Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 2:37:36 GMT
tpfkar My point was that you almost exclusively post insults, and that is the only point that I was substantiated. Other people get rubbed up the wrong way but can manage to keep the insults in moderation. And my point of course is that you're a shameless liar, as evidenced by still no links to examine to track the purported "exclusively posted insults". And of course your admitted insults are acceptable, they're yours after all. As typical, it's difficult to tell with you what's comprehension vs. just an overt willingness to assert things out of the air Ada-style. 
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I was pointing to your double standards of excusing your own insults whilst criticising me for insulting people. What insult? I was using those examples to show that I don't insult people when they disagree with me (they didn't insult me either). All you would have to do is read through the thread to see that I didn't insult those posters. Your first post in this thread on page 3: "You start off with the insults when people disagree with you" You've excused your frequent insults by saying that it was precipitated by their behaviour. Even something that occurred months ago (i.e. VegasDevil using racial epithets on the old board), and then you show up in a thread that has nothing to do with that in order to dredge that episode up. You don't usually post on this board, then show up here to respond to me when I post here for the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 2:45:45 GMT
tpfkar When the body / mental state is not pathological then the things that are "bad" should provoke a response that is some degree of what you call suffering. But the way to address that is to make things better for all and avoid the things that validly trigger those responses; not strive to vanquish sentience nor to scuttle all due to a small minority of defects. The great(est) flaw in your position is your reverence of the tiniest bit of "suffering", whether or not it is contribution to a bigger success, happiness, satisfaction, and ignoring the net said satisfaction that they can and often do have. Kids can be set up to thoroughly enjoy their lives.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.That philosophy works fine for people who are already alive and believe that there is some kind of 'big picture' which is going to make the suffering worthwhile. But in terms of people who have not yet been born, there is no way to guarantee that their lives will be mainly joyful and only punctuated by brief spells of suffering. There is no way of distributing the risk in such a way that the suffering toll doesn't end up being something akin to the inverse of a progressive income tax (in this case, the weakest being the ones who are encumbered with the heaviest burden). For those who are unborn, there is no greater goal that they have signed up to; it is their parents who enlist them in this larger cause without knowing whether the child is going to share those goals and be happy with their role in bringing it about. Even the most privileged children with the most loving parents can find life very hard; there simply isn't any way of effectively screening against future suffering. Myself, I was brought up in a middle class family by loving parents; so there would have been no way of knowing in advance that I was going to feel resentful about being roped into [whatever my parents thought was so important] without my consent. And my suffering isn't even really all that bad, by the standards of what others have to put up with. I suppose that you could call my condition a case of existential ennui. Consciousness is the only source of value in the universe, and suffering is the most valuable thing in the universe. The bigger causes that you have described are narratives that humans who have already been born make up for themselves. None of these causes are objectively important or in need of being accomplished. "Guarantees" of absolutely no bad aren't and never will be a requirement. The supposed demand for them is silly, particularly egregious fallacious thinking. And again, it's not a zero sum game, there is no risk to distribute; the risk is individual, and all can be raised up. Parents can and do facilitate happy and satisfying lives for their children, far net-positive relative to both the helpful and the unnecessary "suffering". Society can and is also facilitating similar more and more as time goes on. There's no inherent reason any must have disadvantaged childhoods. And there will always be those with mental illnesses, but the answer there is to treat and find better treatments, not to take the morbid lesson of ending humanity. Especially given that any competent individual can trivially end their ride if they have actually firmly made such a decision. They just have been given the great opportunity to have this ride or not to at any time. "suffering is the most valuable thing in the universe" doesn't even make good nonsense, of course. There is nothing that is objectively important. However we have come together in societies to encapsulate what we subjectively find so. And giving the well-facilitated option to go on this great ride is one of the best great gifts that can be given.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 5:32:16 GMT
I was pointing to your double standards of excusing your own insults whilst criticising me for insulting people. What insult? I was using those examples to show that I don't insult people when they disagree with me (they didn't insult me either). All you would have to do is read through the thread to see that I didn't insult those posters.  You initiated claims about people insulting you and how that strengthened your "argument". You made further claims about my posts being almost all "insults". Neither of which you will actually post links to and note the insult so that we can examine the context and (again  ) the antecedents. That in context (or even alone) in no way said that you "never support my argument without first insulting people". And why did you not link so it could be easily examined? Not so base as because it would show that it was in the context of when you say people insult you, right? As in you then get back what you consider "insults" that you started whining about in this thread. How is cutting to the bone in their own set tone the ludicrousness of their insults and hypocrisies or even of their daft positions "bare insults"? I'm not interested in blunting facts for the ErJens and MicCees of the world when they get going. Again, point out a link, as you are patently full of sh!t and I'll be glad to note how for you, point by point. That again shows in bright relief the quality of both your reasoning and fiber, as well as your easy willingness to assert whatever you feel like, just because you feel like. Again, very much like Ada.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 7:00:13 GMT
I was pointing to your double standards of excusing your own insults whilst criticising me for insulting people. What insult? I was using those examples to show that I don't insult people when they disagree with me (they didn't insult me either). All you would have to do is read through the thread to see that I didn't insult those posters. initiated claims about people insulting you and how that strengthened your "argument". You made further claims about my posts being almost all "insults". Neither of which you will actually post links to and note the insult so that we can examine the context and (again ) the antecedents. That in context (or even alone) in no way said that you "never support my argument without first insulting people". And why did you not link so it could be easily examined? Not so base as because it would show that it was in the context of when you say people insult you, right? As in you then get back what you consider "insults" that you started whining about in this thread. How is cutting to the bone in their own set tone the ludicrousness of their insults and hypocrisies or even of their daft positions "bare insults"? I'm not interested in blunting facts for the ErJens and MicCees of the world when they get going. Again, point out a link, as you are patently full of sh!t and I'll be glad to note how for you, point by point. That again shows in bright relief the quality of both your reasoning and fiber, as well as your easy willingness to assert whatever you feel like, just because you feel like. Again, very much like Ada.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham. And since you insult me in every post, there's no need for a link. I'm not dredging up a thread from months ago in which graham insulted me. And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems. I can't link to every single post that I've made to prove that I don't insult people in every post. I'm not sure how you would expect me to prove a negative. But as I've mentioned, I've discussed antinatalism civilly with 2 posters in this very thread. You can read the posts on page 3 of this very thread. |
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Sept 18, 2017 10:03:25 GMT
Now you're just kind of ignoring objections. That doesn't make your argument better. There are no objective purposes to anything. There are no right or wrong, true or false statements in the form of, "The purpose of x is ص." The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe. Very well said! |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 10:28:12 GMT
I asked you a yes or no question. You may be able to falsify the notion that there is an objective dimension to morality, but not the idea that we shouldn't inflict suffering when not necessary. Right. But why can't we falsify any "should/shouldn't" or ethical statement in general? I want to make sure that you understand the view. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 10:29:59 GMT
The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe. Very well said! Except for the facts that empirical claims aren't provable and that there is no objective meaning, importance or justification. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 12:51:40 GMT
tpfkar You initiated claims about people insulting you and how that strengthened your "argument". You made further claims about my posts being almost all "insults". Neither of which you will actually post links to and note the insult so that we can examine the context and (again ) the antecedents. That in context (or even alone) in no way said that you "never support my argument without first insulting people". And why did you not link so it could be easily examined? Not so base as because it would show that it was in the context of when you say people insult you, right? As in you then get back what you consider "insults" that you started whining about in this thread. How is cutting to the bone in their own set tone the ludicrousness of their insults and hypocrisies or even of their daft positions "bare insults"? I'm not interested in blunting facts for the ErJens and MicCees of the world when they get going. Again, point out a link, as you are patently full of sh!t and I'll be glad to note how for you, point by point. That again shows in bright relief the quality of both your reasoning and fiber, as well as your easy willingness to assert whatever you feel like, just because you feel like. Again, very much like Ada.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham. And since you insult me in every post, there's no need for a link. I'm not dredging up a thread from months ago in which graham insulted me. And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems.  So, you honestly think that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" and "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" are coherent together, not to mention in the same breath? And I know you're not going to link, and you're going to keep manic-pretending that the point wasn't that when you get "insulted", it's typically after you insult first. The bawling about it and lying and crassly trying to use your self-initiated tone as somehow giving credence to your on-loop nonsense is relatively new hypocritical fun from the "safe space"-mocking guy. But I do hope you find your marshmallow sprinkles spot where you can spittle-rant your insulting projecting nonsense and not get frank replies back. Good luck, sweetness! And here's where you'll have some more twisted ammo, as the conclusion of dishonesty or utter denseness is unavoidable - you getting what you call insults after your tone dives and you insult is, again, in no way suggesting that you "insult people in every post". But feel free to keep repeat-chattering the nonsense, that's been your modus operandi (threaded with insults and bawling, of course). And again, you ignore that Kiera and Falconia aren't ones to match nasty tone and are generally pretty gentle in the face of utter nonsense and insults, and as I pointed out they are rarely insulted, and certainly not by me in my numerous interactions with them. But then they aren't the cupcake types trying to hypocritically trade on self-instigated sharp tone, so again, you having an exchange where you don't go on your morbid nonsensical projecting insult spiral means absolutely nothing. And of course backing up shrill nonsensical accusations and assertions isn't something that Ada-types generally do. Must be incredibly convenient.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 17:45:43 GMT
You may be able to falsify the notion that there is an objective dimension to morality, but not the idea that we shouldn't inflict suffering when not necessary. Right. But why can't we falsify any "should/shouldn't" or ethical statement in general? I want to make sure that you understand the view. It cannot be falsified as it falls under the purview of ethics. Just because a sadist can justify keeping people chained up in his basement whilst inflicting torture using your logical argument, it doesn't mean that it is not desirable for any decent minded person to condemn such actions, or for the authorities to prevent such actions. Based on the code of ethics to which I subscribe, it is wrong to torture because it inflicts terrible pain on the tortured, and usually only for the sadistic gratification of the torturer. This cannot be falsified in my mind by nihilistic logic. Similarly, I think it is unethical to bring new life into a dangerous universe, because it exposes a creature that otherwise would not exist to the risk of harm, without providing any needed benefit. This is usually done for the perceived benefit of the parents or society. I think that my system of ethics makes sense to the vast majority of people in the first instance. Now I'm trying to convince people that birthing sentient life ought to be disallowed by the same system of ethics. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 18:00:57 GMT
Right. But why can't we falsify any "should/shouldn't" or ethical statement in general? I want to make sure that you understand the view. It cannot be falsified as it falls under the purview of ethics. Right. So this was your earlier comment: "And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification." But that doesn't work as a criticism, does it? Because ethical claims are not falsifiable period. So what would whether something is falsifiable have to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 18:31:51 GMT
tpfkar I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham. And since you insult me in every post, there's no need for a link. I'm not dredging up a thread from months ago in which graham insulted me. And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems. So, you honestly think that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" and "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" are coherent together, not to mention in the same breath? And I know you're not going to link, and you're going to keep manic-pretending that the point wasn't that when you get "insulted", it's typically after you insult first. The bawling about it and lying and crassly trying to use your self-initiated tone as somehow giving credence to your on-loop nonsense is relatively new hypocritical fun from the "safe space"-mocking guy. But I do hope you find your marshmallow sprinkles spot where you can spittle-rant your insulting projecting nonsense and not get frank replies back. Good luck, sweetness!
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I wasn't accusing any specific individual of insulting me, aside from yourself and graham. Hardly anyone is willing to debate antinatalism on the 'imdb v2' forum, and in general it is not a popular topic. But the typical pattern is that either they will come in with an insult, or they will debate the subject and then when they find that all they have got is 'might makes right' and 'The non-existent people will be deprived of joy if we don't give birth to them. Won't somebody please think of the poor non-existent people', then they start in with the insults, deflection and distortion. And I don't get upset by being insulted (I'm used to people casting aspersions against my mental hygiene and it doesn't affect me); but it is frustrating that people will resort to that before admitting (to themselves or anyone else) that they haven't got a very compelling justification for the need to bring new life into the world. You're the one who accused me of 'start[ing] with insults', so the onus is on you to show that I've insulted someone out of turn. I'm not ignoring that. That is part of the point that I'm making; I usually only insult when I've been insulted. Since Kiera and Falconia did not insult me, I have never insulted either of them. Which means that the very worst that I can be accused of is retaliating with insults to those who are themselves bellicose and condescending. That's the very same basis on which you defend your own insulting of others; except that you usually go into threads where nobody has insulted you and start insulting certain posters for no reason other than you don't agree with their posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 18:33:40 GMT
It cannot be falsified as it falls under the purview of ethics. Right. So this was your earlier comment: "And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification." But that doesn't work as a criticism, does it? Because ethical claims are not falsifiable period. So what would whether something is falsifiable have to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims? It does work as a criticism, because it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem. We are flesh and blood creatures, so it does matter to us if someone is inflicting harm on us; even if the universe is coldly indifferent. It doesn't produce any benefit to perceive and analyse the issue in the way that you do; except to the person who wants to justify doing whatever they want to do even when there are harmful consequences to others. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 18:35:21 GMT
Right. So this was your earlier comment: "And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification." But that doesn't work as a criticism, does it? Because ethical claims are not falsifiable period. So what would whether something is falsifiable have to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims? It does work as a criticism, because it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem.  What are you talking about? What is "it" in "it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem"? Also, when I ask "What does whether something is falsifiable have to do with . . ." The way to respond to that is like this: "Whether it's falsifiable has _________ to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims." |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 19:53:16 GMT
tpfkar So, you honestly think that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" and "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" are coherent together, not to mention in the same breath? And I know you're not going to link, and you're going to keep manic-pretending that the point wasn't that when you get "insulted", it's typically after you insult first. The bawling about it and lying and crassly trying to use your self-initiated tone as somehow giving credence to your on-loop nonsense is relatively new hypocritical fun from the "safe space"-mocking guy. But I do hope you find your marshmallow sprinkles spot where you can spittle-rant your insulting projecting nonsense and not get frank replies back. Good luck, sweetness!
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I wasn't accusing any specific individual of insulting me, aside from yourself and graham. Hardly anyone is willing to debate antinatalism on the 'imdb v2' forum, and in general it is not a popular topic. But the typical pattern is that either they will come in with an insult, or they will debate the subject and then when they find that all they have got is 'might makes right' and 'The non-existent people will be deprived of joy if we don't give birth to them. Won't somebody please think of the poor non-existent people', then they start in with the insults, deflection and distortion. Irrelevant to the fact that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" together with "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" is more positive derangement. And your assertions are more self-serving bullsh!t framings. You can make up convenient unsupported crap all day long, and it will continue to be recognized as massively hypocritical whining bluster in lieu of actual argument. Upset enough to bawl and even fallaciously and frankly pathetically try to use it to claim a nonexistent sign of strength for your "argument". And no, you're the one that accused insults first. As in, Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism. Followed by your pure bull about the nature of your posts followed by your typical out-the-ass yap of "97-98%" of my posts insulting people. Which of course is just another of your hysterical outbursts on it's own, but also of course ignores the tone set and the babydarlin' interpretation of responses to content and behavior as "insults". And even with your silly "97-98%" you're still too timid to pick one to examine the path because you know it will just further highlight your ass-pull bullsh!t. All goes back to you having no concern for integrity as long as you think something pushes your evangelism.
Sure, you'll blather that bullsh!t on and on, and of course you won't post links. Because you know the fact that you're a facile liar will be made even clearer upon examination of the actual content and interaction. And you wailed about "insults", it was your introduced lachrymose beg. I haven't insulted Kiera or Falconia either, so what you can be accused of is more bizarre convenient "reasoning". And I haven't bare insulted you. You may find the noting of your reprehensible reasoning, projection and dishonesty "insulting", but each instance is a fact supported in situ. So pick something and let's look, or just keep highlighting that you're an Ada class victim-crying easy liar.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 22:25:31 GMT
I wasn't accusing any specific individual of insulting me, aside from yourself and graham. Hardly anyone is willing to debate antinatalism on the 'imdb v2' forum, and in general it is not a popular topic. But the typical pattern is that either they will come in with an insult, or they will debate the subject and then when they find that all they have got is 'might makes right' and 'The non-existent people will be deprived of joy if we don't give birth to them. Won't somebody please think of the poor non-existent people', then they start in with the insults, deflection and distortion. Irrelevant to the fact that "I never made any claims about people insulting me, apart from yourself and graham" together with "And yes, when I get deep into an argument about antinatalism, most natalists do tend to resort to ad hominems" is more positive derangement. And your assertions are more self-serving bullsh!t framings. You can make up convenient unsupported crap all day long, and it will continue to be recognized as massively hypocritical whining bluster in lieu of actual argument.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.I've already set out what my argument is, so I'm not doing anything "in lieu of actual argument". If there is any point in my argument which I have left unclear, then please let me know and I will clarify it. I'm observing the fact that certain topics tend to make people very touchy and hostile. Religion is one of them, and antinatalism is another. An example would be your insinuation that I am mentally ill, which you have repeated in numerous posts. Firstly, you have never specified which mental illness I supposedly have, nor how you have diagnosed it. Secondly, you would need to show how my argument is fallacious because I'm mentally ill. Saying that I'm mentally ill (in your assessment) and therefore anything I believe must be incorrect is an ad hominem attack. I assume that I don't need to post a link to your calling me mentally ill; because to ask for proof would be a tacit retraction of that accusation. The comment about insults was apropos of the fact that graham did an ad hominem/strawman combination before cutting and running the time that I tried to debate the subject with him, and it certainly wasn't the first time that someone has thrown out a personal insult and then refused to justify their assertion that it is necessary for people to procreate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 22:31:26 GMT
It does work as a criticism, because it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem. What are you talking about? What is "it" in "it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem"? Also, when I ask "What does whether something is falsifiable have to do with . . ." The way to respond to that is like this: "Whether it's falsifiable has _________ to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims." Moral nihilism isn't a useful or productive lens through which to look at the subject of antinatalism. The universe does not have value, only sentient beings have values. Therefore 'the universe doesn't care if you torture animals' is a meaningless justification for doing so. Whether moral claims are objective has absolutely no bearing on the subject of antinatalism, because I'm not trying to convince the cold, indifferent universe not to have children, nor am I trying to convince psychopaths not to have children. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 22:31:39 GMT
tpfkar The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe. Nonsense, as of course as there exists no "objective meaning" of anything. Only our shared subjective, which has emphatically ruled that life on balance is a freakin' blast gone too soon, and giving a kid a great start on this wild ride, one that they can choose to step out of any time, is a great gift.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 22:37:42 GMT
tpfkar The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe. Nonsense, as of course as there exists no "objective meaning" of anything. Only our shared subjective, which has emphatically ruled that life on balance is a freakin' blast gone too soon, and giving a kid a great start on this wild ride, one that they can choose to step out of any time, is a great gift.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.But non-existent people do not share that subjective opinion; and you cannot infer consent in all cases based on what the majority thinks. You don't know in which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will find life to be a "freakin' gift" and which cases you're going to give birth to someone who will suffer from severe paranoid schizophrenia and spend their entire life in a psychiatric ward. Or in which cases the child is going to start out with all the advantages, then be crippled in a car accident before their 20th birthday, causing them to spend 70 years confined to a wheelchair, soiling themselves and having other people change their nappy. Our shared subjective sense of morality generally holds that you cannot gamble someone else's lifesavings without their consent on a risky investment, just because you plan to give them back more than you took if the investment works out. Therefore all I'm really doing is reframing life as being an inherently risky and unnecessary prospect. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 23:03:44 GMT
tpfkar I've already set out what my argument is, so I'm not doing anything "in lieu of actual argument". If there is any point in my argument which I have left unclear, then please let me know and I will clarify it. I'm observing the fact that certain topics tend to make people very touchy and hostile. Religion is one of them, and antinatalism is another. And yet you cry "insults" as an argument as well as call people "medievalists", and freely, nonsensically project your personal religiosity. The arguments you've "set out" are hyper-emotional, unsound inanities. And you couldn't have possibly been more clear in them. You keep looking for cover in "touchy" because as much as you mock "safe spaces", like all good religious-types you're not able to handle it when your patently unsound arguments are highlighted. Lay antinatalists tend to be extreme in any position they take and are not only "touchy" and nonsensically projecting and insulting, but oblivious and impervious to the cavernous holes in their thinking, and substantially fall to hyper-dramatic hyper-emotional appeals and cries of victimhood. No other conclusion can be had from your posts. What was it in reply to specifically, as there are a number of your positions that scream it. The thinking in your posts is positively deranged; you are comically morbid and unable to complete basic reasoning or recognize when your offerings are shattered. You frequently earnestly proffer the most ludicrous of non sequiturs. As a subset. But if you want detail, you should link to specific references so that particular incapacites noted can be covered. "Saying that I'm mentally ill (in your assessment) and therefore anything I believe must be incorrect is an ad hominem attack." This is a perfect example of the daft workings of your mind. Your words being bizarre is what yields conclusions of your mental incapacity; how you came up with your construction here is just another amazing thing to behold. Again, you can provide a link and let's look, or just keep highlighting that you're an Ada class victim-crying easy liar. And of course "necessary" is not the measure.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 18, 2017 23:13:58 GMT
What are you talking about? What is "it" in "it isn't a helpful or productive way of looking at the problem"? Also, when I ask "What does whether something is falsifiable have to do with . . ." The way to respond to that is like this: "Whether it's falsifiable has _________ to do with whether something is a very good justification re ethical claims." Moral nihilism isn't a useful or productive lens through which to look at the subject of antinatalism. The universe does not have value, only sentient beings have values. Therefore 'the universe doesn't care if you torture animals' is a meaningless justification for doing so. Whether moral claims are objective has absolutely no bearing on the subject of antinatalism, because I'm not trying to convince the cold, indifferent universe not to have children, nor am I trying to convince psychopaths not to have children. The criticism we were talking about was about whether something was falsifiable. What does what you just wrote above have to do with that? |
|
