From: dicksilk@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 2:29:17 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On 14/05/18 18:48, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 2:28:25 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > >> On 13/05/18 23:07, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > >>>>>    
      
   > > False:  "you exist" is at *best* undefined.  "You existed" is correct.    
   "You exist" is unproven.  You could be dead for all I know.  The moment of   
   time in which "you exist" is already gone, as the Eternal Now is not only   
   infinite but finite as well.     
   "You is finished."   
   >    
   > "the Eternal Now is not only infinite but finite as well"   
   >    
   > Do you actually ever read what you type?   
      
   Yes.  Do you?  It is *always* "now" and what was "now" is always "then," from   
   what always "will be."  So while "now" is eternally infinite, it's also the   
   *most* finite moment of all.   
      
   > > An assertion is an assertion, and exists as such until successfully   
   defeated:  my assertion remains as firm as a steel sword.   
   >    
   > Don't be ridiculous.  No assertion has any particular weight until it's    
   > proven.   
      
   Such is *your* assertion -- do you feel your own assertion is worthless   
   ("without any particular weight") *until* it's proven??  You've *just*   
   invalidated your own assertion!  By my standards, any assertion is valid   
   *until* or *unless* it's disproved (as    
   I just disproved yours, which in turn, continues to validate mine.)   
      
   > That's an assertion, so by your logic it's true.   
      
   It was, until you disproved yourself, with "No assertion has...."   
      
   Don't get me wrong -- it was wonderful watching your idea implode upon itself!   
   :)   
      
   > > I'm not going that damned far in reverse.  Moving on.   
   >    
   > Running away.   
      
   Cite your point -- I have brain damage and tire easily.  I'll process what's   
   before me, not so much what's behind me.  As I said, *I'm* not going that   
   damned far in reverse.  Feel *free* to re-state whatever the hell it was we   
   were discussing.   
       
   > > To re-state your issue (as I understand it): "OOBEs while driving is   
   unsafe"   
   > >    
   > > I've not avoided it whatsoever.  OOBEs are intrinsically safe.  Driving   
   *period* is unsafe, by comparison.  In THAT regard, doing *anything* while   
   driving (including "living") is unsafe by association, I'll concede that point   
   as logically true (safe    
   OOBEs (1) and unsafe driving (1) = 1.  1 AND 1=1.  Safe and unsafe = unsafe.    
   1 and 0 = 0.)   
       
   > Finally.  Perhaps you'd like to re-think the advice you gave earlier.   
      
   Driving may be injurious to one's health.  OOBEs have a way of protecting   
   one's health.  Perhaps it would be better if *everyone* were having OOBEs   
   while driving?  Isn't this what autonomous vehicles are offering the future?   
      
   > You have yet to prove the existence of a Higher Self.  I assert it    
   > doesn't exist, so that means it doesn't, by your logic.   
      
   My assertion is that "higher self" is a self-defining term.  Can you prove I   
   do not exist?  No -- one cannot prove a negative.  Higher self exists -- what   
   cannot be proven is that it does not exist.   
      
   > >> Thinking happy thoughts will not cure all forms of personality disorder.   
   > >      
   > > I suppose there *may* be fundamentally happy psychos in the world.  Can   
   you cite any to support your claim?     
   >    
   > Wait, is your argument that:   
   > - there are no "happy psychos" that you know of, so   
   > - there are no "psychos" thinking happy thoughts, so   
   > - they must all have been cured?   
      
   No.  Not exactly:  my question is:  can you cite any fundamentally happy   
   psychos?  One would need to provide evidence of one condition (happy,   
   self-loving psychos) in order to compare with another condition (unhappy,   
   self-hating psychos) in order to    
   conduct an experiment to disprove the notion that self-love cures mental   
   illness.  *The difficulty in finding* self-loving, happy psychos tends to   
   prove that self-love / happy thoughts dispels psychotic behavior.   
      
   > Because that really isn't a valid argument, not even a little bit.   
      
   Seems pretty valid to me.  But your assertion is yours, and mine is mine.  If   
   I were a betting man (which I'm not, by the way) I'd bet on mine.   
      
   > And, calling people with "any personality disorder" "psychos" reveals    
   > more about you than I suspect you realise.  None of it good.   
      
   the problem with libotomized libtards these days is most clearly evident in   
   their gender-based illnesses regarding gender identity.  There are two sexes:    
   male, and female (we're skipping over the statistically insignificant amount   
   of genetic    
   abnormalities.)  And yet, libtards (liberals) recognize from 3 to 32 to   
   hundreds of genders ("gender fluidity") -- If they had self-love (that which   
   loves itself thrives to procreation) they'd recognize their own gender (male   
   or female) and that would be    
   the end of it.  But NOOOooo, they have to have "gender fluidity" which is a   
   continuum of various levels of self-hatred:  that which hates itself dies   
   without procreation.   
      
   So forgive me if, for the purpose of concise / condense conversation, I refer   
   to people with varying degrees of self-hatred as "psychos."  If you prefer, we   
   can use the term "self-haters" from now on -- but "psychos" requires fewer   
   keystrokes.   
      
   > In counter argument may I suggest that if it really were that simple,    
   > the millions of people worldwide who suffer (and sometimes die) as a    
   > result of various forms of personality disorder, would not do so.   
      
   It *is* that simple -- the simple fact is people simply don't realize it,   
   ergo, we have the binary world of those who do, and those who don't.  It is   
   the sheer volume of those who don't that make the world a far grayer place   
   than it otherwise would be.   
       
   > You are trivialising their suffering with your crass stupidity.   
      
   Oh no!  Not trivializing -- identifying.  There's a difference.  Whether it's   
   a huge difference or a trivial difference is a matter of opinion.   
      
   > > If psychoses resulted in people being happy, the entire world population   
   would be psychotic by now.     
   >    
   > That's a non-sequitur.   
      
   Actually, it's quite logical.  Psychoses are *like* demons attacking happy   
   people in order to make them unhappy.  This can be seen by *comparison* -- if   
   psychoses (demons) made people happy, the world would be full of *happy*   
   people with psychoses.   
       
   >> Of course, Muslims already are psychotic, but they're *typically* full    
   >> of hatred for non-Muslims.  Genocidally so, in fact.   
   >    
   > That's appalling religious prejudice.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)