|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 14, 2017 23:11:38 GMT
tpfkar There is no realm where they antipathetic toward it. There is no "imposition" but the granting of the option to do what most have wanted to do or to do what a tiny proportion have chosen and exit early. There is no needed collateral damage at any time. One life having a birth defect is not collateral damage from some other creature being born. And 100% grateful, like "necessary" is by no means the measure. People pursue hard drugs for many reasons; they continue because the of the effects. "Craving" in general is another beneficial thing that in general let us thrive. As for the "hopelessly mentally disabled" we do everything we can to treat and palliate. Certainly not nuke them nor the planet.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.And an unconscious woman is not antipathetic towards rape, in her present state. It doesn't mean that presuming consent is the legal or moral default. In practical terms, it is impossible to avoid collateral damage, therefore collateral damage must be accepted in order to proceed. One life having a birth defect is collateral damage of a system in which parents have the right to impose life as they see fit. Since there is no system that we can devise at present which will ensure that 100% of lives will be happy, then there will be collateral damage. No wonder you have such a hard time. Of course an unconscious woman is antipathetic towards rape. Unconsciousness nor inability to perceive a specific act happening does not erase their position toward such acts. These deranged framings just keep getting wilder. There is no such thing to a "necessary function of the universe" except to the religious. The probable reason that religion continues to persist is that people believe that such things as a "necessary function of the universe" exists. As for the mentally disabled I'm saying as I've noted a gazjibillion times that we do the best we can for them save destroying them at the behest of their illness. I like most people can place myself in such a position and would certainly not want to be destroyed based on derangements nor psychoses.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 23:20:34 GMT
And an unconscious woman is not antipathetic towards rape, in her present state. It doesn't mean that presuming consent is the legal or moral default. In practical terms, it is impossible to avoid collateral damage, therefore collateral damage must be accepted in order to proceed. One life having a birth defect is collateral damage of a system in which parents have the right to impose life as they see fit. Since there is no system that we can devise at present which will ensure that 100% of lives will be happy, then there will be collateral damage. No wonder you have such a hard time. Of course an unconscious woman is antipathetic towards rape. Unconsciousness nor inability to perceive a specific act happening does not erase their position toward such acts. These deranged framings just keep getting wilder.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"An unconscious woman has no aversion, at the time of being unconscious, to being raped. Unconscious means that all pre-existing preferences are temporarily suspended. There's no such thing as the sanctity of life except to the religious. How can you be "plac[ing yourself] in such a position" as someone who wants to die, if you are concluding that you wouldn't want to die if you were in that position?!  That's like me saying that I can place myself in the position of someone who likes clams, but if I were the type of person who liked clams, I wouldn't like clams. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 14, 2017 23:22:19 GMT
tpfkar There is no "consent" for having germ cells come together.  No rape, nor posed naked torture wank pics of your referred to "brownies", nor choosing the ability to choose, nor countless other incoherencies. A person who is raped exists and has both sentience and consent prior to any such attack. And I'm fairly confident that having chillen' and helping them have blasts is part of the legal standard of every civilized society that has ever existed. 
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.An unconscious woman has no ability to consent to anything. If we're applying your standard of imposing and then finding out after the fact whether the person minded being imposed upon, then that would favour the rapist and not the rape victim. The same thing applies to those who have been brought into existence. You can only ever find out after the fact whether or not the person minded being brought into existence. If bringing people into the world was necessary (from the perspective of the person to be born), then it might be acceptable to use a probablistic justification. But given that the pre-existent person had no need nor desire to be brought into existence, then it means nothing to offer up a probablistic justification of the imposition. Obviously there are no antinatalist societies, but that only says that those societies have failed to apply the non-aggression principle consistently to every decision that is unnecessary and has the potential to cause severe harm to a person. Our societies haven't matured far enough to question the assumption that life is an intrinsic good. That is why religion is still so powerful and popular even in a time when it has been robustly debunked by scientific knowledge. If people had sufficient confidence in their own judgement to deem that life is good, then they wouldn't need to look to God to provide objective validation of the virtue of human life. That's pure derangement. A fully conscious gagged immobilized one neither, by your perverse standard. You shat out "Presuming consent for an unnecessary and potentially harmful act is never the legal standard in any civilized society." Of course you have your own non-existent definition of "civilized", surprise surprise .  Thankfully our societies haven't "matured" to the point that those that wish to nuke the world are knowingly given any say or power.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 23:27:51 GMT
tpfkar An unconscious woman has no ability to consent to anything. If we're applying your standard of imposing and then finding out after the fact whether the person minded being imposed upon, then that would favour the rapist and not the rape victim. The same thing applies to those who have been brought into existence. You can only ever find out after the fact whether or not the person minded being brought into existence. If bringing people into the world was necessary (from the perspective of the person to be born), then it might be acceptable to use a probablistic justification. But given that the pre-existent person had no need nor desire to be brought into existence, then it means nothing to offer up a probablistic justification of the imposition. Obviously there are no antinatalist societies, but that only says that those societies have failed to apply the non-aggression principle consistently to every decision that is unnecessary and has the potential to cause severe harm to a person. Our societies haven't matured far enough to question the assumption that life is an intrinsic good. That is why religion is still so powerful and popular even in a time when it has been robustly debunked by scientific knowledge. If people had sufficient confidence in their own judgement to deem that life is good, then they wouldn't need to look to God to provide objective validation of the virtue of human life. That's pure derangement. A fully conscious gagged immobilized one neither, by your perverse standard. You shat out "Presuming consent for an unnecessary and potentially harmful act is never the legal standard in any civilized society." Of course you have your own non-existent definition of "civilized", surprise surprise . Thankfully our societies haven't "matured" to the point that those that wish to nuke the world are knowingly given any say or power.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I'm using the term "civilised" as a relative measure. And civilised tends to mean that we don't impose the risk of harm on unconsenting other people unless we have very good reasons to show that it is necessary for that person's wellbeing. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 14, 2017 23:30:00 GMT
tpfkar An unconscious woman has no aversion, at the time of being unconscious, to being raped. Unconscious means that all pre-existing preferences are temporarily suspended. Only to the patently deranged and/or psychopathic. Inability to resist does not yield lack of aversion in normal people terms. Nor the sanctity of nonexistence, of course. Life is made to be debauched. Use it up baby! If wailing about it feeds your needs, by all means make your choice to do that. And I do believe that most sane folk can envisage many many fates worse than death. Or that if they want to jump into a steel kiln after being dosed with tropane alkaloids that someone would stop them. And sorry you find clams to be so scary. 
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 Dec 14, 2017 23:35:10 GMT
The state of unconsciousness is a suspension of all preferences, desires and aversions. If you can envisage fates worse than death, then why is death the one which must be prevented at all costs? And when you don't believe that consciousness persists after death, how can someone who is dead be existing in a state of harm? You've just stated that you have empathy because you have placed yourself in the position of someone who wants to die and determined if that you were in the position of wanting to die, you wouldn't want to die. How is that empathy rather than merely projecting your values onto people who do not share those values? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 14, 2017 23:36:33 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 23:41:21 GMT
Subjective
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 10:59:28 GMT
tpfkar The state of unconsciousness is a suspension of all preferences, desires and aversions. Only the suspension of the ability to perceive and/or express. Where do you surmise these things might go to and come back from? The vaults of the Great Objective? Why don't you just kill them in this state since according to you they don't not want you to, wink wink nudge nudge? Certainly it shouldn't. But as noted a gazjibillion times, we don't feed the disease in the deranged, we instead attempt to treat and protect them from it's effects. "No harm" never will be the standard. It's that kind of patent crazy that gets someone to support Trump in the hope that he'll start an apocalypse.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 11:54:11 GMT
Yes, they no longer perceive that anything is happening to them, therefore no aversion to what is happening to them is occurring in their brain. If it's established that the patient wants to have their mental illness (if they are suffering from such) treated and want assisted dying ruled out as an option in their case, then I have no problem with that. But if they've consistently expressed a preference for assisted suicide over trying numerous different treatments, none of which carry a guarantee of improving their situation, then they deserve to have their own personal beliefs and values respected in those cases. And most of the people who are campaigning for the right to die have not been adequately protected from the effects of their illness, and that is why they desire the right to die. But of course, in your estimation, their wellbeing isn't as important as yours or the moral values that you have derived from Christianity. So they have to continue suffering in order to validate the religious beliefs of you and your sort. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:00:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 12:07:07 GMT
When someone awakens, their aversion to certain types of acts being performed on them once again becomes manifest. Much like one's aversion to having an unnecessary gamble made with one's wellbeing only becomes manifest upon gaining conscious realisation of what is happening. Which is why it is immoral to rape an unconscious person, and should also be deemed immoral to have children. So in order to protect them from a notional harm that they can never experience, they must be forcibly exposed to harm that will likely torture them for an indefinite period? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:14:50 GMT
tpfkar When someone awakens, their aversion to certain types of acts being performed on them once again becomes manifest. Much like one's aversion to having an unnecessary gamble made with one's wellbeing only becomes manifest upon gaining conscious realisation of what is happening. Which is why it is immoral to rape an unconscious person, and should also be deemed immoral to have children. So in order to protect them from a notional harm that they can never experience, they must be forcibly exposed to harm that will likely torture them for an indefinite period?  "Becomes manifest". Like I said, you should forever be separated from those who sleep, ever, or ever might become incapacitated. As for your last line, oodabbadabbay! No blades for mad bombers, toddlers, nor you!
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
