Post by cupcakes on Apr 4, 2018 1:14:14 GMT
tpfkar
Apr 3, 2018 20:48:02 GMT @miccee said:
How people perceive it and judge it is all that matters in terms of good and bad. And again I don't care what half billion things you've never done that nobody's talking about. But much like you advocate force sterilizing all women and murdering countless, you termed treatment to get people thriving again as "brainwashing". And who cares what you might or might not "compromise" on. You have less than negative power that would make any such thing even infinitesimally relevant. And sacred essences, as you constantly natter on about, are your own essence, as evidenced by your morbid malicious playtime ideas about what you want to do to people in your pursuit of gruesome perfection and your stated belief in the Great (sickly) Objective and your inability to distinguish even the most secular of things from your pathologically morbid religious embodiment.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.
I consider the psychiatric ethos of 'death is always a patently irrational option in every instance, and if it were possible to force people to remain conscious for the rest of eternity then it should be forced upon them because anything else would be insanity, and insane people cannot make decisions for themselves' to be a religious doctrine, rather than anything based on secular rationalism. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to why death is always an irrational option?

And you're decrying what I 'want to do to people'? What have I ever suggested be done to people that is more than devised to prevent them from imposing risk on those who cannot consent? What have I ever suggested that goes further than cleaning up the mess that you want to continue making, and proposes that people should be harmed for no motive other than sheer malice? If you didn't create the victims or agreed to stop making more victims, there would be no need to come up with a coercive strategy to prevent you from doing so. What you're also conveniently ignoring is that all sentient life will some day become extinct, and that is an inevitability. So you're still imposing some kind of catastrophic extinction on a planet full of life, but seem to believe that delaying it (and making untold trillions more humans and animals suffer in the meantime) it is more moral than trying to introduce it in a controlled way that will cause less suffering.
And you've advocated both the forced sterilization of all women, the nuking of all populations and you rattle on about how the utterly irrelevantly psychopathic "dead can't care/feel/whatever", "kill all to save them" boobhatchery, regardless if your're blanching at your shared dreamed murderous mental pathologies now.

Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.
