Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 1:16:14 GMT
I view the right to procreate as a basic human right. I also view the offspring to have the basic human right of care from the parent/s. There will always be good and bad parents and those in between, butt having conceived I believe that there is a definite responsibility on the part of the parent that is lifelong. As I have said above on a case by case basis, each parent should try to do what they perceive to be in the best interest of that child or future child. This, in extreme cases might mean abortion, turning off life support, placing in care or any number of other measures too numerous to mention. Why should anyone have a "basic right" to deliberately and knowingly cause someone to have to live with a painful disability that leaves them unable to do anything for themselves, and in constant excruciating pain? The people of a nation have the rights that they have collectively decided to have. There really is no reason why people should have any right other than that they've decided that they should have them. Generally, most people base that in their assessment of what makes for a good life for themselves and those they care about. Generally, they base their assessment on their consideration of the likely outcomes of a given policy and how it stacks up to their notion of fairness and justice. So the answer to more or less any question of why people should have or not have any given right is : because most people think that's the best and fairest way to live. In the particular case of the government sterilising people, it probably doesn't help your position that the historical precedent for such a thing was implemented by people notorious for being (rightly or wrongly) one of the most evil groups in all of human history. It is after all a rare individual who could look at the actions of that particular government and assess it as being a good start. You're welcome to think everyone is wrong about this stuff. You're going to need better arguments than you've ever managed to produce so far to convince them of it. Way, way, waaaaaaay better. I wish you bad luck with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 1:39:33 GMT
Why should anyone have a "basic right" to deliberately and knowingly cause someone to have to live with a painful disability that leaves them unable to do anything for themselves, and in constant excruciating pain? You're going to need better arguments than you've ever managed to produce so far to convince them of it. Way, way, waaaaaaay better. If 'you shouldn't have the right to torture someone for purely selfish reasons because the welfare of other people matters too' isn't an argument, then there aren't any arguments against deliberately doing anything harmful. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 1:52:41 GMT
You're going to need better arguments than you've ever managed to produce so far to convince them of it. Way, way, waaaaaaay better. If 'you shouldn't have the right to torture someone for purely selfish reasons because the welfare of other people matters too' isn't an argument, then there aren't any arguments against deliberately doing anything harmful. Do you have any kind of a plan for convincing other people of that claim? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 2:58:47 GMT
If 'you shouldn't have the right to torture someone for purely selfish reasons because the welfare of other people matters too' isn't an argument, then there aren't any arguments against deliberately doing anything harmful. Do you have any kind of a plan for convincing other people of that claim? I can see people potentially becoming concerned that the government is paying out hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, just to torture ONE poor unfortunate child. The basic 'elevator pitch' of the people whose 'right' to impose you are defending is: "I want to bring a child into the world to be horribly painfully tortured for their entire life, because if I'm not able to torture my very own child, it will hurt my feelings. Can I have £100,000 every year for the foreseeable future to force a child to live in excruciating pain in order to validate my own self-worth, plox?" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 3:17:28 GMT
Do you have any kind of a plan for convincing other people of that claim? I can see people potentially becoming concerned that the government is paying out hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, just to torture ONE poor unfortunate child. The basic 'elevator pitch' of the people whose 'right' to impose you are defending is: "I want to bring a child into the world to be horribly painfully tortured for their entire life, because if I'm not able to torture my very own child, it will hurt my feelings. Can I have £100,000 every year for the foreseeable future to force a child to live in excruciating pain in order to validate my own self-worth, plox?" So, the same argument that's fallen apart and failed every single time you've used it? Great. I'm sure that will work much better in future. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 3:21:59 GMT
I can see people potentially becoming concerned that the government is paying out hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, just to torture ONE poor unfortunate child. The basic 'elevator pitch' of the people whose 'right' to impose you are defending is: "I want to bring a child into the world to be horribly painfully tortured for their entire life, because if I'm not able to torture my very own child, it will hurt my feelings. Can I have £100,000 every year for the foreseeable future to force a child to live in excruciating pain in order to validate my own self-worth, plox?" So, the same argument that's fallen apart and failed every single time you've used it? Great. I'm sure that will work much better in future. The fact that you don't think that the suffering of unconsenting others matters as much as the freedom to impose is not a weakness in the argument itself. And I haven't ever used that argument before (in the post you've quoted), in any case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 11:57:29 GMT
So, the same argument that's fallen apart and failed every single time you've used it? Great. I'm sure that will work much better in future. The fact that you don't think that the suffering of unconsenting others matters as much as the freedom to impose is not a weakness in the argument itself. And I haven't ever used that argument before (in the post you've quoted), in any case. Well that didn't convince me. Did it convince anybody else here? Anyone? No? Oh well. Worse luck next time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 3:27:40 GMT
The fact that you don't think that the suffering of unconsenting others matters as much as the freedom to impose is not a weakness in the argument itself. And I haven't ever used that argument before (in the post you've quoted), in any case. Well that didn't convince me. Did it convince anybody else here? Anyone? No? Oh well. Worse luck next time. How many theists do you think that you've convinced in the non-existence of God, in the years that you've been debating on religion forums? And if that number is small, do you think that is reflective of the quality of the arguments that you set forth and your skill as a debater? Of course hardly anybody is going to be swayed from beliefs that given them emotional comfort based on hearing an argument once, or even 10 times in a short period of time. If their beliefs are that important to them, they're going to find ways to use cognitive dissonance in order to retain the beliefs that they feel are integral to their psychological wellbeing. When the people you're trying to persuade are emotionally committed to a belief in the contrary, you will only persuade them by saturating them over a long period of time to your rational arguments. So far, there aren't enough antinatalists speaking up to achieve any kind of saturation, just like 20 years ago, there would not have been enough atheists. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 9:42:53 GMT
Well that didn't convince me. Did it convince anybody else here? Anyone? No? Oh well. Worse luck next time. How many theists do you think that you've convinced in the non-existence of God, in the years that you've been debating on religion forums? That's not my aim, mic. Oh, irony. You'd best try to come up with some, then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 16:00:16 GMT
How many theists do you think that you've convinced in the non-existence of God, in the years that you've been debating on religion forums? That's not my aim, mic. If it were your aim, how many Christians do you think that you would personally convert over the space of a couple of years? Now consider if you were the only (open) atheist that they knew of, so it was easy for them to write you off as a Satan worshipper to make it easier to ignore the points that you were making? Antinatalist beliefs are hardly an emotional or psychological crutch. It's a natural tendency for humans to try and find some kind of positive meaning to their existence. I've espoused many arguments that are rationally watertight, it's just that, as expected, those who are emotionally wed to contrary viewpoints are not apt to be convinced by one person on the Internet if they have already closed their mind to the opposing viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 2, 2018 16:10:38 GMT
I literally just sighed on reading your opening post. It's a mess in many different respects.
No populous category of people is going to hold similar views to each other simply by virtue of belonging to the category in question.
Re the other comments, both yours and the comments you're quoting, it's frustrating that people are still not realizing that ethics/morality, rights, and value judgments in general are subjective.
Not everyone is going to count the same things as progress, as perfection vs imperfection, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 18:51:03 GMT
If it were your aim, how many Christians do you think that you would personally convert over the space of a couple of years? I really wouldn't know. Well then that would be a very different situation to this one. Oh, I think they are. Very much so. Not on this board you haven't. On this board you've posted irrational emotional BS. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 2, 2018 23:20:59 GMT
I literally just sighed on reading your opening post. It's a mess in many different respects. No populous category of people is going to hold similar views to each other simply by virtue of belonging to the category in question. Re the other comments, both yours and the comments you're quoting, it's frustrating that people are still not realizing that ethics/morality, rights, and value judgments in general are subjective. Not everyone is going to count the same things as progress, as perfection vs imperfection, etc. Well, at least you answered. I like to play 'Devil's Advocate' on here sometimes and I don't always believe in the ideas I propose. That is patently obvious, however it was worth discussing whether a group who cannot procreate (without intervention of some kind), might have a differing viewpoint to those who can and do on some of these ethical issues. I have long been a proponent of there being only subjective morality, butt this is not to say that many 'groups' as well as might have similar views. There were two on here, so I posed the hypothetical. Again you last comment is patently obvious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 0:08:21 GMT
If it were your aim, how many Christians do you think that you would personally convert over the space of a couple of years? I really wouldn't know. You must have gained some impression with respect to how readily theists change their views when presented with arguments that you would accept as rational. In your experience, do they usually change their mind immediately, or even after a year of having the same discussion over and over again? Not really. I've been called a psychopath, a "moral monster", mentally ill, just because I don't support the freedom to impose unnecessary and unasked for risk without consent. It's counterevolutionary to be antinatalist. We're evolved to take comfort from valuing our lives highly. How is the statement below emotional or irrational? It's impossible to harm or deprive people who don't exist. Therefore nobody who doesn't exist either needs or desires to exist.If the above (which constitutes the foundation of my argument in favour of antinatalism) is emotional and irrational, then presumably as an emotionally detached and rational person, you think that figmental hypothetical people are harmed and deprived by not being brought into existence, and that there an infinite number of souls waiting their turn to be incarnated into flesh so that they may experience relief from the harm/deprivation of oblivion? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 3, 2018 0:53:20 GMT
Again you last comment is patently obvious. It can't be that obvious because people are still thinking about making social policies on those sorts of ideas where they pretty clearly don't think that they're just advocating codifying their personal tastes and judgments. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 3, 2018 1:20:32 GMT
It can't be that obvious because people are still thinking about making social policies on those sorts of ideas where they pretty clearly don't think that they're just advocating codifying their personal tastes and judgments. I meant obvious to me, because I generally agree with you, however there ARE many cases of social policies, necessarily based on codification, particularly in terms of age, for example. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 1:43:30 GMT
You must have gained some impression with respect to how readily theists change their views when presented with arguments that you would accept as rational. No, not really. No, you haven't. You've been called those things because you insist on summing up an innocuous action in those terms. And you do value your life highly, so I don't see the problem. It's been discussed in previous threads, with myself and others pointing out the glaring logical flaws in your arguments. I feel no need to feed your desire to play games any further. Go angst at others; I have all the crazy I desire already. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 1:59:40 GMT
You must have gained some impression with respect to how readily theists change their views when presented with arguments that you would accept as rational. No, not really. You're not very observant, then. If everyone was changing their mind about God and creationism from early exposure to counter arguments, then I would have thought it would be quite obvious that all the Christians were now atheists. Nothing can be called 'innocuous' when it places others in harm's way. You may argue that the harm and risk is worth it, but it cannot be denied that there are always risks and harms in life, and never any risks and harms in non-existence. I value my suffering highly. If I valued my own life highly, then I wouldn't have any problem with transmission of life to a new generation. Remind me what the "glaring logical flaws" are with the claim that you can neither harm nor induce deprivation in an entity that doesn't exist.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 3:35:27 GMT
Re the other comments, both yours and the comments you're quoting, it's frustrating that people are still not realizing that ethics/morality, rights, and value judgments in general are subjective. Not everyone is going to count the same things as progress, as perfection vs imperfection, etc. The fact that morality is subjective isn't really useful in this context, because you can have no society without an established set of morals. Some of the morals that people would like to have privileged by law are completely arbitrary, or based on superstition or ignorance (for example the taboo against pre-marital sex or homosexual sex), but some of those morals are universal, such as don't unnecessarily do harm unto others. Nobody likes being harmed. If somebody has power over your fate, you want them to be acting in your best interests, rather than causing undue harm to you, just because morals are subjective. The fact that non-existent entities cannot be harmed nor deprived is not subjective; it's a truth. The fact that sentient life is fraught with things that cause subjectively unpleasant sensations is a truth. Therefore based on the universal value that one shouldn't do unnecessary harm unto others, we can arrive at the conclusion that there is no warrant for imposing an unasked for life on an individual when you were not doing so in order to rescue that individual from another harmed or deprived state. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 10:55:18 GMT
You're not very observant, then. If everyone was changing their mind about God and creationism from early exposure to counter arguments, then I would have thought it would be quite obvious that all the Christians were now atheists. Well, you do you, and I'll do me. Yes it can. Uh huh. Already told you, I'm not playing your game again. You lost every argument you've ever had about this ridiculous nonsense. Go read them if you want to know why. |
|
