I'll say ....especially with the gall to bring it up in a thread about abortionTalk about square circles!
Abortion
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
- Status
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Talk about square circles!
Yep Signal that would even mean saying 'yes' to an abortion
If you cannot deal with life's contradictions then you should go back to the cloistered monastery. You're types usually end up there anyway
That is a strangely choosy way to "say yes to life. All of it."
Mind you, if your philosophy is to "say yes to life, all of it", then you also have to eat your own feces, for example, among all the other things.
You crazy person.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Saying yes to life 'AS IT IS' is the same as digesting feces?
You crazy too. Difference is that I can actually think through an argument before posting a reply.
Miller meant something other than your pea brain can wrap around evidently.
He was suggesting ACCEPTANCE of all the things we may find disturbing in ourselves as a way of reconciling internal conflicts. So for example, instead of denying ones sexual desires and lust we embrace them. Embracing them doesn't mean we have to physically act on those desires every time they are presented but it also doesn't mean that we have to deny them or shame ourselves or even refrain from acting upon them. Repression leads to the magnification of the impulse and desire. It drives it out of its proper place and makes it 'important', we repress what we fear not what we have mastered. So for example the anorexic feels out of control with food so they repress their hunger and desire for food but they haven't mastered or controlled food or their desire which is why they choose starvation over reasonable, responsible indulgence. Ultimately this cycle of self denial leads to hatred of their bodies, the seat of all desire.
So for example a homosexual who represses his desires because he finds them odious will reject his nature in favor of an illusion about himself (creating further conflict and neurosis). He will grow to hate his desires and externalize it by hating anyone who displays those qualities and even damn those who freely and happily engage in such behaviours. His repression becomes life killing, warped. Finally it limits his ability to experience joy and totality.
Another example is becoming completely disappointed with life and nature because it doesn't conform to our personal morality. So the person who weeps and wimpers over every destructive act will not be able to function in a natural environment rife with destruction, pain, suffering, death and disease (in short change). Instead they will go around believing that the world and nature and the universe should be 'other' than what it actually is. Since they lack the capacity for indifference (detachment), objectivity and acceptance of 'reality' they become neurotic and all of life in its natural flowing form will look and feel odious to him, in short the experience would seem like hell.
Last edited:
Saying yes to life 'AS IT IS' is the same as digesting feces?
You crazy too. Difference is that I can actually think through an argument before posting a reply.
Miller meant something other than your pea brain can wrap around evidently.
He was suggesting ACCEPTANCE of all the things we may find disturbing in ourselves as a way of reconciling internal conflicts. So for example, instead of denying ones sexual desires and lust we embrace them. Embracing them doesn't mean we have to physically act on those desires every time they are presented but it also doesn't mean that we have to deny them or shame ourselves or even refrain from acting upon them. Repression leads to the magnification of the impulse and desire. It drives it out of its proper place and makes it 'important', we repress what we fear not what we have mastered. So for example the anorexic feels out of control with food so they repress their hunger and desire for food but they haven't mastered or controlled food or their desire which is why they choose starvation over reasonable, responsible indulgence. Ultimately this cycle of self denial leads to hatred of their bodies, the seat of all desire.
So for example a homosexual who represses his desires because he finds them odious will reject his nature in favor of an illusion about himself (creating further conflict and neurosis). He will grow to hate his desires and externalize it by hating anyone who displays those qualities and even damn those who freely and happily engage in such behaviours. His repression becomes life killing, warped. Finally it limits his ability to experience joy and totality.
Another example is becoming completely disappointed with life and nature because it doesn't conform to our personal morality. So the person who weeps and wimpers over every destructive act will not be able to function in a natural environment rife with destruction, pain, suffering, death and disease (in short change). Instead they will go around believing that the world and nature and the universe should be 'other' than what it actually is. Since they lack the capacity for indifference (detachment), objectivity and acceptance of 'reality' they become neurotic and all of life in its natural flowing form will look and feel odious to him, in short the experience would seem like hell.
If you think its natural and in line with reality to kill a child in the womb (out of fear it will render you in an oppressed state) that hardly constitutes a "yes" to life.
:shrug:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Why? Is life without choices?
But just to keep you posted my response to Signal and his to mine began when I answered Clueless post concerning asceticism, not abortion. Its off topic I know but that was the way the discussion was going.
Last edited:
yes, it would, and that is the point i've been trying to make in my previous posts. there is somewhere you have to draw the line, and i want to draw the line with nature.
people want to argue that is has to do with sentience, but i would argue that we are as sentient as we need to be during every stage of our development, and sometimes we are not, due to trauma. a normal development in the womb is not trauma.
people want to argue identity, when from a scientific and genetic standpoint, our identity is defined at conception, and could never be replaced...is entirely unique and would have a unique impact on this environment we live in, and therefore is valuable.
just as valuable as a two year old child. the only difference between the two is a normal growth.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...heres a hypothetical queston about "value"... if you had to choose between the destructon of 1 of you'r embryos or you'r 2 year old child... woud it be a toss-up.???
I understan you'r ideas about the embryo an a 2 year old... an i dont have a prollem wit you not wantin women to choose aborton... but we agree that the choise shoud be up to the woman... an you'r idea that women choosin abortons causes a negetive impact on the rest of us is jus anuther beleif i ant burdoned wit.!!!
A-Man.TTT
...heres a hypothetical queston about "value"... if you had to choose between the destructon of 1 of you'r embryos or you'r 2 year old child... woud it be a toss-up.???
I understan you'r ideas about the embryo an a 2 year old... an i dont have a prollem wit you not wantin women to choose aborton... but we agree that the choise shoud be up to the woman... an you'r idea that women choosin abortons causes a negetive impact on the rest of us is jus anuther beleif i ant burdoned wit.!!!
A-Man.TTT
you are burdened just as much as she is and anyone else. that's the whole point.
Jus like you... i also ant burdoned by thangs i dont thank esist.!!!
recognition is key.
People can also see thangs that ant thar an be burdoned by it.!!!
and choose to not see things that are there in an attempt to not be burdened by it, but still are burdened by it.
it's called denial. there is no long term or global benefit of denial as far as i can tell.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
People can also see thangs that ant thar an be burdoned by it.!!!
Do you thank i woud be happier if i beleived like you do.???
People can also see thangs that ant thar an be burdoned by it.!!!
Do you thank i woud be happier if i beleived like you do.???
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Why would you ask such a question when she believes she has 'truth' on her side and you are simply one who chooses 'not to see''?
Shame on ya!
The view "say yes to life, all of it", is absurd, as it hosts mutually exclusive options. Life, after all, offers all kinds of things - from having sex to not having sex, from eating banans to eating faeces, from making an effort to choose, to trying not to choose, anything. It is impossible to actually say yes to all of life. Only a madman or a liar would be proponents of "say yes to life, all of it".
But your, and Miller's view is not actually "say yes to life, all of it"; your view is merely a very specific, very choosy way of saying yes to some things, and saying no to many others. It is therefore misleading to call it "say yes to life, all of it".
I think signal did a good job in response.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund to Lori
People can also see thangs that ant thar an be burdoned by it.!!!
Do you thank i woud be happier if i beleived like you do.??? ”
oK good pont... its illogical for me to reject the truth... but the internetan nut-houses is filled wit people wit contridictory "truths"... so im watin for somone im sure i can trust to show up at my door step... such as Jesus... Bigfoot... the Lock Ness Monster or Elvis... ect... an i will beleive anythang they say.!!!
"People who 'know the truth' about afterlife can be ther own worst enemy."!!!
Auther Un-known.!!!
People can also see thangs that ant thar an be burdoned by it.!!!
Do you thank i woud be happier if i beleived like you do.??? ”
oK good pont... its illogical for me to reject the truth... but the internet
"People who 'know the truth' about afterlife can be ther own worst enemy."!!!
Auther Un-known.!!!
Last edited:
- Status