fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
 
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 18, 2018 11:28:05 GMT
Yes, I think that we should reason ourselves into not perpetuating the species. I think that the reason that religion is still so prevalent even amongst the educated is because people realise that human existence is absurd and that the suffering is ultimately futile without being placed in some grander context that gives meaningfulness to our lives. You seem to imply that, if no objective reason to endure subjective pain, then no reason to be Okay, but I say that, if no objective reason to succumb to subjective pain, then no reason to not be. I'm not saying your conditional is wrong, just that my conditional is right also. I know pain is undesirable so you can spare me the torture porn scenarios. If we are both right then not necessary to be no more and so no rationale to believe so. If you are right and I am wrong then is my conditional false because there are objective reasons to succumb to subjective pain or is it false because my consequent doesn’t follow from the antecedent? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 11:36:39 GMT
Yes, I think that we should reason ourselves into not perpetuating the species. I think that the reason that religion is still so prevalent even amongst the educated is because people realise that human existence is absurd and that the suffering is ultimately futile without being placed in some grander context that gives meaningfulness to our lives. You seem to imply that, if no objective reason to endure subjective pain, then no reason to be Okay, but I say that, if no objective reason to succumb to subjective pain, then no reason to not be. I'm not saying your conditional is wrong, just that my conditional is right also. I know pain is undesirable so you can spare me the torture porn scenarios. If we are both right then not necessary to be no more and so no rationale to believe so. If you are right and I am wrong then is my conditional false because there are objective reasons to succumb to subjective pain or is it false because my consequent doesn’t follow from the antecedent? Well I'm not arguing with your assertion that it's OK for you to resist succumbing to subjective pain. The problem arises only when you assume that someone else is going to have the same disposition as you do, and proceed to place them in a position where they will have needs which will not always be met, and will be vulnerable to harm, where previously there was no vulnerability or needs. I'm not arguing that people who are alive now should "succumb to subjective pain", I'm simply arguing that they shouldn't create more harmable and needful beings when there's no way of guaranteeing that the new life can be protected from harm (to their satisfaction) or have their needs sufficiently satisfied for the duration of their experience. If you agree that my 'conditional' is not wrong and that my desire not to have my welfare placed in jeopardy for no productive reason is valid (for me), then what gives you the ethical warrant to create more copies of me (in the sense that you don't know whether your own child is going to have my disposition towards suffering, or your sunnier one)? |
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 18, 2018 11:46:07 GMT
You seem to imply that, if no objective reason to endure subjective pain, then no reason to be Okay, but I say that, if no objective reason to succumb to subjective pain, then no reason to not be. I'm not saying your conditional is wrong, just that my conditional is right also. I know pain is undesirable so you can spare me the torture porn scenarios. If we are both right then not necessary to be no more and so no rationale to believe so. If you are right and I am wrong then is my conditional false because there are objective reasons to succumb to subjective pain or is it false because my consequent doesn’t follow from the antecedent? Well I'm not arguing with your assertion that it's OK for you to resist succumbing to subjective pain. The problem arises only when you assume that someone else is going to have the same disposition as you do, and proceed to place them in a position where they will have needs which will not always be met, and will be vulnerable to harm, where previously there was no vulnerability or needs. I'm not arguing that people who are alive now should "succumb to subjective pain", I'm simply arguing that they shouldn't create more harmable and needful beings when there's no way of guaranteeing that the new life can be protected from harm (to their satisfaction) or have their needs sufficiently satisfied for the duration of their experience. If you agree that my 'conditional' is not wrong and that my desire not to have my welfare placed in jeopardy for no productive reason is valid (for me), then what gives you the ethical warrant to create more copies of me (in the sense that you don't know whether your own child is going to have my disposition towards suffering, or your sunnier one)? You are saying that we should succumb totally to pain by being no more, we are no more due to not enduring pain and you say because there is no objective reason otherwise. I am saying that pain is not something we should totally succumb to by being no more by virtue of no objective reason otherwise. I am speaking in terms for all living and possible future people, we should not succumb to pain to forward our demise, regardless of what pain is. If I am not wrong then I have no reason to believe that we should be no more. SImple as. If you are going to talk about ethical warranty explain what good and bad is without referring to pain otherwise it's circular. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 11:55:32 GMT
Well I'm not arguing with your assertion that it's OK for you to resist succumbing to subjective pain. The problem arises only when you assume that someone else is going to have the same disposition as you do, and proceed to place them in a position where they will have needs which will not always be met, and will be vulnerable to harm, where previously there was no vulnerability or needs. I'm not arguing that people who are alive now should "succumb to subjective pain", I'm simply arguing that they shouldn't create more harmable and needful beings when there's no way of guaranteeing that the new life can be protected from harm (to their satisfaction) or have their needs sufficiently satisfied for the duration of their experience. If you agree that my 'conditional' is not wrong and that my desire not to have my welfare placed in jeopardy for no productive reason is valid (for me), then what gives you the ethical warrant to create more copies of me (in the sense that you don't know whether your own child is going to have my disposition towards suffering, or your sunnier one)? You are saying that we should succumb totally to pain by being no more, we are no more due to not enduring pain and you say because there is no objective reason otherwise. I am saying that pain is not something we should totally succumb to by being no more by virtue of no objective reason otherwise. I am speaking in terms for all living and possible future people, we should not succumb to pain to forward our demise, regardless of what pain is. If I am not wrong then I have no reason to believe that we should be no more. SImple as. If you are going to talk about ethical warranty explain what good and bad is without referring to pain otherwise it's circular. I'm not saying that anyone should succumb to pain, because it should be up to the individual to determine, subjectively, whether the pain is worth enduring. You already exist, so you should be able to determine the terms of your own existence. But you're talking about making that decision for people who will have no say in the matter, and who don't have any need or desire to be brought into existence. What do you imagine is the productive purpose we are serving that is so important that we should continue the Ponzi scheme, just for the sake of avoiding the 'demise' of our species? You are wrong inasmuch as thinking that you (a currently existing person with your own subjective views) are able to represent people who do not yet exist and imperil those people for the purpose of a goal that exists only in your head (and the heads of those who are likeminded). A good and bad is whatever is subjectively determined to be bad by a subjective experiencer. However, the good and bad are functionally different in that what we would normally deem to be a 'good' consists of ameliorating or warding off a 'bad'. I would say that you aren't ethically warranted in creating new people to serve your own ideologies, desires or needs, when you aren't acting in a way that addresses the needs or desires of those whom you are endangering. Given that non-existent cannot have desires, needs or ideologies and you can only be acting on your own desires, needs and ideologies to create more of these things out of the void, then procreating would be ruled out by the non-aggression principle. |
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 18, 2018 12:24:27 GMT
I'm not saying that anyone should succumb to pain, because it should be up to the individual to determine... So how do we get from pain is different for everybody now to no future people at all should endure pain? This is saying nothing what good and bad is, just that they are different, Why is the good good and why is the bad bad? Again tells me nothing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 16:15:25 GMT
I'm not saying that anyone should succumb to pain, because it should be up to the individual to determine... So how do we get from pain is different for everybody now to no future people at all should endure pain? Because you're making the future people suffer a pain that they may not find worth the reason that you brought them into existence to feel the pain. The reason for bringing them into existence to be tortured (in some instances) exists only in the mind of the people imposing that existence on them. They don't share any stake at all in that purpose before you made them and told them that the suffering is 'worth it' for the sake of the glorious purpose you had in mind when you made them. A bad is something that we are instinctually driven to avoid and that creates an aversion in the mind of the experiencer. It is the whip in evolution's carrot and whip mechanism for determining what organisms win the gladiator war. A good is the avoidance or amelioration of the bad. What do you want, then? If you're a nihilist with respect to the suffering endured by other sentient organisms, then what ethical warrant is there against chaining someone up in a cell and torturing them? If you don't get the idea that it's ethically a bad thing to risk someone else's wellbeing when there are high stakes and the need to do so exists only in your head (whilst the person you are going to burden shares no stakes in the purpose that you're trying to achieve), then you don't get it, and there's probably no point in continuing this discussion. Arguments against reproduction only work for people who agree to the concept that others shouldn't be harmed for no good reason, because their wellbeing is equivalent to ours and there's no fairness or desert driving the mechanism which causes some to be born to lives filled with miserable suffering. If you don't agree with the basic principle that unproductive harm should be avoided, there's nothing more that I can do for you. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 18, 2018 16:22:37 GMT
tpfkar I don't care how you "feel". The suffering that will ensue from you getting your way would make the suffering caused by me getting my way seem vanishingly insignificant by comparison. It's not that you want people to be born with horrendous and painful disabilities, or be forced to endure hellish mental torture indefinitely, it's just that you think that those are prices worth paying in order for your ideology to 'win'. So you're actually no different, except for the fact that your ideology seems benign on the surface, but will result in a much higher price being spread out over a much longer period of time, as opposed to a high short term price which is much lower in the long term. And as for the suicide thing, that's just you wanting your pro-life ideology to be enshrined in law so that you can impose it upon people who don't share your outlook.  And I don't "care" about any of the insane nonsense continually spewing out of you, but I'm sure going to highlight it!  The point was that you having murderously psychotic "reasons" for advocating horrifically abusing all women and slaughtering countless doesn't matter one whit and certainly doesn't make you any less of a psychopathic shattered-minded youtube crank-following wannabe murderous psycho, although an utterly impotent one, other than for message board high entertainment. And that regardless of how often you wail like a baby girl (love it!), this time about your deranged pure psychopathy being accurately described, I'm going to keep on highlighting your patent crazy. But feel free to keep the "not care" tears streaming, and I'll feel free to keep laughing my ass off.  As for your psychotic valuations of good and bad, laughable Orwellianisms like "pro-life" for not abusing women's uteruses, or the utter twitdom of using that to refer to not assassinating everybody on the planet, and of course just your continued hilarious cult worship of pain after your cult worship of procreation, again, too bad, the vast vast majority love the option given and the vast vast majority of them use it to the fullest until fertilizer time. Regardless of how badly you yutube-suckling miscreants want everybody to be as MRA-like nurtured miserable as you are.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2018 0:11:30 GMT
tpfkar I don't care how you "feel". The suffering that will ensue from you getting your way would make the suffering caused by me getting my way seem vanishingly insignificant by comparison. It's not that you want people to be born with horrendous and painful disabilities, or be forced to endure hellish mental torture indefinitely, it's just that you think that those are prices worth paying in order for your ideology to 'win'. So you're actually no different, except for the fact that your ideology seems benign on the surface, but will result in a much higher price being spread out over a much longer period of time, as opposed to a high short term price which is much lower in the long term. And as for the suicide thing, that's just you wanting your pro-life ideology to be enshrined in law so that you can impose it upon people who don't share your outlook.  And I don't "care" about any of the insane nonsense continually spewing out of you, but I'm sure going to highlight it!  The point was that you having murderously psychotic "reasons" for advocating horrifically abusing all women and slaughtering countless doesn't matter one whit and certainly doesn't make you any less of a psychopathic shattered-minded youtube crank-following wannabe murderous psycho, although an utterly impotent one, other than for message board high entertainment. And that regardless of how often you wail like a baby girl (love it!), this time about your deranged pure psychopathy being accurately described, I'm going to keep on highlighting your patent crazy. But feel free to keep the "not care" tears streaming, and I'll feel free to keep laughing my ass off.  As for your psychotic valuations of good and bad, laughable Orwellianisms like "pro-life" for not abusing women's uteruses, or the utter twitdom of using that to refer to not assassinating everybody on the planet, and of course just your continued hilarious cult worship of pain after your cult worship of procreation, again, too bad, the vast vast majority love the option given and the vast vast majority of them use it to the fullest until fertilizer time. Regardless of how badly you yutube-suckling miscreants want everybody to be as MRA-like nurtured miserable as you are.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.It's not a perfect universe, so there will never be a perfect solution to anything. But my solution would cause suffering that would be as a drop in the ocean, when compared to allowing the status quo to prevail. By 'pro-life' I was more particularly referring to your endorsement of blasphemy laws which prevent people from being pharmaceutically empowered to reject your philosophy of the intrinsic value of life. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2018 1:35:56 GMT
tpfkar Arguments against reproduction only work for people who agree to the concept that others shouldn't be harmed for no good reason, because their wellbeing is equivalent to ours and there's no fairness or desert driving the mechanism which causes some to be born to lives filled with miserable suffering. If you don't agree with the basic principle that unproductive harm should be avoided, there's nothing more that I can do for you. Your style "arguments" only exist with the youtube psychotics who worship pain and Universal (forced) Death and project their MRA-style nurtured miserableness into mass women-abuse and mass murder, with your impotent shattered-mind dreams to force your disgustingly narcissistic morbid wants on all in the face of the overwhelming desire people have for the option and in fact the overwhelming choice made to make a go of enjoying this blast until they're soon enough dirt.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 19, 2018 1:59:39 GMT
So once again, you can't answer the question of what expert consensus you consulted (or was "promulgated") that you based your opinion on. All you can do is lie and accuse me of being a pedo. Gotcha. No of course, in your kiddie-fidlin' pursuits you arse-asserted that aversion to it was variously "moral outrage", "Puritanism", and then "xenophobia".  To which the response to your persecuted-yet-hopeful line was why that and not the obvious that kids aren't looking to have their parts "loved" on by you guys and need to just be able to grow up unmolested and of course the promulgated expert opinion on the matter. As in had been disseminated via media, teachers, in laws, what not, and not something that people are blanks on and then have to go consult Random J. Expert, who according to you is going to be "biased" against you anyway.  And I know you think "gotcha", but it's just going to getcha incarcerated or put down if you act upon it. 
Eva Yojimbo: Well, the "conceivable way it could be worth it" is if the experts were wrong, and there are always conceivable ways that experts could be wrong. I'll give you one obvious way in which experts come to be wrong: their own experiences biases them. By that I mean experts in certain fields, like psychology, would only end up seeing people that were damaged by pedophile experiences; they wouldn't necessarily see those who weren't damaged or who considered their experiences positive.Yes, I asserted those because I don't believe the ludicrous notion that anyone consulted an expert consensus before forming their moral opinion on the matter. That's why I've asked you what expert consensus you consulted or that was "promulgated." If you can't point to any, then your moral position clearly originated from somewhere else. I argued why I felt it was Puritanism/Xenophobia. You have offered no arguments against them, nor have you supported your claim it was from an expert consensus. The media and teachers and law have also "promulgated" the complete lie that marijuana is really bad for you; something that ACTUAL expert studies/consensuses have proven wrong, and which we know originated as propaganda from Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst. So, again, what evidence do you have that what they've "promulgated" is the expert consensus? The "biased" comment is a complete lie on your part. The only time I mentioned biasing was in a hypothetical of how it would be possible some experts were wrong (and I would say that was true of any subject). I didn't say any given expert or consensus was biased or wrong. You have yet to even POST one! |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2018 2:24:06 GMT
tpfkar No of course, in your kiddie-fidlin' pursuits you arse-asserted that aversion to it was variously "moral outrage", "Puritanism", and then "xenophobia". To which the response to your persecuted-yet-hopeful line was why that and not the obvious that kids aren't looking to have their parts "loved" on by you guys and need to just be able to grow up unmolested and of course the promulgated expert opinion on the matter. As in had been disseminated via media, teachers, in laws, what not, and not something that people are blanks on and then have to go consult Random J. Expert, who according to you is going to be "biased" against you anyway. And I know you think "gotcha", but it's just going to getcha incarcerated or put down if you act upon it.
Eva Yojimbo: Well, the "conceivable way it could be worth it" is if the experts were wrong, and there are always conceivable ways that experts could be wrong. I'll give you one obvious way in which experts come to be wrong: their own experiences biases them. By that I mean experts in certain fields, like psychology, would only end up seeing people that were damaged by pedophile experiences; they wouldn't necessarily see those who weren't damaged or who considered their experiences positive.Yes, I asserted those because I don't believe the ludicrous notion that anyone consulted an expert consensus before forming their moral opinion on the matter. That's why I've asked you what expert consensus you consulted or that was "promulgated." If you can't point to any, then your moral position clearly originated from somewhere else. I argued why I felt it was Puritanism/Xenophobia. You have offered no arguments against them, nor have you supported your claim it was from an expert consensus. The media and teachers and law have also "promulgated" the complete lie that marijuana is really bad for you; something that ACTUAL expert studies/consensuses have proven wrong, and which we know originated as propaganda from Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst. So, again, what evidence do you have that what they've "promulgated" is the expert consensus? The "biased" comment is a complete lie on your part. The only time I mentioned biasing was in a hypothetical of how it would be possible some experts were wrong (and I would say that was true of any subject). I didn't say any given expert or consensus was biased or wrong. You have yet to even POST one! Which of course is why it was utter twittery when you first came up with it in your kiddie-fiddlin' pursuits, after your "moral outrage"/"Puritanism"/"xenophobia" ass-pulls were laughingly rejected, of course. Of course you don't "consult" about what's already been promulgated.  And I know, I know, raping kids is just like marijuana! And one day you NAMBLA types will be vindicated, you'll show us! And I'll just let your repeated frantic ass-pull natters of the experts' "bias" against you guys' youngun'-bangin' designs put the lie to the "lie" wail.
Eva Yojimbo: To make the analogy with pedophilia, a psychologist might regularly deal with people who've been victims of pedophilia; but the very nature of their job would mean that they've probably ONLY seen those who thought the experience was negative (thus biasing the psychologist's conclusions), and even in coming to the conclusion that it is harmful the psychologist wouldn't have been able to discern a direct cause for the harm. So what you really need, then, are "experts" engaged in the research side of things, in reviewing as many cases as possible, preferably cross-cultural, and noting all those that were harmful VS not-harmful, and trying to find causal connections between the situations concerning each. If there's a consensus just among THOSE experts, I don't know what it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2018 3:16:16 GMT
tpfkar Arguments against reproduction only work for people who agree to the concept that others shouldn't be harmed for no good reason, because their wellbeing is equivalent to ours and there's no fairness or desert driving the mechanism which causes some to be born to lives filled with miserable suffering. If you don't agree with the basic principle that unproductive harm should be avoided, there's nothing more that I can do for you. Your style "arguments" only exist with the youtube psychotics who worship pain and Universal (forced) Death and project their MRA-style nurtured miserableness into mass women-abuse and mass murder, with your impotent shattered-mind dreams to force your disgustingly narcissistic morbid wants on all in the face of the overwhelming desire people have for the option and in fact the overwhelming choice made to make a go of enjoying this blast until they're soon enough dirt.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.That's a good example of the garbled writing I was alluding to. One long run-on sentence. And you want to use the law to deprive people of "choice", so "overwhelming" means nothing, |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2018 3:39:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2018 3:41:17 GMT
I don't have "trouble", and I've never lost my equanimity. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2018 4:00:00 GMT
tpfkar That's a good example of the garbled writing I was alluding to. One long run-on sentence. And you want to use the law to deprive people of "choice", so "overwhelming" means nothing, I do know how you struggle, even before you collapse into your hissies.  It would take you six paragraphs of cumbersome nonsense for you to get near as much out. And the law constrains all kinds of choice, a great one being not leaving you predator types the "choice" to abuse the mentally encumbered without consequence. Thankfully society doesn't share your homicidal derangements and treats the distraught and the mentally ill to ameliorate their symptoms to help them thrive, as much as you narcissistic optional miserabes hate it. 
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 19, 2018 5:54:21 GMT
Eva Yojimbo When I read your exchanges with cupcakes , I think of a saying I read on the old IMDb board. "Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." In my opinion there's nothing wrong with stepping away from a fruitless argument; even if some people call it "fading away".
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2018 6:20:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 19, 2018 6:48:56 GMT
Almost verbatim the type of response I expected from you. I'll take it as a compliment. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2018 7:03:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 19, 2018 8:57:05 GMT
Eva Yojimbo When I read your exchanges with cupcakes , I think of a saying I read on the old IMDb board. "Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." In my opinion there's nothing wrong with stepping away from a fruitless argument; even if some people call it "fading away". You're of course right, and I eventually do get tired of it and step away. The only other option is to continue it for all eternity because we know cupcakes won't quit.  |
|
To which the response to your persecuted-yet-hopeful line was why that and not the obvious that kids aren't looking to have their parts "loved" on by you guys and need to just be able to grow up unmolested and of course the promulgated expert opinion on the matter. As in had been disseminated via media, teachers, in laws, what not, and not something that people are blanks on and then have to go consult Random J. Expert, who according to you is going to be "biased" against you anyway. 
