The triggered triggering of "triggered"

...can you repeat that ?

Nice of you to show your continued commitment to following me around with a thread on a sub forum on which you'd never previously posted prior to following me over through my profile. If you go to my profile, you can make it more convenient to persist with your obsession by clicking on the 'Follow' button. Now that the cat's out of the bag about your combing through my posting history, you may as well. Go on; you know you want to.



I'm not taking the time to go through all those posts; but I remember the distortion vividly. It relates to one of the statements that you use as a signature in which I state "And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society." @graham quoted the same passage, but then responded to it as if my statement had been "And if society wants the fairest possible society ...". Then rebutted the point based on his own distortion, retorting that it was akin to saying that the cleanest possible house was one that did not exist. 

And by not having the chance to respond, I mean that he made it clear that he wasn't going to respond to any follow up posts. As a consequence, I do not know whether my correction of the distortion was ever read and noted. The same post contained personal insults and claims to have fully debunked the argument with the notion that the wellbeing of people who will exist in the future is not important and therefore should not be considered even when it is known that there is a high likelihood that the child will be born with a disability which condemns them to a truly abject quality of life.



How often do I dwell on the insults that you dispense in every response to me? I was not complaining of hurt feelings, I was observing that antinatalism debates tend to follow a very similar pattern wherein the natalist claims to have refuted all the points, then insults me personally and makes it clear that they will refuse to answer any follow up points that I may offer. Being insulted on the Internet really doesn't disturb my emotional equilibrium. I'm happy for people to insult me as much as they want, as long as they at least make a good faith attempt to address the substance of my points, rather than distorting my actual statements into something that can be summarily dismissed. I'd rather have someone take an insulting and abrasive demeanour whilst actually answering my points, rather than being more polite but evasive and dishonest.



The comment was not intended to be a pot shot. Based on the garbled and bizarre phrasing, I honestly drew the impression that English was not your primary language and asked if you could restate your comment in a different way. It obviously upset you so much that you still bring it up from time to time; now even a year and a half after the fact. And of course the actual post that I was addressing has been lost to the digital void. I don't obsessively catalogue everything so that I can repost it later. And I'm not going through your posts to find an example, but numerous others have commented on having found your posts to sometimes be scarcely intelligible. Next time I come across a passage that I am finding it difficult to comprehend, then I will use that as my example.



Of course empathy isn't religious. On the contrary; being religious (or merely being unable to come to terms with the futility of one's own existence) is often something that vitiates empathy. I sincerely question whether you understand the meaning of the word "empathy", so I am going to post the definition of the word:

Having empathy isn't religious either. Redefining words like "autonomy" and "sacred" to support your (death-)faith (not too long after your procreation zealotry), along with projection of your compulsion for regarding life at extremes, is typical of the fervor of recent religious converts.




With the above definition in mind, I'm really eager to know how the foregoing relates to your assertion that you wish to deny the severely disabled cripple the right to die, and that the only means of escaping his torture (given that he is physically completely incapable of committing suicide) should be to slowly starve to death. Have you ever contemplated what it must be like to be in a wheelchair and incapable of doing the smallest thing for yourself; needing to have your nappy changed, your nose wiped, not being able to feed yourself, and having every day be exactly the same as the last one? Knowing that there's nothing that science can do to improve this situation, and that the carers are already doing everything they possibly can do? And that you have untold decades left of this unless you should be allowed to refuse food and water? And have you ever contemplated how it would feel to slowly starve to death, because you cannot be allowed to take a prescribed medication that would enable you to be instantaneously unburdened of your torment? I'm really looking forward to reading about how 'empathy' comes into condemning a helpless disabled person to a fate similar to the one that I've described (search for information on Tony Nicklinson, if you doubt that my description is true to life).

And I'm not portraying life as consisting only of the extremes. The point that I'm making is that even if the extremes are rare, the wellbeing of those people deserves as much consideration as that of anyone else. Therefore unless we can protect everyone from the risk of falling victim to such extreme misfortune, we should cease from allowing new life to be created until all such hazards are permanently eliminated.



Yes, but you do that when I, as a non-Christian point out the fact that Islam is in some respects worse than Christianity. And you're always ready to draw equivalences between Islam and Christianity even before any Christian has come forward in defence of their religion, or has insulted Islam. So it would be warranted to charge that you do seem to hold Islam and Muslims to a lower standard than Christianity and (especially white) Christians.



The intellectual and secular left has also been attacking the absurdity of 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings'. And they don't want a safe space to be protected from objection to their belief in free speech. I'm entirely in favour of free speech and, as I'm sure that you have observed, I do not back down from an argument or block ideas that I find to be abhorrent (such as the primitive and pusillanimous views that you espouse on the subject of assisted dying).



Suffering is built into the system. We could not have evolved without it. We exist in an environment with scarce resources which we need in order to survive and thrive. Our evolved nature inclines us to horde resources for ourselves, and as can be observed from the success of capitalism, most people would prefer to horde a surplus of resources for themselves, rather than have a more equitable system that ensures that all can be taken care of and that no children have to be exploited. And based on the news that I've been watching, not much is being done to ensure an equitable redistribution of resources. In the US, any desire to take care of the welfare of the less fortunate is perceived as being extremism by large swathes of the population.



When it's something that you're imposing on someone else and they don't get a say in the matter, then it should be incumbent on the person doing the imposing to ensure that it is not going to be burdensome. Like if a friend gave you a gift for your birthday; you would expect them to have put enough thought into the matter to ensure that the gift wasn't going to something that was likely to be difficult and expensive to maintain. Or even if this could not be guaranteed, you would expect to be able to refuse the gift without being in receipt of it, rather than being forced to take the gift and then having to go to the trouble of finding a way of disposing of it when you've decided that it isn't worth the vexatious inconvenience of maintaining it.



Nobody has the choice to immediately refuse the 'gift' before it becomes a burden. And nobody can just blink themselves out of existence the moment that they've decided that the benefits aren't worth the costs. Even for those who do commit suicide, it's usually a decision that they've struggled with for a very long time. They don't just instantly go from feeling happy with life to hanging from the rafters within the blink of an eye. A gift cannot be something that you have no option other than to take responsibility for, and dispose of at your own inconvenience.



There is no futility of effort. I'm putting in exactly as much effort as it was predetermined for me to put in, and the outcome of my effort is going to be exactly as much as was predetermined for it to be. It may turn out that my effort will not produce the result that I desire, or even that it will backfire; but except for by suicide, I cannot extricate myself from the mechanism which generates both my efforts and the fruits of those efforts.



How is my mental illness being noted as a fact if you haven't ventured a specific diagnosis? If you don't know exactly what mental illness that I'm allegedly labouring under, then surely that is an indication that you've scant evidence to suggest the presence of any mental illness at all? Of course, even if it were an established fact that I were suffering from a mental illness, then good form would dictate that you show how that condition invalidates my argument. Otherwise, it is no different from 'noting' the darker skin colour of your opponent if he happens to be non-white. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n****r". So either you don't sincerely believe that I'm mentally ill, or you think that it's acceptable to shout epithets at people concerning possibly irrelevant facets of their being.



As above. And with regards to the no provocation thing, the genesis of your disputes with the likes of Vegas Devil was on the old forum. And you have made fun of his appearance whilst he had you on ignore, but I'm certainly not dredging through 2000+ posts to find that.



It's not zero sum; it's the guarantee that some people will suffer horrendously in life. I'm not arguing in favour of taking away the wellbeing of some in order to lift others up; simply saying that if we are going to make such a drastic choice on the behalf of someone who cannot consent, then it should behoove us to make sure that the person for whom we are acting as proxies are not going to be caused undue hardship by the (unnecessary and unforced) decision that we have made for them.

Now who is triggered? If there's another explanation for how you showed up on Philosophy, then let me know. And you're the one who has to resort to habitual name calling (e.g. "psychopath", "deranged", "supervillain", etc) in almost every post.

OK, I mentioned in my long post above that I would point out the next instance of a garbled word salad. Ever true to my word; I would honestly need the point that you were trying to make in the bolded sentence above to be reworded in coherent terms. That's a seriously convoluted double or even triple negative. 

Yes, don't and inability make up a double negative. And the rest of the post wasn't too clear either, but now that I'm familiarised with your brand of semi-gibberish, I was able to reason the meaning of the rest.

And if I'm insane, then tell me what my diagnosis would be and what your process was for clinically diagnosing my alleged mental illness. Otherwise, it's basically the same as saying "You are of course a n****r" when responding to a black person.

Even if it's not a double negative, it's still a very convoluted and baffling sentence. The rest of the post was only marginally more comprehensible.

Is "desperate, inveterately dishonest nutcase" in the DSM?

Considering that you've never seen me in person, whether smeared in faecal matter or otherwise, you don't have any objective evidence on which to call me insane. And valuing autonomy over placing arbitrary restrictions on autonomy that are demanded by atavistic reactionaries is not included in any diagnosis of any mental illness.

And you are the first one to use a disparaging epithet; only 'the d word' is used to ridicule people who have the misfortune of being mentally ill (which hasn't been established in my case). So it's very much the equivalent of 'the n word', even though we live in a society that is very protective of racial identity, but dismissive of personal misfortune.

"Brainfcked" meaning that I don't think that religious values (as decreed from the lizard brain of a reactionary) ought to be imposed to restrict what people are permitted to do with their own body.



"Deranged" is an epithet that relates to mental illness. Although I do not believe myself to have a clinical mental illness, you are claiming to believe that I do suffer from such. Therefore you're using slurs based on what you perceive to be something that I have the misfortune to be suffering with. And of course any other harmless person with actual mental illness who might be reading these exchanges feels further stigmatised by the fact that it's seen as acceptable to make derogatory remarks about something that makes life very difficult to them. And then you claim the moral high ground with 'empathy' when you say that the person's bodily sovereignty should be restricted by what you think is best for them (without being able to describe what is harmful or regrettable about being dead).

And I don't get upset about your insults and don't think that any 'naughty words' should be out of order (or censored when quoting); I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.