|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 3, 2018 16:23:29 GMT
Re the other comments, both yours and the comments you're quoting, it's frustrating that people are still not realizing that ethics/morality, rights, and value judgments in general are subjective. Not everyone is going to count the same things as progress, as perfection vs imperfection, etc. The fact that morality is subjective isn't really useful in this context, because you can have no society without an established set of morals. Some of the morals that people would like to have privileged by law are completely arbitrary, or based on superstition or ignorance (for example the taboo against pre-marital sex or homosexual sex), but some of those morals are universal, such as don't unnecessarily do harm unto others. Nobody likes being harmed. If somebody has power over your fate, you want them to be acting in your best interests, rather than causing undue harm to you, just because morals are subjective. The fact that non-existent entities cannot be harmed nor deprived is not subjective; it's a truth. The fact that sentient life is fraught with things that cause subjectively unpleasant sensations is a truth. Therefore based on the universal value that one shouldn't do unnecessary harm unto others, we can arrive at the conclusion that there is no warrant for imposing an unasked for life on an individual when you were not doing so in order to rescue that individual from another harmed or deprived state. They're all completely arbitrary in the sense that you're using that term. None are universal. Some people do like being harmed. Best interests are subjective. Yes, we live in a society, and it's a complex of competing preferences, interests, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 17:31:46 GMT
It 'can', but it would be deluded and ignorant to say that it is innocuous when it can result in this: Nope. That just demonstrates that innocuous actions can, in rare cases, lead to bad outcomes. Crossing the street can get you killed. Only a foolish person would say that this means that crossing the street is inherently bad. Nobody said anything about a score. Misrepresent and lie about me all you like. I'm still not engaging in your game. Sorry, you'll have to get your jollies someplace else. Incidentally, you're still not sterilising anybody. Not ever. Oh, and around 360,000 new babies were born today. I'm celebrating!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 18:01:44 GMT
The fact that morality is subjective isn't really useful in this context, because you can have no society without an established set of morals. Some of the morals that people would like to have privileged by law are completely arbitrary, or based on superstition or ignorance (for example the taboo against pre-marital sex or homosexual sex), but some of those morals are universal, such as don't unnecessarily do harm unto others. Nobody likes being harmed. If somebody has power over your fate, you want them to be acting in your best interests, rather than causing undue harm to you, just because morals are subjective. The fact that non-existent entities cannot be harmed nor deprived is not subjective; it's a truth. The fact that sentient life is fraught with things that cause subjectively unpleasant sensations is a truth. Therefore based on the universal value that one shouldn't do unnecessary harm unto others, we can arrive at the conclusion that there is no warrant for imposing an unasked for life on an individual when you were not doing so in order to rescue that individual from another harmed or deprived state. They're all completely arbitrary in the sense that you're using that term. None are universal. Some people do like being harmed. Best interests are subjective. Yes, we live in a society, and it's a complex of competing preferences, interests, etc. Nobody likes being "harmed", and that is a universal axiom. What actually constitutes harm is subjective, so that some people may like having pain inflicted upon them. But everybody has an aversion to something, and wants to avoid whatever that thing is. We have to balance competing preferences and interests in society, but nobody should have the right to jeapordise someone else's wellbeing when consent cannot be obtained and there is no compelling argument that it needs to be done. Since nobody who doesn't already exist has any compelling needs that could be addressed by bringing them into existence, then we would be allowing people to act on unalloyed self-interest in forcing those individuals to exist. If we allowed people to act on unalloyed self interest in all matters, without considering the effect that their actions had on others, then society would descend into anarchy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 18:08:26 GMT
It 'can', but it would be deluded and ignorant to say that it is innocuous when it can result in this: Nope. That just demonstrates that innocuous actions can, in rare cases, lead to bad outcomes. Crossing the street can get you killed. Only a foolish person would say that this means that crossing the street is inherently bad. Yes, but nobody is forcing you to cross the street, are they? You can decide for yourself whether the risk of crossing the strret is worth the projected reward, based on the contingences of your circumstances. There will likely be a downside to avoiding crossing the street, but there is no downside to never being born. You're also ignoring the fact that being born is the root of every possible source of harm, from crossing the street and getting hit by a drunken driver, to all manner of diseases, misfortunes, harmful addictions, mental health afflictions, poverty, hardship, and so on. None of these would be possible without birth. Well then you're just claiming to have "won the debate" because you don't agree with my ideas. No different from a flat earther or creationist deciding that they've "won the debate". The fact that your idea remains more popular isn't proof that you've "won the debate", because there are other arguments that you would advance (i.e. the existence of the Christian God) which are unpopular, but you wouldn't admit to having lost that debate. You're accusing me of misrepresenting you, when you have stated that my position is based only on emotion and unreason. Since you've made that accusation, I have presented you with what I would consider to be the incontrovertible factual basis of my argument and presented you with the opportunity to vindicate your assertion by scrutinising it for signs of being emotionally biased or irrational. A perfectly reasonable request in light of the accusation that you made that my position has no rational foundation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 18:25:31 GMT
Nope. That just demonstrates that innocuous actions can, in rare cases, lead to bad outcomes. Crossing the street can get you killed. Only a foolish person would say that this means that crossing the street is inherently bad. Yes, but nobody is forcing you to cross the street, are they? Again : your arguments have already been shown to be nonsensical in many other threads. I'm not having the same discussion over and over and over again, no matter how much you may want to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 18:46:01 GMT
Yes, but nobody is forcing you to cross the street, are they? Again : your arguments have already been shown to be nonsensical in many other threads. I'm not having the same discussion over and over and over again, no matter how much you may want to. People rejecting ideas that they find to be offensive or threatening to their safe space is not 'showing the ideas to be nonsensical'. If you reject my arguments as nonsensical, then you reject the foundation that entities that don't exist cannot be harmed nor deprived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 18:55:07 GMT
Again : your arguments have already been shown to be nonsensical in many other threads. I'm not having the same discussion over and over and over again, no matter how much you may want to. If you reject my arguments as nonsensical, then you reject the foundation that entities that don't exist cannot be harmed nor deprived. So you think. But we've already established that you don't think rationally, so there's that. Hmm, in the 8 minutes since you posted, another 1,900 babies born. Humanity is awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 3, 2018 19:54:04 GMT
They're all completely arbitrary in the sense that you're using that term. None are universal. Some people do like being harmed. Best interests are subjective. Yes, we live in a society, and it's a complex of competing preferences, interests, etc. Nobody likes being "harmed", and that is a universal axiom. What actually constitutes harm is subjective, so that some people may like having pain inflicted upon them. But everybody has an aversion to something, and wants to avoid whatever that thing is. We have to balance competing preferences and interests in society, but nobody should have the right to jeapordise someone else's wellbeing when consent cannot be obtained and there is no compelling argument that it needs to be done. Since nobody who doesn't already exist has any compelling needs that could be addressed by bringing them into existence, then we would be allowing people to act on unalloyed self-interest in forcing those individuals to exist. If we allowed people to act on unalloyed self interest in all matters, without considering the effect that their actions had on others, then society would descend into anarchy. The context of the discussion was social interaction a la laws and such, right? Whatever we count as harm in that context, some people like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 20:50:33 GMT
The context of the discussion was social interaction a la laws and such, right? Whatever we count as harm in that context, some people like it. That's true of most kinds of harm. Lest we forget, there are people in this world who volunteer to be murdered and have their corpses eaten by a cannibal. There are very few things you could name that somebody, somewhere, won't find attractive. That aside, "avoiding harm" is not and never has been an end unto itself for almost anybody. Avoiding harm is a means to an end - that of living a comfortable or happy life. To suggest that we wipe out the human race to minimise harm is to miss the whole point of minimising harm. It's the "we had to destroy the village to save it" mentality. It's epically stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 0:27:56 GMT
Nobody likes being "harmed", and that is a universal axiom. What actually constitutes harm is subjective, so that some people may like having pain inflicted upon them. But everybody has an aversion to something, and wants to avoid whatever that thing is. We have to balance competing preferences and interests in society, but nobody should have the right to jeapordise someone else's wellbeing when consent cannot be obtained and there is no compelling argument that it needs to be done. Since nobody who doesn't already exist has any compelling needs that could be addressed by bringing them into existence, then we would be allowing people to act on unalloyed self-interest in forcing those individuals to exist. If we allowed people to act on unalloyed self interest in all matters, without considering the effect that their actions had on others, then society would descend into anarchy. The context of the discussion was social interaction a la laws and such, right? Whatever we count as harm in that context, some people like it. Some people like some of the things that the majority would find harmful. But there's no conscious entity that is unharmable (or even if it is, it's so rare as to be irrelevant). Since birth is the root of all harms, the only way to ensure that you aren't harming a person who cannot consent is to not give birth to that person. And the great thing about that approach is that you can't be doing the hypothetical person a disservice by being cautious with their wellbeing. They will never know that you were even thinking about birthing them, and will never feel deprived of any of the pleasures you think that they might have been able to experience had they been born. In terms of harm prevention without a debit side, this approach works every single time. It's absolutely failproof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 0:35:11 GMT
The context of the discussion was social interaction a la laws and such, right? Whatever we count as harm in that context, some people like it. That's true of most kinds of harm. Lest we forget, there are people in this world who volunteer to be murdered and have their corpses eaten by a cannibal. There are very few things you could name that somebody, somewhere, won't find attractive. That aside, "avoiding harm" is not and never has been an end unto itself for almost anybody. Avoiding harm is a means to an end - that of living a comfortable or happy life. To suggest that we wipe out the human race to minimise harm is to miss the whole point of minimising harm. It's the "we had to destroy the village to save it" mentality. It's epically stupid. Yes, what's harmful to me may not be harmful to you. There's no disputing that. But every conscious entity is harmable (or if unharmable consciousnesses exist, they are so rare as to not even be worth considering). Likely the person who wanted to be cannibalised was very badly psychologically harmed in other ways which caused them to have such perverse fetishes. When you give birth to someone, that is the gateway to every possible type of harm, and without the birth, no harm is possible (nor is deprivation). You should have the right to take whatever risks you deem to be necessary and have whatever end goals for your life as you please; as long as you aren't dragging someone else out of peaceful oblivion in order to serve your purposes. And I would certainly argue that happiness is always about the avoidance of harms and warding off of deprivations. If we're just talking antinatalism, then wiping out the human race is a mere repercusssion rather than a goal itself. I've nothing against already existing people choosing to stay alive, just so long as there's no way that they can impose life on anyone else without consent. The only things I'm adamant about are preventing is the imposition without consent and also forcing existing people to stay alive/preventing them from dying when they wish to die.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 4, 2018 3:09:47 GMT
The context of the discussion was social interaction a la laws and such, right? Whatever we count as harm in that context, some people like it. Some people like some of the things that the majority would find harmful. But there's no conscious entity that is unharmable (or even if it is, it's so rare as to be irrelevant). Since birth is the root of all harms, the only way to ensure that you aren't harming a person who cannot consent is to not give birth to that person. And the great thing about that approach is that you can't be doing the hypothetical person a disservice by being cautious with their wellbeing. They will never know that you were even thinking about birthing them, and will never feel deprived of any of the pleasures you think that they might have been able to experience had they been born. In terms of harm prevention without a debit side, this approach works every single time. It's absolutely failproof. Isn't there any way you can have a discussion without going into the stupid anti-natalist rhetoric?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 10:54:40 GMT
Isn't there any way you can have a discussion without going into the stupid anti-natalist rhetoric? Doesn't seem that way, does it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2018 4:30:08 GMT
Some people like some of the things that the majority would find harmful. But there's no conscious entity that is unharmable (or even if it is, it's so rare as to be irrelevant). Since birth is the root of all harms, the only way to ensure that you aren't harming a person who cannot consent is to not give birth to that person. And the great thing about that approach is that you can't be doing the hypothetical person a disservice by being cautious with their wellbeing. They will never know that you were even thinking about birthing them, and will never feel deprived of any of the pleasures you think that they might have been able to experience had they been born. In terms of harm prevention without a debit side, this approach works every single time. It's absolutely failproof. Isn't there any way you can have a discussion without going into the stupid anti-natalist rhetoric? Antinatalism and eugenics were the topics of the thread, with @graham cheerleading on people who purposefully and recklessly harm little children. Can you ever have a discussion going into the silly pedantry of how nothing matters because values and morals don't exist outside of minds?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 5, 2018 10:10:20 GMT
Isn't there any way you can have a discussion without going into the stupid anti-natalist rhetoric? Antinatalism and eugenics were the topics of the thread, with @graham cheerleading on people who purposefully and recklessly harm little children. Can you ever have a discussion going into the silly pedantry of how nothing matters because values and morals don't exist outside of minds? Goz didn't mention antinatalism anywhere in the initial post. And never have I said anything even remotely resembling "nothing matters.". So you can't even understanding what I'm saying, despite the number of times I've tried to talk to you. I suppose that helps explain why you keep making the same mistakes over and over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2018 12:55:06 GMT
Isn't there any way you can have a discussion without going into the stupid anti-natalist rhetoric? Antinatalism and eugenics were the topics of the thread, with @graham cheerleading on people who purposefully and recklessly harm little children. But your arguments aren’t dishonest emotional nonsense, sure they aren’t!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 19:09:16 GMT
Antinatalism and eugenics were the topics of the thread, with @graham cheerleading on people who purposefully and recklessly harm little children. Can you ever have a discussion going into the silly pedantry of how nothing matters because values and morals don't exist outside of minds? Goz didn't mention antinatalism anywhere in the initial post. And never have I said anything even remotely resembling "nothing matters.". So you can't even understanding what I'm saying, despite the number of times I've tried to talk to you. I suppose that helps explain why you keep making the same mistakes over and over. She was alluding to my antinatalism, as I hadn't commented on the other thread. The only reason that you've given for rejecting antinatalism is that morality is subjective, and therefore it's OK to put people in harm's way unnecessarily and without consent. If I've misunderstood, kindly elaborate on why my antinatalist rhetoric is "stupid". And "morality is subjective" is your answer for everything, and where all conversations with you on any subject end up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 19:11:32 GMT
Antinatalism and eugenics were the topics of the thread, with @graham cheerleading on people who purposefully and recklessly harm little children. But your arguments aren’t dishonest emotional nonsense, sure they aren’t! It does anger me that people have the mindset that there's nothing wrong with knowingly having a child who has a high chance of inheriting a disability that will make their life absolutely miserable and unendingly painful. But I gave the factual basis for my antinatalist arguments and invited you to scrutinise them for emotional bias or irrationality, and you declined, calling it "playing games". Me getting angry about injustices doesn't mean that an injustice isn't an injustice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 22:50:38 GMT
When your response to every single comment is simply to repeat the same debunked argument, playing games exactly what you are doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:09:51 GMT
When your response to every single comment is simply to repeat the same debunked argument, playing games exactly what you are doing. Which part is debunked? The claim that there's no such thing as disembodied souls floating around the ether waiting for their chance to be born? You cannot 'debunk' a values based argument; you can only debunk what is presented as factual information. So debunk the facts, if you think that you can.
|
|