Pondering on some things

[wingdarkness]

^All my great posts are gone...I can only stand back and look up at this melting avalanche before me...I walk away with Haruka's legs...

[kokanaden]

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

^All my great posts are gone...I can only stand back and look up at this melting avalanche before me...I walk away with Haruka's legs...

You know, I was about to walk away from this thread, then I saw your name pop out, and I went "Hmm..."

Well don't say melting avalanche. I know your "great" posts are gone but you surely can create new ones right? Well, maybe about haruka's legs?

lol......

[bxtor]

Originally Posted by kokanaden

Think about it. The definition of "good" and "bad" and "harmful" or "beneficial" is everchanging and relative, never static and fixed. I just wanted to prove that point.

Do you understand the meaning what you just said?

You just dismissed the whole point of logic and reason, and tossed it aside like worthless garbage.
(if the equation was 2+2=4 today and 2+2=5 tomorrow, what will it be the next day? No logic....who knows?!)
Good and bad are opinions just as I stated because they aren't objectively defined. Benefital and Harmful actions are not impossible to define because they are all based on the VALUE of LIFE. The value of life does not change, because to do so would mean your life might be greater then mine, or my life be greater then yours and that is NOT fair, or honest. Both of our lives are valuable and of EQUAL VALUE, and thus I won't cause harm to you because your life has value to me and I hope you won't cause harm to me either. Thus, with life priceless and of limitless life, everyone of us have a MORAL RIGHT to protect to our own lives, and respect the lives of others. We can't do that if we compromise lives for NO REASON, which is quite shockingly TOO EASY. Its only EASY because we are in absolutely control of our mind and body and that is a huge responsibility easily ignored because we can always be LAZY (#1 reason for dishonesty). Our mind and body will not make us do anything (YES, it will give us warning signs [PAIN, SADNESS, etc] if we are causing harm), we have to choose to do something, someone will have to force us, or we can just watch the winds blow as any great dreams we had blow away and fade away along with the sands of time.

Follow the nothingness plague of Laziness, Dishonesty, and Mysticism and you find the HARM that MUST BE DISMISSED, REMOVED because it is based on NOTHING and generates NOTHING.

These three killers are all IDENTICAL and where one exists the others are there as well. They will constantly appear before you like old 'friends' and ask you to take the EASY WAY OUT in every situation.
Laziness hates to exert hard effort and work.
Dishonestly prefers to conflict with reality.
Mysticism prefers to confuse and harm anyone with force.

They are always trying to take over your mind because they are a biproduct of your BICAMERAL MIND which seeks assistance and External Authority to solve its problems.

These 'friends' prevent you from seeing the logic in my statements because if they were illogical to start with you would have rationally found errors in my statements and provided evidence that PROVED I was crazy and out of mind. Rather then exert maximum effort to find those errors, you are make excuses, like "It's my opinion. Good and Bad [worthless opinions not objectively tied to reality], benefit and harm are changing [ignoring the facts that I stated I have NEVER considered or stated those terms on the basis of 'My Opinion or ANYONE's Opinion of Good or Bad']." These are excuses Sir and will always be excuses because you did not rationally look at my statements and consider them honestly by struggling incredibly hard to find VALUE and HONESTY within them. The value exists within those statements not becuase I say so, but because historically they have stood the test of time, and the same mistakes made today have been made over and over again constantly for the last 2000 plus years. These aren't unproven theories that I take credit for because they have existed long before ANY OF US were born. They were not created out of nothing to escape reality, but developed entirely based on it.

Plato believed human life was bad or worthless;
dishonesty is justifyable to sacrifice life for HIGHER CAUSES.

Aristotle believed human life was good and valuable;
honesty was of high value and dishonesty of NO VALUE.

Society in general has DRIFTED in between these two extremes, and with every waking second of every single day, every individual either actively [To cause MAXIMUM BENEFIT] chooses to act honestly to create value, inactively [To cause SOME HARM and whatever BENEFITS that seem 'GOOD' out of 'accident' or laziness] or actively [To cause MAXIMUM HARM] to dishonestly destroy value.

A honest request to ANYONE who wants to LEARN:
Actively be HONEST and answer these questions, or
Inactively be DISHONEST and ignore these questions because you FEAR the answers.

Kokanaden, you state harming someone is unknowable, impossible to understand and ever changing.

Q1. When does dishonestly stealing from someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A1. NEVER because stealing takes value away (property) and an individual has RIGHT to THEIR property.

Q2. When does dishonestly defrauding someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A2. NEVER because committing fraud is the same as stealing only more clever because you get the vicitim to hand the value over 'volunarily' on the basis of some law, rule, game, deception, illusion.

Q3. When does dishonestly physically harming someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A3. NEVER because violently attacking someone except in the defense of you own life reduces the value of every life around you since you may 'accidently' harm someone else caught in between. These vicitims are innocent and deserve to be respected but since they are caught in the middle they are disrespected. Violent Action with the intent to cause HARM except in the defense of LIFE will ALWAYS be harmful because EVERY SINGLE LIFE has EQUAL VALUE.

None of these EVER change as they are always the same - HARMFUL.
They create no new values, so naturally they are harmful.

Kokanaden, you state benefiting someone is unknowable, impossible to understand and ever changing.

Q4. When does honestly sharing words with someone (who honestly listens to those words) change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A4. NEVER since honest confessions create values by sharing words that need to expressed to another individual who wants those words.
Unlike dishonest words that never create values for anyone, honest confessions are valuable not just the first time but the one thousandth time, EVERYTIME;
The words have meaning and purpose because they are firmly based on reality that can be confirmed with facts and evidence.

Q5. When does honestly acting to build a house for someone (who wants one and honestly offers you value in return) change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A5. NEVER because the effort to develop a plan, and build a house, takes tremendous effort to develop a mutually understand between the Owner, Architech, Contractor, Plumber, Electrician, Carpenter, Painters, etc. If one of those individuals does not do their job [laziness, dishonesty or whatever 'reason'] the house will not be completed until someone takes their place and exerts honest effort to complete it. There is always benefit when the house is completed because the owner will now have a NEW HOME, based on their vision and the hard work of everyone involved to make it a REALITY.

Q6. When does honestly making love to other individual who mutually wants your love and acts honesty to love you in return change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A6. NEVER since mutual LOVE based on values benefit profoundly by expressing that LOVE in ALL ways EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY, if not one of these is ignored the love is complete. Complete love creates ever greater pleasures and happiness for both partners continually until they are seperated by dishonesty (within themselves or others) and death.

[Would you marry someone simply based on the opinion from a friend or family member that says that you 'might' love them? or your own opinion that you 'might' love them? or their opinion they 'might' love you?
Or do you express that love together until you believe it to be FACT with evidence of serious involvement that real love exists?
Many couples in real life base love on emotions only and ignore the other important aspects of love including the constant never ending strugle to become ONE with the other individual's not only body but mind as well. Understanding the mind of your lover means you can give them on a daily basis greater and greater pleasure and happiness because you do more then say you 'CARE or LOVE THEM'. You make it evident WITH NO DOUBT IN EITHER OF YOUR MINDS every single day.]

None of these EVER change as they are always the same - BENEFIT
They create new values, so naturally they are benefital.

If I DO NOT receive any objective answers [Opinions are not acceptable, Facts with evidence will be required] to those proceeding questions, I PRESUME you agree to the objective definitions of BENEFIT and HARM.
FAILURE to respond at ALL to EVERY ONE of those questions, will be taken as SEVERE INSULT since, you ACCUSE ME of being wrong and I am providing the questions that need to be answered to PROVE IT.

[Clarste]

I'm just kind of bored, so I'll answer these (Yes, I succumb to your stated evil of laziness).

Originally Posted by bxtor

Q1. When does dishonestly stealing from someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A1. NEVER because stealing takes value away (property) and an individual has RIGHT to THEIR property.

My Answer: Life is, at it's core, the result of chemicals creating conditions in which these chemicals are more likely to exist. This obviously causes these chemicals to become more common, proportional to how efficient they are at causing this. A rather efficient self-replicating chemical randomly came into existence, and we call this DNA. This DNA causes proteins to form which create conditions extremely likely to create more DNA. Humans are a particuarly successful condition for DNA to survive and replicate (thereby creating more humans). This is simply a natural extension of the laws of physics, sufficient time and the proper materials. Part of the phenotype of human DNA is the human brain, which is capable of logic. Logic can be used to help the individual survive, and therefore pass on DNA. Since logic is simply a survival function generated by DNA, it should be used to most efficiently replicate this DNA, otherwise it is straying from its purpose. There is no right or wrong about, since it simply random anyway, but it would the most useful use. Logic has dictated exactly as you say, that the best way to survive and reproduce in the world we live in (which happens to be full of other humans with their own logic) is to behave in a way causes the most cooperation between humans, which is honesty and trust (this is proven statistically, through Prisoner's Dilemma type games). However, this is only the most statistically likely method of passing on DNA as DNA has been passed down. The current method of random mixing of genes through sexual reproduction created the most likelihood of DNA surving, because it allows for adaptation. Logic has given the human DNA-carrier another method to adapt, which is the use of tools. The best way for any individual human to preserve their DNA is to somehow steal all the resources in the world, kill everyone else, and systematically convert every particle of matter in the universe into that individual's DNA, by any means necessary. From the biological definition of "benefit" to an organism (human), this is a case where stealing is more beneficial. Obviously, this requires a higher level of technology than is currently available. This is not beneficial to everyone else (society), but it would also be the most beneficial to any individual (or gene, which may be more accurate) if they did it themselves. This also causes much more overall "benefit" to the human organism (DNA), and, since this individual in the only individual at this point, all of society as well. The "honesty" situation is merely a compromise that lowers the overall benefit by distributing it among competing genes.

Originally Posted by bxtor

Q2. When does dishonestly defrauding someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A2. NEVER because committing fraud is the same as stealing only more clever because you get the vicitim to hand the value over 'volunarily' on the basis of some law, rule, game, deception, illusion.

My Answer: As you say, defrauding is merely a method of stealing, see above.

Originally Posted by bxtor

Q3. When does dishonestly physically harming someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A3. NEVER because violently attacking someone except in the defense of you own life reduces the value of every life around you since you may 'accidently' harm someone else caught in between. These vicitims are innocent and deserve to be respected but since they are caught in the middle they are disrespected. Violent Action with the intent to cause HARM except in the defense of LIFE will ALWAYS be harmful because EVERY SINGLE LIFE has EQUAL VALUE.

None of these EVER change as they are always the same - HARMFUL.
They create no new values, so naturally they are harmful.

Kokanaden, you state benefiting someone is unknowable, impossible to understand and ever changing.

My Answer: Because every life has equal value, killing someone to create room for more of yourself (clone, or simply a vat of DNA, or whatever) has no net effect on the value. Contrarily, other lives would hinder everyone's ability to spread their DNA, because they'd naturally compete for resources, even if it is divided fairly. Additionally, communication (a necessity for multi-individual societies requires communication organs, and wastes material and time. I suppose a universe filled with various distinct genes would have equal life-value, but it would deny to purpose of genes, and therefore have less purpose-value.

Originally Posted by bxtor

Q4. When does honestly sharing words with someone (who honestly listens to those words) change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A4. NEVER since honest confessions create values by sharing words that need to expressed to another individual who wants those words.
Unlike dishonest words that never create values for anyone, honest confessions are valuable not just the first time but the one thousandth time, EVERYTIME;
The words have meaning and purpose because they are firmly based on reality that can be confirmed with facts and evidence.

My Answer: When telling the truth ("I plan on killing you for the purpose of...") would hinder one's plans, and delay the end of the compromise, as described above. This would slow down the creation of value.

Originally Posted by bxtor

Q5. When does honestly acting to build a house for someone (who wants one and honestly offers you value in return) change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A5. NEVER because the effort to develop a plan, and build a house, takes tremendous effort to develop a mutually understand between the Owner, Architech, Contractor, Plumber, Electrician, Carpenter, Painters, etc. If one of those individuals does not do their job [laziness, dishonesty or whatever 'reason'] the house will not be completed until someone takes their place and exerts honest effort to complete it. There is always benefit when the house is completed because the owner will now have a NEW HOME, based on their vision and the hard work of everyone involved to make it a REALITY.

My Answer: You could probably guess by now the various reasons that other people having houses would be bad, but it's also worth mentioning that houses are made of matter. Creating a house (or letting a house be built) would limit the proliferation of one's genes, because of the finite amount of matter in the universe.

Originally Posted by bxtor

Q6. When does honestly making love to other individual who mutually wants your love and acts honesty to love you in return change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A6. NEVER since mutual LOVE based on values benefit profoundly by expressing that LOVE in ALL ways EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY, if not one of these is ignored the love is complete. Complete love creates ever greater pleasures and happiness for both partners continually until they are seperated by dishonesty (within themselves or others) and death.

My Answer: Sexual reproduction (and the desires linked to sexual reproduction that is a gene based method to encourage this behavior), while useful for evolutionary purposes, becomes a hindrance when executing the ultimate plan. Giving into such desires contradicts the logic of elimating all other pieces of matter (including one's own body, in the end). Sadly, such desires are also part of the genes that are being replicated, but luckily logic also exists to override them. This (mutual love) is no longer a benefit when the plan as stated above is carried out.

Possible Rebuttal: This idea (which is based on your definitions of good and bad in terms of benefits as stated on page 2) relies on assuming a pseudo-mystical importance on biological imperative. Assuming there is no value to replicating genes and that conciousness (also a genetic consequence, unless you care to insert the mysticism of the soul or soul-like entity) is the value-containing part of life, which a very valid assumption, the current compromise is far better.

Counter-rebuttal: In that case, killing everyone and cloning oneself repeatedly to replace them will end up with exactly the same value as the current compromise. Some value will be lost during the process, but an equal amount of value would be created, causing no net effect. Alternatively, one could clone the same people that have been killed beforehand. There is no difference, consciousness-wise.

Final Point: Your logic, while sound, is based on assumptions about value, and therefore will never be anything more than an opinion. Similarily, mathematics is based on assumptions (called axioms) that cannot be proven. Just because it works doesn't mean it is the only truth. Logic is not fact.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating genocide in the name of genetics, I'm simply trying to show an alternate framework based on different assumptions. Sadly, I'm not as well versed in my subject matter as you are, so it's entirely possible that my main point is unsound (I don't care if it's invalid because that would require going back to assumptions). In this case, you may skip all but the the final point. Hopefully it's simple enough to stand on it's own as a sound argument.

[kokanaden]

Originally Posted by bxtor

Do you understand the meaning what you just said?

You just dismissed the whole point of logic and reason, and tossed it aside like worthless garbage.
(if the equation was 2+2=4 today and 2+2=5 tomorrow, what will it be the next day? No logic....who knows?!)
Good and bad are opinions just as I stated because they aren't objectively defined. Benefital and Harmful actions are not impossible to define because they are all based on the VALUE of LIFE. The value of life does not change, because to do so would mean your life might be greater then mine, or my life be greater then yours and that is NOT fair, or honest. Both of our lives are valuable and of EQUAL VALUE, and thus I won't cause harm to you because your life has value to me and I hope you won't cause harm to me either. Thus, with life priceless and of limitless life, everyone of us have a MORAL RIGHT to protect to our own lives, and respect the lives of others. We can't do that if we compromise lives for NO REASON, which is quite shockingly TOO EASY. Its only EASY because we are in absolutely control of our mind and body and that is a huge responsibility easily ignored because we can always be LAZY (#1 reason for dishonesty). Our mind and body will not make us do anything (YES, it will give us warning signs [PAIN, SADNESS, etc] if we are causing harm), we have to choose to do something, someone will have to force us, or we can just watch the winds blow as any great dreams we had blow away and fade away along with the sands of time.

Follow the nothingness plague of Laziness, Dishonesty, and Mysticism and you find the HARM that MUST BE DISMISSED, REMOVED because it is based on NOTHING and generates NOTHING.

These three killers are all IDENTICAL and where one exists the others are there as well. They will constantly appear before you like old 'friends' and ask you to take the EASY WAY OUT in every situation.
Laziness hates to exert hard effort and work.
Dishonestly prefers to conflict with reality.
Mysticism prefers to confuse and harm anyone with force.

They are always trying to take over your mind because they are a biproduct of your BICAMERAL MIND which seeks assistance and External Authority to solve its problems.

These 'friends' prevent you from seeing the logic in my statements because if they were illogical to start with you would have rationally found errors in my statements and provided evidence that PROVED I was crazy and out of mind. Rather then exert maximum effort to find those errors, you are make excuses, like "It's my opinion. Good and Bad [worthless opinions not objectively tied to reality], benefit and harm are changing [ignoring the facts that I stated I have NEVER considered or stated those terms on the basis of 'My Opinion or ANYONE's Opinion of Good or Bad']." These are excuses Sir and will always be excuses because you did not rationally look at my statements and consider them honestly by struggling incredibly hard to find VALUE and HONESTY within them. The value exists within those statements not becuase I say so, but because historically they have stood the test of time, and the same mistakes made today have been made over and over again constantly for the last 2000 plus years. These aren't unproven theories that I take credit for because they have existed long before ANY OF US were born. They were not created out of nothing to escape reality, but developed entirely based on it.

Plato believed human life was bad or worthless;
dishonesty is justifyable to sacrifice life for HIGHER CAUSES.

Aristotle believed human life was good and valuable;
honesty was of high value and dishonesty of NO VALUE.

Society in general has DRIFTED in between these two extremes, and with every waking second of every single day, every individual either actively [To cause MAXIMUM BENEFIT] chooses to act honestly to create value, inactively [To cause SOME HARM and whatever BENEFITS that seem 'GOOD' out of 'accident' or laziness] or actively [To cause MAXIMUM HARM] to dishonestly destroy value.

A honest request to ANYONE who wants to LEARN:
Actively be HONEST and answer these questions, or
Inactively be DISHONEST and ignore these questions because you FEAR the answers.

Kokanaden, you state harming someone is unknowable, impossible to understand and ever changing.

Q1. When does dishonestly stealing from someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A1. NEVER because stealing takes value away (property) and an individual has RIGHT to THEIR property.

Q2. When does dishonestly defrauding someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A2. NEVER because committing fraud is the same as stealing only more clever because you get the vicitim to hand the value over 'volunarily' on the basis of some law, rule, game, deception, illusion.

Q3. When does dishonestly physically harming someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A3. NEVER because violently attacking someone except in the defense of you own life reduces the value of every life around you since you may 'accidently' harm someone else caught in between. These vicitims are innocent and deserve to be respected but since they are caught in the middle they are disrespected. Violent Action with the intent to cause HARM except in the defense of LIFE will ALWAYS be harmful because EVERY SINGLE LIFE has EQUAL VALUE.

None of these EVER change as they are always the same - HARMFUL.
They create no new values, so naturally they are harmful.

Kokanaden, you state benefiting someone is unknowable, impossible to understand and ever changing.

Q4. When does honestly sharing words with someone (who honestly listens to those words) change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A4. NEVER since honest confessions create values by sharing words that need to expressed to another individual who wants those words.
Unlike dishonest words that never create values for anyone, honest confessions are valuable not just the first time but the one thousandth time, EVERYTIME;
The words have meaning and purpose because they are firmly based on reality that can be confirmed with facts and evidence.

Q5. When does honestly acting to build a house for someone (who wants one and honestly offers you value in return) change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A5. NEVER because the effort to develop a plan, and build a house, takes tremendous effort to develop a mutually understand between the Owner, Architech, Contractor, Plumber, Electrician, Carpenter, Painters, etc. If one of those individuals does not do their job [laziness, dishonesty or whatever 'reason'] the house will not be completed until someone takes their place and exerts honest effort to complete it. There is always benefit when the house is completed because the owner will now have a NEW HOME, based on their vision and the hard work of everyone involved to make it a REALITY.

Q6. When does honestly making love to other individual who mutually wants your love and acts honesty to love you in return change from a benefit to no longer a benefit?

A6. NEVER since mutual LOVE based on values benefit profoundly by expressing that LOVE in ALL ways EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY, if not one of these is ignored the love is complete. Complete love creates ever greater pleasures and happiness for both partners continually until they are seperated by dishonesty (within themselves or others) and death.

[Would you marry someone simply based on the opinion from a friend or family member that says that you 'might' love them? or your own opinion that you 'might' love them? or their opinion they 'might' love you?
Or do you express that love together until you believe it to be FACT with evidence of serious involvement that real love exists?
Many couples in real life base love on emotions only and ignore the other important aspects of love including the constant never ending strugle to become ONE with the other individual's not only body but mind as well. Understanding the mind of your lover means you can give them on a daily basis greater and greater pleasure and happiness because you do more then say you 'CARE or LOVE THEM'. You make it evident WITH NO DOUBT IN EITHER OF YOUR MINDS every single day.]

None of these EVER change as they are always the same - BENEFIT
They create new values, so naturally they are benefital.

If I DO NOT receive any objective answers [Opinions are not acceptable, Facts with evidence will be required] to those proceeding questions, I PRESUME you agree to the objective definitions of BENEFIT and HARM.
FAILURE to respond at ALL to EVERY ONE of those questions, will be taken as SEVERE INSULT since, you ACCUSE ME of being wrong and I am providing the questions that need to be answered to PROVE IT.

I really din want to reply, but your post pissed me off real bad. I see no obligation to reply, because I have said clearly I am not going to reply anymore, but insulting me like this is unacceptable.

Bxtor, do you AT ALL understand what I am driving at? What I am saying is that IN REAL LIFE (please wake up and stop looking at the world from your own tinted lenses), EVERYONE has a different opinion of what is "good" or "bad". Do you disagree with that? Everyone MAY have a common basis of what is "good" or "bad", but WHEN you go right down to the details, the MINUTE DETAILS, each and every one of US have different tolerances of what is "good" and what is "bad". A good example, pre-marital sex.

And there you are again, using the word "excuses" to brush away my opinion. I challenge you now, DISPROVE MY POINTS, MY EXAMPLES, not SHIFT PLATFORMS OF ARGUMENTS and ATTEMPT to continue deceiving others that your points are correct. Till now, you have not addressed all my points and examples, just shifted the platform of arguments and quoting sages' words blindly. Prove it to me, not just whine about it, WHY what I said ARE excuses. Anwer me on my points on World War 2, the half-filled cup, the point on the dying man seeking answers, how to choose between killing one and saving the world or not saving one at all? ANSWER ME, DON'T RUN AND CREATE NEW POINTS.

"Kokanaden, you state harming someone is unknowable, impossible to understand and ever changing.

Q1. When does dishonestly stealing from someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A1. NEVER because stealing takes value away (property) and an individual has RIGHT to THEIR property.

Q2. When does dishonestly defrauding someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A2. NEVER because committing fraud is the same as stealing only more clever because you get the vicitim to hand the value over 'volunarily' on the basis of some law, rule, game, deception, illusion.

Q3. When does dishonestly physically harming someone ever change from being harmful to not harmful?

A3. NEVER because violently attacking someone except in the defense of you own life reduces the value of every life around you since you may 'accidently' harm someone else caught in between. These vicitims are innocent and deserve to be respected but since they are caught in the middle they are disrespected. Violent Action with the intent to cause HARM except in the defense of LIFE will ALWAYS be harmful because EVERY SINGLE LIFE has EQUAL VALUE.

None of these EVER change as they are always the same - HARMFUL.
They create no new values, so naturally they are harmful."

Did I ever say this? Go read again, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I do not see any need to respond to any of your questions, since, by YOUR DEFINITION, you have INSULTED me by not replying to any of my points at all and dismissing all of them CONVENIENTLY as "EXCUSES", and just SHIFTING THE POINT OF ARGUMENT. Do you think I would have forgotten the points just because of your long and misleading reply?

Come on bxtor, I have answered your two previous posts point by point, providing loads of counterarguments, while what have you done? Nothing to counter my points, except trying to shift the argument to avoid the loopholes and inadequecies of your previous points, and NOT addressing my points at all. So do not threaten me by putting your integrity on the line, because, by challenging me to repsond everytime but not responding to my points, you have lost any shred of integrity you had in the first place. The same goes for every post by every poster that you have replied to. Its PROVE NOTHING to keep claiming that you have read every post "objectively" yet dismissing it without providing counter-arguments and putting words in others' mouths? Its lip-service, and I do not empty words. PROVE IT.

Tell me, what is your definition of love? Do you dare say your definition of love is the same as mine?

P.S. By not responding, it doesn't mean we agree with you. It just means we are not interested at all in replying to someone so deluded like you.

[Mephisto2k]

This discussion is becoming more and more heated.
but i start to believe too, that bxtor only believe in his own truth and dont consider anyones else opinion to be at least ascomprehensive.
An example for his selfcenteredness shows itself in his interpretation of the "golden rule" (in short: dont do anything to anyone, which you dont want anyone to do to yourself). He assumed that if "I" follow this rule, i have to never lie again. But that might only be true for his own position, because for example:
[ someone at school wants to lend money from me, but i dont want to borrow money to him (for what reason ever) so i tell him i dont have any money with me right now, even though i in deed have money]
Now it doesnt matter how much different possibilities i had or how lazy or immoral i am in bxtors opinion, but as long as i can accept being lied to in the same way and could comprehend the other persons behaviour and could imagine myself in his position and doing the same thing, while he tell the same lie to me; in this case "I" would lie without breaking the golden rule.

You said Takayuki would lie to himself as he feels guilty for the accident, but thats not a matter of a lie but of an opinion. If he came to his date in time, Haruka wouldnt have been involved in the accident, and therefor he is in deed partial guilty and has every right to feel so. The accident has been a multicausal appearence. Blaming it only on the driver would be like blaming (in example of the france/german war in 1870) france for being responsible for starting a war because they declaired war to germany even though germany strongly intentionally provoked france, while there still have been more factors on both sides.
What if the driver had the accident because someone put drugs into his glass and he drank it unintentionally. What if the person who inserted the drugs was forced to do so by someone else because otherwise he would have to face enormous consequences.
Would the person who forced him to insert drugs in the glass be the ultimate guilty person?
I say no because we have to take all factors into consideration and can only build opinion on who might be most guilty for what happened.
So even though Takayukis guilty feeling might be based on selfpity and depression, its still his opinion for being guilty and he has the right to feel guilty and its not a lie.

But if now someone goes to Takayuki (whos opinion is that Takayuki is in deed very guilty) and comfprts him by saying to him "comon dont be so down, its not your fault", this act would be considered as (as u allways all it) MORAL (by the majourity of society, but not by you as i assume). Telling him "it is all your fault" and blaming him by telling him the truth in this persons opinion would be considered as IMMORAL (by society and majourity).

Life sucks and reality is hard, so sometimes telling the truth is just cold and heartless. To make this world a better place its not as easy as to say be honest and tollerant, because sometimes your tollerence shows itself by lieing as my scenario above shows. Your view of good and bad, moral and immoral might be resonable but are just an opinion and not factual not the total truth as Bahamut89 also wanted to show with his post.

In additional:
You asked me about my view/definition of positive and negative.
somehow i dont get the propose of this question but ill try to respond:
Positive and Negative are words whos meaning should be clear to anyone. When we consider a situation/decision as positive or negative, we look at all the little partaspects and effects that this situation/decision/lie brings with it. By calculating the value of the sum of the positive aspects and the negative ones we come to the conclusion whether the situation/decision/lie as a whole is positive or negative, moral or immoral, selfish or selfless, would make the same decision or not, good or bad, resonable or unresonable.
Scenario:
I have to dicide to go somewhere by bus or by bike:
Bike positive: keep your body healthy. Bike is friendlier to nature.
Bike negative: bus is faster. bus is easier.
So depending on the situation you calculate what would be the "best" in your opinion and come to a decision. Depending on your decision others might blame it as selfish or with other atributes stated above.
But what makes a negative partaspect negative (or positive thing positive)? Most of our values are set by society and we would agree to call something negative or bad with 99.9% of society. However, at some things society is spitt in determining whether it is positive or negative, but we allways have to differ from a situation/appearence/decision as a whole and its little positive and negative part aspects, and maybe at those things where society is splitt its also only a matter of even further splitting this aspect into more positive and negative aspect which can be valued differently.
If you simply ask someone about why a thing/decision/or whatever is good and keep on asking why (like a kid asks his parents) you will come to the little part aspects and their positive and negative nature will become clearer and clearer.
Example:
Why did you say hello to this staranger?
Because its good to be good to other peoples.
Why is it good to be good to others?
Because they will be good to you as well.
why is it good if they are good to you?
becuase you will lead a happier and easier life.
why is it good to lead a happy and easy life?
....and at some point it will get hard to provide answers, as you came to a point where the positive aspect is so clear and resonable and seen as positive by everyone that all you know is that "its just positive". Those are the positive aspect everyone agrees on, but while acctually how positive it is and the calculation of positive and negative aspects and the chance for the positive aspects to acctually happen as planned is calculated by the individual and there for an opinion.
So to consider takayuki to lie somewhere as positive or negative is a matter of opinion and personal calculation, while the little causes partaspects and effects that decision of lieing brings with it will be consideder in the same way by everyone as long as you dig deep enough for the real effects and chances for those to happen.
well...hope that it satisfies you.

[kokanaden]

Lol, Bahamut89 thanks for providing the "biological" view of the situation, and for responding to the questions targeted at me. Very refreshing point of view, and probably true too, if my memory serves me right. What I definitely agree on though is the phrase that:

"Final Point: Your logic, while sound, is based on assumptions about value, and therefore will never be anything more than an opinion. Similarily, mathematics is based on assumptions (called axioms) that cannot be proven. Just because it works doesn't mean it is the only truth. Logic is not fact."

Something I've been struggling to crystallise into words. Thanks for providing such a nice summary.

Yeah, Mephisto2k, I agree its getting heated, partly due to me. I apologise. Guess I really couldn't stand the fact of someone demanding me to reply to him based on his arguments and examples when I had previously diligently replied and even refuted his points, yet no comment of any sort was made, and my points were just dismissed and glossed over; and even rubbished as "excuses". It's something I cannot take lying down, and am still quite angry about.

No matter, Mephisto2k you're right too, of the self-centredness portrayed. "Do not do unto other what you do not want others to do unto you" is only half the story. This follows the basic assumption that every human you interact with has the same view towards living life, cultures, values etc. that you currently hold. Which is not true, even though we all may share certain common values (most of which have been incorporated into law) such as not stealing, killing etc. For info, there still exists people who believe in anarchy (basically believing in lawlessness and totally succumbing to our "wild" nature), a view so alien that it is outlawed in almost every part of the world, yet it is undeniable that such a view exists. In this case, their definition/view towards living their lives is totally different from ours, so can that still be applied? Which proves the point that sometimes "one man's poison is another man's antidote." Therefore, what I steadfastly stand by in whatever I do is: Others first, principles second, not "following one's principles to the letter."

Glad to hear people joining the debate again. Lastly, would just like to highlight once more what is a fact and what is not:

1. Facts cannot be disputed or interpreted in any other way apart from the stipulated explanation. For example: The sun rises from the east and sets in the west. It cannot be disputed. Even then, if this world survives long enough, maybe for another 10 000 million years, that might change and what i quote may no longer be true. For now, it remains a fact. There is no other way our sun could rise from and set to, only one direction "east" and one direction "west", and no other definition of "sun", "rise", "east", "sets" and "west" that would make sense in the example used.

2. Therefore whatever that can be interpreted/read/judged/disputed is no longer a fact, but an opinion/observation based on general findings/common points/assumptions. In addition, non-facts usually have different interpretations which vary from person to person, and there usually is no right nor wrong for each different interpretation/view. The existence of law cannot be used to prove that "good" and "bad" have fixed meanings; otherwise courts would never have existed in the first place, and the need for a lawyer and judge would be deemed redundent. The law only serves as a guideline, drawing the limits crucial for any society to function, and not the "end-all" to the definition of "good" and "bad". Neither are dictionary explanation of terms a fact. One clear sign would be how all dictionaries would carry a slight phrasing/explanation of each word included within.

Hope the clarification helps. Your views may differ slightly, but I guess we could all agree on its basics? Sigh. I wonder when we'll ever go back to KGNE proper on this thread again....

[bxtor]

Originally Posted by kokanaden

As for your debate about the absoluteness of what terms as a "good decision", I would say I do not agree. If I were to die so that the whole world would continue to live on, I'd definitely do it. Not to do it would be pure selfishness and folly, after all, even if you do not die now, you'll die later because of your selfishness. What terms as a "good decision" is relative. Why? Because each and every human (homo sapien) on this earth has different ideals, cultures, upbringing, experiences etc. which would definitely tint their outlook towards what a "good decision" would be. What you stated as your definition of a "good decision" only acts as a guideline for what terms as a "good decision". Take for example, World War 2. Tell me, was the decision for the US to enter the war on the side of the allies the correct decision? Generally, it was widely regarded as a good decision, as it helped to restore democracy to the world and put a stop to all the atrocities which the Nazis had been carrying out on the Jews and other monority races then. Yet, view it again from the perspective of a pair of parents who lost all their children to the war. To them, was it a good decision? No. Please do not tell me that the US could have negotiated with the Axis powers. They did, yet the Axis powers did not relent. The US could have, like what you said, refuse to help (refusing to get killed to save the whole world) and save her citizens... but what about the rest of Europe and Asia?

THIS SPACE IS RESERVED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTIONS:

(All answers are INCOMPLETE because I desire to READ books related to these events BEFORE giving my honest answer)

I did NOT ignore your words and set of questions, you have asked...
PLEASE realize I have other responsibilties in my life and sometimes need time to review your questions, a short amount of time should be acceptable for questions. I want to give honest facts based on my understanding of the events, but because my understand is limited because I DID NOT LIVE within that reality;
I refuse to give a snap judgement, because that is not honest because EVERY SINGLE LIFE deserves respect not just my own. I fully understand that my answer always will be an OPINION in THIS CASE but a honest one that respects the value of life EVERY SINGLE LIFE.

"Was the decisions for the US to enter the war on the side of the allies the correct decision?"

PERSONAL NOTES:

'GOOD' should not be the basis of decisions... MORAL or IMMORAL (Universal constants) should be that basis since LIFE is of greater value then any CAUSE.

The cause of all wars is dishonesty, and that will never change because war is the destruction of value, which never results in benefits only irrevocable harm.

(IMCOMPLETE)
[REFLECTION on VIEW THE LIVES of the Leaders, Innocent Victims, and everyone else.]

Originally Posted by kokanaden

As for your debate about the absoluteness of what terms as a "good decision", I would say I do not agree. If I were to die so that the whole world would continue to live on, I'd definitely do it. Not to do it would be pure selfishness and folly, after all, even if you do not die now, you'll die later because of your selfishness.

If you sacrifice your life on the basis that the whole world MIGHT be saved, what happens if after you gave it up, your sacrifice WAS NEVER NECESSARY and the world would have continued on without your sacrifice ANYWAY? TOO LATE, just another meaningless death.
Don't believe that doesn't happen, people sacrifice their lives for 'things' that MIGHT HAPPEN EVERY DAY, and you just diminished your life to meaningless.

If it is SELFISH to value your life, it is plain STUPID to throw your life away for nothing and that's what nearly everyone does because they dismiss the importance of LIFE.
Most people seem to point it out like fact [which it is not] that human life can only exist 80 years.
Many years ago, people rarely lived beyond the age of EVEN 50!
Do not dismiss the very logic you seem to say does not exist because those advances would not possible without it.
Human lifespans are increasing and continually getting better and better, and life is improving even in those later ages.
With advances in REASON and LOGIC to better understand reality, it won't be uncommon for individuals to live well beyond 100 years in next few decades.

Your hypothetical example of sacrificing one man to save many rarely actually happens in REAL LIFE. Because the dishonesty that created the possibility of such a sacrifice likely STILL REMAINS after your DEATH, because unless your actually were the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE (a serial murder, dictator, politican, etc.) and the CAUSE for those deaths, the individual who is RESPONSIBLE will continue his destruction ANY WAY, and you just either prolonged or temporarily prevented his plan from being carried out. If you acted because your life was in danger, struggling MORALLY to save your own life in vain (not being selfish whatsoever demonstrated how much YOU LOVE YOUR LIFE, you didn't sacrifice it, you VALUED IT), and you prevented that individual from carrying out their IMMORAL plan, you created value because VALUED YOUR LIFE and ALL of the lives AROUND YOU.

[bxtor]

..............................

[提安得索刻提三划]

Fine. No chinese allowed? That's racism.

Actually I think kokanaden has somewhat answered all your required questions. You seriously have to improve on your comprehension skills. Stop valuing the world as if you're the absolute standard. You're no kami-sama.

And the values of the world are made up of majority of opinions. The values are ever-changing. Oh crap, I just wasted a few more minutes of my life trying to get someone to wake up from his dream world to no avail.

[Eclipze]

Originally Posted by 提安得索刻提三划

Fine. No chinese allowed? That's racism.

Its not so much a racism thing, just that majority of the forum members wont understand what you type. English, however, is the medium of communication for the forums, which is why we use it.

[kokanaden]

Originally Posted by bxtor

THIS SPACE IS RESERVED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTIONS:

(All answers are INCOMPLETE because I desire to READ books related to these events BEFORE giving my honest answer)

I did NOT ignore your words and set of questions, you have asked...
PLEASE realize I have other responsibilties in my life and sometimes need time to review your questions, a short amount of time should be acceptable for questions. I want to give honest facts based on my understanding of the events, but because my understand is limited because I DID NOT LIVE within that reality;
I refuse to give a snap judgement, because that is not honest because EVERY SINGLE LIFE deserves respect not just my own. I fully understand that my answer always will be an OPINION in THIS CASE but a honest one that respects the value of life EVERY SINGLE LIFE.

"Was the decisions for the US to enter the war on the side of the allies the correct decision?"

PERSONAL NOTES:

'GOOD' should not be the basis of decisions... MORAL or IMMORAL (Universal constants) should be that basis since LIFE is of greater value then any CAUSE.

The cause of all wars is dishonesty, and that will never change because war is the destruction of value, which never results in benefits only irrevocable harm.

(IMCOMPLETE)
[REFLECTION on VIEW THE LIVES of the Leaders, Innocent Victims, and everyone else.]



If you sacrifice your life on the basis that the whole world MIGHT be saved, what happens if after you gave it up, your sacrifice WAS NEVER NECESSARY and the world would have continued on without your sacrifice ANYWAY? TOO LATE, just another meaningless death.
Don't believe that doesn't happen, people sacrifice their lives for 'things' that MIGHT HAPPEN EVERY DAY, and you just diminished your life to meaningless.

If it is SELFISH to value your life, it is plain STUPID to throw your life away for nothing and that's what nearly everyone does because they dismiss the importance of LIFE.
Most people seem to point it out like fact [which it is not] that human life can only exist 80 years.
Many years ago, people rarely lived beyond the age of EVEN 50!
Do not dismiss the very logic you seem to say does not exist because those advances would not possible without it.
Human lifespans are increasing and continually getting better and better, and life is improving even in those later ages.
With advances in REASON and LOGIC to better understand reality, it won't be uncommon for individuals to live well beyond 100 years in next few decades.

Your hypothetical example of sacrificing one man to save many rarely actually happens in REAL LIFE. Because the dishonesty that created the possibility of such a sacrifice likely STILL REMAINS after your DEATH, because unless your actually were the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE (a serial murder, dictator, politican, etc.) and the CAUSE for those deaths, the individual who is RESPONSIBLE will continue his destruction ANY WAY, and you just either prolonged or temporarily prevented his plan from being carried out. If you acted because your life was in danger, struggling MORALLY to save your own life in vain (not being selfish whatsoever demonstrated how much YOU LOVE YOUR LIFE, you didn't sacrifice it, you VALUED IT), and you prevented that individual from carrying out their IMMORAL plan, you created value because VALUED YOUR LIFE and ALL of the lives AROUND YOU.

Of course i understand that everyone has their own responsibilities. However, what you have done thus far (and still have not realised yet), is that you choose the easy way out:dismissing all my arguments and points without any reason why. I have to repeatedly probe and probe you for an answer, and then you finally reply with one counter argument to one point; what about the others? if you need time, fine say so. Do not attempt to sound so sagely and expound your theories, dissing others' viewpoints so easily without evening having a sound knowledge of the subject at hand.

You know something about your argument about sacrifice? It hinges on the big word "IF". I say if I die i might save the world from damnation, then you say "but what if the world continues to revolve as it is even without you dying? Then wouldn't it be meaningless?" Tell me, what if you chose not to die and the world goes KABOOM? WHAT IF? Please do not use the word "if". Everyone has a choice between selfishness (called self-preservation) thoughfulness. If the scenario demanded me sacrificing myself for a chance to avert a disaster, I would gladly do so, BECAUSE NOT DOING SO MIGHT MEAN THE WORLD WOULD GO BOOM. I'd rather I die, then risk everyone else dying. Get it? What you are saying is pure selfishness, and pure self-centredness.

Think harder about World War 2: What if everyone had thought like you, thinking that "This war might actually end without me fighting.." What would have happened? Think. A life is important, therefore saving countless other LIVES is even more important. World War 2 was not a war of conquest; world war 2 was a fight for freedom, the Allied soldiers fought for thier future, for every civilian who would have suffered and died under the extremist Nazi regime. So please do not insult the nobility of those who fought in World War 2 against the Axis powers by dismissing the cause for the war as "dishonesty". (And you call this reading up?)

I never dismissed the importance of life. In fact, all of what I have said adds up to the fact that life HAS to be treasured. LIFE, referring to all living creatures in the whole world. If you choose to live but give up all other lives in this world, who is the one NOT treasuring life? Its simple logic. In addition, does it mean that an example is hypothetical means it will never happen? Think again, I was not the first to bring up this question. In any case, for your info, many allied soldiers died for a cause: to bring down the man causing all their misery; Hitler. In that case, were their lives not in vain? Think again, giving up one's life is not suicide. Suicide is pure stupidity. Think, broaden your horizons before rashly typing a reply again.

In any case, I believe everyone here so far, from DarkCntry to Mephisto2k to the Chinese guy have replied to ALL your points; so please do not attempt to make yourself "sound grand" by praising Bahamut89 alone in his response to your points; its called disrespect to the rest who have contributed in one way or another to this argument, excluding me, as I do not value your opinion of me at all.

It is quite clear that the more you argue, the more you expose your inadequecies. In any case, I am very sure I answered your post point by point this time, so no snide references will be tolerated.

Thanks Mr Chinese guy, I sympathize with you, and agree with the views you had typed in Chinese. Unfortunately, this is basically a universal thread, and English, currently till date is still considered as the "universal" language. Maybe it'll change in the future... so cheer up!

[bxtor]

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

I'm just kind of bored, so I'll answer these (Yes, I succumb to your stated evil of laziness).

Important considerations:

The word WHEN is defined as:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: 1when
Pronunciation: 'hwen, 'wen, (h)w&n
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwanne, hwenne; akin to Old High German hwanne when, Old English hwA who -- more at WHO
1 : at what time <when will you return>
2 a : at or during which time b : and then
3 : at a former and usually less prosperous time <brag fondly of having known him when -- Vance Packard>

When I used the word WHEN, I meant a SPECIFIC (ONE) ACTION, and a SPECIFIC MOMENT IN TIME...

Thus, I qualified the 'benefit' and 'harm' as existing only within that one moment in time...
Any subsequent events have no bearing on that action, and can be disregarded when calculating the value of a CURRENT action.

I apologize if my meaning of WHEN was not clear or vague because it was my intention to analyze ONLY the variables that exist, not new variables that MAY CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.
The variables you refer to depend on a conscious individual (not a animal based solely on DNA) to CHOOSE to cause mayham, harm, devestations of value, and death; immorally, dishonestly, out of laziness (because he CHOOSE to do it, not because he had too) generating LONG-TERM DEPRESSION, PAIN, GUILT, etc for everyone he affects including himself...

and THEN

EXACTLY CONTRARY TO WHAT he had just done:

He CHOOSES to cause and share value, benefits, create new values (inventions that make life better for not just himself but everyone), develop techologies that exponentially increasing the value and time life exists; morally, honestly, out of extreme disipline, thought and control generating LONG-TERM HAPPINESS, PLEASURES for everyone including himself...

The likehood of ONE individual's character to CHANGE (and changing not easy) that much is not only unlikely, it is HIGHLY DOUBTFUL because he will always be guilty for the CRIMINAL ACTS he committed and his mind constantly throw those FACTS into his face day-after-day for the rest of his life.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

My Answer: Life is, at it's core, the result of chemicals creating conditions in which these chemicals are more likely to exist. This obviously causes these chemicals to become more common, proportional to how efficient they are at causing this. A rather efficient self-replicating chemical randomly came into existence, and we call this DNA.

This is correct when referring to non-consious life, or animals who act entirely based on their nature brains. DNA is not random or without reason or purpose just the understanding of that 'randomness' has not been objectively defined and to this point is not understood; the lack of that data does not provide conclusive proof that without further introspection, experimentation, to better understanding of its purpose, its 'randomness' might be properly explained with logical formula. That is not say, I believe my opinion on this matter is the only possibility, and just suggest that further tests are required before you can logically state all life is created by random chance, happenstance, blind luck, or non-existant external authority, because that would diminish the value of our lives to virtually ZERO since we never were meant to be in the first place.

My parents CHOOSE to have me and I wasn't an 'accident'. Because their CHOICE determined my existence (I am not saying their choice alone was the ONLY factor but it was the DECIDING FACTOR).

To order to understand the universe (REALITY) around us, including its greatest unsolved complexities and mysteries, one must also understand its simplest and most basic elements including [not biology by itself but] All Logical Math(Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, Statistics, etc.), All sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physiology, Botany, Physics, Astrology, etc.), philosophies(Aristotle, Plato, etc.), ALL integrated with conscious mind for rational self-interest.

Thus, life cannot be viewed merely from a biological view or that is a narrow view.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

This DNA causes proteins to form which create conditions extremely likely to create more DNA. Humans are a particuarly successful condition for DNA to survive and replicate (thereby creating more humans). This is simply a natural extension of the laws of physics, sufficient time and the proper materials. Part of the phenotype of human DNA is the human brain, which is capable of logic. Logic can be used to help the individual survive, and therefore pass on DNA.

The logical order of DNA results in its replication, and further development of a mind and body. The human brain (or animal BICAMERAL brain we are all born with and use) by itself does not possess the capability of LOGIC and REASON; that development must be developed by each individual before they are conscious. The development of the brain through written and spoken language results in the development of 'I'. Without 'I' man cannot be conscious and merely acts on External Authorities; in the early days of man before recorded history and the very beginning of recorded history, man acted, lived, and died like any other animal even developing entire civilizations without conscious thought.
A book that I reference for the proceeding THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUS and THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERIAL MIND by late Julian Jaynes, explains in detail why consciousness is greater then the sum of its parts, because it expands the ability of man to act beyond mere survival to exceed nature.
Conscious man can act in three basic ways:
1. Exceed Nature and thrive (Do what generates maximum benefit for EVERYONE including ONESELF.)
2. Along with Nature and survive (Do exactly what nature and others (look for 'GOOD') tell them to do)
3. Less then Nature and decline (Do what generates maximum harm and steal 'benefit' for whatever 'REASON' they choose)

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Since logic is simply a survival function generated by DNA, it should be used to most efficiently replicate this DNA, otherwise it is straying from its purpose. There is no right or wrong about, since it simply random anyway, but it would the most useful use.

If it was merely for survival, my words here have no meaning or purpose because nothing I write here is needed to survive. I write these words under my free-conscious will to benefit, to learn, to exceed nature not because I need them to survive.
If life is merely randomness, I exist for no reason, and my life and the life everyone everywhere in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is meaningless and exists out of nothing, produces nothing and will forever be nothing; a forever sad view of life.
Some form of RIGHT or WRONG must exist or the purpose of struggling to better oneself is a fool's folly.
Everyone must develop their understanding of RIGHT or WRONG on their own, and the stronger they base it on reality (which requires struggling to understand it better day-by-day) and nature of man, the more it approaches a universal constant view of MORAL and IMMORAL actions which never change because they always treat every individual exactly the SAME.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Logic has dictated exactly as you say, that the best way to survive and reproduce in the world we live in (which happens to be full of other humans with their own logic) is to behave in a way causes the most cooperation between humans, which is honesty and trust (this is proven statistically, through Prisoner's Dilemma type games).

Acting honestly isn't merely a value to yourself but a value to everyone around you, and the greater the honestly the greater the values CREATED from it. You are purposing DESTROYING life and then CREATING which means you have to dishonestly act to destroy it and then honestly to create which means you have to compromise all life before you create ANYTHING.

The greatest problem in society isn't survival, diseases, natural disasters, or anything else except irrational harm between humans. (having multiple individuals with different logic is fine as long as it realized causes exist for every problem and real solutions exist to solve those problems. The closer an individual integrates their logic to reality, the more useful and practical their logic becomes because it has merit not just for that person but many individuals; if fully integrated (Which is a constant struggle that never ends) it honestly becomes useful to EVERY INDIVIDUAL that FULLY understands it COHERENTLY and IN-CONTEXT.
The only problem that needs to be eliminated (as identified by numerous individuals include Aristole, Ayn Rand, Frank Wallace, and many others) is LAZINESS, DISHONESTY, and MYSTICISM which are one in the same.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

However, this is only the most statistically likely method of passing on DNA as DNA has been passed down. The current method of random mixing of genes through sexual reproduction created the most likelihood of DNA surving, because it allows for adaptation. Logic has given the human DNA-carrier another method to adapt, which is the use of tools. The best way for any individual human to preserve their DNA is to somehow steal all the resources in the world, kill everyone else, and systematically convert every particle of matter in the universe into that individual's DNA, by any means necessary. From the biological definition of "benefit" to an organism (human), this is a case where stealing is more beneficial. Obviously, this requires a higher level of technology than is currently available. This is not beneficial to everyone else (society), but it would also be the most beneficial to any individual (or gene, which may be more accurate) if they did it themselves. This also causes much more overall "benefit" to the human organism (DNA), and, since this individual in the only individual at this point, all of society as well. The "honesty" situation is merely a compromise that lowers the overall benefit by distributing it among competing genes.

In order for this to logically follow one must disregard the value of the conscious, and dismiss every individual destroyed as inferior and of lesser value then your own. Which is contrary to logic because is your life greater then mine?
The POTENTIAL of value of life is INFINITE because each individual is UNIQUE and DIFFERENT.
Once a life is lost no matter how many times you clone, replicate the DNA, or experiment you will never recreate the EXACT SAME conscious human being.
YOU and I have a different conscious mind and that's exactly why I can never be YOU or YOU be me; that is impossible and never will happen.
We are ALL EQUAL because NOT ONE of US can be replaced with an exact duplicate and our individual conscious mind is of such great value because it is WHO WE ARE.
Biology by itself DNA does not equal conscious because conscious is greater then the sum of its parts. [which may seem illogical but the synergy of those parts make it all possible.] It is greater because it can act entirely on its own, which byself the animal mind or body cannot.

Thus, if we are objective we look at each action and view it from not just our own 1st person prespective, but from every angle, we can to better understand its reality for everyone. Let's not ignore a single aspect of our action; let make our actions the best they can be because others might learn from our example and act better too benefiting everyone.

LIFE VALUES to objectively view:
Emotional, Mental, and Physical...

No new variables about what MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE shall be allowed because it would no longer be a SINGLE action and at CERTAIN time...

Stealing viewed objectively always means taking value from an individual by force and claiming it as your own.
Sure, if we only see the 1st person perspective we think we 'benefited' (A REAL Benefit only exists if value is created not merely transferred) because we received a value.
But that is never a 'benefit' for the other individual or individuals that gave up the value and suffered for it. (REAL Harm includes taking property by force)

Thief individual A
Vicitim individual B

A is physically 'benefited' unnaturally by receiving an physical object of some value X, and B received nothing that he wanted or needed in return.
A is emotionally harmed naturally because acting contrary to nature (he created no new values) to harm another individual always creates feelings of FEAR, ANXIETY, PAIN, SADDNESS, GUILT and others because A's mind will always know he could have acted better.
A is mentally harmed naturally because the value of HONESTY is destroyed and A disrespected the value of B's Life.
A is physically harmed because he used his senses to demand the object handed over and seize the object when he could have just asked for the object or gave something in return for the object honestly instead.

B is emotionally harmed unnaturally because he was innocent of any crime, and feels FEAR, ANXIETY, PAIN, SADDNESS because was innocent vicitim who lost what was his and he was unable to protect his property.
B is mentally harmed unnaturally because he was unable protect his HONEST RIGHT to HIS property which A took without reason and by threat of force.B is physically harmed unnaturally by giving up an physical object of some value X, and B knows he received nothing that he wanted or needed in return.
B is physcially harmed unnaturally because he did not uses his senses and act to protect his property.

A single object or piece of property was valued greater then the life of a individual and in order to steal it the thief had to hurt himself as well as his victim…
Amazing! The damage to both individuals exceeded the value of any object except another life on the planet earth…

The question that I always ask, "Why are my needs greater then any other individual's? I have to believe the value of MY LIFE is greater then anyone elses in order to steal because I have justify my actions. I had the options of ASKING for the same value without force and maybe someone would have given it to me freely OR worked hard to produce some value for another individual or society, in which I would DESERVE the value honestly and would not have to steal it.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

My Answer: As you say, defrauding is merely a method of stealing, see above.

Defrauding someone is more clever because the thief has to trick the victim into giving up the value 'volunarily.'
You are missing the same factors, and are equate conscious life unequally since, each individual is UNIQUE.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

My Answer: Because every life has equal value, killing someone to create room for more of yourself (clone, or simply a vat of DNA, or whatever) has no net effect on the value. Contrarily, other lives would hinder everyone's ability to spread their DNA, because they'd naturally compete for resources, even if it is divided fairly. Additionally, communication (a necessity for multi-individual societies requires communication organs, and wastes material and time. I suppose a universe filled with various distinct genes would have equal life-value, but it would deny to purpose of genes, and therefore have less purpose-value.

The proceeding might apply if the value of each life is 1 or a constant; it is NOT...
Conscious life is dynamicly growing by choice, remaining static by choice, or declining by choice depending on the actions of EACH UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL.
Thus to destroy one life means to destroy a UNIQUE but EQUAL value that will never exist again. DNA is by itself is only one factor of life, and to dismiss the limitless potential that remains untapped within every single conscious being is to reduce the value of all life to abject meaninglessness.

Presumption of your life equation:

[PLEASE Correct if wrong, I am just trying to understand what you mean...]

Life2 = Creation of Life2 + Destruction of Life2 + Creation of Life1

Life2 = Life1 which is ILLOGICAL...

Because Individual Life1 is not the EXACT SAME individual as Individual Life2

We are EQUAL, not because of our current value, but the forever equal infinite potential (that we have too CHOOSE to USE) that exists within us.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

My Answer: When telling the truth ("I plan on killing you for the purpose of...") would hinder one's plans, and delay the end of the compromise, as described above. This would slow down the creation of value.

The Emotional, Mental, and Physical benefits (for all parties involved) of honestly sharing honest words exceed the value of the matter (DNA), time, energy, space since the value those words in the speaker and listener exceeds the value of those factors. Dismissing the valid and valuable exchange of values between individuals reduces the value of life to merely survival and we don't need words or language to survive we could be silent (words are not necessary if only one individual can clone himself and accomplish the same thing) and still survive in nature. Man exceeds nature in order to first create language to develop 'I' consciousness and next he eliminates the only plague of conscious mind the nothingness plague of LAZINESS, DISHONESTY and MYSTICISM; now he can grow limitlessly beyond nature to command all nature.

You avoid telling the honest fact out of laziness because the conscious mind knows the action you are about to take is contrary to nature. You obviously didn't view their life honestly and see it as EQUAL to your own. And now after that action is complete and their life is gone for good, you probably forget all about creating new life because that takes honest disipline, thought, and control, which is what HONEST individuals do, and you weren't honest...
Mass murder and genocide in general usually leads the individual in charge to take his own life because of the emotional, mental, and physical harm it takes to kill others(Killing others is NOT NATURAL). Hitler sentenced millions of individuals to their death and then took his own life.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

My Answer: You could probably guess by now the various reasons that other people having houses would be bad, but it's also worth mentioning that houses are made of matter. Creating a house (or letting a house be built) would limit the proliferation of one's genes, because of the finite amount of matter in the universe.

The opinion 'bad' does not matter... The Emotional, Mental, and Physical benefits (for all parties involved) of producing a house for a UNIQUE individual/s exceed the value of the matter (DNA), time, energy, space since the value of that house in that individual's life exceeds the value of those factors. Dismissing the valid and valuable exchange of values between individuals reduces the value of life to merely survival and we don't need houses to survive we could be living in nature made caves and out in the open wilderness. Man exceeds nature in order to create complex homes built beyond his wants or needs.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

My Answer: Sexual reproduction (and the desires linked to sexual reproduction that is a gene based method to encourage this behavior), while useful for evolutionary purposes, becomes a hindrance when executing the ultimate plan. Giving into such desires contradicts the logic of elimating all other pieces of matter (including one's own body, in the end). Sadly, such desires are also part of the genes that are being replicated, but luckily logic also exists to override them. This (mutual love) is no longer a benefit when the plan as stated above is carried out.

The Emotional, Mental, and Physical benefits for a romantic love couple exceed the value of the matter (DNA), time, energy, space since the value of that compete love in that couple's life exceeds the value of those factors. Dismissing the valid and valuable exchange of values between individuals reduces the value of life to merely survival and we don't need emotions(happiness, pleasure, etc) to survive and procreate. Man and Woman exceeds nature in order to create complete romanic love that generates value beyond either of the couple's wants or needs.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Possible Rebuttal: This idea (which is based on your definitions of good and bad in terms of benefits as stated on page 2) relies on assuming a pseudo-mystical importance on biological imperative. Assuming there is no value to replicating genes and that conciousness (also a genetic consequence, unless you care to insert the mysticism of the soul or soul-like entity) is the value-containing part of life, which a very valid assumption, the current compromise is far better.

Conscious mind is greater then the sum of its parts because not one of its parts can act on its own...Consciousness can act anyway it chooses without need of direction or authority on its own...

"mysticism of the soul or soul-like entity"

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: mys·ti·cism
Pronunciation: 'mis-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

Mysticism means evading reality to proclaim something 'FACT' without any evidence of its existence. The existence of the Consciousness Mind is not without a basis of fact since every conscious individual (you, I or anyone) can choose to act in anyway we choose too at anytime. Notice that even religions and governments cannot function without demanding and commanding control of conscious individuals through the the use of threat, fraud, or use of some force because Conscious CHOICE EXISTS. If conscious CHOICE and its value is a myth why does god demand we follow 'his will'? If we are mere dogs or sheep and are easily controlled, never ending dogma is unnecessary; once broken, we will follow the will of our master willingly without need to repent our sins and ask forgiveness over and over and .....................

Either Conscious CHOICE EXISTS, or Existence does not exist (and you must assume your own life is NOTHING)

Take your pick, which one do you believe based on your own knowledge and belief?

If it Conscious CHOICE exists, it must have some value because it is the ONLY being capable of commanding its own destiny.

Thus, in order for a DNA theory to be valid, you have disregard the same variable Einstein did consciousness...

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Counter-rebuttal: In that case, killing everyone and cloning oneself repeatedly to replace them will end up with exactly the same value as the current compromise. Some value will be lost during the process, but an equal amount of value would be created, causing no net effect. Alternatively, one could clone the same people that have been killed beforehand. There is no difference, consciousness-wise.

Once conscious is completely lost it its uniqueness can never be recovered again.
Thus, killing individual x, cloning individual x will NOT result in the SAME individual..
Logically unsound...

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Final Point: Your logic, while sound, is based on assumptions about value, and therefore will never be anything more than an opinion. Similarily, mathematics is based on assumptions (called axioms) that cannot be proven. Just because it works doesn't mean it is the only truth. Logic is not fact.

Only two assumption or axioms are needed:

Every Conscious life has equal dynamically infinite growth potential.

Every Conscious life has constantly changing dynamically UNIQUE value.

For an opinion, it can be based on the same unproven formulas that work every single time. Its validity, usage, from individual to individual including every individual does not change. Application of any mathematical formula requires understanding the variables, constants, and being able to determine whether certain variables are negligable and can be discarded and those that are increasing without bounds and approaching infinity.
Each conscious individual is capable of dynamicly growing without bounds toward infinity.

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating genocide in the name of genetics, I'm simply trying to show an alternate framework based on different assumptions. Sadly, I'm not as well versed in my subject matter as you are, so it's entirely possible that my main point is unsound (I don't care if it's invalid because that would require going back to assumptions). In this case, you may skip all but the the final point. Hopefully it's simple enough to stand on it's own as a sound argument.

[Clarste]

I didn't really intend to post here again, but since you responded so kindly, I feel like I should.

Originally Posted by bxtor

Only two assumption or axioms are needed:

Every Conscious life has equal dynamically infinite growth potential.

Every Conscious life has constantly changing dynamically UNIQUE value.

Well, you seem to agree that axioms are needed. That was my point, so we're in agreement. On the other hand, I'd argue that you need a few more axioms to get where you are. For one thing, you seem to assume the uniqueness has it's own value. Most importantly, you'd need to assign a precise relative value to each thing with value. Which is more valuable, the infinite growth of any individual or the inherent value in the uniqueness that everyone possesses? Personally, I assume no particular value in uniqueness, and indeed, dynamically infinite growth potential is hindered in some ways by the uniqueness of others (although greatly assisted in other ways). Or maybe this concept of sacrificing one for the other simply comes from my own assumptions about what the value of this potential is. It may be very different from yours.

Originally Posted by bxtor

Dismissing the valid and valuable exchange of values between individuals reduces the value of life to merely survival and we don't need houses to survive we could be living in nature made caves and out in the open wilderness. Man exceeds nature in order to create complex homes built beyond his wants or needs.

Just so you know, I'm not reducing it to survival, I'm reducing it to proliferation. Yes, people can survive in caves, without culture or comminication, but it certainly reduces their population growth. Houses help genes, sorry.

Well, I don't know why I'm still rambling on. You agree that you need axioms, however many or whatever they are. Therefore, you agree that people with different axioms will come to different conclusions, right? Okay then, that's that.

Originally Posted by kokanaden

In any case, I believe everyone here so far, from DarkCntry to Mephisto2k to the Chinese guy have replied to ALL your points; so please do not attempt to make yourself "sound grand" by praising Bahamut89 alone in his response to your points; its called disrespect to the rest who have contributed in one way or another to this argument, excluding me, as I do not value your opinion of me at all.

Ah, I feel like the accomplice or something when you say that...

Yeah, everyone here deserves respect for having their own beliefs. Or I guess they deserve respect regardless. I won't name names because I'll probably forget someone and feel bad. Actually, they probably deserve a bit more respect than me for actually talking about KgNE... Ah, whatever, I love you all!

[Mephisto2k]

Only two assumption or axioms are needed:

Every Conscious life has equal dynamically infinite growth potential.

Every Conscious life has constantly changing dynamically UNIQUE value.

Its a nice ideal or rather dream, that every life has equal value and (even infinite?)growth potential...
I wonder if you really thought about what your writing or just took some ideas of the "american dream" that sound good or moral.
First of all your growth or growthpotential is limited by basic laws and limits of human race. (How much bodybuilding you will ever do, you will never be able to lift 1000kg; Your IQ wont ever be higher than 200 most probably; and basic human limits like that...)
Therefor it is hardly infinite, while there are a lot ways to grow, but still there are limits.
In additional your growth potential is limited by your families income or the surroundings you grow up in. I have just read an essey based on facts about this very topic: you are 25 times more likely to run into a rich person than into a rather poor one if you go around in a elite university. Growing up in a poor city in africa is different from growing up as the son of bill gates.
While your education and career is also strongly based on money in our societies (not only in america and thats rather sad but still a fact), from the point of inteligence we are also all different. It is scientificly proven that you inteligence is based on your DNS and how this potential is promoted in your early years and later years. Its not allways right to blame bad grades on school on those peoples lazyness or unwillingness. There are people who can study day and night and still are rarely able to come close to a random rather lazy topgrader X, for example.

Of course it is nice to believe in the "american dream", that everyone is equal and has equal growth potental and canreach all his goals through effort, but this is just a false dream and our society is not perfect enough to make this possible. We are limited by our biological limits and society limits.
And every human is equal:
Take the following scenario to compare the value of living human beings:
Criminals (armed and dangerouse) have taken lots of hostages.
They agree to the police and free one hostage right now. Which one should be freed?
Imagine the president of the united states would be a hostage. Wouldnt everyone value his life more than that of some random person or worker. Would "everyone" agree to free him first (except that everyone hates bush, but imagine he would be a nice and compitent person, instead of who he really is).
Or if your father is one of the hostages. Wouldnt "you" value his life more than others.
There are lifes that are valued differently by different people. And there are lifes that are valued similarly by all people (everyone would value the life of a sick massmurderer less, than that of a famous professor who made great inventiones).
There is no uch thing as an ultimate truth about values. Values are defined by how people value things. If everyone agrees on a value this value is considered resonable and accurate and is accepted. Lots of people might say every life is equal but their very behaviour and decisions they would obviously make stand in constast to that.
Therefor I think its wrong or at least inaccurate to just generalize it and say: everyone is equal, only because it sounds good and moral.
Still everyone is free to believe everything against all facts as long as he marks it as opinion and not as fact.
I just wanted to show that im on a different opinion and that i think that those beliefs are just said without really thinking about it and its meaning and whether or not it really mirrors reality and society and therefor without really believing in it and just repeating some famous and wellsounding sentence which some foundingfather or whoever said.

[kokanaden]

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

I didn't really intend to post here again, but since you responded so kindly, I feel like I should.



Well, you seem to agree that axioms are needed. That was my point, so we're in agreement. On the other hand, I'd argue that you need a few more axioms to get where you are. For one thing, you seem to assume the uniqueness has it's own value. Most importantly, you'd need to assign a precise relative value to each thing with value. Which is more valuable, the infinite growth of any individual or the inherent value in the uniqueness that everyone possesses? Personally, I assume no particular value in uniqueness, and indeed, dynamically infinite growth potential is hindered in some ways by the uniqueness of others (although greatly assisted in other ways). Or maybe this concept of sacrificing one for the other simply comes from my own assumptions about what the value of this potential is. It may be very different from yours.



Just so you know, I'm not reducing it to survival, I'm reducing it to proliferation. Yes, people can survive in caves, without culture or comminication, but it certainly reduces their population growth. Houses help genes, sorry.

Well, I don't know why I'm still rambling on. You agree that you need axioms, however many or whatever they are. Therefore, you agree that people with different axioms will come to different conclusions, right? Okay then, that's that.



Ah, I feel like the accomplice or something when you say that...

Yeah, everyone here deserves respect for having their own beliefs. Or I guess they deserve respect reagrdless. I won't name names because I'll probably forget someone and feel bad. Actually, they probably deserve a bit more respect than me for actually talking about KgNE... Ah, whatever, I love you all!

Well, you are not an accomplice, rather, you were just an unintended viction of the crossfire. I apologise for dragging your name in.

In any case, you just inadvertently (maybe you saw it too) revealed a fatal flaw. i won't comment just yet, after all, we are all on ths same side and I do not want to sound long-winded by typing a loooooong reply to show my agreement with what you have typed.

Anyway, to all chinese people reading this thread; a very happy lunar new year to you!

[npal]

Oh well, too much to read, I got tired at some point, since the discussion wasn't going anywhere, but I did at least two pages of posts before I started to see redundancy. So I'll just share my view in as small a post as it can fit.

Since the whole discussion seemed to evolve into is lying necessary or outright bad, I'll just base the main body of my post on this question. My opinions regarding the characters.

First of all, I'm a Haruka/Akane fan. This essentially means that I support Haruka and find hers and Akane's actions to be far better than everyone else's.
Having said that, I can understand both Takayuki and Mitsuki up to a point, enough to sympathize with them a bit. I can understand that it was hard for both of them after Haruka's accident. I won't go into details about who I blame for this whole situation and why. I will just say that Takayuki is not an outright lying idiot as some people want him to be and Mitsuki is not a pitiful bitch as some people want her to be, but true, they have their share of responsibility for their actions in the story and while they have redeeming values, they also have some serious flaws that cannot be overlooked.

Regarding Takayuki lying to Haruka:

If the doctor says that you cannot give her this information until her mind can withstand it, you have to find ways to respond to her WITHOUT LYING, cause then it is bound to backfire eventually. Taking the example of the "fat guy/girl dressed silly and asking if he/she looks nice", most people either don't care so the easiest to say is "you look ok" or don't want to hurt that person's feelings and respond the same. There is however a good answer that is not an outright lie which goes something like this :" I think you would look better in X". And if the other person asks again "but am I looking good?", well you would be bound to answer "well, I don't think that type of clothing suits you", which is NOT the same as saying "ugh, get away from me you atrocious thing, what sort of clothes do you think you're wearing, fatso? Just ridiculous" and outright honest responses like "yes, I think you look ungly in that".

What is the whole point of this? That there are ways to refrain from being outright dishonest yet appear honest AND considerate of other people's feelings. Unless this approach fails for some reason, then I agree with bxtor, you have to tell the truth. In HARUKA'S case however, telling the blunt truth means endangering that person's psychical and psychological health. A good approach to Haruka's condition would be to delay your answers until the doctor says it's ok. If you look closely, Haruka doesn't ask anything serious until she starts noticing that her hair have grown, etc etc. So Takayuki could delay the whole serious questions answering instead of answering with lies. And it depends on the level of dishonesty. Saying that Haruka was only sleeping for a day is not so damaging in the long run as saying that Takayuki doesn't have a girlfriend and he loves Haruka. His actions of kissing Haruka and chanting the spell are more dishonest than the above verbal lies, at least that's the way I see them. The whole point of this is : Takayuki could have been much more honest and weigh his answers* carefully by always consulting the doctor, Akane, Haruka's parents and his own common sense. But he did not do that and that's his own fault. I believe he was even trying to lie to himself over the whole issue, like living two lives, one being the romantic boyfriend that helps his girlfriend recover after all that time, and the other being a nice guy having a romantic relationship for 2-3 years with Mitsuki, with no big problem in their relationship. Needless to say, both his fantasies crumbled.

And about the whole dishonesty issue. I agree with bxtor, lying is always wrong and if you are forced to lie, better tell the truth. But there are many ways to stop yourself from outright lying. Lie is never a good option and bxtor was kind enough to illustrate that, although he did it a bit too aggressively and indeed some of his statements were a bit too extreme to be considered, but I do agree that, overall, he has made a very good point.

In reality, it depends on where your loyalties lie and how you weigh things. But lying has lead to more calamities than truth has, as seen in various aspects of human history, which means that truth has more probability of helping than harming. Plus, usually the harm truth does, if handled correctly (in Haruka's case, Akane is at fault of mishandling truth), is short-lived. I don't have examples to give on request right now, but that's what I have gathered so far. Maybe there are times that lie can be considered by most people necessary, but then, it's just my belief that the truth would have been more beneficial in the long run. And yes, that's not an argument, it's a personal belief.

I hope my post wasn't too long

Edit: *questions swapped for answers, as it was ment to be, but I'm sure everyone understood what I was saying, and some other minor editing

[Mephisto2k]

In my opinion this world is just far to big to see everything just in black and white and say "lieing is allways bad and truth is allways better".
It just depend on the situations, the persons, the observers opinion, outcome, experience and so on.
There are just lots of different colours between that black and white.

As I have just watched "Uta Kata" anime serie which also deals with that lieing theme. Scenarios where given where the maincharacter were forced to lie and had to lie over and over again because of that which leaded the other characters into a heated confrontation and everyone was suffering.
There also was mentioned the phrase "white lie". The girl responded that adulds are phony. And the adult responded while laughing that its a common defensicve action to call their lies white lies.
Somehow I found their conversations about lies interesting.
BUT in the end there was a conversation about something that was also done in KgNE, same as in so many other animes:
There was a farewell scene between 2 girls. They said farewell embracing each other crying. In the next scene the girl that stays behind is sleeping in her bed and the girl that will leave, stays at her bed. The misterious woman(who is somewhat like the leaving girls mother), suddenly appears behind her. She woman says: "wouldnt it be better to say farewell with a SMILE?" or "arnt you suppost to say farewell with a smile?". The girl responds responds: "that would be LIEing and it would be agains the "rules"." (rules are also a somewhat wierd but important theme of this serie).
The woman replys: Too Bad.
The girl kisses the other girl on her face and says farewell with a smile AFTER ALL, even though the other girl was sleeping.

As NPAL also mentioned above: Actions can also be considered lies (i.e: kissing; saying farewell with a smile, even though you are sad.)
Haruka and Takayuki also said their farewell with a smile. But was it that bad? or has even bxtor thought about it as something bad as he saw it the first time?

My comparism to "Uta Kata" wasnt ment to be an pro or contra argument for one or the other side. I just thought it would be interesting to know and fits into this discussion. And I never really though about that all too common "farewell with a smile" too much and though i have just a slight idea of its deeper meaning. And those who havnt seen "Uta Kata" yet, shouldnt think too high of it based on what ive written. Uta Kata wasnt that good. Its just an middle school, friendship, supernatural spiritgod magical girl on time/test, misterious relationship series, which deals with different interesting themes like love, friendship, rules, lies, truth about the world/society, sadness, happyness, good, bad, and so on. I think the ultimate conclusion this serie comes to, is that: you are not perfect and the world is not perfect. There are good and bad sides to everything, but the current state isnt the ultimate state. We are changing and the world is changing and our sense in living is to change everything for the better. Or at least it was just a valid answere the maincharacter was giving on the ultimate question of the last spirit.