Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 3:06:29 GMT
You weren't, but many were. Many in absolute terms. Few in proportion. No. We don't "churn out torture victims". Try again. Sure. And I'm fine with people who don't want to live ending their own lives, if they really want to. Interesting, that you rail against people who would restrict the choices of others, but then presume to judge others for the choices they make for themselves. Who are you to judge what motivates people to stay alive? If we accept that people have a right to end their own lives because they want to, then we also must accept that people have a right to not end their own lives because they don't want to. And their reasons are their business. But it also ends up being the case that the vast majority of EVERY group in the system judge that their benefits outweigh their costs. The homeless drug addict suffers more than you and I, but the homeless drug addicts of the world are not, on the whole, an especially suicidal bunch of people. They still want to live, for the most part. We don't. We sanction a mechanism which harms everyone and benefits everyone - and which manifestly benefits the large majority more than it harms. Worldwide, sixteen out of every one hundred thousand people commit suicide. That's around half as many people as are hit by lightning in their lives. Your position is literally half as sensible as somebody who claims we should extinguish the human race so as to save people from lightning strikes. That's a disingenuous way of putting that sentiment. You shouldn't do that. It's not a case of my benefit versus their harm; it's a case of our benefit versus our harm - both in sum and considered individually. You're talking, as you often seem to, as if the large bulk of humanity desperately wants to end their lives, and the only thing stopping them is the few who are not unhappy. That's manifestly not the case. No, it really isn't. It's a minor imposition, at best. A presumption, and a bad one. People have kids for all sorts of reasons. Some people have kids for no reason beyond "she got pregnant" at all. Then you can't argue against the suffering of a non-existent person, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 3:31:27 GMT
You weren't, but many were. Many in absolute terms. Few in proportion. The proportion of those who are abused, exploited, ravaged by disease or famine, oppressed, etc is not all that small. The people who made the computer that you are typing this on, and the clothes you are wearing whilst typing it were likely working for long hours under oppressive conditions for insufficient pay to carve out an independent life of any decent quality. Well a benevolent stork doesn't deliver those victims, based on my understanding of biology. I'm glad you think that, but the reality is that most people who really want to end their lives can't, and suicide isn't even a particularly good metric for measuring suffering in any case. Nope, I'm fine with people choosing not to kill themselves, as long as they don't want to deny the right to do so to other people. Don't know where you got the idea that I wasn't in favour of people being allowed to choose not to kill themselves. Yes, because biological conditioning instills in most people the drive to survive regardless of the cost in terms of suffering. Evolution would never have succeeded this far had this not been the case. I can agree on the fact that it harms everyone, but the people at the bottom see very very little benefit at all, and I would say that you're insulting those people to claim that they get any benefit out of their existence. And for one thing, you've misrepresented the suicide statistic to minimise it, because that is for each year. 16 out of 100,000 each year manage to overcome their own biological conditioning, societal attitudes and the barriers that have been erected to prevent people from killing themselves (including legal action for failure), and fails to even incorporate those who have attempted suicide but failed (attempts outnumber successes by about 25 to 1). And suicide isn't even a good metric to guage whether those people are endorsing their existence. I hate my existence and do not feel benefitted by it one bit, and yet I've gotten well into my 30s without having offed myself. Not for the lack of desiring that solution, either. And I know many people the same. It's not disingenuous. Before sentient life existed in the universe, there were no needs or wants going unfulfilled. And in order for something to benefit you, it has to be applied to some kind of want or need. You've mentioned in another post that you're diabetic; so to given an example, a lifetime's supply of Haribo wouldn't be particularly beneficial to you, but it would be to me. If we were all one hive mind, then I'd accept that argument. But each individual has different dispositions, and will be exposed to different levels of harm, and respond to that harm differently. I'm not claiming that most humans desperately want to end their lives; merely that if there isn't any great necessity to bring new lives into existence (from the perspective of those not yet born), then we should refrain from doing so in recognition of the great risks that this will entail. And many people live absolutely miserable lives, but for one reason or another don't kill themselves. The way you're treating suicide as the ultimate metric of whether a life is good or not, you would think that Futurama style suicide booths were installed on every street corner and that there were no cultural taboos against suicide or risks involved. An average of around 80 years of having to deal with a problem that someone created without asking you is a 'minor imposition'? Even if you consider merely the fact that all of those people have to work in order to maintain their ball and chain, and disregard all of the nasty diseases and misfortunes that can get any person at any time, that's an absurd minimisation of the suffering that exists in the world. Yes, but that is increasingly not the case in civilised nations, and in such nations the women usually have the right to an abortion. Or could have been a bit more careful with contraception. I'm not, because non-existent people cannot suffer, because they don't exist. I care about the suffering of those who will come into existence. Without that, there will be no benefits being missed out on and no suffering.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2018 3:46:34 GMT
God has to exist because most people don't kill themselves. Life is terrible. The good moments of life barely make a dent in the bullshit. So why don't most people just kill themselves? The only reason most of us decide to keep living through the shit is because of a greater force compelling us to. Because of God we keep enduring and creating new life. Despite the fact that life is mostly terrible and our children will have to live through it. Are you aware of antinatalism? We can choose to not reproduce so there are no children to suffer. I'm a newcomer to the formal concept, but there is a poster here on the RFS board, @miccee , who is very familiar with it. To be honest, I would prefer that Mic never reproduces, though I think after MANY year's interaction that he has mental illness, which may or may not have a genetic component. I like you and respect your decision to NOT reproduce, however. If you have read our recent thread in full, you will get the picture. I notice you didn't participate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 3:48:02 GMT
Are you aware of antinatalism? We can choose to not reproduce so there are no children to suffer. I'm a newcomer to the formal concept, but there is a poster here on the RFS board, @miccee , who is very familiar with it. To be honest, I would prefer that Mic never reproduces, though I think after MANY year's interaction that he has mental illness, which may or may not have a genetic component. I like you and respect your decision to NOT reproduce, however. If you have read our recent thread in full, you will get the picture. I notice you didn't participate. Last time when asked about which mental illness I had, you didn't come up with any mental illness at all. So again, which mental illness and how are you qualified to diagnose remotely?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2018 3:48:36 GMT
Here in Scotland, our uplands are almost all dreary, barren and treeless because humans cut down all the trees, whereas at one time, long, long ago, the whole of Scotland would have been thickly forested. And in Britain as a whole, you almost never see butterflies any more and there is significantly reduced biodiversity compared to what existed prior to maybe the 1960s. So in every way, the human effect is writ large across our entire landscape. We have a population of 65 million + filling a land area the size of Oregon, so the effect is much worse than even what you're used to. Hardly any ancient woodlands left anywhere in Britain. I suppose that it could also be said that humans have been beneficial in the sense that there are now a great deal fewer animals around to experience lives fiilled with the brutal horrors of nature, and in that sense our continued presence helps to further antinatalism because we can't seem to help but kill off other species just by being here. If people stopped having children, there would be suffering associated with that, and of course, there would be nobody to look after the elderly. But then the cycle of harm and imposition would be contained just within the pool of people already alive, rather than being perpetuated eternally. I am so sad to hear about the trees in Scotland, mic. Something similar happened to the woodlands along our eastern seaboard, and the Appalachian Trail. Several species were harvested to extinction. Trees have been replanted, but the habitat has changed forever. Though my property is a registered Monarch butterfly waystation, with milkweed purposely grown and maintained for their migration, I see fewer every year. It's been five years since I saw a Monarch emerge from a chrysalis - a magic moment - and it worries me deeply. When I was recently (June 2017) it was acknowledged that the wrong kind of re-afforestation had been tried and that the future is much brighter.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 28, 2018 7:43:22 GMT
Are you aware of antinatalism? We can choose to not reproduce so there are no children to suffer. I'm a newcomer to the formal concept, but there is a poster here on the RFS board, @miccee , who is very familiar with it. To be honest, I would prefer that Mic never reproduces, though I think after MANY year's interaction that he has mental illness, which may or may not have a genetic component. I like you and respect your decision to NOT reproduce, however. If you have read our recent thread in full, you will get the picture. I notice you didn't participate. I haven't participated because, for the last three days, I've been working my ass off at a low-paying part-time job in order to have enough money to buy groceries this month. I have no medical insurance as of January !, 2018, because the health insurance premium I was paying jumped from $400 a month to $1,200 a month, and my late husband's Social Security check is only $1,800 a month. I couldn't live on what was left, so I dropped my health insurance and pay for my medications out-of-pocket. These meds prevent a recurrence of cancer, and make my chronic migraines less frequent and less severe. To go without those meds would cause me increased suffering. In October I will turn 65 and qualify for Medicare, but for ten months I have to hope nothing major happens medically. Since I was diagnosed with cancer at such a young age, statistically I am more likely to die of a recurrence of cancer. I have, since my diagnosis, maintained a stash of drugs so that I can end my life if nothing but suffering is left. I have watched relatives die of cancer, and I would rather die of an overdose of drugs. I am fortunate enough to have acquired these drugs legally - they are prescribed to me for pain. I endured several days of pain in order to save enough pills to painlessly end my life. But I have nine more months of struggling financially to buy my meds and still be able to buy groceries and keep the electricity on. I retired from a highly stressful career in 2014, because the Affordable Healthcare Act provided health insurance for me at $50 a month. The insurance industry has continually raised the premiums for the same plan, first to $80 a month, then eventually up to the $400 a month premium. I struggled for a year at that rate; when it went to $1,200, I couldn't afford it anymore. And at age 64, I cannot go back to a full-time job in order to have health insurance supplemented by an employer. No one would hire me at that age, knowing I can qualify for Medicare in a year, so I take on part-time work in order to make ends meet. This is not a happy time in my life. I have a 95 year old mother that needs assistance to live, and I can't do that and work full-time, too. There is a physical limit to what I can do. Suffering is in the eye of the beholder. Walk a mile, or live for nine months, in my shoes. Edit: If you consider @miccee mentally ill, then you must consider me mentally ill, also. I think he and I are realists, not mentally ill.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 12:39:07 GMT
tpfkar Edit: If you consider @miccee mentally ill, then you must consider me mentally ill, also. I think he and I are realists, not mentally ill. So you, too, think that neither being killed instantly in an accident nor vaporized by a nuking madman is getting harmed? Seek a test that lets reality judge between you.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jan 28, 2018 20:07:58 GMT
...once the boner subsides, life is no longer harder...
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jan 28, 2018 20:58:00 GMT
No
Eat Drink alcohol Fuck Do drugs Sleep Work
That’s it, that’s all. Don’t overthink it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 21:53:57 GMT
Many in absolute terms. Few in proportion. The proportion of those who are abused, exploited, ravaged by disease or famine, oppressed, etc is not all that small. Sure, but the proportion who want to take their own lives as a result of that suffering is small. Tiny, in fact. The overwhelming majority of people judge that their lives are worth living. YOU want to take that choice away from them. It's the most anti-freedom position a person could hold. We don't "churn out torture victims". Keep trying. Says who? Any person who wants to end their own life can do so, if they make an effort about it. It is a perfect measure for measuring whether people consider their lives worth continuing or not. But you do want to deny life to people. To everyone. The reason is irrelevant. The conclusion that most people want to live is inescapable, and this picture of a life of suffering and no possible exit that you're trying to pain is simply factually wrong. Bullshit. They see enough benefit to want to continue living, which is the only metric that matters to the discussion. And I would say that you are the one insulting them by denying the obvious fact that they do indeed get benefit from their existence - and more benefit than suffering. Oh gee, so instead of 0.016% of the population it's something more like 1%? So you're only 99% wrong, then? I'll take that. It's the only metric. You are wrong about hating your existence. You do not hate your existence. Rather, you derive pleasure - possibly without realising it - from claiming that you hate your existence, when you manifestly do not. Whether because you like being provocative, like trolling, enjoy the attention, seek sympathy or pity, or whatever. Yes, it is. You should stop saying it as if it were honest. There's really no great "necessity" for almost anything, when you get right down to it. There's no necessity, for example, to give a damn if other people suffer or not. You choose to do so, as is your right, but it's not necessary. Fortunately what is necessary is really beside the point. People want to bring new lives into existence - most of them, anyway. Personally I don't. Except that the risks are minor, as has been demonstrated in this thread. And so there is not "should" in that. When it applies to a tiny fraction of the population, yes. It is. And yet, it still remains true that people have all sorts of reasons to have kids. If you care about the suffering of those who will come into existence then you must also care about the benefits to those who will come into existence. And since the latter far outweigh the former, you must - if you are rational - drop this antinatal nonsense. But of course, you won't. Because as established, this is all a position held through emotion, to give yourself an emotional high.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 21:59:51 GMT
Edit: If you consider @miccee mentally ill, then you must consider me mentally ill, also. I think he and I are realists, not mentally ill. Depends. You're telling us that you are in a life of considerable suffering. That's fair enough. You're telling us that one day the suffering might become so great that you would end your life. That's fair enough too. But are you telling us that you consider your suffering - and the suffering of others in your position or similar positions - is such that it would be worth ending the human race to stop it from happening? If so then no, I don't consider you to be mentally ill. But I do consider you to be making an irrational and extremely selfish argument which really doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 29, 2018 0:39:59 GMT
To be honest, I would prefer that Mic never reproduces, though I think after MANY year's interaction that he has mental illness, which may or may not have a genetic component. I like you and respect your decision to NOT reproduce, however. If you have read our recent thread in full, you will get the picture. I notice you didn't participate. I haven't participated because, for the last three days, I've been working my ass off at a low-paying part-time job in order to have enough money to buy groceries this month. I have no medical insurance as of January !, 2018, because the health insurance premium I was paying jumped from $400 a month to $1,200 a month, and my late husband's Social Security check is only $1,800 a month. I couldn't live on what was left, so I dropped my health insurance and pay for my medications out-of-pocket. These meds prevent a recurrence of cancer, and make my chronic migraines less frequent and less severe. To go without those meds would cause me increased suffering. In October I will turn 65 and qualify for Medicare, but for ten months I have to hope nothing major happens medically. Since I was diagnosed with cancer at such a young age, statistically I am more likely to die of a recurrence of cancer. I have, since my diagnosis, maintained a stash of drugs so that I can end my life if nothing but suffering is left. I have watched relatives die of cancer, and I would rather die of an overdose of drugs. I am fortunate enough to have acquired these drugs legally - they are prescribed to me for pain. I endured several days of pain in order to save enough pills to painlessly end my life. But I have nine more months of struggling financially to buy my meds and still be able to buy groceries and keep the electricity on. I retired from a highly stressful career in 2014, because the Affordable Healthcare Act provided health insurance for me at $50 a month. The insurance industry has continually raised the premiums for the same plan, first to $80 a month, then eventually up to the $400 a month premium. I struggled for a year at that rate; when it went to $1,200, I couldn't afford it anymore. And at age 64, I cannot go back to a full-time job in order to have health insurance supplemented by an employer. No one would hire me at that age, knowing I can qualify for Medicare in a year, so I take on part-time work in order to make ends meet. This is not a happy time in my life. I have a 95 year old mother that needs assistance to live, and I can't do that and work full-time, too. There is a physical limit to what I can do. Suffering is in the eye of the beholder. Walk a mile, or live for nine months, in my shoes. Edit: If you consider @miccee mentally ill, then you must consider me mentally ill, also. I think he and I are realists, not mentally ill. I am both sympathetic and sorry for you. I know this is probably preaching to the choir, butt it makes my blood boil, what is happening to the United States, and how stupid and misled so many people are. You have clearly outlined how the original Affordable Health Care Act was a blessing for people and how now you are forced into a hopeless situation. We here have free health care for everyone topped up with Private Health Insurance for those who can afford it. ALL age pensioners who qualify for a pension get free health care. Edit: because my computer prematurely posted. I have 'known' Mic for many years and interacted with him considerably. IMHO he has mental health issues. I don't know you, so I would never be presumptuous enough to assign any issues to you except that you are having a hard time of life right now, and as I said I both empathise with you and would hope to support you in some way or other as you seem intelligent articulate and reasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 0:42:38 GMT
The proportion of those who are abused, exploited, ravaged by disease or famine, oppressed, etc is not all that small. Sure, but the proportion who want to take their own lives as a result of that suffering is small. Tiny, in fact. The overwhelming majority of people judge that their lives are worth living. YOU want to take that choice away from them. It's the most anti-freedom position a person could hold Bullshit. They see enough benefit to want to continue living, which is the only metric that matters to the discussion. The proportion who want to take their own lives is unknown. There are no statistics on this, that I am aware of. In most parts of the world, even admitting as much would have you locked up in a secure unit. In many nations of the world, suicide is also illegal. There's no worldwide survey on the number of people who adjudge their lives to be worth living. Also the high prevalence of religion as an emotional crutch indicates that people tend to need fantasies to get through the day, and the suicide rates amongst atheists are higher than amongst the religious. I don't want to take people's choice to continue living away from them; I want to prevent them from unilaterally determining that someone else ought to be dragged into it. Someone else who would never feel deprived or 'denied' or whatever term you want to use. There are people being tortured, either by other people/animals, or just by circumstances. And they didn't get here on a special delivery by a stork. I say that it's not that easy, many people I know have found it very hard, and science says that it is hard, likely owing to millions of years of evolution: www.fsu.edu/news/2006/01/11/deadly.perfection/There is also the very high failure rate (25 failures to 1 success, and that's from the US, where the layperson has access to firearms). There are the people who attempt suicide and are left severely disabled, including people who have literally shot their face off and survived, or had their legs severed from their body by a train. This due to the fact that any time a more reliable and peaceful suicide method pops up, world governments do everything in their power to make sure it is inaccessible to ordinary people/ There's the fact that a large proportion of the world's population is devoutly religious and sincerely believes that if they commit suicide, they will be punished in hell for eternity. So from their perspective, it would be a non-starter to trade in a finite period of finite suffering (no matter how bad) for an eternity of suffering of infinite intensity. There's the fact that people are guilted into staying alive on behalf of their family, friends, etc, and the fact that it is a baseline expectation that people will endure whatever it is they are going through for the sake of others. There are all the people who are too severely disabled to commit suicide, or don't have sufficient independence or mental competence to be able to make plans. But it's good to know that your life is worth all the suffering that all these people are having to endure. How would you weigh up a benefit when the alternative would be not to exist and not to feel deprived of anything, and not suffer? And how would you determine that those people felt benefitted when if you asked them about their lives, they would tell you that they were unrelentingly miserable? Where are your statistics that cover all the groups that I've mentioned above? And also why should people have to suffer even up to the point of committing suicide, when the problem is not one of their creation? With respect to these people who have made it very clear that they are not 'benefitting' (and ignoring all of the people who cannot or will not commit suicide, for any of the myriad reasons listed above, or any of the people who have catastrophically failed their suicide attempt), why is it acceptable that they should have to endure however many years of suffering that leads them up to that point, in order to serve as collateral damage for a purported 'benefit' that NOBODY* would have lost out on had antinatalist policies obtained? *Except for the benefit of being able to force someone else to exist in order to suit one's own lifestyle preferences. Not until and unless all the issues noted above are addressed and people are reasonably educated about the choice to be made. Nope, you are not a mind reader. I never disclose details regarding my personal situation here. If someone doesn't realise that they're deriving pleasure, then they aren't deriving pleasure. If someone feels as though they do not like their existence, then that is the truth. Any option not to continue in one's existence is aggressively proscribed by rules which prohibit access to peaceful and painless means to die, and I would bet that you are a fervent supporter of those rules. Who was 'denied life' at the time of the Big Bang, and who are these people who are denied life when a woman decides not to procreate? If not procreating is the denial of life, shouldn't there be an obligation to procreate that falls upon everyone who is capable? You have to actually be alive to be deprived of any of the 'benefits' of living. Which themselves are mostly defined in terms of relief from a deprivation or threat of harm, by the nature of how we evolved. We didn't evolve for pleasure, we evolved for survival. In what sense is it not honest? In the scenario where people stop procreating, then the desires and wishes of those people alive at that time would go unfulfilled. But after all members of the species had died off, there would be no unmet needs or unfulfilled desires. Once we exist, then we are necessitated that we do or feel as determinism dictates. People want to bring new lives into existence, but they shouldn't have the right to do that when they are imposing risks on those lives, and the people who would receive those lives cannot consent (and would never feel deprived of the purported benefits had they not been brought into existence). So you're saying that the risk of disability is 'minor', the risk of contracting cancer is 'minor', any one of the innumerable diseases that are going about, or just the risk of finding that life isn't particularly enjoyable? These issues apply to everyone, to a greater or lesser extent. And nobody can really say that it's better that they came into existence than not, because they have never known the alternative. And none of them are for the benefit of the person being brought into existence. If they have to come into existence, and that is going to be unavoidable, then it would be better for them to experience as many pleasurable sensations as possible. But it would be a nonsense to care about the 'benefits' that they wouldn't be receiving by not existing. The 'benefits' that you describe are mainly, if not all, characterised by relief from some kind of negative sensation or potential deprivation. It is impossible to lose from a perspective of being unharmed and not having any desires that are unfulfilled and therefore non-existence is a condition upon which there need be no improvement; let alone having someone else draw straws for you and put one in your pocket. Whereas the best that you can do when you exist, is to hope to avoid as many of the harms as you can and fulfil as many of the desires as you can. Nobody can do this perfectly, and you're still left with harms and unfulfilled desires, which cause feelings of deprivation. You can only be deprived of your desires by having them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 0:45:41 GMT
tpfkar Many in absolute terms. Few in proportion. The proportion of those who are abused, exploited, ravaged by disease or famine, oppressed, etc is not all that small. The people who made the computer that you are typing this on, and the clothes you are wearing whilst typing it were likely working for long hours under oppressive conditions for insufficient pay to carve out an independent life of any decent quality. That's why we keep continuously improving things instead of purposely plunging it all back into the massively greater savagery & suffering of pre-civilization and pre-sentience. The stork your anti-torture paladin? Only if they are mentally and/or physically incompetent or much more likely just haven't actually decided. Perhaps via your stated desire to kill them all. Your cowardice is not writ large. There are countless fates worse that death for any who have decided and aren't mentally, physically, or gonadally incompetent. Everybody makes cost/benefit judgements including suffering, regardless if you try to wave it away. I'd say you're insulting them by assuming they wallow in the same depths as you. And 16 in could easily be acting rashly, temporarily distraught, trying to get attention, acting recklessly, etc., just as the 25 times almost surely are. Any not in such state have just not actually decided. It's deranged. The nonexistence of needs and wants via the nonexistence of sentience is baaaaad. And they can make their choices as individuals when they are mature and competent, and not have their fate decided arbitrarily by the queen of psychopathy. It's not an "imposition" at all. It's the superior position of the option to experience & enjoy the blast or give it up early. The reasons they have them are not the ones you concocted via your tendentious nastiness via semantic vapidity. Those "who will come into existence" are nonexistent. And care about all aspects of any beyond that is the hinged course. Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 29, 2018 1:26:28 GMT
Sometimes it seems so, and that is normal. Sometimes it doesn't and that too is normal. Sometimes it is bloody marvellous!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 2:04:13 GMT
tpfkar To be honest, I would prefer that Mic never reproduces, though I think after MANY year's interaction that he has mental illness, which may or may not have a genetic component. I like you and respect your decision to NOT reproduce, however. If you have read our recent thread in full, you will get the picture. I notice you didn't participate. Last time when asked about which mental illness I had, you didn't come up with any mental illness at all. So again, which mental illness and how are you qualified to diagnose remotely? Lay people still don't need an MD to voice an opinion on how nutwackers some people are. If you weren't so nutwhackers, you'd know that. The wanting the world nuked, jackboot thuggery dreams, deranged shrill framings and wild irrationalities kind of give it away. And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first place
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 2:15:18 GMT
The proportion who want to take their own lives is unknown. No, it isn't. It's the proportion who commit suicide, give or take a little. In fact if anything it's less than that, since most people who say they want to commit suicide, or try to commit suicide, don't actually want to commit suicide. They make the threat, and the attempt, in order to gain attention. No, you want them to never have that choice at all. No better. We don't "churn out torture victims". Keep trying. Then the people you knew didn't really want to do it. Bullshit. You can't treat the instincts of millions of years of evolution as if it's a different thing to what people actually want. That's like saying "people don't really want to eat, it's just an evolutionary instinct making people want to put food in their mouth." But wanting to put food in your mouth is what wanting to eat is. To say that an evolutionary instinct drives you to e is to explainat why you want to do it, nothing more or less. Likewise, if evolutionary instinct is driving you to remain alive, then you want to be alive. The fact that it's a result of an evolutionary instinct is utterly irrelevant. Likewise with the other causal factors you mention. These things may shape your choices to a particular end, but that's just part and parcel of how a person's character and desires are formed. To say "well if it wasn't for your upbringing in this society, in that religion, by those parents, you'd want something else" is true, but also completely beside the point. People DID grow up the way they did and as a result they DO make the choices they do, and that's all there is to it. There's a high failure rate because most attempts aren't actual attempts to kill oneself. They are attempts to gain attention. Which, I suspect, is also why you subscribe to this nonsense and keep going on about it. Yes, my life - plus the life of the rest of the overwhelming majority who don't fit into your claims (including, ironically, yourself) - are worth those tiny few who don't like it. I don't need to weigh it up or do any kind of theoretical calculation. Each individual does that for themselves. All we need to do is look at the outcome, which is that 99 out of every 100 people do not commit suicide. Then factor in that most of the 1 in 100 that do commit suicide didn't even mean to, and it is trivially obvious that your view of things is wrong. Those statistics already include them. Which they are. No education is required. I don't need to be. I merely need to observe what your actual choice is, as compared to what you claim about yourself. You do not want to die. If you say otherwise the explanation is psychological; an attempt to seek sympathy, to troll, a self image tied into being edgy or different... whatever. I don't know and don't really care what the reason is, but you don't want to die. No, why should there be? A woman has every right to deny the hypothetical people she could create life if she wants to, just as she has the right to bring them into existence if she wants to. It's her choice. Then if we cannot consider the hypothetical benefits of people who don't exist yet, we also cannot consider the hypothetical harm of people who don't exist yet. Which brings the entire "nobody should reproduce" argument down in flames, all by itself. Saying "there would be no unmet needs or unfulfilled desires" implies that there will be needs and desires that will all be met. It's dishonest. Say "there would be no needs or desires" if you must. Oh puh-leeze. If you're going to call anything that people do because of determinism a necessity, then everything that people do is a necessity. Therefore since most people reproduce, reproduction is a necessity for those people. Therefore you've just destroyed your own argument. Yet again. No, I'm saying that the risk of those things making people suicidal is minor. If so then nobody can say the opposite, either. Of course they are. It's probably one of the primary reasons. Then it is a nonsense to care about the suffering whilst they don't exist. And you've yet again destroyed your own argument.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 29, 2018 2:16:26 GMT
To be honest, I would prefer that Mic never reproduces, though I think after MANY year's interaction that he has mental illness, which may or may not have a genetic component. I like you and respect your decision to NOT reproduce, however. If you have read our recent thread in full, you will get the picture. I notice you didn't participate. Last time when asked about which mental illness I had, you didn't come up with any mental illness at all. So again, which mental illness and how are you qualified to diagnose remotely? That is patently not true. I came up with depression, psychosis, sociopathy and psychopathy in my opinion, all with a basis in you also being on the Aspergers scale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 2:31:24 GMT
To be honest, I would prefer that Mic never reproduces, though I think after MANY year's interaction that he has mental illness, which may or may not have a genetic component. I like you and respect your decision to NOT reproduce, however. If you have read our recent thread in full, you will get the picture. I notice you didn't participate. Last time when asked about which mental illness I had, you didn't come up with any mental illness at all. So again, which mental illness and how are you qualified to diagnose remotely? I doubt you have a mental illness. I think you're an unhappy guy who has convinced yourself that your unhappiness isn't about you, but rather about the universe and the fundamental unfairness of humanity. But guess what? If you're unhappy, that's on you. Only you are ever going to be able to fix it. And you never will, until you accept that fact. This anti-natal absurdity isn't the explanation of your misery, it's a symptom of it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 2:32:25 GMT
tpfkar Once we exist, then we are necessitated that we do or feel as determinism dictates. People want to bring new lives into existence, but they shouldn't have the right to do that when they are imposing risks on those lives, and the people who would receive those lives cannot consent (and would never feel deprived of the purported benefits had they not been brought into existence). How does "shouldn't" and "rights" and "imposing", etc., work or have any meaning at all on Planet MicCee where no real choice actually exists? Does Free Will Exist?
|
|