are often far more interesting, meaningful and philosophically significant than the negative cases you harp on over and over.
The only argument you have at this point is that statutory rape should be taken off the books …
You’re the hero of primers, groomers all over the world.
You could also argue that it’s all for the adventure, and adventure is a good thing.
Ichthus. You’re teaching me, but not in the way you think. I’m your teacher because I learn from everyone.
You’re very stubborn about your ideas of defending reality as it currently exists.
Your god so to speak.
You’re an apologist - apologetics.
“Everything is perfect the way it is”
Although I think it all balances back to good and ends well, I don’t think everything is perfect, otherwise I would have no concept of sin as privation.
Why do you think you would be a primer? I shut you down. I pulled the trigger. I’m not putting up with anybody’s horseshit. If I ever say yes again, it will be the last time I say yes. I’m like that person with one more wish out of three wishes. I’m worried that if I even make the last wish, everything will explode. I’m not wasting my last yes on just anybody. If the entire world is gonna freaking explode, it’s gonna freaking explode when we’re sober.
I hacked the wishes.
If you can tell me how to get infinite wishes without saying you wish for infinite wishes…. I’ll be impressed.
Ichthus.
You’re toxic. But I’ll keep interacting with you.
You want a little book that makes no sense to be the universe.
The arrogance of you is astounding.
You do realize hell beings are not into drama right?
I was trained in hell. If you beat me, you beat freedom… and that’s not gonna happen.
I always liked cubby holes. Sit in one for awhile:
Don’t cubbyhole me, Ec. We’re too ancient & huge for all that. You have to get up pretty late in the ‘70s if you want to fool me.
I wish for everyone to choose the infinite.
Oops.
You done did it this time, Ec.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Anybody is an idiot if they torture or torment me.
Jesus knew this.
When you protect everyone and you get killed…
It’s a shitshow for everyone on a scale they don’t understand.
The simplest way to answer this is you can’t destroy life. But you can make it miserable beyond comprehension.
Then everyone gets mad at you. You don’t want everyone mad at you.
All combined is a power greater than Jesus - and if they don’t like you - the hells are unimaginable:
We never die.
Nope. We don’t.
So, nothing then? Just more troll sperg selfcope ragepills on obvious idiocy?
I am waiting.
You, sir, are an asshat.
^ some random coward who literally hides his login status 
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> 
^proud of liquid-courageous asshat status
The amount of self-hating, anti-nature, anti-world idealism expressed in this trio of “problems” reflects the psychosis Abrahamism has exploited and manipulated over centuries of social engineering:
Can we sense the inevitability of the Marxist angle developing from Abrahamism?
If we could reduce anti-life, to a few lines expressing personal distress, then these would be perfect.
Imagine how they nullify the very essence of natural selection, and evolution, if they could ever produce some kind of utopian solution.
An atrophying resolution to necessary adversity.
In such an imaginary circumstance even beauty would lose meaning.
Why would we think at all?
When the cosmos breaks a mind it seeks salvation internally, i.e., esoterically, linguistically fabricating alternate realities which can then be projected in some non-existing plain, beyond space/time, or in the eternally imminent future.
Abrahamism - Americanism
Paradise lost to Techno-Utopian yet to be.
Is it any wonder why ILP Christians - and Abrahamics - are mysteriously attracted to this message?
The so-called “problems” are really personal problems expressing an inability to adapt.
The idea of a “winner producing multiple losers” identifies with the losers, and this is the problem.
Failure to learn and adjust, by studying the winner leads to resentment and a desire to ‘change the rules’ of nature.
The idea that all actions, viz., all judgments, all choices, have intentional and unintentional consequences, identifies on the side of the recipient of another’s judgements and choices, unable to take into account another’s selfish motives; unable to break out of the sympathetic paradigm of sheltering which posits all as belong to the same herd, the same kind…being the same.
Sameness is the motive…a desire to dismiss divergence, to negate diversity, to immerse oneself in a uniform oneness - the one-god of Abraham, and Zaroaster, and the Egyptian Aten, from where Judaism took it.
The idea of Schadenfreude corrupting an idealized, naive, infantile understating of humanity, signals a reluctance to mature; a personal desire to remain an eternal child, where everything is as it appears and everyone is as they claim to be.
The ‘real problem’, for such psyches, is existence itself.
They seek relief in fantasy.
They find relief in madness.