|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 6, 2018 23:16:03 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. Is that Imendham in your avatar?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:16:19 GMT
Already done it in every previous thread where you have brought this nonsense up. Go read them if you feel like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:19:30 GMT
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. Is that Imendham in your avatar? You watch inmendham?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 6, 2018 23:23:43 GMT
Is that Imendham in your avatar? You watch inmendham? Not really, though I do know who he is (he was in a bit of spat with Amazing Atheist, who I was a huge fan of). I used to be way more into Youtube atheists (Amazing Atheist, Armored Skeptic, Cult of Dusty, Thunderfoot, Aronra, Matt Dillahunty, etc). I didn't really know much about Imendham until relatively recently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:24:34 GMT
Already done it in every previous thread where you have brought this nonsense up. Go read them if you feel like. The only points you've made in the other threads are that you don't think the harm is important enough to take away the rights of others to procreate. Even in cases where there is a very substantial chance of the child inheriting a terrible disability. You can't 'debunk' someone else's decision not to procreate, or someone else's belief that it is selfish for others to procreate. That's like saying you've 'debunked' my favourite colour. I've laid out what the factual claims of my philosophy are, and invited you to 'debunk' them, which you've declined to do a number of time. Seriously, how can you 'debunk' someone's values if you don't disagree with whatever factual basis upon which they have constructed those values?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:30:15 GMT
You watch inmendham? Not really, though I do know who he is (he was in a bit of spat with Amazing Atheist, who I was a huge fan of). I used to be way more into Youtube atheists (Amazing Atheist, Armored Skeptic, Cult of Dusty, Thunderfoot, Aronra, Matt Dillahunty, etc). I didn't really know much about Imendham until relatively recently. I'm not much into the 'Youtube atheist' scene any more, because I've heard all of the arguments so many times before and making fun of theists is no longer as funny as it used to be. But inmendham is a Youtube atheist that I follow very closely. Most of his videos are on antinatalism, and he kind of shows how the other 'Youtube atheists' are somewhat hypocritical for being willing to press mystical sounding concepts into service in order to rationalise reproduction and 'the culture of life'. He's also very funny, sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 6, 2018 23:34:48 GMT
Not really, though I do know who he is (he was in a bit of spat with Amazing Atheist, who I was a huge fan of). I used to be way more into Youtube atheists (Amazing Atheist, Armored Skeptic, Cult of Dusty, Thunderfoot, Aronra, Matt Dillahunty, etc). I didn't really know much about Imendham until relatively recently. I'm not much into the 'Youtube atheist' scene any more, because I've heard all of the arguments so many times before and making fun of theists is no longer as funny as it used to be. But inmendham is a Youtube atheist that I follow very closely. Most of his videos are on antinatalism, and he kind of shows how the other 'Youtube atheists' are somewhat hypocritical for being willing to press mystical sounding concepts into service in order to rationalise reproduction and 'the culture of life'. He's also very funny, sometimes. "I'm not much into the 'Youtube atheist' scene any more, because I've heard all of the arguments so many times before and making fun of theists is no longer as funny as it used to be." Yeah same here, I think a lot of other people feel the same say since many atheist youtubers have gone in the more lucrative "Anti-sjw" direction. I still like watching "Atheist Experience" every now and then for some of the funny callers.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 6, 2018 23:38:50 GMT
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. I've tried to systematically to through the problems with antinatalism with you at least three times in the past. It never gets very far before you simply cease responding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:39:43 GMT
I'm not much into the 'Youtube atheist' scene any more, because I've heard all of the arguments so many times before and making fun of theists is no longer as funny as it used to be. But inmendham is a Youtube atheist that I follow very closely. Most of his videos are on antinatalism, and he kind of shows how the other 'Youtube atheists' are somewhat hypocritical for being willing to press mystical sounding concepts into service in order to rationalise reproduction and 'the culture of life'. He's also very funny, sometimes. "I'm not much into the 'Youtube atheist' scene any more, because I've heard all of the arguments so many times before and making fun of theists is no longer as funny as it used to be." Yeah same here, I think a lot of other people feel the same say since many atheist youtubers have gone in the more lucrative "Anti-sjw" direction. I still like watching "Atheist Experience" every now and then for some of the funny callers. I kind of like the 'anti-sjw' angle, because the so called 'SJWs' are even more ridiculous than the religious fanatics, these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:41:00 GMT
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. I've tried to systematically to through the problems with antinatalism with you at least three times in the past. It never gets very far before you simply cease responding. State what your problem is briefly, without lighting on the subjectivity of morality (that's already a given). I honestly cannot remember a single discussion that I've had with you about antinatalism where you didn't harp on the subjectivity of morality, to the exclusion of any other consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 6, 2018 23:43:16 GMT
I've tried to systematically to through the problems with antinatalism with you at least three times in the past. It never gets very far before you simply cease responding. State what your problem is briefly, without lighting on the subjectivity of morality (that's already a given). I honestly cannot remember a single discussion that I've had with you about antinatalism where you didn't harp on the subjectivity of morality, to the exclusion of any other consideration. I'm not going to start a discussion again to have you just drop out again once the ideas are too challenging to your view. It's a waste of my time to keep going through that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 6, 2018 23:45:43 GMT
"I'm not much into the 'Youtube atheist' scene any more, because I've heard all of the arguments so many times before and making fun of theists is no longer as funny as it used to be." Yeah same here, I think a lot of other people feel the same say since many atheist youtubers have gone in the more lucrative "Anti-sjw" direction. I still like watching "Atheist Experience" every now and then for some of the funny callers. I kind of like the 'anti-sjw' angle, because the so called 'SJWs' are even more ridiculous than the religious fanatics, these days. I like some of the "anti-sjw" Youtubers (Amazing Atheist, Sargon, Chris Raygun) but there was a time (around 2016) when everyone was trying to cash in on it and the market was just becoming flooded. Some feminist said something stupid on Reddit? Get at least 50 Youtubers on it stat!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 23:56:07 GMT
State what your problem is briefly, without lighting on the subjectivity of morality (that's already a given). I honestly cannot remember a single discussion that I've had with you about antinatalism where you didn't harp on the subjectivity of morality, to the exclusion of any other consideration. I'm not going to start a discussion again to have you just drop out again once the ideas are too challenging to your view. It's a waste of my time to keep going through that. Rubbish. The only reason I 'drop[ped] out' of a discussion with you on antinatalism is because you kept harping on the subjectivity of morality, which I don't dispute in any case. You didn't provide even one positive reason in defence of procreation. You're even worse than cupcakes in the respect that you wouldn't even address the points that I was making, and instead kept going back to the subjectivity of morality. The last discussion that I tried to have with you about antinatalism, you just ignored all of the actual antinatalist points and just isolated one or two sentences that you deigned to respond to (with your usual pedantic line about the subjectivity of morality).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 0:04:57 GMT
I'm not going to start a discussion again to have you just drop out again once the ideas are too challenging to your view. It's a waste of my time to keep going through that. Rubbish. The only reason I 'drop[ped] out' of a discussion with you on antinatalism is because you kept harping on the subjectivity of morality, which I don't dispute in any case. You didn't provide even one positive reason in defence of procreation. You're even worse than cupcakes in the respect that you wouldn't even address the points that I was making, and instead kept going back to the subjectivity of morality. The last discussion that I tried to have with you about antinatalism, you just ignored all of the actual antinatalist points and just isolated one or two sentences that you deigned to respond to (with your usual pedantic line about the subjectivity of morality). You can't avoid the subjectivity of morality in the discussion because the whole view hinges on a massive f-up re even understanding what ethics and values in general are ontologically. You can't proceed a la "pretend that I'm not uttering completely misconceived category errors" / "pretend that these views are not completely incoherent given what the world is really like." For example, the whole notion that the world would be better off if people didn't exist hinges on an extremely ignorant category error. If one at all understands what "better" is ontologically, one would immediately see that "the world would be better off if people didn't exist" is incoherent nonsense. But to talk about that we need to talk about what "better" is ontologically. It doesn't do any good to just ignore that and pretend that "the world would be better off if people didn't exist" isn't incoherent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 0:17:39 GMT
Rubbish. The only reason I 'drop[ped] out' of a discussion with you on antinatalism is because you kept harping on the subjectivity of morality, which I don't dispute in any case. You didn't provide even one positive reason in defence of procreation. You're even worse than cupcakes in the respect that you wouldn't even address the points that I was making, and instead kept going back to the subjectivity of morality. The last discussion that I tried to have with you about antinatalism, you just ignored all of the actual antinatalist points and just isolated one or two sentences that you deigned to respond to (with your usual pedantic line about the subjectivity of morality). You can't avoid the subjectivity of morality in the discussion because the whole view hinges on a massive f-up re even understanding what ethics and values in general are ontologically. You can't proceed a la "pretend that I'm not uttering completely misconceived category errors" / "pretend that these views are not completely incoherent given what the world is really like." The most abiding values are based on the golden rule, which is not needlessly harming others in ways in which you wouldn't wish to be harmed. Usually if you ask a natalist why proceation is a good thing, you'll get some kind of religious answer invoking the sanctity of human life. You haven't given any reason why humans need to exist and why the need for humans to exist supercedes imposing risks and harms on others that you would not want to have imposed on you. You also made the false claim that because people don't all feel harmed by the same things, that means that harm isn't a universal threat to all sentient life forms. In any case, it's not reasonable to do something to someone else that would be experienced as harm by the vast majority of experiencers, just because a small minority may not feel harmed by that specific sensation.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 0:25:45 GMT
You can't avoid the subjectivity of morality in the discussion because the whole view hinges on a massive f-up re even understanding what ethics and values in general are ontologically. You can't proceed a la "pretend that I'm not uttering completely misconceived category errors" / "pretend that these views are not completely incoherent given what the world is really like." The most abiding values are based on the golden rule, which is not needlessly harming others in ways in which you wouldn't wish to be harmed. Usually if you ask a natalist why proceation is a good thing, you'll get some kind of religious answer invoking the sanctity of human life. You haven't given any reason why humans need to exist and why the need for humans to exist supercedes imposing risks and harms on others that you would not want to have imposed on you. You also made the false claim that because people don't all feel harmed by the same things, that means that harm isn't a universal threat to all sentient life forms. In any case, it's not reasonable to do something to someone else that would be experienced as harm by the vast majority of experiencers, just because a small minority may not feel harmed by that specific sensation. See the edit i just made. Anyway, you can't just proceed as if I'm agreeing to get into a discussion with you again. I'd need some kind of guarantee that you won't just bow out and start ignoring at some point. And I'm not asking you if you've done that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 0:32:44 GMT
For example, the whole notion that the world would be better off if people didn't exist hinges on an extremely ignorant category error. If one at all understands what "better" is ontologically, one would immediately see that "the world would be better off if people didn't exist" is incoherent nonsense. But to talk about that we need to talk about what "better" is ontologically. It doesn't do any good to just ignore that and pretend that "the world would be better off if people didn't exist" isn't incoherent. I would agree with that, except I never made that claim. I simply stated that a universe without sentient life forms is one that is in need of no improvement and in which there is no risk or harm. Whilst we're still here, prevention of harm is a good thing. There would be no problems needing to be fixed; whereas in a universe with sentient life, there will ALWAYS be brokenness in need of a fix, and that comes in the form of conscious experiences which have a negative value to the experiencer. So I've finally got you to address antinatalism, and you attack a strawman argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 0:37:09 GMT
The most abiding values are based on the golden rule, which is not needlessly harming others in ways in which you wouldn't wish to be harmed. Usually if you ask a natalist why proceation is a good thing, you'll get some kind of religious answer invoking the sanctity of human life. You haven't given any reason why humans need to exist and why the need for humans to exist supercedes imposing risks and harms on others that you would not want to have imposed on you. You also made the false claim that because people don't all feel harmed by the same things, that means that harm isn't a universal threat to all sentient life forms. In any case, it's not reasonable to do something to someone else that would be experienced as harm by the vast majority of experiencers, just because a small minority may not feel harmed by that specific sensation. See the edit i just made. Anyway, you can't just proceed as if I'm agreeing to get into a discussion with you again. I'd need some kind of guarantee that you won't just bow out and start ignoring at some point. And I'm not asking you if you've done that. I've addressed your edit. If you would agree to actually address antinatalism and not the subjectivity of morality, then I won't drop out of the discussion within reason (meaning that eventually everything will have been covered, or one of us will die, so at some point one of us will have to have the last word on the subject).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 0:56:02 GMT
prevention of harm is a good thing. You'd not claim that most people would feel that it's an unconditionally categorical good thing, would you?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 0:57:27 GMT
See the edit i just made. Anyway, you can't just proceed as if I'm agreeing to get into a discussion with you again. I'd need some kind of guarantee that you won't just bow out and start ignoring at some point. And I'm not asking you if you've done that. I've addressed your edit. If you would agree to actually address antinatalism and not the subjectivity of morality, then I won't drop out of the discussion within reason (meaning that eventually everything will have been covered, or one of us will die, so at some point one of us will have to have the last word on the subject). So you didn't understand why the ontology is necessary to address?
|
|