|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 21:11:42 GMT
tpfkar That applies only when you're comparing 2 different scenarios in which you are alive. For example, I would prefer to go on holiday in the summer than stay at home, because if I do nothing and stay at home, I will be deprived of the things that I might enjoy on the holiday, such as better weather and beautiful scenery. But if it came to having a preference between going on holiday this summer and being dead, I can't say that the holiday would be preferable, because I would be relieved of my need for the holiday or for anything else that I do to try and ward off boredom. Pure nonsense. People can and do have such preferences. You're just making stuff up again. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 21:17:45 GMT
No, it wasn't. Did I say I experienced it? Wrong. 1. It was. Nope. You can infer whatever you like, it's a fairly free country. But I did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 21:30:09 GMT
Nope. You can infer whatever you like, it's a fairly free country. But I did. Well, your claim was in direct response to me asking you what experience you had with non existence. Do you expect your preference for life (over non-existence) to persist after you are dead?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 21:31:05 GMT
tpfkar It's impossible to conceive of what it would be like not to exist, because when that happens, you won't be experiencing it and it will not be 'like' anything. When the death of graham exists as a reality, then graham, along with his preferences, does not. The deranged logic never ends. We prefer based on what we know and what we project and infer, as we are now. What we aren't when we're not anything is meaningless. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 21:42:01 GMT
tpfkar It's impossible to conceive of what it would be like not to exist, because when that happens, you won't be experiencing it and it will not be 'like' anything. When the death of graham exists as a reality, then graham, along with his preferences, does not. The deranged logic never ends. We prefer based on what we know and what we project and infer, as we are now. What we aren't when we're not anything is meaningless. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. But you (and graham) have just stated a preference based on what you don't know. And you cannot project or infer that if you didn't exist, you'd still have a preference for life. I can only say that I prefer a) over b) if I've either tried both and know what they're like, or at least have very good basis for being able to imagine what b) is like and be confident in predicting that once I've had b) I will be able to confirm my preference for a).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 21:47:02 GMT
tpfkar But you (and graham) have just stated a preference based on what you don't know. And you cannot project or infer that if you didn't exist, you'd still have a preference for life. I can only say that I prefer a) over b) if I've either tried both and know what they're like, or at least have very good basis for being able to imagine what b) is like and be confident in predicting that once I've had b) I will be able to confirm my preference for a). We know we currently have "good". We know such won't exist when we're dead. Let the good times roll! We're not psychopaths, so the fact that the dead can't hurt is not argument for anything at all. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 22:04:43 GMT
Nope. You can infer whatever you like, it's a fairly free country. But I did. Well, your claim was in direct response to me asking you what experience you had with non existence. Do you expect your preference for life (over non-existence) to persist after you are dead? Nope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 22:43:33 GMT
tpfkar But you (and graham) have just stated a preference based on what you don't know. And you cannot project or infer that if you didn't exist, you'd still have a preference for life. I can only say that I prefer a) over b) if I've either tried both and know what they're like, or at least have very good basis for being able to imagine what b) is like and be confident in predicting that once I've had b) I will be able to confirm my preference for a). We know we currently have "good". We know such won't exist when we're dead. Let the good times roll! We're not psychopaths, so the fact that the dead can't hurt is not argument for anything at all. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldThat's sufficient to support the statement that you're glad to be alive, but not to support the claim that you have a preference for life over death, or that coming into existence is a benefit.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 22:49:40 GMT
tpfkar That's sufficient to support the statement that you're glad to be alive, but not to support the claim that you have a preference for life over death, or that coming into existence is a benefit. Again, only for pure crazy. I like living. It's a massive benefit. I don't want things I like to end. Regardless of any directed orifice-staring about "you can't prefer/not prefer something you haven't experienced, and you won't hurt anyway". Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 14:45:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 17:57:50 GMT
tpfkar That's sufficient to support the statement that you're glad to be alive, but not to support the claim that you have a preference for life over death, or that coming into existence is a benefit. Again, only for pure crazy. I like living. It's a massive benefit. I don't want things I like to end. Regardless of any directed orifice-staring about "you can't prefer/not prefer something you haven't experienced, and you won't hurt anyway". Does Free Will Exist?You could have been born into an existence that was a torture for you to endure. You might have developed some terrible disability early on in life that left you in chronic pain and unable to even so much as wipe your own bottom; but not be capable of ending your own torture, nor would anyone be allowed to assist you in ending it. There are people who have exactly the type of life that I've described. Do you suppose that you're fortunate enough to be able bodied and healthy in body and mind because you deserved it more than your disabled counterpart? And if not, then why should we keep risking creating more of the horribly tortured disabled people so that we can also create people like yourselves who like life, but wouldn't have felt deprived of it without having been born?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 18:05:53 GMT
tpfkar Again, only for pure crazy. I like living. It's a massive benefit. I don't want things I like to end. Regardless of any directed orifice-staring about "you can't prefer/not prefer something you haven't experienced, and you won't hurt anyway". Does Free Will Exist?You could have been born into an existence that was a torture for you to endure. You might have developed some terrible disability early on in life that left you in chronic pain and unable to even so much as wipe your own bottom; but not be capable of ending your own torture, nor would anyone be allowed to assist you in ending it. There are people who have exactly the type of life that I've described. Do you suppose that you're fortunate enough to be able bodied and healthy in body and mind because you deserved it more than your disabled counterpart? And if not, then why should we keep risking creating more of the horribly tortured disabled people so that we can also create people like yourselves who like life, but wouldn't have felt deprived of it without having been born? Anything could happen. You don't nuke the bathtub to clean up the bathwater. We work to continually improve, not devolve to deranged jackboot thugism, mass murder, and purposely putting life back into horrendously more savage states. People who opt to should keep triggering happy creatures, as the superior option of experience of great or checking out early is much better on it's face than having one side forced by murderous psychopaths. Having "felt deprived of it without having been born" is meaningless babble. Once sentient, the creatures are overwhelmingly likely to prefer having had the choice, by massive margins. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 27, 2018 18:44:35 GMT
I always thought of life being hard---on the outside, with a soft chewy interior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 1:14:30 GMT
tpfkar Again, only for pure crazy. I like living. It's a massive benefit. I don't want things I like to end. Regardless of any directed orifice-staring about "you can't prefer/not prefer something you haven't experienced, and you won't hurt anyway". Does Free Will Exist?You could have been born into an existence that was a torture for you to endure. Sure. But I wasn't. And some of those people still want to live. Nope. Because the benefits outweigh the cost. The pleasures and joys of life outweigh the suffering, on average. It's as simple as that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 1:32:30 GMT
You could have been born into an existence that was a torture for you to endure. Sure. But I wasn't. You weren't, but many were. Is their welfare less important (from an impartial third party perspective) less important than yours? If not, then why should we keep churning out torture victims so that we can also have copies of you who wouldn't feel deprived of their existence, had they not had it? [/b]And some of them don't want to live, and some of them only want to live because of some kind of superstitious bunkum and if they actually had an informed and rational choice would prefer not to have existed. Good. I find that very questionable, but I'll move on to something else. Even if we accept that the benefits outweigh the costs, it can be observed that the costs accrue unequally, as do the benefits; and there appears to be no kind of mechanism of fairness distributing risk and reward. It basically ends up being the inverse of a progressive taxation whereby the most unfortunate pay the lion's share of the costs, for the benefit of a group that just happened through lottery of birth to be more fortunate. Therefore why is it reasonable that we give sanction to a mechanism which manifestly harms some in order to accrue a 'benefit' (for which those same people would never have yearned in its absence) to those who were merely more fortunate? Especially when the alternative would be that nobody would want or need for anything, and these supposed 'benefits' would be unnecessary and undesired. Why are you worth the suffering that is endured by a sweatshop worker, or someone who lives with a disability that causes them to be in constant pain with no quality of life? You can't lose from an unharmed position, and in order for someone to reap any of these alleged benefits, you need to create problems first. You can't have the benefits without having the craving for the benefits (which will often go unsatiated); and you can't have the relief of escaping harm or deprivation (which I would argue constitutes most or all of what is deemed to be beneficial) without the threat of harm or deprivation. When two people mate, they can't know in advance what the disposition of the child is going to be... it's all right, this one's going to be a graham, and all grahams love life and consider the risks to be worth the benefits. So if the child either isn't of that disposition or is unfortunate in the lottery, then that is quite a severe imposition to place upon someone who cannot consent, for aught but the fact that the parents wanted to enrich their own lives. You can never be doing something for the benefit of a non-existent person.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:44:03 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 2:49:34 GMT
True 'dat; but rather a non-sequitur, as I've never averred otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:52:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 3:02:47 GMT
Nope, because the imposition only comes into effect if sentient offspring are produced. If a woman gets pregnant, then there's an imposition that will potentially fall on someone in the future; but one that can still be averted.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 3:05:51 GMT
|
|