|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 20:15:18 GMT
There is no accurate usage of words, and it's a fact that anyone can justify anything. Denying that fact is simply ignorant. The concept of suffering always related to negative experiences and sensations. Suffering is always pain (either physical or mental), but not all pain is suffering. And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification. If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:18:31 GMT
tpfkar Keira is the only person who has debated the subject on IMDb/IMDb 2 without resorting to insults and/or strawman arguments. There was also one guy on another forum who was fairly civil and didn't distort any of my points, and one guy on Reddit who was somewhat convinced by antinatalism, but still wanted to be excused to have 1 child. That's why I edited my post from "never" to "seldom". You start off with the insults when people disagree with you and then bawl when people don't shy from pointing out your manifest irrationality and crass dishonesty. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.About 70-80% of all activity on the IMDB v2 Religion, Faith and Spirituality board is people insulting each other, and about 97-98% of your posts are insulting people, some of whom have blocked your posts. I don't refrain from insults altogether, but I have no interest in personal vendettas and very seldom verging on almost never do I post just to insult someone. I didn't insult Kiera in debating antinatalism, and I have not insulted Falconia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:24:04 GMT
The concept of suffering always related to negative experiences and sensations. Suffering is always pain (either physical or mental), but not all pain is suffering. And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification. If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable? You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 20:27:10 GMT
tpfkar You start off with the insults when people disagree with you and then bawl when people don't shy from pointing out your manifest irrationality and crass dishonesty. About 70-80% of all activity on the IMDB v2 Religion, Faith and Spirituality board is people insulting each other, and about 97-98% of your posts are insulting people, some of whom have blocked your posts. I don't refrain from insults altogether, but I have no interest in personal vendettas and very seldom verging on almost never do I post just to insult someone. I didn't insult Kiera in debating antinatalism, and I have not insulted Falconia. You're a liar. Even with considering responding to insulting posts as simply "insulting people". And of course fully bypasses the point of you starting with the insults and then moaning about it attempting to use that to feed the legitimacy of your positively demented positions. Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 20:42:55 GMT
If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable? You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. I asked you a yes or no question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 23:10:31 GMT
You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. I asked you a yes or no question. You may be able to falsify the notion that there is an objective dimension to morality, but not the idea that we shouldn't inflict suffering when not necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 23:21:23 GMT
About 70-80% of all activity on the IMDB v2 Religion, Faith and Spirituality board is people insulting each other, and about 97-98% of your posts are insulting people, some of whom have blocked your posts. I don't refrain from insults altogether, but I have no interest in personal vendettas and very seldom verging on almost never do I post just to insult someone. I didn't insult Kiera in debating antinatalism, and I have not insulted Falconia. You're a liar. Even with considering responding to insulting posts as simply "insulting people". And of course fully bypasses the point of you starting with the insults and then moaning about it attempting to use that to feed the legitimacy of your positively demented positions. Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism.You scarcely ever have a response to anything that isn't at least part an insult, and usually your posts in other threads add nothing construction to a discussion but are only trollish insults. And I only retaliate with insults a fraction of the time, mostly because I am too emotionally mature to bother with cultivating animosity with a stranger on the Internet. I haven't bypassed that point, because it simply isn't true. I've given 2 examples on this thread of people who have disagreed with me whom I have not insulted. Ask both of those posters I've named, if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 23:35:49 GMT
tpfkar You're a liar. Even with considering responding to insulting posts as simply "insulting people". And of course fully bypasses the point of you starting with the insults and then moaning about it attempting to use that to feed the legitimacy of your positively demented positions. Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism.You scarcely ever have a response to anything that isn't at least part an insult, and usually your posts in other threads add nothing construction to a discussion but are only trollish insults. And I only retaliate with insults a fraction of the time, mostly because I am too emotionally mature to bother with cultivating animosity with a stranger on the Internet. I respond with the tone of those of who I respond to; you just offer a whole lot of material for a response. You should point out these trollish insults where they weren't precipitated by others' antecedent behaviors and warranted, or just keep lying. As your evaluation of such things it usually far afield, you'll have to include links. But I suppose purported insults likely are your strongest argument, as invalid as it is. Not surprisingly it sounds a little tender for the frequent accuser of oversensitivity. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 1:21:36 GMT
tpfkar You scarcely ever have a response to anything that isn't at least part an insult, and usually your posts in other threads add nothing construction to a discussion but are only trollish insults. And I only retaliate with insults a fraction of the time, mostly because I am too emotionally mature to bother with cultivating animosity with a stranger on the Internet. I respond with the tone of those of who I respond to; you just offer a whole lot of material for a response. You should point out these trollish insults where they weren't precipitated by others' antecedent behaviors and warranted, or just keep lying. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.That's not really the point. Everyone rubs someone up the wrong way, so almost anything that is posted can be taken as justification for an insult. The point is that you prefer insulting people to posting anything of substance. I absolutely never get into Internet feuds with anybody, and yet you accuse me of "start[ing] off with the insults", when I've given the names of 2 people who disagree with me on antinatalism who have posted in this thread, whom I have not insulted. I don't have a link to show that I've never insulted someone. But I have posted to Falconia on this thread about antinatalism and have not insulted that poster (who disagrees with me). I'm not dredging up my conversation with Kiera from long ago, but I did not insult her and you can check that with her. And if I were 'tender' about anything, I would have put you on ignore like most of your targets. Also, as a side note, do you normally check the Philosophy board, or did you find this thread via my posting history?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 1:23:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 1:45:24 GMT
tpfkar I respond with the tone of those of who I respond to; you just offer a whole lot of material for a response. You should point out these trollish insults where they weren't precipitated by others' antecedent behaviors and warranted, or just keep lying. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.That's not really the point. Everyone rubs someone up the wrong way, so almost anything that is posted can be taken as justification for an insult. The point is that you prefer insulting people to posting anything of substance. I absolutely never get into Internet feuds with anybody, and yet you accuse me of "start[ing] off with the insults", when I've given the names of 2 people who disagree with me on antinatalism who have posted in this thread, whom I have not insulted. Not the point you'd like perhaps. But it is a hard cold fact and directly on point that I feel free to adjust my tone based on the tone of the posts I respond to, a fact that is directly applicable to you. And right, no links. Shocker. You're of course again the liar. Show examples with links or continue to highlight this particular aspect of your hypocritical fullofsh!tness. I use both sarcasm, even the cutting type to make points, and will continue doing so, and I'm not going to couch facts especially when someone is frequently on melodramatic insensible insult sprees, or makes insipidly fallacious claims about the strength of his nonsense based upon his sensitivity to criticism. I've interacted with both Kiera and Falconia as well, and never insulted them outright, although I've criticized positions when warranted. Neither are a measure of provocation, as I'm sure you well know even while you field the inanity. And of course you'll call anything that cuts to the bone of your various dishonesties, irrationalities and hypocrisies as insults, and further yammer about how that somehow shows strength of argument. If you weren't "tender" you wouldn't be moaning about it and you would put up links to be examined in the depth as opposed to your facile convenient cries. You consider yourself a "target", yet you claim you're not tender? Again, even though you frequently rattle on about other peoples' oversensitivity? I do what I (free) will. I'm certainly not going to entertain your intimations of persecution via having your posts replied to. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 1:56:21 GMT
That's not really the point. Everyone rubs someone up the wrong way, so almost anything that is posted can be taken as justification for an insult. The point is that you prefer insulting people to posting anything of substance. I absolutely never get into Internet feuds with anybody, and yet you accuse me of "start[ing] off with the insults", when I've given the names of 2 people who disagree with me on antinatalism who have posted in this thread, whom I have not insulted. Not the point you'd like perhaps. But it is a hard cold fact and directly on point that I feel free to adjust my tone based on the tone of the posts I respond to, a fact that is directly applicable to you. And right, no links. Shocker. You're of course again the liar. Show examples with links or continue to highlight this particular aspect of your hypocritical fullofsh!tness. I use both sarcasm, even the cutting type to make points, and will continue doing so, and I'm not going to couch facts especially when someone is frequently on melodramatic insensible insult sprees, or makes insipidly fallacious claims about the strength of his nonsense based upon his sensitivity to criticism. I've interacted with both Kiera and Falconia as well, and never insulted them outright, although I've criticized positions when warranted. Neither are a measure of provocation, as I'm sure you well know even while you field the inanity. And of course you'll call anything that cuts to the bone of your various dishonesties, irrationalities and hypocrisies as insults, and further yammer about how that somehow shows strength of argument. If you weren't "tender" you wouldn't be moaning about it and you would put up links to be examined in the depth as opposed to your facile convenient cries. You consider yourself a "target", yet you claim you're not tender? Again, even though you frequently rattle on about other peoples' oversensitivity? I do what I (free) will. I'm certainly not going to entertain your intimations of persecution via having your posts replied to. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.My point was that you almost exclusively post insults, and that is the only point that I was substantiated. Other people get rubbed up the wrong way but can manage to keep the insults in moderation. And the very thread in which I have posted to Falconia (respectfully disagreeing) is this one that you are presently reading. It will be in page 1 or 2. Also, I respectfully disagreed with Kiera at the start of this thread. And your claim was that I never support my argument without first insulting people, so it doesn't matter whether those particular two individuals are provocateurs; it disproves your claim. All I do is (occasionally) insult people who insult me; much as you have defended yourself for doing. And thanks for confiming that you were following me. I wasn't going to claim persecution, it just made me smile that you you like following me around.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 2:05:01 GMT
tpfkar If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable? You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. When the body / mental state is not pathological then the things that are "bad" should provoke a response that is some degree of what you call suffering. But the way to address that is to make things better for all and avoid the things that validly trigger those responses; not strive to vanquish sentience nor to scuttle all due to a small minority of defects. The great(est) flaw in your position is your reverence of the tiniest bit of "suffering", whether or not it is contribution to a bigger success, happiness, satisfaction, and ignoring the net said satisfaction that they can and often do have. Kids can be set up to thoroughly enjoy their lives. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 2:15:10 GMT
tpfkar You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. When the body / mental state is not pathological then the things that are "bad" should provoke a response that is some degree of what you call suffering. But the way to address that is to make things better for all and avoid the things that validly trigger those responses; not strive to vanquish sentience nor to scuttle all due to a small minority of defects. The great(est) flaw in your position is your reverence of the tiniest bit of "suffering", whether or not it is contribution to a bigger success, happiness, satisfaction, and ignoring the net said satisfaction that they can and often do have. Kids can be set up to thoroughly enjoy their lives. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.That philosophy works fine for people who are already alive and believe that there is some kind of 'big picture' which is going to make the suffering worthwhile. But in terms of people who have not yet been born, there is no way to guarantee that their lives will be mainly joyful and only punctuated by brief spells of suffering. There is no way of distributing the risk in such a way that the suffering toll doesn't end up being something akin to the inverse of a progressive income tax (in this case, the weakest being the ones who are encumbered with the heaviest burden). For those who are unborn, there is no greater goal that they have signed up to; it is their parents who enlist them in this larger cause without knowing whether the child is going to share those goals and be happy with their role in bringing it about. Even the most privileged children with the most loving parents can find life very hard; there simply isn't any way of effectively screening against future suffering. Myself, I was brought up in a middle class family by loving parents; so there would have been no way of knowing in advance that I was going to feel resentful about being roped into [whatever my parents thought was so important] without my consent. And my suffering isn't even really all that bad, by the standards of what others have to put up with. I suppose that you could call my condition a case of existential ennui. Consciousness is the only source of value in the universe, and suffering is the most valuable thing in the universe. The bigger causes that you have described are narratives that humans who have already been born make up for themselves. None of these causes are objectively important or in need of being accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 2:30:28 GMT
tpfkar Not the point you'd like perhaps. But it is a hard cold fact and directly on point that I feel free to adjust my tone based on the tone of the posts I respond to, a fact that is directly applicable to you. And right, no links. Shocker. You're of course again the liar. Show examples with links or continue to highlight this particular aspect of your hypocritical fullofsh!tness. I use both sarcasm, even the cutting type to make points, and will continue doing so, and I'm not going to couch facts especially when someone is frequently on melodramatic insensible insult sprees, or makes insipidly fallacious claims about the strength of his nonsense based upon his sensitivity to criticism. I've interacted with both Kiera and Falconia as well, and never insulted them outright, although I've criticized positions when warranted. Neither are a measure of provocation, as I'm sure you well know even while you field the inanity. And of course you'll call anything that cuts to the bone of your various dishonesties, irrationalities and hypocrisies as insults, and further yammer about how that somehow shows strength of argument. If you weren't "tender" you wouldn't be moaning about it and you would put up links to be examined in the depth as opposed to your facile convenient cries. You consider yourself a "target", yet you claim you're not tender? Again, even though you frequently rattle on about other peoples' oversensitivity? I do what I (free) will. I'm certainly not going to entertain your intimations of persecution via having your posts replied to. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.My point was that you almost exclusively post insults, and that is the only point that I was substantiated. Other people get rubbed up the wrong way but can manage to keep the insults in moderation. And my point of course is that you're a shameless liar, as evidenced by still no links to examine to track the purported "exclusively posted insults". And of course your admitted insults are acceptable, they're yours after all. Right, so post the link and note the insult. It certainly won't pay off for anyone trying to dig through and guess what you may be talking about with your framing. I suppose it's easy enough to whine, claim it strengthens some argument and then run. And where did I make such a claim? You just can't help yourself, can you. Also show where I defended bare insults. Cutting to the bone in a tone that matches the post responded to is a different thing altogether, regardless if you're feeling the need for, what is it you'd say? A safe space? As typical, it's difficult to tell with you what's comprehension vs. just an overt willingness to assert things out of the air Ada-style. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 2:37:36 GMT
tpfkar My point was that you almost exclusively post insults, and that is the only point that I was substantiated. Other people get rubbed up the wrong way but can manage to keep the insults in moderation. And my point of course is that you're a shameless liar, as evidenced by still no links to examine to track the purported "exclusively posted insults". And of course your admitted insults are acceptable, they're yours after all. As typical, it's difficult to tell with you what's comprehension vs. just an overt willingness to assert things out of the air Ada-style. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I was pointing to your double standards of excusing your own insults whilst criticising me for insulting people. What insult? I was using those examples to show that I don't insult people when they disagree with me (they didn't insult me either). All you would have to do is read through the thread to see that I didn't insult those posters. Your first post in this thread on page 3: "You start off with the insults when people disagree with you" You've excused your frequent insults by saying that it was precipitated by their behaviour. Even something that occurred months ago (i.e. VegasDevil using racial epithets on the old board), and then you show up in a thread that has nothing to do with that in order to dredge that episode up. You don't usually post on this board, then show up here to respond to me when I post here for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 2:45:45 GMT
tpfkar When the body / mental state is not pathological then the things that are "bad" should provoke a response that is some degree of what you call suffering. But the way to address that is to make things better for all and avoid the things that validly trigger those responses; not strive to vanquish sentience nor to scuttle all due to a small minority of defects. The great(est) flaw in your position is your reverence of the tiniest bit of "suffering", whether or not it is contribution to a bigger success, happiness, satisfaction, and ignoring the net said satisfaction that they can and often do have. Kids can be set up to thoroughly enjoy their lives. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.That philosophy works fine for people who are already alive and believe that there is some kind of 'big picture' which is going to make the suffering worthwhile. But in terms of people who have not yet been born, there is no way to guarantee that their lives will be mainly joyful and only punctuated by brief spells of suffering. There is no way of distributing the risk in such a way that the suffering toll doesn't end up being something akin to the inverse of a progressive income tax (in this case, the weakest being the ones who are encumbered with the heaviest burden). For those who are unborn, there is no greater goal that they have signed up to; it is their parents who enlist them in this larger cause without knowing whether the child is going to share those goals and be happy with their role in bringing it about. Even the most privileged children with the most loving parents can find life very hard; there simply isn't any way of effectively screening against future suffering. Myself, I was brought up in a middle class family by loving parents; so there would have been no way of knowing in advance that I was going to feel resentful about being roped into [whatever my parents thought was so important] without my consent. And my suffering isn't even really all that bad, by the standards of what others have to put up with. I suppose that you could call my condition a case of existential ennui. Consciousness is the only source of value in the universe, and suffering is the most valuable thing in the universe. The bigger causes that you have described are narratives that humans who have already been born make up for themselves. None of these causes are objectively important or in need of being accomplished. "Guarantees" of absolutely no bad aren't and never will be a requirement. The supposed demand for them is silly, particularly egregious fallacious thinking. And again, it's not a zero sum game, there is no risk to distribute; the risk is individual, and all can be raised up. Parents can and do facilitate happy and satisfying lives for their children, far net-positive relative to both the helpful and the unnecessary "suffering". Society can and is also facilitating similar more and more as time goes on. There's no inherent reason any must have disadvantaged childhoods. And there will always be those with mental illnesses, but the answer there is to treat and find better treatments, not to take the morbid lesson of ending humanity. Especially given that any competent individual can trivially end their ride if they have actually firmly made such a decision. They just have been given the great opportunity to have this ride or not to at any time. "suffering is the most valuable thing in the universe" doesn't even make good nonsense, of course. There is nothing that is objectively important. However we have come together in societies to encapsulate what we subjectively find so. And giving the well-facilitated option to go on this great ride is one of the best great gifts that can be given. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 5:32:16 GMT
I was pointing to your double standards of excusing your own insults whilst criticising me for insulting people. What insult? I was using those examples to show that I don't insult people when they disagree with me (they didn't insult me either). All you would have to do is read through the thread to see that I didn't insult those posters. You initiated claims about people insulting you and how that strengthened your "argument". You made further claims about my posts being almost all "insults". Neither of which you will actually post links to and note the insult so that we can examine the context and (again ) the antecedents. That in context (or even alone) in no way said that you "never support my argument without first insulting people". And why did you not link so it could be easily examined? Not so base as because it would show that it was in the context of when you say people insult you, right? As in you then get back what you consider "insults" that you started whining about in this thread. How is cutting to the bone in their own set tone the ludicrousness of their insults and hypocrisies or even of their daft positions "bare insults"? I'm not interested in blunting facts for the ErJens and MicCees of the world when they get going. Again, point out a link, as you are patently full of sh!t and I'll be glad to note how for you, point by point. That again shows in bright relief the quality of both your reasoning and fiber, as well as your easy willingness to assert whatever you feel like, just because you feel like. Again, very much like Ada. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 7:00:13 GMT
I was pointing to your double standards of excusing your own insults whilst criticising me for insulting people. What insult? I was using those examples to show that I don't insult people when they disagree with me (they didn't insult me either). All you would have to do is read through the thread to see that I didn't insult those posters. You initiated claims about people insulting you and how that strengthened your "argument". You made further claims about my posts being almost all "insults". Neither of which you will actually post links to and note the insult so that we can examine the context and (again ) the antecedents. That in context (or even alone) in no way said that you "never support my argument without first insulting people". And why did you not link so it could be easily examined? Not so base as because it would show that it was in the context of when you say people insult you, right? As in you then get back what you consider "insults" that you started whining about in this thread. How is cutting to the bone in their own set tone the ludicrousness of their insults and hypocrisies or even of their daft positions "bare insults"? I'm not interested in blunting facts for the ErJens and MicCees of the world when they get going. Again, point out a link, as you are patently full of sh!t and I'll be glad to note how for you, point by point. That again shows in bright relief the quality of both your reasoning and fiber, as well as your easy willingness to assert whatever you feel like, just because you feel like. Again, very much like Ada. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham. And since you insult me in every post, there's no need for a link. I'm not dredging up a thread from months ago in which graham insulted me. And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems. I can't link to every single post that I've made to prove that I don't insult people in every post. I'm not sure how you would expect me to prove a negative. But as I've mentioned, I've discussed antinatalism civilly with 2 posters in this very thread. You can read the posts on page 3 of this very thread.
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Sept 18, 2017 10:03:25 GMT
Now you're just kind of ignoring objections. That doesn't make your argument better. There are no objective purposes to anything. There are no right or wrong, true or false statements in the form of, "The purpose of x is ص." The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe. Very well said!
|
|