Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 18:16:33 GMT
tpfkar What "harm done"? Are you saying that harm is an objective reality, rather than a subjective one? That harm can exist even where there is nobody feeling harmed? The scenario in which the suffering person is assisted to die in a clinic is one where his last experiences are ones of relief at having secured the assistance necessary to end his suffering, followed by ceasing to exist (which we agree cannot be harmful). So if the person being assisted to die doesn't experience subjective harm, then that would only leave some kind of 'objective harm' (and yet you've ridiculed me for saying that, in some sense, there are objective moral principles). Otherwise, where is the harm that's done? Offing the mentally ill at the behest of their illness, of course, as has been related to you countless times. And you're the one who babbles on about "objective reality" even where it is nowhere to be found. No, the non-deranged non-psychopaths among us have the shared subjective of protecting the vulnerable from those with murderous intent. As for your "we agree" lunacy, of course the killing is harmful, and the "dead can't be harmed" is purely the pipe smoke of supervillain psychopaths. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Yes, you have indeed repeated that line ad nauseum, as is your wont. But that isn't a description of something that is experienced as harmful to the person being offed, that's a description of your Catholic sensibilities being offended. I want to know where the 'harm' is, if not actually experienced by the person that is being assisted to die. Need I remind you that the very thing that brought them to the stage of asking for assistance to die is the fact that they were being chronically harmed, with no foreseeable end to the harm other than death?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 18:23:03 GMT
tpfkar Offing the mentally ill at the behest of their illness, of course, as has been related to you countless times. And you're the one who babbles on about "objective reality" even where it is nowhere to be found. No, the non-deranged non-psychopaths among us have the shared subjective of protecting the vulnerable from those with murderous intent. As for your "we agree" lunacy, of course the killing is harmful, and the "dead can't be harmed" is purely the pipe smoke of supervillain psychopaths. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Yes, you have indeed repeated that line ad nauseum, as is your wont. But that isn't a description of something that is experienced as harmful to the person being offed, that's a description of your Catholic sensibilities being offended. I want to know where the 'harm' is, if not actually experienced by the person that is being assisted to die. Need I remind you that the very thing that brought them to the stage of asking for assistance to die is the fact that they were being chronically harmed, with no foreseeable end to the harm other than death? Harr, you bawling about "repeating", such a wimpering hypocrite. Another derangement is thinking that an answer to the same bullsh!t should change. And semi-normal peeps don't relegate "harmful" to the "experience" of the person, although I do get you probably think that somebody instantly killed in an accident or those vaporized in Japan weren't "harmed". Such an intellect. As for the freakish framing in your last line, Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 18:28:46 GMT
tpfkar Yes, you have indeed repeated that line ad nauseum, as is your wont. But that isn't a description of something that is experienced as harmful to the person being offed, that's a description of your Catholic sensibilities being offended. I want to know where the 'harm' is, if not actually experienced by the person that is being assisted to die. Need I remind you that the very thing that brought them to the stage of asking for assistance to die is the fact that they were being chronically harmed, with no foreseeable end to the harm other than death? Harr, you bawling about "repeating", such a wimpering hypocrite. Another derangement is thinking that an answer to the same bullsh!t should change. And semi-normal peeps don't relegate "harmful" to the "experience" of the person, although I do get you probably think that somebody instantly killed in an accident or those vaporized in Japan weren't "harmed". Such an intellect. As for the freakish framing in your last line, Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).Ok, so harm is something that has an 'objective' dimension, then? Interesting, given how many times you mocked me for 'objective morality' (which was misinterpreted). A person is harmed inasfar as they are conscious of being harmed, so if they didn't experience any harm before they die, then they weren't harmed. With respect to assisted suicide, harm is what the person requesting the assistance is attempting to escape.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 18:33:33 GMT
tpfkar Ok, so harm is something that has an 'objective' dimension, then? Interesting, given how many times you mocked me for 'objective morality' (which was misinterpreted). A person is harmed inasfar as they are conscious of being harmed, so if they didn't experience any harm before they die, then they weren't harmed. With respect to assisted suicide, harm is what the person requesting the assistance is attempting to escape. Seriously, are you trying to be overtly deranged? Nothing has an "objective" dimension in the way that you repeatedly (;^∀;^)attempt to abuse it. Strictly a shared subjective. And again, normal peeps hold that somebody instantly killed in an accident or vaporized in the realization of your mass-murderous world-nuking dreams is harmed. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 19:35:24 GMT
tpfkar Ok, so harm is something that has an 'objective' dimension, then? Interesting, given how many times you mocked me for 'objective morality' (which was misinterpreted). A person is harmed inasfar as they are conscious of being harmed, so if they didn't experience any harm before they die, then they weren't harmed. With respect to assisted suicide, harm is what the person requesting the assistance is attempting to escape. Seriously, are you trying to be overtly deranged? Nothing has an "objective" dimension in the way that you repeatedly (;^∀;^)attempt to abuse it. Strictly a shared subjective. And again, normal peeps hold that somebody instantly killed in an accident or vaporized in the realization of your mass-murderous world-nuking dreams is harmed. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Well, if the person doesn't experience any subjective harm, then the only way that there could be harm is in the dimension of the 'objective'. And if what normal peeps believe to be true is the gold standard of rationality, then we should track down Ada so that you can proffer a grovelling apology. Normal peeps believe fervently in Christ's salvation, pray 5 times a day, vote for Trump to Make America Great Again, and so on...
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 19:49:58 GMT
tpfkar Well, if the person doesn't experience any subjective harm, then the only way that there could be harm is in the dimension of the 'objective'. And if what normal peeps believe to be true is the gold standard of rationality, then we should track down Ada so that you can proffer a grovelling apology. Normal peeps believe fervently in Christ's salvation, pray 5 times a day, vote for Trump to Make America Great Again, and so on... Coo-coo for cocoa puffs stuff. And regardless of how badly you really want it, and post stupid things like "we agree" on things that are solely your deranged take, only you religious blokes keep harping about the "objective". And I'm good with you repeating the gibbering crazy that somebody instantly killed in an accident or vaporized by your world-nuke dreams made real are not harmed. And just the pure dumb of thinking that rationality makes any calls about "good" and "bad" or even "harm" on their own as opposed to just processing from axioms on those things, just continues to demonstrate your Ada-class ignorance. And only in you and your boy's mind do most "normal peeps" hold the silly you listed. In fact, all kinds of un-demented peeps have widely diverse stances on those, but not on the harm thing. Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 20:10:14 GMT
tpfkar Well, if the person doesn't experience any subjective harm, then the only way that there could be harm is in the dimension of the 'objective'. And if what normal peeps believe to be true is the gold standard of rationality, then we should track down Ada so that you can proffer a grovelling apology. Normal peeps believe fervently in Christ's salvation, pray 5 times a day, vote for Trump to Make America Great Again, and so on... Coo-coo for cocoa puffs stuff. And regardless of how badly you really want it, and post stupid things like "we agree" on things that are solely your deranged take, only you religious blokes keep harping about the "objective". And I'm good with you repeating the gibbering crazy that somebody instantly killed in an accident or vaporized by your world-nuke dreams made real are not harmed. And just the pure dumb of thinking that rationality makes any calls about "good" and "bad" or even "harm" on their own as opposed to just processing from axioms on those things, just continues to demonstrate your Ada-class ignorance. And only in you and your boy's mind do most "normal peeps" hold the silly you listed. In fact, all kinds of un-demented peeps have widely diverse stances on those, but not on the harm thing. Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.The "we agree" was in reference to not believing in the continuation of conscious experience after death. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you as not believing in life after death. 'Normal' by definition refers to average and unexceptional people, and average and unexceptional people do believe in the things that I've mentioned. The large majority of them believe in some kind of supernatural God type thing, and therefore it's not surprising that they believe that there is some kind of objective harm being done when someone is assisted to end their existence filled with pain and misery. Harm can only ever be subjectively experienced, and if you aren't subjectively feeling harmed, then you aren't harm. In some of the least religious countries, it is not seen as a harmful thing to put someone out of their misery, at the request of that person. The most religious countries are the ones in which any kind of assisted dying is unlikely to happen until those societies secularise.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 20:20:29 GMT
tpfkar Coo-coo for cocoa puffs stuff. And regardless of how badly you really want it, and post stupid things like "we agree" on things that are solely your deranged take, only you religious blokes keep harping about the "objective". And I'm good with you repeating the gibbering crazy that somebody instantly killed in an accident or vaporized by your world-nuke dreams made real are not harmed. And just the pure dumb of thinking that rationality makes any calls about "good" and "bad" or even "harm" on their own as opposed to just processing from axioms on those things, just continues to demonstrate your Ada-class ignorance. And only in you and your boy's mind do most "normal peeps" hold the silly you listed. In fact, all kinds of un-demented peeps have widely diverse stances on those, but not on the harm thing. Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.The "we agree" was in reference to not believing in the continuation of conscious experience after death. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you as not believing in life after death. 'Normal' by definition refers to average and unexceptional people, and average and unexceptional people do believe in the things that I've mentioned. The large majority of them believe in some kind of supernatural God type thing, and therefore it's not surprising that they believe that there is some kind of objective harm being done when someone is assisted to end their existence filled with pain and misery. Harm can only ever be subjectively experienced, and if you aren't subjectively feeling harmed, then you aren't harm. In some of the least religious countries, it is not seen as a harmful thing to put someone out of their misery, at the request of that person. The most religious countries are the ones in which any kind of assisted dying is unlikely to happen until those societies secularise. Is English your second language? (^▽^) Your words - "followed by ceasing to exist (which we agree cannot be harmful)". "Ceasing to exist" can be and very often is in fact harmful, regardless of your psychopathic babbles. "Normal peeps" in this context are those not hopelessly deranged and homicidally psychopathic. There probably aren't many values more universally held than that someone being instantly killed in an accident or nuke-vaporized by a madman is in fact harmed, regardless of your continuing Arlon definitions and gibbers on the matter. Your line is patently deranged. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2018 21:24:25 GMT
No, to be either/ and or a sociopath or psychopath you don't need to be violent as you have intellectualised your mania so that you psychologically and philosophically believe in sociopathic and pschcopathic aims and ideals and perhaps only phanticise and endlessly propose them on internet message boards, TOTALLY convinced you are right. In a sense you are a sociopathic/psychopath by proxy. If any of you Pollyannas can ever find a flaw in my argument, then I will be less convinced that I'm right. And I don't have any 'mania', I have a fairly stable mood and never engage in so called 'flame wars' like other people. I was even civil to Ada. The goal of not having suffering imposed on people in service of the gains of the imposer is not 'psychopathic'. I would vastly prefer to accomplish that without anybody at all having to suffer. But if it's a choice of either having the people currently alive suffer, or having many many generations of future sufferers, then I'd rather have the least number of sufferers. This is the only part of this post that is relevant. Let me get this straight, and I will use your choice of language here: You would prefer to kill billions of living people in the whole world and/or spray them with a contraceptive against their will, so they can't reproduce RATHER THAN allow ALL those people the choice of whether they live or die or reproduce? You are 'imposing harm' on ALL the things and NOT allowing them to 'choose', because YOU, a homicidal maniac think that the creation of life on earth is 'the cycle of imposition and harm? Your whole argument is predicated on the issue of lack of consent by the existing people who you allege had no choice in being born ( as you say) and the fact that those who ARE alive have never given 'consent'. ( the conundrum - my word) How are you going to get every person on this earth to give the 'consent' (that you say is removed in the current scenario) to being killed and or forcibly sterilised? If you cannot get consent to your SOLUTION of not having consent, then your argument is moot. ...butt the non-homicidal maniacs/pschopaths/sociopaths amongst us already knew that!
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 27, 2018 21:35:01 GMT
tpfkar Coo-coo for cocoa puffs stuff. And regardless of how badly you really want it, and post stupid things like "we agree" on things that are solely your deranged take, only you religious blokes keep harping about the "objective". And I'm good with you repeating the gibbering crazy that somebody instantly killed in an accident or vaporized by your world-nuke dreams made real are not harmed. And just the pure dumb of thinking that rationality makes any calls about "good" and "bad" or even "harm" on their own as opposed to just processing from axioms on those things, just continues to demonstrate your Ada-class ignorance. And only in you and your boy's mind do most "normal peeps" hold the silly you listed. In fact, all kinds of un-demented peeps have widely diverse stances on those, but not on the harm thing. Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.The "we agree" was in reference to not believing in the continuation of conscious experience after death. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you as not believing in life after death. 'Normal' by definition refers to average and unexceptional people, and average and unexceptional people do believe in the things that I've mentioned. The large majority of them believe in some kind of supernatural God type thing, and therefore it's not surprising that they believe that there is some kind of objective harm being done when someone is assisted to end their existence filled with pain and misery. Harm can only ever be subjectively experienced, and if you aren't subjectively feeling harmed, then you aren't harm. In some of the least religious countries, it is not seen as a harmful thing to put someone out of their misery, at the request of that person. The most religious countries are the ones in which any kind of assisted dying is unlikely to happen until those societies secularise. Why you waste time trying to talk to cupcakes as if you were conversing with someone rational is a mystery to me, but it's your time. I find goz to be negligible and at times unintentional funny, but cupcakes had to be put on ignore. It was the only way. Did you ever see "The Time Machine" from 1953? Remember what Philby told George? Here you are, and you have to make the best of it. I doubt you could hate waking up in the morning worse than I do, but moping about the right or wrong of it isn't getting you anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2018 22:07:11 GMT
The "we agree" was in reference to not believing in the continuation of conscious experience after death. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you as not believing in life after death. 'Normal' by definition refers to average and unexceptional people, and average and unexceptional people do believe in the things that I've mentioned. The large majority of them believe in some kind of supernatural God type thing, and therefore it's not surprising that they believe that there is some kind of objective harm being done when someone is assisted to end their existence filled with pain and misery. Harm can only ever be subjectively experienced, and if you aren't subjectively feeling harmed, then you aren't harm. In some of the least religious countries, it is not seen as a harmful thing to put someone out of their misery, at the request of that person. The most religious countries are the ones in which any kind of assisted dying is unlikely to happen until those societies secularise. Why you waste time trying to talk to cupcakes as if you were conversing with someone rational is a mystery to me, but it's your time. I find goz to be negligible and at times unintentional funny, but cupcakes had to be put on ignore. It was the only way. Did you ever see "The Time Machine" from 1953? Remember what Philby told George? Here you are, and you have to make the best of it. I doubt you could hate waking up in the morning worse than I do, but moping about the right or wrong of it isn't getting you anywhere. When Mic plays God you might be lucky and not get killed. As you are not a breeder, he might make you his 2IC. Now THERE is something to look forward to Erjenious, something to wake up to in the morning, and you have SO much knowledge about chemtrails you will be VERY valuable when it comes to spraying contraceptives on the whole world!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 22:12:40 GMT
tpfkar Why you waste time trying to talk to cupcakes as if you were conversing with someone rational is a mystery to me, but it's your time. I find goz to be negligible and at times unintentional funny, but cupcakes had to be put on ignore. It was the only way. Did you ever see "The Time Machine" from 1953? Remember what Philby told George? Here you are, and you have to make the best of it. I doubt you could hate waking up in the morning worse than I do, but moping about the right or wrong of it isn't getting you anywhere. Feelin' sorry for him, eh? A little too close to home for the conspiracy whack. You two should merge your youtube crazy ranter lists. And I guess you also think people aren't harmed by being killed instantly in an accident or vaporized by one one of you guys' hopeful apocalypses. You freely admit communicating with evil aliens, inside your head. I don't think I phrased it like that, but what if I did? What are you going to do about it?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 27, 2018 22:12:41 GMT
Why you waste time trying to talk to cupcakes as if you were conversing with someone rational is a mystery to me, but it's your time. I find goz to be negligible and at times unintentional funny, but cupcakes had to be put on ignore. It was the only way. Did you ever see "The Time Machine" from 1953? Remember what Philby told George? Here you are, and you have to make the best of it. I doubt you could hate waking up in the morning worse than I do, but moping about the right or wrong of it isn't getting you anywhere. When Mic plays God you might be lucky and not get killed. As you are not a breeder, he might make you his 2IC. Now THERE is something to look forward to Erjenious, something to wake up to in the morning, and you have SO much knowledge about chemtrails you will be VERY valuable when it comes to spraying contraceptives on the whole world! No conception = no murder, O Great and Powerful Goz. BTW, mandatory sterilization could be legally ordered in the United States (Illinois if I'm not mistaken) in the 1920's.....which makes it kind of hypocritical that the US put the Nazis on trial for it a few years later, don't you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 22:20:53 GMT
If any of you Pollyannas can ever find a flaw in my argument, then I will be less convinced that I'm right. And I don't have any 'mania', I have a fairly stable mood and never engage in so called 'flame wars' like other people. I was even civil to Ada. The goal of not having suffering imposed on people in service of the gains of the imposer is not 'psychopathic'. I would vastly prefer to accomplish that without anybody at all having to suffer. But if it's a choice of either having the people currently alive suffer, or having many many generations of future sufferers, then I'd rather have the least number of sufferers. This is the only part of this post that is relevant. Let me get this straight, and I will use your choice of language here: You would prefer to kill billions of living people in the whole world and/or spray them with a contraceptive against their will, so they can't reproduce RATHER THAN allow ALL those people the choice of whether they live or die or reproduce? You are 'imposing harm' on ALL the things and NOT allowing them to 'choose', because YOU, a homicidal maniac think that the creation of life on earth is 'the cycle of imposition and harm? Your whole argument is predicated on the issue of lack of consent by the existing people who you allege had no choice in being born ( as you say) and the fact that those who ARE alive have never given 'consent'. ( the conundrum - my word) How are you going to get every person on this earth to give the 'consent' (that you say is removed in the current scenario) to being killed and or forcibly sterilised? If you cannot get consent to your SOLUTION of not having consent, then your argument is moot. ...butt the non-homicidal maniacs/pschopaths/sociopaths amongst us already knew that! My preference would be to contain the damage within the fewest number of people/generations possible. And if people are planning to trespass against others by bringing them in to existence, then in my view, that would call for some kind of authoritative action to be taken to prevent them from committing that trespass. Obviously, it's unlikely that they would consent to either course of action, but in the case of merely rendering them infertile, all we would be doing would be to take away their freedom to impose on others. Not all antinatalists want to see some kind of strong authoritarian action taken; however to my mind it's a choice between imposing on only the people who are alive at one given point in time, as opposed to having the cycle of harm and horror go on indefinitely, because we privilege people the right to impose on others because 'procreative rights'. At this point, I'd like to make it clear that at some point life on Earth will inevitably go extinct, and there are going to be living creatures who are going to have to contend with the horrors of this. So it would be far better to do it in a phased out and controlled manner, with far fewer sufferers and hopefully minimising suffering, rather than have nature do its worst. Antinatalism doesn't commit one to a particular plan of how to address the issue; so in any case you haven't really addressed antinatalism at all; only my personal views on how antinatalism should be promulgated.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2018 22:27:18 GMT
This is the only part of this post that is relevant. Let me get this straight, and I will use your choice of language here: You would prefer to kill billions of living people in the whole world and/or spray them with a contraceptive against their will, so they can't reproduce RATHER THAN allow ALL those people the choice of whether they live or die or reproduce? You are 'imposing harm' on ALL the things and NOT allowing them to 'choose', because YOU, a homicidal maniac think that the creation of life on earth is 'the cycle of imposition and harm? Your whole argument is predicated on the issue of lack of consent by the existing people who you allege had no choice in being born ( as you say) and the fact that those who ARE alive have never given 'consent'. ( the conundrum - my word) How are you going to get every person on this earth to give the 'consent' (that you say is removed in the current scenario) to being killed and or forcibly sterilised? If you cannot get consent to your SOLUTION of not having consent, then your argument is moot. ...butt the non-homicidal maniacs/pschopaths/sociopaths amongst us already knew that! My preference would be to contain the damage within the fewest number of people/generations possible. And if people are planning to trespass against others by bringing them in to existence, then in my view, that would call for some kind of authoritative action to be taken to prevent them from committing that trespass. Obviously, it's unlikely that they would consent to either course of action, but in the case of merely rendering them infertile, all we would be doing would be to take away their freedom to impose on others. Not all antinatalists want to see some kind of strong authoritarian action taken; however to my mind it's a choice between imposing on only the people who are alive at one given point in time, as opposed to having the cycle of harm and horror go on indefinitely, because we privilege people the right to impose on others because 'procreative rights'. At this point, I'd like to make it clear that at some point life on Earth will inevitably go extinct, and there are going to be living creatures who are going to have to contend with the horrors of this. So it would be far better to do it in a phased out and controlled manner, with far fewer sufferers and hopefully minimising suffering, rather than have nature do its worst. Antinatalism doesn't commit one to a particular plan of how to address the issue; so in any case you haven't really addressed antinatalism at all; only my personal views on how antinatalism should be promulgated. Right so you DO want to take away all the right to choose of the sentient living and kill them, and their right to choose to procreate, for something that doesn't exist yet. You logic is non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2018 22:29:43 GMT
When Mic plays God you might be lucky and not get killed. As you are not a breeder, he might make you his 2IC. Now THERE is something to look forward to Erjenious, something to wake up to in the morning, and you have SO much knowledge about chemtrails you will be VERY valuable when it comes to spraying contraceptives on the whole world! No conception = no murder, O Great and Powerful Goz. BTW, mandatory sterilization could be legally ordered in the United States (Illinois if I'm not mistaken) in the 1920's.....which makes it kind of hypocritical that the US put the Nazis on trial for it a few years later, don't you think? Oh wise and smart Ergenious...what about the existent living? Nothing surprises me about American 'morality'! You kill each other with guns, for sport!
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 27, 2018 22:31:09 GMT
No conception = no murder, O Great and Powerful Goz. BTW, mandatory sterilization could be legally ordered in the United States (Illinois if I'm not mistaken) in the 1920's.....which makes it kind of hypocritical that the US put the Nazis on trial for it a few years later, don't you think? Oh wise and smart Ergenious...what about the existent living? Nothing surprises me about American 'morality'! You kill each other with guns, for sport! Save it for a gun control thread.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2018 22:34:51 GMT
Oh wise and smart Ergenious...what about the existent living? Nothing surprises me about American 'morality'! You kill each other with guns, for sport! Save it for a gun control thread. What about the existent living? Are you on the Mic Mass Murder team, or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 22:38:48 GMT
tpfkar The "we agree" was in reference to not believing in the continuation of conscious experience after death. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you as not believing in life after death. 'Normal' by definition refers to average and unexceptional people, and average and unexceptional people do believe in the things that I've mentioned. The large majority of them believe in some kind of supernatural God type thing, and therefore it's not surprising that they believe that there is some kind of objective harm being done when someone is assisted to end their existence filled with pain and misery. Harm can only ever be subjectively experienced, and if you aren't subjectively feeling harmed, then you aren't harm. In some of the least religious countries, it is not seen as a harmful thing to put someone out of their misery, at the request of that person. The most religious countries are the ones in which any kind of assisted dying is unlikely to happen until those societies secularise. Is English your second language? (^▽^) Your words - "followed by ceasing to exist (which we agree cannot be harmful)". "Ceasing to exist" can be and very often is in fact harmful, regardless of your psychopathic babbles. "Normal peeps" in this context are those not hopelessly deranged and homicidally psychopathic. There probably aren't many values more universally held than that someone being instantly killed in an accident or nuke-vaporized by a madman is in fact harmed, regardless of your continuing Arlon definitions and gibbers on the matter. Your line is patently deranged. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.Well in countries such as Pakistan, 'normal people' support the stoning to death of atheists and homosexuals. And if you go back much further, most people held very barbaric and illiberal beliefs. So like I stated, it's not a very good 'gold standard' to say what 'normal peeps' think. The truth is that it's harmful to your sensibilities, and I think that deep down, you suspect that if we start to let people out of their burden so easily, then eventually the game will be up and normal peeps will finally start to see the futility of life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 22:41:32 GMT
The "we agree" was in reference to not believing in the continuation of conscious experience after death. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you as not believing in life after death. 'Normal' by definition refers to average and unexceptional people, and average and unexceptional people do believe in the things that I've mentioned. The large majority of them believe in some kind of supernatural God type thing, and therefore it's not surprising that they believe that there is some kind of objective harm being done when someone is assisted to end their existence filled with pain and misery. Harm can only ever be subjectively experienced, and if you aren't subjectively feeling harmed, then you aren't harm. In some of the least religious countries, it is not seen as a harmful thing to put someone out of their misery, at the request of that person. The most religious countries are the ones in which any kind of assisted dying is unlikely to happen until those societies secularise. Why you waste time trying to talk to cupcakes as if you were conversing with someone rational is a mystery to me, but it's your time. I find goz to be negligible and at times unintentional funny, but cupcakes had to be put on ignore. It was the only way. Did you ever see "The Time Machine" from 1953? Remember what Philby told George? Here you are, and you have to make the best of it. I doubt you could hate waking up in the morning worse than I do, but moping about the right or wrong of it isn't getting you anywhere. I suppose it's because I'm bored, and I'm not really involved in a lot of conversations here anyway. Can't seem to just give it up. Goz is an airhead, and I never so much as find her unintentionally amusing. If I'm going to spread these antinatalist memes, then there's no other way of doing that than trying to convince people who are completely intransigent and convinced that their opinion is the right one. So if it's not our cupcakes, it's going to be his counterparts. Propounding what I know to be right is the only way that I have to try and prevent the next copy of me being born; and if nobody stands up against this, then nothing can ever change.
|
|