|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 11, 2017 2:42:46 GMT
So basically you're a nihilist. I place profound (negative) value on human suffering, so I think that means that I'm not a nihilist in the strictest sense of the word. So would it be fair to say that you are incapable of/unwilling to find any kind of joy in life? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 2:47:37 GMT
I place profound (negative) value on human suffering, so I think that means that I'm not a nihilist in the strictest sense of the word. So would it be fair to say that you are incapable/unwilling to find any kind of joy in life? That wouldn't be fair to say, because one can be an antinatalist and find great joy in life (although I wouldn't say that the joy that I derive from life is particularly great). Antinatalism is about recognising the harm that is unavoidably suffered by some, and wishing to avoid taking unnecessary risks which would ensure that there would always be a certain degree of suffering in the world.
Antinatalists are more likely to be unhappy with their own lives, just by dint of their own predisposition, but that is certainly not a pre-requisite. Most people have an optimism bias, and your average antinatalist is less likely to be biased in this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 11, 2017 2:50:26 GMT
So would it be fair to say that you are incapable/unwilling to find any kind of joy in life? That wouldn't be fair to say, because one can be an antinatalist and find great joy in life (although I wouldn't say that the joy that I derive from life is particularly great). Antinatalism is about recognising the harm that is unavoidably suffered by some, and wishing to avoid taking unnecessary risks which would ensure that there would always be a certain degree of suffering in the world.
Antinatalists are more likely to be unhappy with their own lives, just by dint of their own predisposition, but that is certainly not a pre-requisite. Most people have an optimism bias, and your average antinatalist is less likely to be biased in this way.
I'm not talking about antinatalism I'm talking about you. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 11, 2017 2:52:50 GMT
So you're going to throw a red herring. Predictable. So God is an atheist or a non Christian? Oh you mean you tried to make a false comparison? Pretty tricky there mister.  So you so don't have problem with killing babies so long as it's by your mythical being? Thanks for admitting that. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 11, 2017 2:58:32 GMT
Yes, I do, thank you. Of course Pro-choice advocates would criticize this film (which was provided by a one-time abortion activist). It goes against everything they fight for. I (& other pro-life posters on this message forum) could just as easily provide links to stories from plenty of women who HAVE regretted their abortions right from the very bottom of their hearts, & tell the world, it was the biggest mistake they had ever made!!! Nice goalpost move. Now could you explain why you quoted a part of the wiki article I linked as though that part disproved my position and supported yours while in reality it did neither? I quoted the concluding part of the page, which said that The Silent Scream has been credited with bringing people over to the pro life cause. You quoted parts of the article which supported your own views on the matter, & I showed how the article concluded. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 3:01:23 GMT
Nice goalpost move. Now could you explain why you quoted a part of the wiki article I linked as though that part disproved my position and supported yours while in reality it did neither? I quoted the concluding part of the page, which said that The Silent Scream has been credited with bringing people over to the pro life cause. You quoted parts of the article which supported your own views on the matter, & I showed how the article concluded. That's nice, now would you mind replying to what I actually said rather than whatever incomprehensible nonsense the voices in your head are telling you? |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 11, 2017 3:08:34 GMT
I quoted the concluding part of the page, which said that The Silent Scream has been credited with bringing people over to the pro life cause. You quoted parts of the article which supported your own views on the matter, & I showed how the article concluded. That's nice, now would you mind replying to what I actually said rather than whatever incomprehensible nonsense the voices in your head are telling you? I already did reply. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 11, 2017 3:09:09 GMT
So it's only immoral if the woman has considered that the child might not have the best life but continues anyway? so your stance is that women who have babies are either ignorant or immoral? what do you think of people who have children because they think they can give them a good life and are attempting to do exactly that? My stance on parents who have children because they think that they can give them a good life, is that I acknowledge and respect their good intentions, but whether or not the child actually has a good life is not entirely within their sphere of control. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, things can go terribly awry in a person's life, even with the best in terms of parental support (both financial and emotional) and stability. And that's only even a narrow view of why procreation should not be continued, because you've also got to consider the potential offspring of those children, the impact that they will have on the planet, the environmental conditions they will inherit, the human and animal life that they could harm and be harmed by, etc. So I would say that procreation is something that shouldn't be done under any circumstances, by any set of parents, even if they can give the child all of the advantages to help it to thrive.
I would certainly not accuse the vast majority of parents of having ill intentions; however it would be reasonable to say that they were ignorant of the risks or possibly avoided visiting that line of thinking because producing children was something extremely important to them.
right, you have answered my question, you are basically the guy from true detective that thinks we should all embrace our own extinction. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 11, 2017 3:11:37 GMT
So you're saying that the human race should just die out? Something bad must have happened to Mic at some point in his life. In relation to this: 3 hours ago blade said: jonesy1 Avatar 3 hours ago jonesy1 said: So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? He pretty much said women should be ashamed of giving birth and subjecting the child to life. Comprehension fail number 5676 Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/25747/why-regret-abortion?page=6#ixzz4gjhW60KMI apologise, I assumed that no-one would embrace such a stance, I was wrong and you had the correct interpretation. sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 3:14:47 GMT
That's nice, now would you mind replying to what I actually said rather than whatever incomprehensible nonsense the voices in your head are telling you? I already did reply. Damn you are easily confused by the simplest things. Yes, you replied but your reply had nothing to do with what i said. What part of this are you having trouble with? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 3:26:24 GMT
That wouldn't be fair to say, because one can be an antinatalist and find great joy in life (although I wouldn't say that the joy that I derive from life is particularly great). Antinatalism is about recognising the harm that is unavoidably suffered by some, and wishing to avoid taking unnecessary risks which would ensure that there would always be a certain degree of suffering in the world.
Antinatalists are more likely to be unhappy with their own lives, just by dint of their own predisposition, but that is certainly not a pre-requisite. Most people have an optimism bias, and your average antinatalist is less likely to be biased in this way.
I'm not talking about antinatalism I'm talking about you. I am both capable of and willing to find joy in life. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 11, 2017 3:51:58 GMT
Damn you are easily confused by the simplest things. Yes, you replied but your reply had nothing to do with what i said. What part of this are you having trouble with? My reply had to do with what you said. I am not having any trouble at all. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 3:56:24 GMT
Damn you are easily confused by the simplest things. Yes, you replied but your reply had nothing to do with what i said. What part of this are you having trouble with? My reply had to do with what you said. I am not having any trouble at all. Damn you're an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 11, 2017 3:58:57 GMT
My reply had to do with what you said. I am not having any trouble at all. Damn you're an idiot. Bite me. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 11, 2017 6:24:10 GMT
I'm not talking about antinatalism I'm talking about you. I am both capable of and willing to find joy in life. Then why don't you do so? |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on May 11, 2017 8:42:12 GMT
There is no reason for a woman to feel guilty about an abortion, but every reason to feel guilty about unnecessarily subjecting a sentient life form to the dangerous risks and hazards that would face the child were it to be born. So you are saying that every woman should feel guilty if they get pregnant and don't have an abortion? 
It's nice to see that you are as moralistic and anti-choice as your religious counterparts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 11, 2017 9:25:44 GMT
There is no reason for a woman to feel guilty about an abortion, but every reason to feel guilty about unnecessarily subjecting a sentient life form to the dangerous risks and hazards that would face the child were it to be born. So you are saying that every woman should feel guilty if they get pregnant and don't have an abortion?
It's nice to see that you are as moralistic and anti-choice as your religious counterparts.
I wonder if he thinks his mother should be ashamed for giving birth to him. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 12:15:19 GMT
Learn to read, simpleton. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 19:24:01 GMT
There is no reason for a woman to feel guilty about an abortion, but every reason to feel guilty about unnecessarily subjecting a sentient life form to the dangerous risks and hazards that would face the child were it to be born. So you are saying that every woman should feel guilty if they get pregnant and don't have an abortion?
It's nice to see that you are as moralistic and anti-choice as your religious counterparts.
I have already covered this. I don't believe in shaming those who gave birth because it seemed natural and they were unaware of any compelling reasons why they shouldn't have children. However, THESE parents ought to be publicly shamed: www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/12/parents-fighting-keep-sick-baby-alive-charlie-gard-appeal |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 20:21:31 GMT
tpfkar No, it really can't. Wanting to die can be rational for a number of reasons for someone who enjoys living. One might wish to die before the joy of living starts to wane (for example, some older people set themselves a date by which to kill themselves; for example 75th birthday). One may wish to die for a cause. One may believe that there is something better at the end of life. The opportunity only has any value to an existing being, and it's only really any kind of opportunity at all if there are certain preconditions to your existence. Choosing to give birth to a child is not to make choices for a non-existent being, it is to make choices for someone who exists in the future. If you decide NOT to give birth, then you are not doing something which is going to directly affect a future existing being. That is the asymmetry. One only has any use for choices if one has the consciousness to be aware of the choices. Consider an office chair. Nobody feels sorry for the office chair because it is stuck inside a building 24/7 and never gets to take exciting backpacking holidays to Peru, never gets to hang out with its friends, never gets to smell the roses in the park on a warm summer's day. The office chair also does not envy any living being, because the office chair does not have any interest in backpacking holidays to Peru, friendships, or smelling roses. There's nothing wrong at all with being inanimate matter (whether an aborted foetus, or an office chair), but there can be many things which are wrong with being a conscious being. It's certainly not irrelevant for those who will never have the courage to go through with their plan, and especially those who lack even the physical capability of following through with any kind of suicide plan. Some people also sincerely believe that suicide is a sin which would condemn them to eternal torture. So choosing between a finite period of suffering which is of finite intensity, or an infinite period of suffering of infinite intensity is no choice at all. And there is nothing wrong with empowering people to avoid harm by giving them access to the means by which they may peacefully choose to opt out of further harm. |
|
