|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 3, 2018 4:32:46 GMT
tpfkar So even for those who cannot feed themselves should be thankful for the "yummy" that they can't have access to? And what of those who have an illness which will plague them for the rest of their life, leaving them in permanent discomfort? And it's OK for the 5 year old to be subject to constant harm, because other people are enjoying themselves? Naw, man, we should feed them. And we should stamp out "plagues". And no reason for 5 year-olds to be subject to "constant harm". We treat and learn and prevent. Improve, like we ever net-do.
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 Jan 3, 2018 4:39:55 GMT
They may not be causally related to each other, but you can't give the sanction to the cycle of reproduction without allowing for the future torturers and torture victims. Because there's absolutely no way (at least at present) of vetting births to ensure that only happy people are going to be born, and there aren't going to be any psychopathic torturers, torture victims or Republican Party politicians born. The fact that it is chance based means that there isn't any fairness in the fact that you get to enjoy your life whilst someone else is riddled with debilitating disease in some third world hellhole throughout their life. And those born to wealthy families certainly aren't immune to experiencing a lifetime of misery either. Why do we treat our animals more humanely than we do our humans? I suppose because everyone buys into this myth of the sanctity of life, as the kind of glue that holds mankind together. One thing that (almost) all narcissistic arseholes comprising humankind agree on is our own grossly inflated estimation of self-worth (each individual is 'infinitely valuable' , having been created in the image of God and endowed with inviolable dignity as a result of that, according to Christian pro-life blogs that I've read) and hideously bloated evaluation of our species as an extension and projection of that. People like cupcakes and goz espouse a watered down ersatz Christian theology, in which God is taken out of the picture, but humans themselves take the place of god. |
|
|
|
Post by You_Got_A_Stew_Goin_Baby on Jan 3, 2018 4:41:31 GMT
This thread is such a wankfest.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 3, 2018 4:44:57 GMT
tpfkar Antinatalism is the ultimate in exploitation prevention. You're the one who thinks that the suffering of an autistic 5 year old, and the woman chained up inside the box of a torturer for years of her life is a price worth paying for the pleasure of you and your family; just because ultimately someone other than you is paying the price. You're like Arlon with a hard psychopathic lean!  "Nuclear cruel to be kind, you having your eyes irradiated out hurts me more than it hurts you, I must kill you all you as you might catch cold, you stepped on that butterfly ergo some woman's in a box, and my mind won't stop screaming! And take my torture fantasies. Please!"
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission." |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2018 4:52:44 GMT
For the millionth time. Those things are totally unrelated. Each person's birth/life is an unrelated event to anyone elses. We each get a life and chance plays a major factor in our existence. They may not be causally related to each other, but you can't give the sanction to the cycle of reproduction without allowing for the future torturers and torture victims. Because there's absolutely no way (at least at present) of vetting births to ensure that only happy people are going to be born, and there aren't going to be any psychopathic torturers, torture victims or Republican Party politicians born. The fact that it is chance based means that there isn't any fairness in the fact that you get to enjoy your life whilst someone else is riddled with debilitating disease in some third world hellhole throughout their life. And those born to wealthy families certainly aren't immune to experiencing a lifetime of misery either. That is total and utter rubbish. They don't call it the 'accident of birth' for nothing and each event is unrelated. Fairness has nothing to do with it, and neither does a future outcome. You are placing your subjective nonsense onto the whole simple thing that is life and death of organisms from single cell to humans. This is not rocket surgery Mic! Anyway, try as you might, you could not stop evolution, life and death. To even propose it is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 3, 2018 5:10:46 GMT
Antinatalism is the ultimate in exploitation prevention. You're the one who thinks that the suffering of an autistic 5 year old, and the woman chained up inside the box of a torturer for years of her life is a price worth paying for the pleasure of you and your family; just because ultimately someone other than you is paying the price. For the millionth time. Those things are totally unrelated. Each person's birth/life is an unrelated event to anyone elses. We each get a life and chance plays a major factor in our existence. So, the birth/life of a severely retarded child is an unrelated event to the life of the person who has to care for that child as long as it lives? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2018 5:29:42 GMT
They may not be causally related to each other, but you can't give the sanction to the cycle of reproduction without allowing for the future torturers and torture victims. Because there's absolutely no way (at least at present) of vetting births to ensure that only happy people are going to be born, and there aren't going to be any psychopathic torturers, torture victims or Republican Party politicians born. The fact that it is chance based means that there isn't any fairness in the fact that you get to enjoy your life whilst someone else is riddled with debilitating disease in some third world hellhole throughout their life. And those born to wealthy families certainly aren't immune to experiencing a lifetime of misery either. In the realm of humane treatment of animals, neutering and spaying prevents unwanted animals, who have no one to care for them, from ever being born. And they aren't left outside in the cold to die or starve or be tortured. I see a parallel between spaying and neutering animals and human antinatalism. I also see a parallel between euthanasia of sick and dying animals and assisted suicide for humans that are sick and dying. Why do we treat our animals more humanely than we do our humans? Conversely, I see neutering animals in the same way that I see contraception, limiting parenthood to those who want to be parents, and I agree about voluntary euthanasia being acceptable for both animals and humans. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 3, 2018 5:29:53 GMT
tpfkar For the millionth time. Those things are totally unrelated. Each person's birth/life is an unrelated event to anyone elses. We each get a life and chance plays a major factor in our existence. So, the birth/life of a severely retarded child is an unrelated event to the life of the person who has to care for that child as long as it lives? Well, no two contemporary births need to be intertwined much less one leech off the other, but you're right that a baby and the mommy are probably related in at least a couple or three senses. But I guess you can probably retort next with siameses! or other multiples, teratomas, xenomorphs and the like.
parents just don't understand |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 3, 2018 5:53:51 GMT
In the realm of humane treatment of animals, neutering and spaying prevents unwanted animals, who have no one to care for them, from ever being born. And they aren't left outside in the cold to die or starve or be tortured. I see a parallel between spaying and neutering animals and human antinatalism. I also see a parallel between euthanasia of sick and dying animals and assisted suicide for humans that are sick and dying. Why do we treat our animals more humanely than we do our humans? Conversely, I see neutering animals in the same way that I see contraception, limiting parenthood to those who want to be parents, and I agree about voluntary euthanasia being acceptable for both animals and humans. Okay, so think of contraception as selective antinatalism, limiting parenthood to those who want to be parents, and... I would even go so far as to say, some people who can't support a child or might likely abuse a child should not be allowed to be a parent. I made that choice myself, to not be a parent. I knew, from the dysfunction that was passed down to me by my mother who had an abusive parent, that I had no idea how to be a good parent, despite the fact that I had a great dad. My life was scarred by my mother's 'legacy', and I chose to spare my non-conceived children the suffering that both my mother and I had experienced. I broke the cycle of abuse. I wish my mother had made that choice, to not have a child. If I never existed, I wouldn't know the difference. My life has been difficult, and while there were good parts of my life, I don't know if the good outweighed the bad. And, unless I die in some catastrophic accident, I will take my own life if nothing but suffering is left. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 5:55:38 GMT
They may not be causally related to each other, but you can't give the sanction to the cycle of reproduction without allowing for the future torturers and torture victims. Because there's absolutely no way (at least at present) of vetting births to ensure that only happy people are going to be born, and there aren't going to be any psychopathic torturers, torture victims or Republican Party politicians born. The fact that it is chance based means that there isn't any fairness in the fact that you get to enjoy your life whilst someone else is riddled with debilitating disease in some third world hellhole throughout their life. And those born to wealthy families certainly aren't immune to experiencing a lifetime of misery either. That is total and utter rubbish. They don't call it the 'accident of birth' for nothing and each event is unrelated. Fairness has nothing to do with it, and neither does a future outcome. You are placing your subjective nonsense onto the whole simple thing that is life and death of organisms from single cell to humans. This is not rocket surgery Mic! Anyway, try as you might, you could not stop evolution, life and death. To even propose it is ridiculous. There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it. And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2018 6:10:46 GMT
For the millionth time. Those things are totally unrelated. Each person's birth/life is an unrelated event to anyone elses. We each get a life and chance plays a major factor in our existence. So, the birth/life of a severely retarded child is an unrelated event to the life of the person who has to care for that child as long as it lives? That is not what Mic and I are discussing which is a causal relationship. Because a child is born healthy/blessed/ etc, doesn't have any effect on any other child's birth. If you read what I said you would know that each event is independent of the other. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 3, 2018 18:13:41 GMT
tpfkar They may not be causally related to each other, but you can't give the sanction to the cycle of reproduction without allowing for the future torturers and torture victims. Because there's absolutely no way (at least at present) of vetting births to ensure that only happy people are going to be born, and there aren't going to be any psychopathic torturers, torture victims or Republican Party politicians born. The fact that it is chance based means that there isn't any fairness in the fact that you get to enjoy your life whilst someone else is riddled with debilitating disease in some third world hellhole throughout their life. And those born to wealthy families certainly aren't immune to experiencing a lifetime of misery either. In the realm of humane treatment of animals, neutering and spaying prevents unwanted animals, who have no one to care for them, from ever being born. And they aren't left outside in the cold to die or starve or be tortured. I see a parallel between spaying and neutering animals and human antinatalism. I also see a parallel between euthanasia of sick and dying animals and assisted suicide for humans that are sick and dying. Why do we treat our animals more humanely than we do our humans? Pretty sure they treat sick animals except for cost and inconvenience. And typically for humans getting them out of the cold and getting them food and condoms seems to be a better plan than the gas houses. 
Oh, you must wear your rue with a difference |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 4, 2018 3:53:59 GMT
That is total and utter rubbish. They don't call it the 'accident of birth' for nothing and each event is unrelated. Fairness has nothing to do with it, and neither does a future outcome. You are placing your subjective nonsense onto the whole simple thing that is life and death of organisms from single cell to humans. This is not rocket surgery Mic! Anyway, try as you might, you could not stop evolution, life and death. To even propose it is ridiculous. There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it. And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world. That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 6:31:14 GMT
There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it. And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world. That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare. lolwut? I thought that you were an atheist. If you're saying that there is something intrinsically positive in life, then that would imply an objective arbiter (i.e. a god). If you're an atheist, then you accept the premise that evolution/natural selection wasn't a process that was set off in order to create a 'good' in the universe; it's simply an unintelligent process whereby the specimens best adapted to their environment survived. Humans are the strongest gladiators in the gladiator war, and we have a strong aversion to the termination of our existence. Even if we are enduring immense suffering; our programming will always cause us to prolong our existence for as long as possible, always at any cost to our wellbeing. As for AI, I have just, this night found an interesting article which dovetails with a lot of my thinking on the issue of why a benevolent AI might logically determine that extinction is the best course of action: www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baan |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 4, 2018 7:22:34 GMT
That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare. lolwut? I thought that you were an atheist. If you're saying that there is something intrinsically positive in life, then that would imply an objective arbiter (i.e. a god). If you're an atheist, then you accept the premise that evolution/natural selection wasn't a process that was set off in order to create a 'good' in the universe; it's simply an unintelligent process whereby the specimens best adapted to their environment survived. Humans are the strongest gladiators in the gladiator war, and we have a strong aversion to the termination of our existence. Even if we are enduring immense suffering; our programming will always cause us to prolong our existence for as long as possible, always at any cost to our wellbeing. As for AI, I have just, this night found an interesting article which dovetails with a lot of my thinking on the issue of why a benevolent AI might logically determine that extinction is the best course of action: www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baanI am a devout atheist as you well know, and diverting my positive attitudes towards life, evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection in terms of evolution into ANYTHING to do with God is abject nonsense....much like the rest of your rubbish. Look, we differ. I think life is positive and worthwhile and you don't, though you show no signs of ending yours, just mouthing off and whinging and whining about how bad things are and 'poor me'! That's fine, if you want to live your life like that, butt even proposing a proposition that everyone and everything on this earth should die and not reproduce is more than presumptuous, it is stupidly outrageous, arrogant and psychopathic. I am fed up with you, you hypocrite. How dare such a miserable wretch as you tell other people how to live their lives. You have made a religion of the morbid and nihilistic and frankly, you both bore me and disgust me, when I think of the beauty of nature, living things and wonderful human beings, all striving and doing their best even sometimes under difficult circumstances. Go away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 10:07:28 GMT
lolwut? I thought that you were an atheist. If you're saying that there is something intrinsically positive in life, then that would imply an objective arbiter (i.e. a god). If you're an atheist, then you accept the premise that evolution/natural selection wasn't a process that was set off in order to create a 'good' in the universe; it's simply an unintelligent process whereby the specimens best adapted to their environment survived. Humans are the strongest gladiators in the gladiator war, and we have a strong aversion to the termination of our existence. Even if we are enduring immense suffering; our programming will always cause us to prolong our existence for as long as possible, always at any cost to our wellbeing. As for AI, I have just, this night found an interesting article which dovetails with a lot of my thinking on the issue of why a benevolent AI might logically determine that extinction is the best course of action: www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baanI am a devout atheist as you well know, and diverting my positive attitudes towards life, evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection in terms of evolution into ANYTHING to do with God is abject nonsense....much like the rest of your rubbish. You've made a claim that life is "intrinsically valuable", and there's no way of interpreting that other than via an objective authority (which would have to be some kind of God). You seem to be trying to make a case for the idea that there was some kind of problem in need of being solved before sentient life existed; which is irreconcilably incongruous with atheism. Who could have found the barren, lifeless universe to be lacking, other than a god of some sort? I'm only saying 'live your life how you want, but don't impose on others who cannot consent'. Nothing that you've posted here justifies the fact that you're plunging someone into a risky and hazardous journey through a minefield that they neither want nor need, without first having obtained consent for the risks that you're taking with their wellbeing in order to further your goals. All you have is your extremely bloated sense of entitlement to create a mess for unconsenting other people that you've no guarantee can ever be cleaned up. Non-existent 'wonderful human beings' missing out on 'the beauty of nature' wasn't a problem until people like you, with your arrogant sense of entitlement, decided to make people that can be deprived of those things and hurt in unspeakable ways. And it is my business to be sticking up for the people that you needlessly harm, because you're basically making copies of me, as well as the many people who have been harmed in worse ways than I can ever imagine. I have every business to be looking out for the welfare of those who can't speak for themselves. Their welfare is equally as important as, and therefore interchangeable with, my own (and your own). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 4, 2018 13:07:02 GMT
tpfkar Why do we treat our animals more humanely than we do our humans? I suppose because everyone buys into this myth of the sanctity of life, as the kind of glue that holds mankind together. One thing that (almost) all narcissistic arseholes comprising humankind agree on is our own grossly inflated estimation of self-worth (each individual is 'infinitely valuable' , having been created in the image of God and endowed with inviolable dignity as a result of that, according to Christian pro-life blogs that I've read) and hideously bloated evaluation of our species as an extension and projection of that. People like cupcakes and goz espouse a watered down ersatz Christian theology, in which God is taken out of the picture, but humans themselves take the place of god. "Sanctity" is for the "life is sacred" and "life is blasphemous" crowds, not for the "get what you can out of it while you got it" people. And you really should stay off of Christian pro-life blogs lest you post stupid things like suggesting that what they say is indicative of anybody who doesn't want Trump to nuke the world. 
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 4, 2018 19:55:32 GMT
tpfkar I am a devout atheist as you well know, and diverting my positive attitudes towards life, evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection in terms of evolution into ANYTHING to do with God is abject nonsense....much like the rest of your rubbish. You've made a claim that life is "intrinsically valuable", and there's no way of interpreting that other than via an objective authority (which would have to be some kind of God). You seem to be trying to make a case for the idea that there was some kind of problem in need of being solved before sentient life existed; which is irreconcilably incongruous with atheism. Who could have found the barren, lifeless universe to be lacking, other than a god of some sort? Where did she make such a claim? And you're the one that claims that your values are based on an Objective as opposed to just the values that the vast bulk of uncrushed humans share. And again with your deranged "seem to be"s. The only "god" is your deity of pain & suffering.
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission." |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 4, 2018 21:43:22 GMT
The problem with this article is: An AI is not alive, as opposed to human beings. Human beings are biological machines. They aren't just brains and consciousnesses. They have bodies, with central and vegetative nervous systems; and they thrive for survival and reproduction. They are collections of selfish genes, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins. An AI is not. They don't have selfish genes, and therefore no need nor desire to survive or reproduce. If a blind person told us that visual art is useless, would we believe them? If a deaf person told us that music is useless, would we believe them? If an AI told us that reproduction is useless, why should we believe it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 1:34:36 GMT
tpfkar You've made a claim that life is "intrinsically valuable", and there's no way of interpreting that other than via an objective authority (which would have to be some kind of God). You seem to be trying to make a case for the idea that there was some kind of problem in need of being solved before sentient life existed; which is irreconcilably incongruous with atheism. Who could have found the barren, lifeless universe to be lacking, other than a god of some sort? Where did she make such a claim? And you're the one that claims that your values are based on an Objective as opposed to just the values that the vast bulk of uncrushed humans share. And again with your deranged "seem to be"s. The only "god" is your deity of pain & suffering.
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."Since you're too lazy; from above: mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it." goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. " It's on this page. |
|
