|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 10:28:12 GMT
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. Right. But why can't we falsify any "should/shouldn't" or ethical statement in general? I want to make sure that you understand the view.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 10:29:59 GMT
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! Except for the facts that empirical claims aren't provable and that there is no objective meaning, importance or justification.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 12:51:40 GMT
tpfkar 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. So, you honestly think that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" and "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" are coherent together, not to mention in the same breath? And I know you're not going to link, and you're going to keep manic-pretending that the point wasn't that when you get "insulted", it's typically after you insult first. The bawling about it and lying and crassly trying to use your self-initiated tone as somehow giving credence to your on-loop nonsense is relatively new hypocritical fun from the "safe space"-mocking guy. But I do hope you find your marshmallow sprinkles spot where you can spittle-rant your insulting projecting nonsense and not get frank replies back. Good luck, sweetness! And here's where you'll have some more twisted ammo, as the conclusion of dishonesty or utter denseness is unavoidable - you getting what you call insults after your tone dives and you insult is, again, in no way suggesting that you "insult people in every post". But feel free to keep repeat-chattering the nonsense, that's been your modus operandi (threaded with insults and bawling, of course). And again, you ignore that Kiera and Falconia aren't ones to match nasty tone and are generally pretty gentle in the face of utter nonsense and insults, and as I pointed out they are rarely insulted, and certainly not by me in my numerous interactions with them. But then they aren't the cupcake types trying to hypocritically trade on self-instigated sharp tone, so again, you having an exchange where you don't go on your morbid nonsensical projecting insult spiral means absolutely nothing. And of course backing up shrill nonsensical accusations and assertions isn't something that Ada-types generally do. Must be incredibly convenient. 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 17:45:43 GMT
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. Right. But why can't we falsify any "should/shouldn't" or ethical statement in general? I want to make sure that you understand the view. It cannot be falsified as it falls under the purview of ethics. Just because a sadist can justify keeping people chained up in his basement whilst inflicting torture using your logical argument, it doesn't mean that it is not desirable for any decent minded person to condemn such actions, or for the authorities to prevent such actions. Based on the code of ethics to which I subscribe, it is wrong to torture because it inflicts terrible pain on the tortured, and usually only for the sadistic gratification of the torturer. This cannot be falsified in my mind by nihilistic logic. Similarly, I think it is unethical to bring new life into a dangerous universe, because it exposes a creature that otherwise would not exist to the risk of harm, without providing any needed benefit. This is usually done for the perceived benefit of the parents or society. I think that my system of ethics makes sense to the vast majority of people in the first instance. Now I'm trying to convince people that birthing sentient life ought to be disallowed by the same system of ethics.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 18:00:57 GMT
Right. But why can't we falsify any "should/shouldn't" or ethical statement in general? I want to make sure that you understand the view. It cannot be falsified as it falls under the purview of ethics. Right. So this was your earlier comment: "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." But that doesn't work as a criticism, does it? Because ethical claims are not falsifiable period. So what would whether something is falsifiable have to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 18:31:51 GMT
tpfkar 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. So, you honestly think that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" and "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" are coherent together, not to mention in the same breath? And I know you're not going to link, and you're going to keep manic-pretending that the point wasn't that when you get "insulted", it's typically after you insult first. The bawling about it and lying and crassly trying to use your self-initiated tone as somehow giving credence to your on-loop nonsense is relatively new hypocritical fun from the "safe space"-mocking guy. But I do hope you find your marshmallow sprinkles spot where you can spittle-rant your insulting projecting nonsense and not get frank replies back. Good luck, sweetness! If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I wasn't accusing any specific individual of insulting me, aside from yourself and graham. Hardly anyone is willing to debate antinatalism on the 'imdb v2' forum, and in general it is not a popular topic. But the typical pattern is that either they will come in with an insult, or they will debate the subject and then when they find that all they have got is 'might makes right' and 'The non-existent people will be deprived of joy if we don't give birth to them. Won't somebody please think of the poor non-existent people', then they start in with the insults, deflection and distortion. And I don't get upset by being insulted (I'm used to people casting aspersions against my mental hygiene and it doesn't affect me); but it is frustrating that people will resort to that before admitting (to themselves or anyone else) that they haven't got a very compelling justification for the need to bring new life into the world. You're the one who accused me of 'start[ing] with insults', so the onus is on you to show that I've insulted someone out of turn. I'm not ignoring that. That is part of the point that I'm making; I usually only insult when I've been insulted. Since Kiera and Falconia did not insult me, I have never insulted either of them. Which means that the very worst that I can be accused of is retaliating with insults to those who are themselves bellicose and condescending. That's the very same basis on which you defend your own insulting of others; except that you usually go into threads where nobody has insulted you and start insulting certain posters for no reason other than you don't agree with their posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 18:33:40 GMT
It cannot be falsified as it falls under the purview of ethics. Right. So this was your earlier comment: "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." But that doesn't work as a criticism, does it? Because ethical claims are not falsifiable period. So what would whether something is falsifiable have to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims? It does work as a criticism, because it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem. We are flesh and blood creatures, so it does matter to us if someone is inflicting harm on us; even if the universe is coldly indifferent. It doesn't produce any benefit to perceive and analyse the issue in the way that you do; except to the person who wants to justify doing whatever they want to do even when there are harmful consequences to others.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 18:35:21 GMT
Right. So this was your earlier comment: "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." But that doesn't work as a criticism, does it? Because ethical claims are not falsifiable period. So what would whether something is falsifiable have to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims? It does work as a criticism, because it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem. What are you talking about? What is "it" in "it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem"? Also, when I ask "What does whether something is falsifiable have to do with . . ." The way to respond to that is like this: "Whether it's falsifiable has _________ to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 19:53:16 GMT
tpfkar So, you honestly think that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" and "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" are coherent together, not to mention in the same breath? And I know you're not going to link, and you're going to keep manic-pretending that the point wasn't that when you get "insulted", it's typically after you insult first. The bawling about it and lying and crassly trying to use your self-initiated tone as somehow giving credence to your on-loop nonsense is relatively new hypocritical fun from the "safe space"-mocking guy. But I do hope you find your marshmallow sprinkles spot where you can spittle-rant your insulting projecting nonsense and not get frank replies back. Good luck, sweetness! If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I wasn't accusing any specific individual of insulting me, aside from yourself and graham. Hardly anyone is willing to debate antinatalism on the 'imdb v2' forum, and in general it is not a popular topic. But the typical pattern is that either they will come in with an insult, or they will debate the subject and then when they find that all they have got is 'might makes right' and 'The non-existent people will be deprived of joy if we don't give birth to them. Won't somebody please think of the poor non-existent people', then they start in with the insults, deflection and distortion. Irrelevant to the fact that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" together with "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" is more positive derangement. And your assertions are more self-serving bullsh!t framings. You can make up convenient unsupported crap all day long, and it will continue to be recognized as massively hypocritical whining bluster in lieu of actual argument. Upset enough to bawl and even fallaciously and frankly pathetically try to use it to claim a nonexistent sign of strength for your "argument". And no, you're the one that accused insults first. As in, 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. Followed by your pure bull about the nature of your posts followed by your typical out-the-ass yap of "97-98%" of my posts insulting people. Which of course is just another of your hysterical outbursts on it's own, but also of course ignores the tone set and the babydarlin' interpretation of responses to content and behavior as "insults". And even with your silly "97-98%" you're still too timid to pick one to examine the path because you know it will just further highlight your ass-pull bullsh!t. All goes back to you having no concern for integrity as long as you think something pushes your evangelism.
Sure, you'll blather that bullsh!t on and on, and of course you won't post links. Because you know the fact that you're a facile liar will be made even clearer upon examination of the actual content and interaction. And you wailed about "insults", it was your introduced lachrymose beg. I haven't insulted Kiera or Falconia either, so what you can be accused of is more bizarre convenient "reasoning". And I haven't bare insulted you. You may find the noting of your reprehensible reasoning, projection and dishonesty "insulting", but each instance is a fact supported in situ. So pick something and let's look, or just keep highlighting that you're an Ada class victim-crying easy liar. 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 22:25:31 GMT
I wasn't accusing any specific individual of insulting me, aside from yourself and graham. Hardly anyone is willing to debate antinatalism on the 'imdb v2' forum, and in general it is not a popular topic. But the typical pattern is that either they will come in with an insult, or they will debate the subject and then when they find that all they have got is 'might makes right' and 'The non-existent people will be deprived of joy if we don't give birth to them. Won't somebody please think of the poor non-existent people', then they start in with the insults, deflection and distortion. Irrelevant to the fact that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" together with "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" is more positive derangement. And your assertions are more self-serving bullsh!t framings. You can make up convenient unsupported crap all day long, and it will continue to be recognized as massively hypocritical whining bluster in lieu of actual argument. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I've already set out what my argument is, so I'm not doing anything "in lieu of actual argument". If there is any point in my argument which I have left unclear, then please let me know and I will clarify it. I'm observing the fact that certain topics tend to make people very touchy and hostile. Religion is one of them, and antinatalism is another. An example would be your insinuation that I am mentally ill, which you have repeated in numerous posts. Firstly, you have never specified which mental illness I supposedly have, nor how you have diagnosed it. Secondly, you would need to show how my argument is fallacious because I'm mentally ill. Saying that I'm mentally ill (in your assessment) and therefore anything I believe must be incorrect is an ad hominem attack. I assume that I don't need to post a link to your calling me mentally ill; because to ask for proof would be a tacit retraction of that accusation. The comment about insults was apropos of the fact that graham did an ad hominem/strawman combination before cutting and running the time that I tried to debate the subject with him, and it certainly wasn't the first time that someone has thrown out a personal insult and then refused to justify their assertion that it is necessary for people to procreate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 22:31:26 GMT
It does work as a criticism, because it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem. What are you talking about? What is "it" in "it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem"? Also, when I ask "What does whether something is falsifiable have to do with . . ." The way to respond to that is like this: "Whether it's falsifiable has _________ to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims." Moral nihilism isn't a useful or productive lens through which to look at the subject of antinatalism. The universe does not have value, only sentient beings have values. Therefore 'the universe doesn't care if you torture animals' is a meaningless justification for doing so. Whether moral claims are objective has absolutely no bearing on the subject of antinatalism, because I'm not trying to convince the cold, indifferent universe not to have children, nor am I trying to convince psychopaths not to have children.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 22:31:39 GMT
tpfkar 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. Nonsense, as of course as there exists no "objective meaning" of anything. Only our shared subjective, which has emphatically ruled that life on balance is a freakin' blast gone too soon, and giving a kid a great start on this wild ride, one that they can choose to step out of any time, is a great gift. 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 22:37:42 GMT
tpfkar 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. Nonsense, as of course as there exists no "objective meaning" of anything. Only our shared subjective, which has emphatically ruled that life on balance is a freakin' blast gone too soon, and giving a kid a great start on this wild ride, one that they can choose to step out of any time, is a great gift. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.But non-existent people do not share that subjective opinion; and you cannot infer consent in all cases based on what the majority thinks. You don't know in which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will find life to be a "freakin' gift" and which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will suffer from severe paranoid schizophrenia and spend their entire life in a psychiatric ward. Or in which cases the child is going to start out with all the advantages, then be crippled in a car accident before their 20th birthday, causing them to spend 70 years confined to a wheelchair, soiling themselves and having other people change their nappy. Our shared subjective sense of morality generally holds that you cannot gamble someone else's lifesavings without their consent on a risky investment, just because you plan to give them back more than you took if the investment works out. Therefore all I'm really doing is reframing life as being an inherently risky and unnecessary prospect.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 23:03:44 GMT
tpfkar I've already set out what my argument is, so I'm not doing anything "in lieu of actual argument". If there is any point in my argument which I have left unclear, then please let me know and I will clarify it. I'm observing the fact that certain topics tend to make people very touchy and hostile. Religion is one of them, and antinatalism is another. And yet you cry "insults" as an argument as well as call people "medievalists", and freely, nonsensically project your personal religiosity. The arguments you've "set out" are hyper-emotional, unsound inanities. And you couldn't have possibly been more clear in them. You keep looking for cover in "touchy" because as much as you mock "safe spaces", like all good religious-types you're not able to handle it when your patently unsound arguments are highlighted. Lay antinatalists tend to be extreme in any position they take and are not only "touchy" and nonsensically projecting and insulting, but oblivious and impervious to the cavernous holes in their thinking, and substantially fall to hyper-dramatic hyper-emotional appeals and cries of victimhood. No other conclusion can be had from your posts. What was it in reply to specifically, as there are a number of your positions that scream it. The thinking in your posts is positively deranged; you are comically morbid and unable to complete basic reasoning or recognize when your offerings are shattered. You frequently earnestly proffer the most ludicrous of non sequiturs. As a subset. But if you want detail, you should link to specific references so that particular incapacites noted can be covered. "Saying that I'm mentally ill (in your assessment) and therefore anything I believe must be incorrect is an ad hominem attack." This is a perfect example of the daft workings of your mind. Your words being bizarre is what yields conclusions of your mental incapacity; how you came up with your construction here is just another amazing thing to behold. Again, you can provide a link and let's look, or just keep highlighting that you're an Ada class victim-crying easy liar. And of course "necessary" is not the measure. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 23:13:58 GMT
What are you talking about? What is "it" in "it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem"? Also, when I ask "What does whether something is falsifiable have to do with . . ." The way to respond to that is like this: "Whether it's falsifiable has _________ to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims." Moral nihilism isn't a useful or productive lens through which to look at the subject of antinatalism. The universe does not have value, only sentient beings have values. Therefore 'the universe doesn't care if you torture animals' is a meaningless justification for doing so. Whether moral claims are objective has absolutely no bearing on the subject of antinatalism, because I'm not trying to convince the cold, indifferent universe not to have children, nor am I trying to convince psychopaths not to have children. The criticism we were talking about was about whether something was falsifiable. What does what you just wrote above have to do with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2017 1:43:16 GMT
tpfkar I've already set out what my argument is, so I'm not doing anything "in lieu of actual argument". If there is any point in my argument which I have left unclear, then please let me know and I will clarify it. I'm observing the fact that certain topics tend to make people very touchy and hostile. Religion is one of them, and antinatalism is another. And yet you cry "insults" as an argument as well as call people "medievalists", and freely, nonsensically project your personal religiosity. The arguments you've "set out" are hyper-emotional, unsound inanities. And you couldn't have possibly been more clear in them. You keep looking for cover in "touchy" because as much as you mock "safe spaces", like all good religious-types you're not able to handle it when your patently unsound arguments are highlighted. Lay antinatalists tend to be extreme in any position they take and are not only "touchy" and nonsensically projecting and insulting, but oblivious and impervious to the cavernous holes in their thinking, and substantially fall to hyper-dramatic hyper-emotional appeals and cries of victimhood. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I don't have any problem with people 'highlighting' why they think that my arguments are unsound. I positively encourage it, in fact. There's never been any pro-natalist argument that I haven't had a ready rebuttal for (with the possible exception of Terrapin Station's baffling and irrelevant 'the universe doesn't care, therefore suffering doesn't matter'). Insulting people when someone is looking for a civil discussion in good faith is the behaviour of a 'triggered' individual. When debating antinatalism, I have always remained civil at least up to (and usually well beyond) the point where I am first insulted. If there be cavernous holes in my reasoning; then why not shine a torch into those caverns. But 'many people enjoy their life, so therefore it doesn't matter if others have to pay for it with lives full of suffering' is a selfish justification which favours those who just happened to have good luck in the lottery. Also, unless you can state what the mental illness is, how you have diagnosed it, your qualifications in coming to that diagnosis, and how it invalidates my argument (even if true, you would still need to demonstrate how the argument is faulty...it's not sufficient to cite 'mental illness'), then it is just another trollish ad hominem attack that is used to conceal the weakness of your own argument. If not 'necessary', then what? If 'desirable' is the measure, then that could not speak for those who end up being forced into a life of suffering; it would only speak for those who have the good fortune to be born into a life that is fulfilling.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 19, 2017 2:10:32 GMT
tpfkar But non-existent people do not share that subjective opinion; and you cannot infer consent in all cases based on what the majority thinks. You don't know in which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will find life to be a "freakin' gift" and which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will suffer from severe paranoid schizophrenia and spend their entire life in a psychiatric ward. Or in which cases the child is going to start out with all the advantages, then be crippled in a car accident before their 20th birthday, causing them to spend 70 years confined to a wheelchair, soiling themselves and having other people change their nappy. Our shared subjective sense of morality generally holds that you cannot gamble someone else's lifesavings without their consent on a risky investment, just because you plan to give them back more than you took if the investment works out. Therefore all I'm really doing is reframing life as being an inherently risky and unnecessary prospect. Sorry, the nonexistent -wait for it- don't exist. Nor is "consent" even a coherent concept for the empty space where they don't reside. And of course there are no 100% guarantees, and of course they aren't expected. Some having problems is not a sane reason to, forgive me, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your exaggerated emotional framings of virtually tiny relative risks remain utterly unconvincing of anything save your personal distorted outlook on life. But primo poop visualizations once again! Certainly stealing is bad, but starting tiny-risk stratospheric-dividend investments for them from your own resources, and nurturing them and their assets, and giving them the substrate on which to have a disproportionately fantastic time, with the ever present ability to check out if they ever want to, is an inherently net-positive lottery-lucky-to-get gift. And again, "unnecessary" is not the measure. And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2017 3:14:42 GMT
tpfkar But non-existent people do not share that subjective opinion; and you cannot infer consent in all cases based on what the majority thinks. You don't know in which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will find life to be a "freakin' gift" and which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will suffer from severe paranoid schizophrenia and spend their entire life in a psychiatric ward. Or in which cases the child is going to start out with all the advantages, then be crippled in a car accident before their 20th birthday, causing them to spend 70 years confined to a wheelchair, soiling themselves and having other people change their nappy. Our shared subjective sense of morality generally holds that you cannot gamble someone else's lifesavings without their consent on a risky investment, just because you plan to give them back more than you took if the investment works out. Therefore all I'm really doing is reframing life as being an inherently risky and unnecessary prospect. Sorry, the nonexistent -wait for it- don't exist. Nor is "consent" even a coherent concept for the empty space where they don't reside. And of course there are no 100% guarantees, and of course they aren't expected. Some having problems is not a sane reason to, forgive me, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your exaggerated emotional framings of virtually tiny relative risks remain utterly unconvincing of anything save your personal distorted outlook on life. But primo poop visualizations once again! And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.The non-existent and never-to-exist do not have any moral stake. But the people who will exist in the future may feel aggrieved at the gamble that was taken on their behalf; and therefore the lack of consent is a valid moral concern. I'm sure you wouldn't say that it was acceptable for a pregnant mother to abuse alcohol and drugs just because the foetus is not yet a full person. The risks are certainly not tiny, nor virtually tiny. There's diseases, poverty, violence, disability, exploitation, natural disasters, economic crashes, drug dependency, etc. The list goes on and on and on. It's like being on a forced march through a field with hidden trapdoors beneath the grass. If you happen to be one of the ones who luckily avoids all the trapdoors, it can be a nice walk with attractive scenery; but there's no moral difference between the person who makes it to the end of the walk unharmed and the person who falls into a trapdoor and gets maimed within the first mile. Their consciousness is of equal quality and value to yours, and their wellbeing is just as important as yours. And that's not even getting started on the army of sweatshop workers in Bangladesh who toil for 16 hours a day, 6 days a week for a dollar a day (and to go back to poop visualisations, often soiling themselves on the production line because they're not allowed toilet breaks) in order to make it possible for you to find cheap clothes. Or the children in Africa who toil all day in the mines just to survive. It's also not even to get started on the climate chaos that is caused by our wasteful lifestyles in the developed world - creating the conditions for natural disasters, and then pulling up the drawbridge when the people who are affected (the people who have contributed the least to the problem) try to seek refuge. Which is something that I can virtually guarantee is going to start happening within the next 50 years. Even if you could say that only 1 out of 20 had a truly wretched time of life; that would be akin to your holding a party every night for yourself and 18 of your closest friends, then kidnapping someone off the street to serve as a slave, and not only forcing them to do the catering for the party but also to pay for it themselves, then keeping them in a spartan cell in the basement. But a person's suffering is his or her own resource; and a precious one at that. And with the best will in the world, you cannot take all the suffering from your child and make it your own. Then what is?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 19, 2017 4:07:29 GMT
tpfkar And yet you cry "insults" as an argument as well as call people "medievalists", and freely, nonsensically project your personal religiosity. The arguments you've "set out" are hyper-emotional, unsound inanities. And you couldn't have possibly been more clear in them. You keep looking for cover in "touchy" because as much as you mock "safe spaces", like all good religious-types you're not able to handle it when your patently unsound arguments are highlighted. Lay antinatalists tend to be extreme in any position they take and are not only "touchy" and nonsensically projecting and insulting, but oblivious and impervious to the cavernous holes in their thinking, and substantially fall to hyper-dramatic hyper-emotional appeals and cries of victimhood. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I don't have any problem with people 'highlighting' why they think that my arguments are unsound. And yet you moaned in this thread about "insults" for criticisms you can't handle. Silly bluster is definitely your shtick. When you live in delusion, this is what you tell yourself (and even post, it seems). Are you completely sure your just as unreasoned previous stance as a rabid natalist isn't actually the right one for you? I suppose that's why you do it as you know you're not arguing in good faith so you assume others aren't going to. And sure, no doubt you're the "triggered", "safe space" yapping alt-right type guy who sniffles about insults when the great holes and derangements in his posts are pointed out. Like all that lean on such limp bilge, you're a massive hypocrite to boot. And of course your glowing terms for your frequently reprehensible posting behavior is pure drek. Our first interaction on IMDB you vented your frustration by typo hunting. Then you accuse people of being secretly religious when that's a product of your own reverence in thinking that only religious people can value life, and that the good, common sense, human bits of religion didn't come from people in the first place as opposed to the religion itself. You''re also the guy who loves the alt-right language of "triggered" and "safe space", and asserting that people not liking groups being unfairly tarred wholesale as having some kind of minority fetish. And in this very thread you moaned about "insults" for criticisms you can't take and tones that you instigate. What do you think every post has been doing. Specifically here, the patent irrationality of zero sum. There is no inherent one paying for any other. It's perverse reasoning to suggest that one creature being born should have any intrinsic connection or necessarily anything at all to do with some other distinct creature being born elsewhere. In any case, as you believe they are all "organic robots" and so they cannot have done/do other than what they have done and will do or "feel" other than what they have been preset to "feel" ( just another illusion), any talk of "selfish" and "justification" and "favour" is just loony. You're trapped by Fate in your incoherent state as well, but it just highlights your breakdown in not being to recognize that believing that and furiously trying to affect people (or wailing on about "insults" for criticisms, or any other complaint hypocritical or valid) is deranged thinking. And another crash and burn. At it's worst framing it's a reverse-lottery where all win, and the bulk win big. A tiny minority win less, although most of those don't get a ticket in the end. And some's winnings run out and some choose to check out early as their winnings get low. And some just hate winnings, be they big or small. Again with your bizarre ideas. I didn't diagnose you medically, and lay people can observe and recognize patently aberrant behavior, and note morbid, hyper-emotional, grossly irrational thinking. And you repeating "need to demonstrate how the argument is faulty" for something demonstrated countless times, as well as pretending that "mental illness" was evidence for a conclusion as opposed to a conclusion based on the cited evidence of your many times noted irrationality and morbidity (and hysterical framing and overt dishonesty) - only reinforces the la-la land you exist in. "trollish ad hominem attack" - poor poor baby, you should find you one of those "safe spaces" when you get "triggered" like that. <== micCee language "Good". "Great opportunity". "Wonder". "Ride". With great and looking up odds for happiness & satisfaction when facilitated. You drive or use public transport, don't you? 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 19, 2017 21:01:08 GMT
I was more wanting to talk about the objective purpose, and how an evolutionary purpose would override the one people decide for it. A quick thought experiment: Say the human menopause came about through natural selection to reduce the number of older women. Hot flashes make you faint and make you more susceptible to predators. (So it is something deadly). Modern science discovers a way to prevent it. However certain societies/individuals decide to keep it because it constrains them to be better grandmothers, form closer social circles ect. After that point is its purpose its original evolutionary one, or the one decided for by society? I actually agree with your views on suicide because the odds are against you being sucessful. (The odds are currently 100 and 200 to 1 against). So in the same way it should be one's right to take a pill to prevent menopause (or any suffering) it should be their right to have a safe way to opt out of life. Afaik, only living sentient beings can have some form of (subjective) purpose so I disagree they are having something imposed on them before they are born because they are by default non-existent. I disagree that suffering is by default the worst thing ever that should never happen because of the reason below in ii: ii. to reply to your new post. If you're stating it's a numbers thing then you have the problem that not everyone is committing mass suicide or curling up not doing anything as if to avoid being shocked by whatever comes their way. So suffering must be in fact less efficacious/prolific than the other traits/qualia. So it's either less than the positive traits or suffering is being reworked in such a way that it becomes something positive for the individual. iii. I also think you're taking "suffering being the ultimate bad" as an a priori (a self evident truth). That's fine. I think Sam Harris does something similar and anyone who disagrees he can't relate to. I recall he was shocked when Dennett asked him "why? (Ayn Randian traits should be removed from the brain to reduce suffering)" on his podcast. The problem is others won't agree because for most people it is not a self evident truth. So the debate will just go in circles. i) I think that each individual ought to be able to decide whether or not they want the menopause. Women should not be forced to suffer through it because it is valued in their cultural milieu, but if they want to be menopausal, then it should be within their rights to refuse the preventative treatment. ii)I'm glad that you're in favour of having the right to die. Unfortunately, that simply is not the world that we are bringing more children in to, and it only seems more likely that society is going to become ever more aggressive in eliminating suicide as an option for those in suffering. I'm not saying that the majority of people hate their lives, although I would arguing that life is usually more 'tolerable' than it is 'enjoyable'. My point really is that some people are always going to end up with the shitty end of the stick and are going to experience truly appalling suffering throughout their life. There is no fairness built in to the system, so we can't ensure that everyone ends up with the same amount of suffering, or only the amount of suffering that they are capable of tolerating. Therefore, even if you could say that only 1 person out of 100 absolutely hated their existence, that means that you're excusing the suffering of the 1% as acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of a goal that is not necessarily shared by them. And my point is that individuals ought not to be forced to contribute to a shared goal with which they do not agree, or be collateral damage that is caused in the process of pursuing that goal. iii)If suffering isn't the ultimate bad, then I don't know what else could be the ultimate bad. Death isn't, because death is just the cessation of experience and is qualitatively no different than the state before birth. Nobody laments the lack of life on Pluto, and for a very good reason; non-existent organisms do not feel deprivation. Consciousness is the source of all value in the universe (a completely barren universe is one without values), and suffering is the one unpleasant and undesirable side effect of consciousness. As far as I can tell, everything that we deem to be 'bad' is only bad because it entails suffering. Even with death (which is an absence of suffering), we mainly deem this to be bad because of how it makes those of us still living feel. Sorry if this is slightly long. i) & iii) I'm referring to the problem of an earlier function dictating its current function. eg: A church that has become a gothic nightclub no longer serves the role of being a church. There would have to be a reason to take "I need suffering because it helps me survive long enough to reproduce" over "I need suffering because it makes life more interesting." In existentialist terms, I don't think there is meaning beyond what people give it. For it to be bad it must be thought of as bad, and we know this changes from person to person. Sadists believe it to be a good thing. Sounding slightly Wittgenstein-esque, concepts mean things to different people. They are interpretational. I do not believe that most people take the absence of all suffering being bad as a priori. Some may contrast their views with it, sure, but think of all the people who watch sport. Would they believe the games would be better without suffering? What people interpret as bad varies at different times. Being the living beings we are, it is usually some event combined with a level of misery, never really the same ontological state of affairs, and never suffering in itself hanging as a platonic ideal. To isolate it as such, with it existing in each and every situation seems too artificial. ii) "And my point is that individuals ought not to be forced to contribute to a shared goal with which they do not agree, or be collateral damage that is caused in the process of pursuing that goal." Regarding goals, I believe there are reasonable demands and unreasonable demands. I think being forced to stay alive is an unreasonable one, however I do not think simply being born is an unreasonable one. Yes, the smaller (and it must be small or everyone would have given up already) collateral damage is worth the risk for most people because the joy of having children outweighs the negatives for them. Even if antinatalist philosophy is employed, there may still be natural evil occurring somewhere in the universe. One of Nietzsche's (the anti-pessimist) big concepts was his eternal recurrence. If you're a strict naturalist and believe the first law of thermodynamics holds then infinity may be in play and life may just be a reoccurring event by chance alone. (That is how life on earth is believed to have started). No matter how many people or animals are sterilized, there will eventually be new "life" or floating minds in some form or another. You have to become an anime villain with omnipotence/omniscience to make it work. If we are to take that to its logical end, it is likely better to be born in a controlled environment than being born into chaos. Schopenhauer (the big pessimist) believed that the will (beings, minds) simply manifests again at another vent which was why he did not encourage suicide but asceticism. If we go full scientism then antinatalism vanishes from the meme pool because it does not encourage survival. It is only within collapsing civilisations it will take hold and then other people (or other animals) who are not persuaded or lack the mental equipment to be persuaded will take advantage of that.
|
|