Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 1:35:25 GMT
tpfkar
Apr 3, 2018 20:48:02 GMT @miccee said:
It doesn't matter if nobody's ever going to have to experience it. The people who didn't want to allow the plug to be pulled on Terri Schiavo were reacting to their own instinctual and reactionary fear of death, and their innate believe that there's some kind of terrifying void that Terri Schiavo was going to be experiencing after dying. They have no rational basis to have an aversion to something that they'll never have to experience for themselves, and nor will anybody else.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.
And whichever one of us gets our wishes, vast populations are going to die off en masse. If you get your wishes, vastly more people and animals will die off in total (most of them due to normal causes, and then the final generations will die off in an extinction), and they will likely die off in more pain and it will be more dragged out. So if you find the idea of death and mass extinction abhorrent, then it would make more sense to induce it as soon as possible in order to minimise the suffering that will be caused. In the context of an eternal universe, it makes near to no difference anyway, because the universe will continue for an infinitely long time after life becomes extinct in any case.