dimreepr

Parasites are innocent too, but you're happy to commit genocide; your moral compass needs adjusting, before you can find a route through the complexities of ethics... 😉

But, you're happy to label a villain...

Someone you don't know anything about...

Have you ever taken antibiotics?

You mean our animal slaves? Define "villains'"... Do you mean your chicken slaves? Ethic's mean's different thing's, depending on which side of the cutlery one's viewing. Isn't your life more valuable than a stranger?

Herbivore's are the worst, they do everything they can to prevent a predator from eating...

That's like suggesting a bridge doesn't cross the same river twice...

Yet this moment keeps slipping away... Sorry, I meant to include this post...

Is it though? Thanks, you inspired me to watch Monty python and the holy grail, again: Are you suggesting coconut's migrate?

LOL +1 You should read his posts, there's a third option...

You don't seem to understand what culture, means. 😉 For me, it means; a place where 'some people' grow up.

So, just another conspiracy theory... Atleast it's not off topic.

Not so much a philosophy, as a political ideology. Not that "descended from" is any more meaningful, what's your point?

It's called space-time for a reason...

The problem with "the last word" is, it's either misunderstood or replaced... You have misunderstood: As did Abrahams biographer's; "because you have obeyed me.” should read "because you have understood me.” Such a small change, that changes everything... 😉

Philosophically speaking, of course you are; in that you exist and I think you are...

But you are...

Who's existence is required? For instance, who drew the map?

A map is a physical thing; a route planned, requires your existence.

Has anyone considered an octopus, how many leg's have to be removed, before it's considered unconscious???

"Oh, it's the meek, blessed are the meek; O I am glad, they've had a hell of a time" LOL +1, I just got that... Doh... But as a reply to the topic title, Wittgenstein did explain what bad philosophy is as it relates to a solipsistic approach. We have to accept as a basic principle, that a sound created is a sound, even if one doesn't hear it... I'd go further and suggest, as a basic principle; any philosophy that does anything other than seek to benefit, the majority of, other's; isn't good philosophy.

I'll be honest, I was hoping that post would intice Eise to return to the site and explain how badly I've misinterpreted Wittgenstein...

Indeed, perhaps the life of brian can explain... It's the meek, that's the problem...

Aren't we all?

I see no way in which this could be false. Didn't Wittgenstein describe the flaw in that argument?