Mixt

Post in KW !! D8

Do you want some help in circles?

Hey Mixt I have a question, was Xemit meant to be an anagram of Time with an X added in?

So hey whats up ?

Thanks for the advice. :) i only purposely left the audio in 2 places and theres 1 where i didnt mean too. I'll try to turn them up louder next time.

uh oh Mixt and Phi got jumped in the rp xD

Sorry forgot that you sometimes post in the wrong pros lol. >_> Anyways I wasn't saying whos getting into heaven or not or if it exists, I just don't like it when people think can predetermine whos getting into heaven/hell because of their faith is all. Sorry if I seemed a little hard to understand, can't type worth a fluff because my eye is got pink eye and I can't keep it open for long enough before blinking. So basically I'm typing with one eye x0x

First off, ignore the fire and brimstone version of hell that you know, it is only slightly more accurate than the angels sitting on clouds with harps variation of heaven. Hell is simply separation from god, which is bad but also a mercy to those that go there.

What you need to realize is that sin simply can not exist in the presence of god. You would be destroyed. When God revealed himself to Moses, Moses was not allowed to see God's face because he would die. Being in the Kingdom of God is more severe than that. He allows you to be in hell separated from him instead of being brought into his embrace where you would ultimately be destroyed in much the same way you wouldn't hug would daughter while you're on fire. As much as every fiber of your being may want to, you would know that it is better for them if you don't. He already payed the price for sins but if you don't accept that he won't make you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Now there is some theological debate on if those in hell will be given other opportunities for redemption, but I really don't want to be the one testing that.

I'm half regretting bringing that concept up. It has spurred some nice discussion but I feel like I'm an inch away from sounding like a soap box preacher.

Yeah but still I don't think god would want to push others away for the sake of a religion, if hes truly this all loving god he'd accept all his children( after all mankind is his children like they say), not love only a few that are the "good children", and so should his followers. I think faith doesn't judge who gets into heaven if there is one after this, its who that person truly is. Believing in god doesn't save you from his might, if you say you believe in god and you are stingy to others who don't believe then you are less likely to visit heaven.

I dun like that pascal's wagers quote sorta. It seems like its telling me that only certain people shall be accepted and others without.

*stalks you while stalking riku at the same time*

yup it seems like the perfect place almost xD, don't worry it has more then just chaos in the streets thats just the poor district really.

The shadowlands seems alot like a place Mixt would want to be >->

I know. D: I bothered them about a week ago, I am going to see where they're at now. If they haven't made any progress since I last talked to them I'll put the voting up.

Is something wrong ?

ooooooo Mixt why aren't you posting in the keyblade war ? oooooo D8
*flies around in a ghost sheet*
Now the posting ghost is going to get youuuu D8

post in keyblade war dangit :C

Its alright, you bring up a point that we are close to the moon, pratically hovering above it. You don't have to if you don't need to I though it was funny. As for gravity on ships most don't have it, ships like the Ark and Shangri-La have gravity blocks at the Loveing areas and messhalls. Its like the colonies, they create gravity threw spinning but the rest of the ship is zero, other ships don't even use gravity.

I replied this time, last time I didn't out of habit.

Also Drake dosen't need a wheelchair on the ship, he can just float everywere, when I realised this I laughed.

Mmm. I've never looked up an official definition... Because it would be too short. But I have always used it and heard it used to be the following:

Equality as the highest moral virtue. People value things differently and so cannot be equal in values, then they can be equal in practice. Ethics works on the most basic level as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This means that if you do not want people to do things to you and your things without your consent, that you cannot do the same to them. It is a basic axiom that consent is needed for all interactions; people either consent to an interaction or they do not. I either consent to speaking with you or I do not. Likewise, you either consent to speak with speaking with me or you do not. If you wish for your consent to be recognized, then you must recognize my own. Ethics does not allow double standards.

You could also say that ethics deals with desires. I desire to be left alone, and you desire to bother me. If our desires conflict, ethics would step in. Assuming that I own myself and you do not, my desires overrule yours for the object that is my body and soul. The reason why I said that you can come to the same conclusion every time is because of this simple principle. Basically, ownership is absolute over one's body if not one's things, and so one's desires trump every other desire imaginable in all other beings. So, if you desire to harm your body and another desires that you not do so, you trump them, every time.

I summary, no one is more right than anyone else, and all forms of coercion try to enforce the notion that the coercer is more right than the coerced. Therefore, all forms of coercion are unethical under the model described here. Using property as a base, what is coercion is very easy to define and so debate is pretty meaningless as long as all parties are intelligent enough to think a scenario out. Without property as a base, I'm not sure why you would even be discussing ethics at all. You need property in order to take any discussion of interaction seriously, because without property, there is no exchange, and it cannot be fair or unfair for either party.

In the end, ethics is an attempt to objectively relate two or more subjective moralities such that all are equal in the eyes of the ethical law or code, and no one matter what values you hold, you are held to the same standard in ethics. It is an attempt to simultaneously erase double standards and minimize victims. Indeed, any outcome without victims is an ethical one. If you can't find an answer that saves everyone from being a victim, then ethics cannot apply, and you should do nothing. Killing one to save many is not an ethical choice, because the needs of the many do not outweigh the wants of the one regarding their own life. It doesn't really matter what you use as base so long as everyone owns themselves absolutely and has more right to their life than anyone else does.

I still don't feel that I am being clear. Hmm. I'll go back to the balancing. Let's say that everyone is equal in all things; because they are equal, both sides have to agree that an exchange is fair in order for it to ethical, or legitimate according to the notion of equality. Therefore, if you kill me, you are contradicting the notion that we are equal. You offset a balance. You claim the right to live while denying that I have that same right, and that you can control my life while I cannot do the same. Likewise, if you steal from me and then claim the item as your own, you believe that you have a right to property but I do not. This can be applied to any interaction between us. If we do not interact consensually, then the offending party is creating a double standard in making the other party a victim of some kind of coercion. Such an act would be called unethical because it defies the notion that the two parties are on equal standing.

And yet again, for a system without property, let's use the life example. I claim a right to my life. You claim a right to my life. Who wins? Under ethics without property rights, no one does. We have to agree on what happens to my life before either of us can do anything to change it. (You might see why property would make this easier; I believe that this is why we have property in the first place; to make this easier.)