|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2018 13:29:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 0:20:07 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*****"My paragraphs would be in clear, grammatically correct paragraphs to enable the meaning to be easily parsed, with every word spelled correctly. And what you're describing is what we non-religious people call a "blasphemy law". You want to protect your sacred ideas against blasphemy, rather than protect any people who need the 'protection' you're offering. But you know plain well that your ideas will never be the strongest in a secular marketplace of ideas, so they have to be imposed by force. How can I be wanting to 'abuse' people, when I want those laws for my own personal use. Treat others as you would want to be treated...I thought that was supposed to be the golden rule and not the supervillain's creed.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 20, 2018 0:29:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 0:33:55 GMT
I never claimed to be "persecuted"; although you have stated that it should be illegal for me to invest my own wellbeing in my own sincerely held convictions and philosophies. Your posts are what are widely agreed to be "grammar-impaired".
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 20, 2018 0:44:57 GMT
tpfkar 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. Perfection is for the religious, of course. And your demented "pro-life" usage remains high irony with your desired forced mass-sterilization, mass forced pregnancy termination, and just outright mass murder, which of course is the definition of "impose it upon people who don't share your outlook". Before we ever get anywhere near your desire to feed the mentally ill to fellow predators if they can get them to "assent", and to just put them down at the behest of their illness, or even if they later kick and scream against it, as opposed to ameliorating and treating them to help them thrive, or as you like to shat, "brainwash" them. 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 Apr 20, 2018 1:17:29 GMT
tpfkar 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. Perfection is for the religious, of course. And your demented "pro-life" usage remains high irony with your desired forced mass-sterilization, mass forced pregnancy termination, and just outright mass murder, which of course is the definition of "impose it upon people who don't share your outlook". Before we ever get anywhere near your desire to feed the mentally ill to fellow predators if they can get them to "assent", and to just put them down at the behest of their illness, or even if they later kick and scream against it, as opposed to ameliorating and treating them to help them thrive, or as you like to shat, "brainwash" them. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"TSometimes it's necessary to impose/infringe on someone else's liberty in order to prevent them from imposing. Like the would-be child molesters you're so obsessed with, or those who would place a harmable being into an environment where they become vulnerable to more harms than can be cataloged, including molestation. I've never expressed any desire to 'feed' the mentally ill to anyone. I am a firm advocate for the right to die. I find cannibalism morally problematic, but ultimately am not sure that it should be the government's place to impose harsh penalties for something that was done at the explicit request of the 'victim'.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 20, 2018 1:22:30 GMT
tpfkar I never claimed to be "persecuted"; although you have stated that it should be illegal for me to invest my own wellbeing in my own sincerely held convictions and philosophies. Your posts are what are widely agreed to be "grammar-impaired". Your constant wails don't require you to utter the words, they positively shriek it. And you're ever the inveterate liar. And I do know you agree with both the voices in your head and your fellow freaks. Please tell us more about how the n-word applies to you and your great knowledge of the "double negative". Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 20, 2018 1:33:56 GMT
tpfkar 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. You rejected them based on nothing, just like you've claimed it's from a "promulgated expert consensus" based on nothing. At least I've used arguments and examples to support my claims. All you can do is name-call, lie, asspull claims with no evidence, and try to libel me because you have no actual arguments based on anything resembling facts. Of course, there's no "ass-pull natters" about that bottom quote; it's a restatement of the well-known sampling bias problem in research. Anyone who knows a lick about scientific research would agree with what I said.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 20, 2018 1:36:46 GMT
tpfkar 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*****"My paragraphs would be in clear, grammatically correct paragraphs to enable the meaning to be easily parsed, with every word spelled correctly. And what you're describing is what we non-religious people call a "blasphemy law". You want to protect your sacred ideas against blasphemy, rather than protect any people who need the 'protection' you're offering. But you know plain well that your ideas will never be the strongest in a secular marketplace of ideas, so they have to be imposed by force. How can I be wanting to 'abuse' people, when I want those laws for my own personal use. Treat others as you would want to be treated...I thought that was supposed to be the golden rule and not the supervillain's creed. You're of course deranged. You write the most cumbersome prolix prose typical of the ultimately grammatically ignorant and comprehensively frustrated+impotent. The only usual "meaning" is buckets of demented shyte punctuated by pain pump-pounding inept wails in your hissy "irritations". Seeing you spin tears flailing about on "double negatives", "English as a second language", and your inability to comprehend basics makes me smile all the more. I do enjoy mocking how much catty-crying ink you splash in your frustrations. And like so much else, you seem to have no idea what "blasphemy" or "blasphemy laws" mean. What a shocker! Or ideas vs. actions, "plain well know", "personal use", "sanity", etc., etc. 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 Eva Yojimbo on Apr 20, 2018 1:44:59 GMT
Then perhaps you might consider playing it with an actual pedo rather than someone who's only pointing out your BS.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 20, 2018 2:08:57 GMT
tpfkar 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. You rejected them based on nothing, just like you've claimed it's from a "promulgated expert consensus" based on nothing. At least I've used arguments and examples to support my claims. All you can do is name-call, lie, asspull claims with no evidence, and try to libel me because you have no actual arguments based on anything resembling facts. Of course, there's no "ass-pull natters" about that bottom quote; it's a restatement of the well-known sampling bias problem in research. Anyone who knows a lick about scientific research would agree with what I said. I rejected them because they're the hopeful made up arse-pulls of kiddie-fiddlers. And you can wail that it's based on nothing, but then go check with laws, docs, teachers, just about any place other than your NAMBLA meetings and boards where pedophiles congregate, and you'll get the same. And I'll let your own words and run-aways keep telling the tale. Volumes of asserted pro-pedophilia nonsense followed by denials and yelps of "slander" just make for good laughs. And the existence of sampling bias doesn't yield your assertions that the actual trained professionals don't know it or factor it in when rejecting something nasty predators want regardless of the humorous tripe they assert out of their greasy air. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 3:36:19 GMT
tpfkar My paragraphs would be in clear, grammatically correct paragraphs to enable the meaning to be easily parsed, with every word spelled correctly. And what you're describing is what we non-religious people call a "blasphemy law". You want to protect your sacred ideas against blasphemy, rather than protect any people who need the 'protection' you're offering. But you know plain well that your ideas will never be the strongest in a secular marketplace of ideas, so they have to be imposed by force. How can I be wanting to 'abuse' people, when I want those laws for my own personal use. Treat others as you would want to be treated...I thought that was supposed to be the golden rule and not the supervillain's creed. You're of course deranged. You write the most cumbersome prolix prose typical of the ultimately grammatically ignorant and comprehensively frustrated+impotent. The only usual "meaning" is buckets of demented shyte punctuated by pain pump-pounding inept wails in your hissy "irritations". Seeing you spin tears flailing about on "double negatives", "English as a second language", and your inability to comprehend basics makes me smile all the more. I do enjoy mocking how much catty-crying ink you splash in your frustrations. And like so much else, you seem to have no idea what "blasphemy" or "blasphemy laws" mean. What a shocker! Or ideas vs. actions, "plain well know", "personal use", "sanity", etc., etc. 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.It's "cumbersome" to have to try and parse your word salad of made up words and folksy colloquialisms. More so than a few paragraphs of grammatically correct and easy to understand language. I do understand what blasphemy means. You effectively deify the essence of human life, and even if you aren't in support of making it illegal to verbally question the sanctity of life in the way that some theists want it to be illegal to mock a religious figure; you do seek for special protections for your perspective in law, even though it cannot be denied that this results in grievous suffering that would not occur had your own religious beliefs been powerless to interfere with private personal choices.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 20, 2018 5:41:18 GMT
tpfkar You're of course deranged. You write the most cumbersome prolix prose typical of the ultimately grammatically ignorant and comprehensively frustrated+impotent. The only usual "meaning" is buckets of demented shyte punctuated by pain pump-pounding inept wails in your hissy "irritations". Seeing you spin tears flailing about on "double negatives", "English as a second language", and your inability to comprehend basics makes me smile all the more. I do enjoy mocking how much catty-crying ink you splash in your frustrations. And like so much else, you seem to have no idea what "blasphemy" or "blasphemy laws" mean. What a shocker! Or ideas vs. actions, "plain well know", "personal use", "sanity", etc., etc. 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.It's "cumbersome" to have to try and parse your word salad of made up words and folksy colloquialisms. More so than a few paragraphs of grammatically correct and easy to understand language. I do understand what blasphemy means. You effectively deify the essence of human life, and even if you aren't in support of making it illegal to verbally question the sanctity of life in the way that some theists want it to be illegal to mock a religious figure; you do seek for special protections for your perspective in law, even though it cannot be denied that this results in grievous suffering that would not occur had your own religious beliefs been powerless to interfere with private personal choices. Actually, mic, I see it more as 'word vomit', and that is why I have him on 'Block'.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 20, 2018 7:41:19 GMT
It's "cumbersome" to have to try and parse your word salad of made up words and folksy colloquialisms. More so than a few paragraphs of grammatically correct and easy to understand language. I do understand what blasphemy means. You effectively deify the essence of human life, and even if you aren't in support of making it illegal to verbally question the sanctity of life in the way that some theists want it to be illegal to mock a religious figure; you do seek for special protections for your perspective in law, even though it cannot be denied that this results in grievous suffering that would not occur had your own religious beliefs been powerless to interfere with private personal choices. Actually, mic, I see it more as 'word vomit', and that is why I have him on 'Block'. I have just joined you in that after his extreme rudeness to me.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 20, 2018 9:19:55 GMT
tpfkar You're of course deranged. You write the most cumbersome prolix prose typical of the ultimately grammatically ignorant and comprehensively frustrated+impotent. The only usual "meaning" is buckets of demented shyte punctuated by pain pump-pounding inept wails in your hissy "irritations". Seeing you spin tears flailing about on "double negatives", "English as a second language", and your inability to comprehend basics makes me smile all the more. I do enjoy mocking how much catty-crying ink you splash in your frustrations. And like so much else, you seem to have no idea what "blasphemy" or "blasphemy laws" mean. What a shocker! Or ideas vs. actions, "plain well know", "personal use", "sanity", etc., etc. 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.It's "cumbersome" to have to try and parse your word salad of made up words and folksy colloquialisms. More so than a few paragraphs of grammatically correct and easy to understand language. I do understand what blasphemy means. You effectively deify the essence of human life, and even if you aren't in support of making it illegal to verbally question the sanctity of life in the way that some theists want it to be illegal to mock a religious figure; you do seek for special protections for your perspective in law, even though it cannot be denied that this results in grievous suffering that would not occur had your own religious beliefs been powerless to interfere with private personal choices. It's glorious to hear your catty howls as you gnash out for some relief. Whatever you need, my bawling dyslexic brother. Squeal MOAR! You obviously have no idea what "blasphemy" means as you can and constantly do speak any insipid twittery you like. Again, what's your sentence for posting all kinds of projected hypocritical derangement other than being sentenced to bawling eternally? I certainly do support our current and future empathetic mode of treating the mentally ill and ameliorating their symptoms as opposed to feeding their illness and outright putting them down or making lethal poisons widely available to impotent wannabe women-abusing mass-murdering madmen who can't manage basic grammar nor basic definitions. 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 cupcakes on Apr 20, 2018 9:48:50 GMT
tpfkar It's "cumbersome" to have to try and parse your word salad of made up words and folksy colloquialisms. More so than a few paragraphs of grammatically correct and easy to understand language. I do understand what blasphemy means. You effectively deify the essence of human life, and even if you aren't in support of making it illegal to verbally question the sanctity of life in the way that some theists want it to be illegal to mock a religious figure; you do seek for special protections for your perspective in law, even though it cannot be denied that this results in grievous suffering that would not occur had your own religious beliefs been powerless to interfere with private personal choices. Actually, mic, I see it more as 'word vomit', and that is why I have him on 'Block'. Let's see, do you support him in his desire to force-sterilize all women, force-terminate all pregnancies and mass-murder countless, or are you again just indulging your ever-bitter self in some pain pump-pounding petty revenge. I wasn't talking to you and I never have engaged in any conversation with you previously, ever.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 20, 2018 19:23:37 GMT
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. You're just reiterating the 'no future people at at all should endure pain'. How is it that all yet-physical people should not endure pain even though pain is different for already-physical people? You could replace bad with the word pain and lose no meaning in the above quoted statement. You say ‘it’s an ethically bad thing’, so does this mean it’s an ethically pain thing? Also by your definition of instinct, could not this experienced aversion be overridden and so not thought avoidable, desired even? And if this is so, then what does this say about the truth of things being bad, if possible that the bad could be overridden? A realisation from you that you’re appealing to emotions that have no truth value whatsoever. A moral nihilist views statements such as, murder is bad/wrong/unethical, as having no truth value. This doesn’t mean that a moral nihilist would not act nor be moved by your torture scenario. A moral nihilist may act or be moved because they can, or want to, or it’s practical to do so, or any number of reasons, and even not act nor be moved if the case may be. I do get what you're saying. You’re saying that given the magnitude of suffering, we should not procreate because to do so is unfair/unethical given that future people have no say in the matter. I say that given the magnitude of all sensual states other than suffering, we should procreate because to not do so is unfair/unethical given that future people have no say in the matter. Again, I not disagreeing with you, I am just saying I'm right if you're right. If we are both right then your stance could be otherwise and if otherwise then not necessary, and if not necessary then no rational reason to believe. Also: If I say, given the magnitude of suffering, we should not have future people. How does it being unfair/unethical make it true? If the statement is true in itself already, then why even mention unfair/unethical? Yeah, pulling principles out of thin air to emotionally blackmail is a sure sign of a clear rationale
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 22:57:59 GMT
It's "cumbersome" to have to try and parse your word salad of made up words and folksy colloquialisms. More so than a few paragraphs of grammatically correct and easy to understand language. I do understand what blasphemy means. You effectively deify the essence of human life, and even if you aren't in support of making it illegal to verbally question the sanctity of life in the way that some theists want it to be illegal to mock a religious figure; you do seek for special protections for your perspective in law, even though it cannot be denied that this results in grievous suffering that would not occur had your own religious beliefs been powerless to interfere with private personal choices. Actually, mic, I see it more as 'word vomit', and that is why I have him on 'Block'. Yes, he spends about 12 hours a day spitting out bitter invective on the Internet at anyone who so much as has a different favourite colour from him...and then he expects me to take it from him that life is a wondrous gift bestowed upon sacred and gorgeous human beings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 23:07:29 GMT
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. You're just reiterating the 'no future people at at all should endure pain'. How is it that all yet-physical people should not endure pain even though pain is different for already-physical people? I don't even understand this. The world has lots of different trap doors and everybody experiences subtly different sensations when they fall into one of the trap doors, and not everyone falls into all of the same trap doors. But everyone can be harmed and is harmed. I doubt you could override the instinct, and even if you could you would just cause everyone to exist in a state of anhedonia. The harms are the only things which give definition to the pleasures. When a sentient organism is harmed, that is a negative value which is created in the universe. Conscious experience is the only source of value that exists. Alright, but I doubt that, when it came down to it, the 'moral nihilist' would want others to take a 'morally nihilistic' approach to how they treated him. To what "future people" are we being unfair if no future people are ever made? Are you now claiming that there's an objective thing called fairness which exists even when there are no conscious experiencers to feel that they've been unfairly done by? You're now just throwing shit at the wall and hoping for some of it to stick. You're failing to recognise the asymmetry. That's why my argument is right, and yours is not. There are no imaginary Martians that the universe has been 'unfair to', because fairness is a subjective concept and there aren't any Martians to feel that they've been unfairly done by. Are you also an 'every sperm is sacred' kind of guy and do you think that people who choose not to have children are committing an injustice against their hypothetical future children? It's a principle by which all civilised societies operate; alackaday not perfectly.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 20, 2018 23:33:18 GMT
I don't even understand this. The world has lots of different trap doors and everybody experiences subtly different sensations when they fall into one of the trap doors, and not everyone falls into all of the same trap doors. But everyone can be harmed and is harmed. Yes everyone can be physical harmed but the feelings and thoughts about this harm are subjective and different. So are you saying that just the mere fact of being harmed warrants no procreation? I'm just going by your definition of instinct. So instinct is overridden and not overridden, conveniently relative to your given cases? What does this even mean? Because a moral nihilist thinks that moral statements are not true, it doesn't mean they are valueless. You obviously don't know that moral nihilism is a meta-ethical view. Why are moral statements true? You said this: I get this about people already existing, what i don't get is why we should not procreate if not talking about future people. And if you think I allude to some objective sense of fairness, then you haven't been reading properly. I give my example statement, not because I think it is true, but because any optimistic statement will negate your pessimistic statement. So no consideration to your own ethics, just appealing to the zeitgeist.
|
|