Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 1:01:22 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? No, I wouldn't claim that people would always choose to avoid all harms, but that's because if you're already alive there may be some circumstances in which there is a drawback to being overly cautious with respect to harm. However, with respect to beings that don't exist, there can never be any drawbacks to not being born into a harmful existence..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 1:02:42 GMT
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? I thought that I had addressed it.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 1:12:07 GMT
with respect to beings that don't exist, there can never be any drawbacks to not being born into a harmful existence.. with respect to beings that don't exist, there can never be any drawbacks to anything, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 1:23:30 GMT
with respect to beings that don't exist, there can never be any drawbacks to not being born into a harmful existence.. with respect to beings that don't exist, there can never be any drawbacks to anything, right? Right...and I know exactly where you're going with this next, which is to say that a non-existent being cannot be averse to being brought into existence. The same point that cupcakes has made a million times. My answer to that is that it is impossible to trespass against a non-existent entity, however it is possible to set in motion a chain of events which will harm a future consciousness. The only reasons to plan to create that future consciousness which will have to navigate a harmful and dangerous environment are the selfish motives of the procreators. The fact that the person will only exist in the future does not render their potential wellbeing any less important than the wellbeing of someone who exists in the present. If you don't have a child, you don't deprive a non-existent person, because there's no person to deprive. If you do have a child, you also don't do anything to harm a non-existent person, but you will impose harm on a future person, and the extent of the harm may be unacceptable to the future person.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 1:37:31 GMT
with respect to beings that don't exist, there can never be any drawbacks to anything, right? Right...and I know exactly where you're going with this next, which is to say that a non-existent being cannot be averse to being brought into existence. The same point that cupcakes has made a million times. My answer to that is that it is impossible to trespass against a non-existent entity, however it is possible to set in motion a chain of events which will harm a future consciousness. The only reasons to plan to create that future consciousness which will have to navigate a harmful and dangerous environment are the selfish motives of the procreators. The fact that the person will only exist in the future does not render their potential wellbeing any less important than the wellbeing of someone who exists in the present. If you don't have a child, you don't deprive a non-existent person, because there's no person to deprive. If you do have a child, you also don't do anything to harm a non-existent person, but you will impose harm on a future person, and the extent of the harm may be unacceptable to the future person. One thing at a time. So the first thing: "it is possible to set in motion a chain of events which will harm a future consciousness"--okay, and what about that? We've already agreed that most people wouldn't say that unconditionally, it's a good thing to prevent harm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 1:49:57 GMT
Right...and I know exactly where you're going with this next, which is to say that a non-existent being cannot be averse to being brought into existence. The same point that cupcakes has made a million times. My answer to that is that it is impossible to trespass against a non-existent entity, however it is possible to set in motion a chain of events which will harm a future consciousness. The only reasons to plan to create that future consciousness which will have to navigate a harmful and dangerous environment are the selfish motives of the procreators. The fact that the person will only exist in the future does not render their potential wellbeing any less important than the wellbeing of someone who exists in the present. If you don't have a child, you don't deprive a non-existent person, because there's no person to deprive. If you do have a child, you also don't do anything to harm a non-existent person, but you will impose harm on a future person, and the extent of the harm may be unacceptable to the future person. One thing at a time. So the first thing: "it is possible to set in motion a chain of events which will harm a future consciousness"--okay, and what about that? We've already agreed that most people wouldn't say that unconditionally, it's a good thing to prevent harm. When they're making that decision, they're acting on their own behalf and are entitled to set one consideration against another, because there are no choices that don't have some sort of drawback. Or at least on behalf of a shared social compact of which the people who could turn out to be adversely affected are already a part. Making someone exist and be vulnerable to all the harms that exist is a completely different idea altogether. In that case, you're creating needs in others who have no say in the matter and who don't stand to benefit, in order to fulfill your own perceived needs or desires. It's a Ponzi scheme wherein each generation has needs or desires to be fulfilled, so in order to fulfill themselves they create a new generation who will have to address to the same needs and desires by creating yet another generation of people.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 1:54:23 GMT
One thing at a time. So the first thing: "it is possible to set in motion a chain of events which will harm a future consciousness"--okay, and what about that? We've already agreed that most people wouldn't say that unconditionally, it's a good thing to prevent harm. When they're making that decision, they're acting on their own behalf and are entitled to set one consideration against another, because there are no choices that don't have some sort of drawback. Or at least on behalf of a shared social compact of which the people who could turn out to be adversely affected are already a part. Making someone exist and be vulnerable to all the harms that exist is a completely different idea altogether. In that case, you're creating needs in others who have no say in the matter and who don't stand to benefit, in order to fulfill your own perceived needs or desires. It's a Ponzi scheme wherein each generation has needs or desires to be fulfilled, so in order to fulfill themselves they create a new generation who will have to address to the same needs and desires by creating yet another generation of people. What in the world? You're introducing so many different topics there, and what you say about each one seems so plainly misconceived. First, there are tons of choices that do not have a drawback. For example, if I choose to listen to a particular Zappa album, there is no drawback to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 1:57:06 GMT
When they're making that decision, they're acting on their own behalf and are entitled to set one consideration against another, because there are no choices that don't have some sort of drawback. Or at least on behalf of a shared social compact of which the people who could turn out to be adversely affected are already a part. Making someone exist and be vulnerable to all the harms that exist is a completely different idea altogether. In that case, you're creating needs in others who have no say in the matter and who don't stand to benefit, in order to fulfill your own perceived needs or desires. It's a Ponzi scheme wherein each generation has needs or desires to be fulfilled, so in order to fulfill themselves they create a new generation who will have to address to the same needs and desires by creating yet another generation of people. What I'm the world? You're introducing so many different topics there, and what you say about each one seems so plainly misconceived. First, there are tons of choices that do not have a drawback. For example, if I choose to listen to a particular Zappa album, there is no drawback to that. You increase your chances of going deaf by listening to the album rather than sitting in silence. Or you could get bored with the album more quickly from listening to it too much, thereby removing one source of future pleasure. There aren't many significant life choices that don't have drawbacks. If you find my opinions misconceived, then explain why. This is an example of one reason why I often end my participation in our discussions early.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 2:00:11 GMT
What I'm the world? You're introducing so many different topics there, and what you say about each one seems so plainly misconceived. First, there are tons of choices that do not have a drawback. For example, if I choose to listen to a particular Zappa album, there is no drawback to that. You increase your chances of going deaf by listening to the album rather than sitting in silence. But that's not a drawback to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 2:05:48 GMT
You increase your chances of going deaf by listening to the album rather than sitting in silence. But that's not a drawback to me. Choosing to listen to a particular album on a particular day is not an example of a significant life choice.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 2:08:09 GMT
But that's not a drawback to me. Choosing to listen to a particular album on a particular day is not an example of a significant life choice. I believe that you're wrong that it would be a drawback to most people. Most people think no such thing. And why "significant life choice"? You made no such qualification initially.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 2:15:55 GMT
Choosing to listen to a particular album on a particular day is not an example of a significant life choice. I believe that you're wrong that it would be a drawback to most people. Most people think no such thing. And why "significant life choice"? You made no such qualification initially. This has gotten into anal retentive territory, and I won't continue as long as you choose to be pedantic about one side issue. People should have the right to choose amongst competing factors for themselves, and in any major decision there are usually a number of competing factors. Listening to a particular song or album on a particular day clearly is not a decision of the magnitude where one is significantly risking serious harm for either onesself or others. Those were clearly the types of decisions that I was referencing, and we were on the subject of whether people were willing to conditionally risk harm, so your example is not apt.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 2:18:56 GMT
I believe that you're wrong that it would be a drawback to most people. Most people think no such thing. And why "significant life choice"? You made no such qualification initially. This has gotten into anal retentive territory, and I won't continue as long as you choose to be pedantic about one side issue. People should have the right to choose amongst competing factors for themselves, and in any major decision there are usually a number of competing factors. Listening to a particular song or album on a particular day clearly is not a decision of the magnitude where one is significantly risking serious harm for either onesself or others. Those were clearly the types of decisions that I was referencing, and we were on the subject of whether people were willing to conditionally risk harm, so your example is not apt. So you're getting ready to move to ignoring already. That's why you can't understand the problems with your view. "People should have the right to choose . . . "--what would make that a true statement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 2:23:28 GMT
This has gotten into anal retentive territory, and I won't continue as long as you choose to be pedantic about one side issue. People should have the right to choose amongst competing factors for themselves, and in any major decision there are usually a number of competing factors. Listening to a particular song or album on a particular day clearly is not a decision of the magnitude where one is significantly risking serious harm for either onesself or others. Those were clearly the types of decisions that I was referencing, and we were on the subject of whether people were willing to conditionally risk harm, so your example is not apt. So you're getting ready to move to ignoring already. That's why you can't understand the problems with your view. "People should have the right too choose . . . "--what would make that a true statement? You're the one who has already started ignoring most of what I'm posting. So if you're intent on ignoring, I would be a fool not to do so also. Based on my value system, I believe that people should be allowed to make choices for themselves as long as those choices don't recklessly expose others to unnecessary harm, or renege on existing responsibilities. I'm not trying to prove the statement to be factually "true", because that would be as stupid as @graham claiming to have "debunked" my values based argument. I'm advocating for it as a fair and reasonable ethical stance.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 2:49:21 GMT
So you're getting ready to move to ignoring already. That's why you can't understand the problems with your view. "People should have the right too choose . . . "--what would make that a true statement? You're the one who has already started ignoring most of what I'm posting. So if you're intent on ignoring, I would be a fool not to do so also. Based on my value system, I believe that people should be allowed to make choices for themselves as long as those choices don't recklessly expose others to unnecessary harm, or renege on existing responsibilities. I'm not trying to prove the statement to be factually "true", because that would be as stupid as @graham claiming to have "debunked" my values based argument. I'm advocating for it as a fair and reasonable ethical stance As I said, one thing at a time. You can type as much as you want, but I'll only address one thing at a time. Right, so it's fair and reasonable because it's your value system?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 2:59:19 GMT
You're the one who has already started ignoring most of what I'm posting. So if you're intent on ignoring, I would be a fool not to do so also. Based on my value system, I believe that people should be allowed to make choices for themselves as long as those choices don't recklessly expose others to unnecessary harm, or renege on existing responsibilities. I'm not trying to prove the statement to be factually "true", because that would be as stupid as @graham claiming to have "debunked" my values based argument. I'm advocating for it as a fair and reasonable ethical stance As I said, one thing at a time. You can type as much as you want, but I'll only address one thing at a time. Right, so it's fair and reasonable because it's your value system? No, in my opinion it is fair and reasonable because in a system where people have very restricted choices, that ends up being a scenario where almost everyone loses and only a tiny elite (usually selected not based on grounds of merit) gets to win. It's fair and reasonable because there's no justifiable grounds for me to want to prevent others from having a choice that doesn't obviously infringe on anyone else's rights.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 7:56:20 GMT
As I said, one thing at a time. You can type as much as you want, but I'll only address one thing at a time. Right, so it's fair and reasonable because it's your value system? No, in my opinion it is fair and reasonable because in a system where people have very restricted choices, that ends up being a scenario where almost everyone loses and only a tiny elite (usually selected not based on grounds of merit) gets to win. It's fair and reasonable because there's no justifiable grounds for me to want to prevent others from having a choice that doesn't obviously infringe on anyone else's rights. And you believe that justifications, whether there is or isn't one for anything imaginable, are somehow something other than your own preferences, values, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 7, 2018 12:17:58 GMT
No threads are homophobic threads, goz, because "homophobia" doesn't exist. It's a term fabricated by globalist scumbags like yourself. It has no meaning outside of your thick head.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on May 7, 2018 17:12:15 GMT
No threads are homophobic threads, goz, because "homophobia" doesn't exist. It's a term fabricated by globalist scumbags like yourself. It has no meaning outside of your thick head. Does it make as much sense as calling people who don't believe Satanic child sacrifice is being carried out in Bohemian Grove "pansies"...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 18:02:23 GMT
No threads are homophobic threads, goz, because "homophobia" doesn't exist. It's a term fabricated by globalist scumbags like yourself. It has no meaning outside of your thick head. Always fun to see you triggered.
|
|