|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 7, 2018 23:14:53 GMT
tpfkar The very nature of biological life (where we need to have some kind of harm, threat or deprivation that needs to be avoided) makes it seem very unlikely that we can ever get to a place where there aren't any people for whom life is a significantly net-negative. The only way that I could really think that it would be possible would be if we were all to have our minds uploaded into robots and were capable of turning ourselves off at any time. But even that kind of existence seems kind of pointless when non-existence is a situation where you cannot lose. Making massive strides all the time. Net- hugely improved, no signs of slowing down. We'll just keep on having better and better times, regardless of the "must kill you to save you" lunatics. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 23:30:30 GMT
tpfkar The article was just an aside, because that idea (that AI could be the hope for antinatalism) was something that I had been harbouring for a while myself. But as for human logic and reason, none has ever been presented as for why it's not morally problematic to take such a risky venture with someone else's being, when you cannot obtain that person's consent. Nobody's asking to take away the "right to f!ck", because it's possible to do that without imposing life on another person. I wasn't concluding that the AI scenario was something that is going to happen, because AI is going to be a complete wild card. I actually dread AI, because although there's the possibility that my goals could be advanced, there's also the possibility that the AI could create computerised minds in order to torture them for what would seem to those minds like an eternity. But supposing that there were an AI with our best interests at heart, capable of unalloyed logic and reason, and with unlimited power to make decisions, it would be difficult to see where it would find logical reasons not to end the cycle of imposition on Earth. Personally, I'm going to keep spreading the ideas of antinatalism, because I hope that should AI of the type described above ever be developed, antinatalism would be a major global talking point, rather than the fringe Internet interest group that it currently is. So my hope is to at least aid in the exposure of the topic, so that people have heard of it and can begin to think about it. I just bet you were. The rewards far outweigh the risks for the mentally uncrushed, and peeps overwhelmingly are grateful for the option by massive margins. People have a right to f!ck without any interference from you extremists. It is amusing that you seem to think that some guy musing about a nonexistent AI's nonexistent opinion carries any weight whatsoever. Personally I think you should keep spreading your version of antinatalism to demonstrate profoundly how completely nutcrackers it is. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?So those who are 'mentally crushed' are then not worthy of concern, even though it's only luck which separates you from one of them? That's just victim blaming. You're condemning the victims for not wanting to be the collateral damage in your game. How dare you have the temerity to resent having to pay the price for my enjoyment of life?!![](https://s26.postimg.org/n7cun29i1/angry7.gif) You can never lose from being unharmed. Therefore in a universe without sentient life, there would be no need for rewards and therefore no need unfulfilled. My personal projection is that antinatalism will gain some significant traction as a philosophy within the atheist community, and within perhaps the next 20-30 years, there will be a significant rift between 'humanists' and antinatalists. Moreover, what we are currently seeing in developed nations is that natives are reproducing at less than replacement rate. So the actual intelligent people, whilst not antinatalists, are at least starting to perceive reproduction as something unnecessary (and that doesn't mean that they're going without sex). People should have the right to do what they wish, so long as they don't put someone else in a vulnerable position without that person's consent. It stops being just a question of individual rights when it has the potential to cause a lifetime of untold harm to an innocent third party.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 7, 2018 23:30:54 GMT
tpfkar It's entirely obvious that "intrinsically positive", whatever it's supposed to mean, is your attempt to get somebody to say something that you try to work. "Positive" is subjective in all cases so your entire presentation was/is nonsensical even before meanderings into other peoples' conjectures and thought experiments about wwad. Life is good == human value. You're the one who goes on and on about nonexistent being wronged (objectively!), and once you go there, then we can also project backwards from the existent based on actual evidence of wants, whether you like it or not that it highlights the utter ludicrousness of your "arguments". Nobody but you keep trying to push that "the nonexistent" are anything of any kind. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceSo now it's my fault that goz had a ridiculous and nonsensical answer to a statement that I made? I'm not attempting to get anyone to say anything illogical; I'm attempting to make people realise the illogic of the rationalisations that they use. And positive is indeed subjective, and it takes people to exist in the first place to subjectively value life or feel that being alive and having the choice to continue living is better than not existing. There are no such things as non-existent people, and therefore such can never be in a worse position due to not having the choice to live, as there is no mind to subjectively grasp the concept that multiple choices are superior. Life is good is only a human value and it is only good for those who have the capability of subjectively valuing. It's something that cannot be lost or missed by not bringing someone into existence, because a non-existent person, by definition, does not exist to miss out on the good. I haven't stated anything about the non-existent being wronged. Bringing someone into a miserable life is an imposition that is inflicted on an actual person (someone can only be wronged if they exist, and by giving birth to the person you create a consciousness that can be wronged against); whereas your argument implies that there are 'non-existent people' who are missing out on the joys of life. I'm not claiming that my argument benefits any non-existent people, merely that it prevents a condition of imposition and vulnerability to harm being created where it needn't have been. No, it's your fault that you're a dishonest person who has been going on with the ambiguous "intrinsically positive", and when she retorted to your leading deranged-tautological palaverous crap as a whole, you try to make something out of it that she wasn't saying Nonexistent people can never be in any position. Yet you've gone on and one about the nonexistent being "imposed upon" by being brought into existence. If you wish to consider the "fate" of the nonexistent or the extant in any way, then we can and should consider it all ways, and the evidence is that people are overwhelmingly grateful for the option of experiencing life, by massive margins. The biggest (pathological) subjective is both your projecting of your suckled misery as the norm and that any "suffering" yields life being "bad". The more comically lugubrious highly-subjective framings to laughably self-oblivious misstatements are the likes of "imposition", "illogical", "miserable", "claim", "argument", etc. 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 cupcakes on Jan 7, 2018 23:36:30 GMT
tpfkar I just bet you were. The rewards far outweigh the risks for the mentally uncrushed, and peeps overwhelmingly are grateful for the option by massive margins. People have a right to f!ck without any interference from you extremists. It is amusing that you seem to think that some guy musing about a nonexistent AI's nonexistent opinion carries any weight whatsoever. Personally I think you should keep spreading your version of antinatalism to demonstrate profoundly how completely nutcrackers it is. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?So those who are 'mentally crushed' are then not worthy of concern, even though it's only luck which separates you from one of them? That's just victim blaming. You're condemning the victims for not wanting to be the collateral damage in your game. How dare you have the temerity to resent having to pay the price for my enjoyment of life?!![](https://s26.postimg.org/n7cun29i1/angry7.gif) You can never lose from being unharmed. Therefore in a universe without sentient life, there would be no need for rewards and therefore no need unfulfilled. My personal projection is that antinatalism will gain some significant traction as a philosophy within the atheist community, and within perhaps the next 20-30 years, there will be a significant rift between 'humanists' and antinatalists. Moreover, what we are currently seeing in developed nations is that natives are reproducing at less than replacement rate. So the actual intelligent people, whilst not antinatalists, are at least starting to perceive reproduction as something unnecessary (and that doesn't mean that they're going without sex). People should have the right to do what they wish, so long as they don't put someone else in a vulnerable position without that person's consent. It stops being just a question of individual rights when it has the potential to cause a lifetime of untold harm to an innocent third party. Worthy of concern, and sometimes, separation. It's not "luck" that you choose to wallow homicidally. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) No victims are being condemned, as it's not zero-sum. Just have to keep advancing. I know all about your personal projections. ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) And what the hell is "the atheist community"? ![(Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes](https://s1.postimg.org/1aeeq0jfe7/sfwomatce.a.png) You're right about the actual intelligent people not being your brand of antinatalist. ![(Apple) Smiling Face With Smiling Eyes](https://s26.postimg.org/xv4g011vd/apple_smiling-face-with-smiling-eyes_1f60a.png) Nobody's being put into a vulnerable position without their consent, regardless of your "imposition" chatter and your bizarre, psychopathic framings. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 23:52:37 GMT
tpfkar So now it's my fault that goz had a ridiculous and nonsensical answer to a statement that I made? I'm not attempting to get anyone to say anything illogical; I'm attempting to make people realise the illogic of the rationalisations that they use. And positive is indeed subjective, and it takes people to exist in the first place to subjectively value life or feel that being alive and having the choice to continue living is better than not existing. There are no such things as non-existent people, and therefore such can never be in a worse position due to not having the choice to live, as there is no mind to subjectively grasp the concept that multiple choices are superior. Life is good is only a human value and it is only good for those who have the capability of subjectively valuing. It's something that cannot be lost or missed by not bringing someone into existence, because a non-existent person, by definition, does not exist to miss out on the good. I haven't stated anything about the non-existent being wronged. Bringing someone into a miserable life is an imposition that is inflicted on an actual person (someone can only be wronged if they exist, and by giving birth to the person you create a consciousness that can be wronged against); whereas your argument implies that there are 'non-existent people' who are missing out on the joys of life. I'm not claiming that my argument benefits any non-existent people, merely that it prevents a condition of imposition and vulnerability to harm being created where it needn't have been. No, it's your fault that you're a dishonest person who has been going on with the ambiguous "intrinsically positive", and when she retorted to your leading deranged-tautological palaverous crap as a whole, you try to make something out of it that she wasn't saying Nonexistent people can never be in any position. Yet you've gone on and one about the nonexistent being "imposed upon" by being brought into existence. If you wish to consider the "fate" of the nonexistent or the extant in any way, then we can and should consider it all ways, and the evidence is that people are overwhelmingly grateful for the option of experiencing life, by massive margins. The biggest (pathological) subjective is both your projecting of your suckled misery as the norm and that any "suffering" yields life being "bad". The more comically lugubrious highly-subjective framings to laughably self-oblivious misstatements are the likes of "imposition", "illogical", "miserable", "claim", "argument", etc. 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."No, she went on to justify how evolution 'proved' that life was an intrinsic good. As if the goal of the evolutionary process was to maximise pleasure, rather than just being an unintelligent process driven by blind forces, producing ever more successful gladiators. I've never stated that the non-existent are imposed upon. The person who is brought into existence is the one who is imposed upon, and I've stated this countless times, but your only hope is to try and use a strawman argument, wilfully misinterpreting what I'm actually saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 23:57:48 GMT
tpfkar So those who are 'mentally crushed' are then not worthy of concern, even though it's only luck which separates you from one of them? That's just victim blaming. You're condemning the victims for not wanting to be the collateral damage in your game. How dare you have the temerity to resent having to pay the price for my enjoyment of life?!![](https://s26.postimg.org/n7cun29i1/angry7.gif) You can never lose from being unharmed. Therefore in a universe without sentient life, there would be no need for rewards and therefore no need unfulfilled. My personal projection is that antinatalism will gain some significant traction as a philosophy within the atheist community, and within perhaps the next 20-30 years, there will be a significant rift between 'humanists' and antinatalists. Moreover, what we are currently seeing in developed nations is that natives are reproducing at less than replacement rate. So the actual intelligent people, whilst not antinatalists, are at least starting to perceive reproduction as something unnecessary (and that doesn't mean that they're going without sex). People should have the right to do what they wish, so long as they don't put someone else in a vulnerable position without that person's consent. It stops being just a question of individual rights when it has the potential to cause a lifetime of untold harm to an innocent third party. Worthy of concern, and sometimes, separation. It's not "luck" that you choose to wallow homicidally. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) No victims are being condemned, as it's not zero-sum. Just have to keep advancing. I know all about your personal projections. ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) And what the hell is "the atheist community"? ![(Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes](https://s1.postimg.org/1aeeq0jfe7/sfwomatce.a.png) You're right about the actual intelligent people not being your brand of antinatalist. ![(Apple) Smiling Face With Smiling Eyes](https://s26.postimg.org/xv4g011vd/apple_smiling-face-with-smiling-eyes_1f60a.png) Nobody's being put into a vulnerable position without their consent, regardless of your "imposition" chatter and your bizarre, psychopathic framings. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. They are being condemned because there's no way at present of preventing people from coming into existence who will experience non-trivial suffering. There's no realistic prospect of future suffering being prevented.Therefore as long as procreation is permitted, it's a de facto guarantee of creating victims. Most antinatalists are intelligent (most of them have traits that you'd likely admire), but most intelligent people are not antinatalists; but intelligent people in developed nations are passing on their genes at below replacement level. And anyone who is born is imposed upon and made vulnerable without consent. How can you even be so dishonest as to say that people consent to being born, or that biological organisms aren't vulnerable, by their very nature?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 0:03:03 GMT
tpfkar No, it's your fault that you're a dishonest person who has been going on with the ambiguous "intrinsically positive", and when she retorted to your leading deranged-tautological palaverous crap as a whole, you try to make something out of it that she wasn't saying Nonexistent people can never be in any position. Yet you've gone on and one about the nonexistent being "imposed upon" by being brought into existence. If you wish to consider the "fate" of the nonexistent or the extant in any way, then we can and should consider it all ways, and the evidence is that people are overwhelmingly grateful for the option of experiencing life, by massive margins. The biggest (pathological) subjective is both your projecting of your suckled misery as the norm and that any "suffering" yields life being "bad". The more comically lugubrious highly-subjective framings to laughably self-oblivious misstatements are the likes of "imposition", "illogical", "miserable", "claim", "argument", etc. 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."No, she went on to justify how evolution 'proved' that life was an intrinsic good. As if the goal of the evolutionary process was to maximise pleasure, rather than just being an unintelligent process driven by blind forces, producing ever more successful gladiators. I've never stated that the non-existent are imposed upon. The person who is brought into existence is the one who is imposed upon, and I've stated this countless times, but your only hope is to try and use a strawman argument, wilfully misinterpreting what I'm actually saying. Nah, that was you pushing, from posts previous. Already showed how you glibly distort/"restate". If they are in existence then they can't have "not have been brought into existence" and are being "imposed upon" by terminating them, especially since the evidence overwhelmingly shows that they will by massive margins prefer to have had the option. No strawman, no misrepresentation. It's simply you wishing to have your one farcically lugubrious way ignoring realities. Much like your "objective" claims of "suffering", your choice to furiously attempt to get people to choose to change when you assert real choice doesn't exist, etc., etc., etc. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 0:26:00 GMT
tpfkar No, she went on to justify how evolution 'proved' that life was an intrinsic good. As if the goal of the evolutionary process was to maximise pleasure, rather than just being an unintelligent process driven by blind forces, producing ever more successful gladiators. I've never stated that the non-existent are imposed upon. The person who is brought into existence is the one who is imposed upon, and I've stated this countless times, but your only hope is to try and use a strawman argument, wilfully misinterpreting what I'm actually saying. Nah, that was you pushing, from posts previous. Already showed how you glibly distort/"restate". If they are in existence then they can't have "not have been brought into existence" and are being "imposed upon" by terminating them, especially since the evidence overwhelmingly shows that they will by massive margins prefer to have had the option. No strawman, no misrepresentation. It's simply you wishing to have your one farcically lugubrious way ignoring realities. Much like your "objective" claims of "suffering", your choice to furiously attempt to get people to choose to change when you assert real choice doesn't exist, etc., etc., etc. Does Free Will Exist?If they are in existence, then it is the unnecessary act on the part of 2 other people that brought them there. Then it's their burden to deal with all the suffering, and having to work for most of their life, whilst hoping to have the luck to evade the worst of the things that can harm then, in order to maintain the 'gift' that they hadn't the opportunity to refuse at the point of receipt. How can a non-existent person (the terminated foetus) be imposed upon when they don't have any burden to deal with and will never know that they might have been born? Now you're so desperate, you're pushing the fundamentalist Christian anti-abortion line.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 0:27:25 GMT
tpfkar And as I said before: The opinion of the AI would be meaningless. It's like if a person blind from birth declared painting useless, or a person deaf from birth declared music useless. There may be rational reasons for arguing like this; but nobody has to listen to them. It wouldn't be meaningless if we were appointing the AI to make decisions on our behalf, as indicated in the article. Although the AI wouldn't have experienced life as a biological entity, it could still be intelligent enough to understand all of our motivations, biases, instincts, etc. We're not entirely rational, that's true. But if someone trespasses against you for an irrational reason, it's likely to offend you more than if you were trespassed against for a rational reason. Just because we're irrational by nature, doesn't mean that a potential rational agent (the AI) should not prevent us from creating more victims in our unreason. It doesn't work as an organising principle in civilised society, and if we adopted that principle in every aspect of life, then only a very small privileged few would have any rights, and we would all be at their mercy. People shouldn't make irrational decisions when it is on behalf of someone else, and that someone else cannot consent. What's your 'rational argument' for the right to enter people into a dangerous lottery without their consent? What's your 'rational argument' that someone should be freely able to make me vulnerable to harm (without any benefit to myself), just because I wasn't capable of refusing consent at the time of imposition? And what's your rational argument that you deserve a happy life more than someone who just happened to be born crippled or diseased, and spends their entire life in misery? The fact is that there wasn't any condition of fairness or desert which separates your fate from theirs. 'The non existent do not feel deprived of existence, but the existent often feel harmed' is not a statement that can be refuted with the current scientific understanding of consciousness. So certainly the bedrock of my argument is based on sound logical and rational principles. Conversely, the suggestion that we should be able to subject people to harm just because we feel like it is psychopathic nihilism, and the bedrock of the argument for why it isn't selfish to do so makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to take this tack, you should at least expect the reproducers to admit that all of their motives are selfish ones. Also, if their only contention is 'the universe doesn't care about torture, so therefore nothing ought to be done to prevent it', then they are hypocrites if they are claiming to be moral people, given that the bedrock of modern moral codes and jurisprudence is not to harm other people, or cause them to be put in harm's way, without reason. In short, if the costs of reproduction are irrelevant, then the only alternative to that is amoral nihilism. And neither goz nor cupcakes have claimed to be, or owned up to being, amoral nihilists, which makes them hypocrites. Ifs buts candies nuts. When you hose ludicrously pathological subjective framings and made-up definitions psychopathic-Arlon style, you can "therefore" any nutcase argument you like ![yerboy](https://s33.postimg.org/ek0gvsnq7/yerboy.png) , even countenancing mass-murder and a return to exponentially increased savagery & brutality. 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 cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 0:31:57 GMT
tpfkar Nah, that was you pushing, from posts previous. Already showed how you glibly distort/"restate". If they are in existence then they can't have "not have been brought into existence" and are being "imposed upon" by terminating them, especially since the evidence overwhelmingly shows that they will by massive margins prefer to have had the option. No strawman, no misrepresentation. It's simply you wishing to have your one farcically lugubrious way ignoring realities. Much like your "objective" claims of "suffering", your choice to furiously attempt to get people to choose to change when you assert real choice doesn't exist, etc., etc., etc. Does Free Will Exist?If they are in existence, then it is the unnecessary act on the part of 2 other people that brought them there. Then it's their burden to deal with all the suffering, and having to work for most of their life, whilst hoping to have the luck to evade the worst of the things that can harm then, in order to maintain the 'gift' that they hadn't the opportunity to refuse at the point of receipt. How can a non-existent person (the terminated foetus) be imposed upon when they don't have any burden to deal with and will never know that they might have been born? Now you're so desperate, you're pushing the fundamentalist Christian anti-abortion line. Nice scrambling. Nothing is "necessary". And you can't get around that you can't "impose" life on the living so your cowardly denials of not referring to the nonexistent even are just made blaringly plain. And there is absolutely nothing "Christian" nor anti-abortion in anything I posted. That's just your worship bubbling over again. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 0:36:13 GMT
tpfkar If they are in existence, then it is the unnecessary act on the part of 2 other people that brought them there. Then it's their burden to deal with all the suffering, and having to work for most of their life, whilst hoping to have the luck to evade the worst of the things that can harm then, in order to maintain the 'gift' that they hadn't the opportunity to refuse at the point of receipt. How can a non-existent person (the terminated foetus) be imposed upon when they don't have any burden to deal with and will never know that they might have been born? Now you're so desperate, you're pushing the fundamentalist Christian anti-abortion line. Nice scrambling. Nothing is "necessary". And you can't get around that you can't "impose" life on the living so your cowardly denials of not referring to the nonexistent even are just made blaringly plain. And there is absolutely nothing "Christian" nor anti-abortion in anything I posted. That's just your worship bubbling over again. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.Life couldn't exist without the act of imposition. You're really getting desperate to try and find some kind of philosophical loophole. And if most people who get life are thrilled with it, and the foetuses who are terminated are 'imposed upon' and if antinatalism is psychopathic, then all that adds up to anti-abortion.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 0:45:57 GMT
tpfkar Life couldn't exist without the act of imposition. You're really getting desperate to try and find some kind of philosophical loophole. And if most people who get life are thrilled with it, and the foetuses who are terminated are 'imposed upon' and if antinatalism is psychopathic, then all that adds up to anti-abortion. Ha ha, back to imposing on the nonexistent. ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) And there is only your loopy hole flapping. If they are extant, then doing nothing is not imposing, regardless of how agitated it makes you when your utter ludicrousness is pointed out. If you want to talk about what's coming up, you consider all aspects, not just idiot spin on your deranged "the dead can't hurt'. And anti-abortion is denying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, psychopathic Arlon-dude. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jan 8, 2018 1:03:15 GMT
parenthood is kind of overrated. i say kind of because there are certain people who really shouldn't be parents but they choose to become parents because of anything from convenience [free labor!] to laziness [now i can get more money from the government].
I have seen parents who are ACTUALLY UPSET when their 15 year old IS NOT PREGNANT! really? I have seen parents whose goal in life is to have 10 kids by the time they are 30. I have seen parents gently push their children into oncoming traffic so they can sue the driver who hit them AND set up a #gofundme!
parent's can't discipline or allow their kids to make 'learning' mistakes anymore because of fear the kids will be taken away from acs. no slapping a kid over the face for calling you a fucking cnut, no letting them put their finger in their hot soup [even though you told them not to] so they will learn first hand WHY we don't do that. kids drive the buses now and they kind of know it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 1:36:01 GMT
tpfkar Life couldn't exist without the act of imposition. You're really getting desperate to try and find some kind of philosophical loophole. And if most people who get life are thrilled with it, and the foetuses who are terminated are 'imposed upon' and if antinatalism is psychopathic, then all that adds up to anti-abortion. Ha ha, back to imposing on the nonexistent. ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) And there is only your loopy hole flapping. If they are extant, then doing nothing is not imposing, regardless of how agitated it makes you when your utter ludicrousness is pointed out. If you want to talk about what's coming up, you consider all aspects, not just idiot spin on your deranged "the dead can't hurt'. And anti-abortion is denying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, psychopathic Arlon-dude. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. It's not imposing on the non-existent. The act creates burdens and vulnerability where there need have been none (except in the opinion of the parents). The very definition of an imposition. Therefore when a life is created, it is imposed upon. If it is not created, it cannot be imposed upon. And using your same logic, nobody should have any concern about what effects global warming will have on future generations because since they don't exist yet, they can't be imposed upon or their future welfare is irrelevant. Based on your reasoning, you must at least morally disapprove of a woman getting an abortion, because that foetus will never become a person who will have multiple choices to 'have a blast' rather than not having any options at all.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 1:39:25 GMT
tpfkar 'The non existent do not feel deprived of existence, but the existent often feel harmed' is not a statement that can be refuted with the current scientific understanding of consciousness. So certainly the bedrock of my argument is based on sound logical and rational principles. Conversely, the suggestion that we should be able to subject people to harm just because we feel like it is psychopathic nihilism, and the bedrock of the argument for why it isn't selfish to do so makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to take this tack, you should at least expect the reproducers to admit that all of their motives are selfish ones. Also, if their only contention is 'the universe doesn't care about torture, so therefore nothing ought to be done to prevent it', then they are hypocrites if they are claiming to be moral people, given that the bedrock of modern moral codes and jurisprudence is not to harm other people, or cause them to be put in harm's way, without reason. In short, if the costs of reproduction are irrelevant, then the only alternative to that is amoral nihilism. And neither goz nor cupcakes have claimed to be, or owned up to being, amoral nihilists, which makes them hypocrites. Such deranged "thinking". The kind that led you to hope your man nukes the world. ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) Your lugubriously morbid subjective characterizations and opinions around "subject people to harm" is the core of all your arguments, right along with the psychopathic supervillain "the dead can't hurt" vacuous truism as justification for anything. The reason for this blast is that the option to enjoy and experience it or reject it is always a superior position over not having a choice at all. And there's of course nothing hypocritical with trying to afford as much opportunity and happiness as is increasingly feasible and to strive for continuous improvement for all. Quite unlike the "kill you to save you" lunacy while maniacally babbling on about impositions to the nonexistent, with doctrinaire wishes to accomplish cult raptures regardless of how much increased savagery and suffering such madman plans would yield. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 1:51:00 GMT
tpfkar 'The non existent do not feel deprived of existence, but the existent often feel harmed' is not a statement that can be refuted with the current scientific understanding of consciousness. So certainly the bedrock of my argument is based on sound logical and rational principles. Conversely, the suggestion that we should be able to subject people to harm just because we feel like it is psychopathic nihilism, and the bedrock of the argument for why it isn't selfish to do so makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to take this tack, you should at least expect the reproducers to admit that all of their motives are selfish ones. Also, if their only contention is 'the universe doesn't care about torture, so therefore nothing ought to be done to prevent it', then they are hypocrites if they are claiming to be moral people, given that the bedrock of modern moral codes and jurisprudence is not to harm other people, or cause them to be put in harm's way, without reason. In short, if the costs of reproduction are irrelevant, then the only alternative to that is amoral nihilism. And neither goz nor cupcakes have claimed to be, or owned up to being, amoral nihilists, which makes them hypocrites. Such deranged "thinking". The kind that led you to hope your man nukes the world. ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) Your lugubriously morbid subjective characterizations and opinions around "subject people to harm" is the core of all your arguments, right along with the psychopathic supervillain "the dead can't hurt" vacuous truism as justification for anything. The reason for this blast is that the option to enjoy and experience it or reject it is always a superior position over not having a choice at all. And there's of course nothing hypocritical with trying to afford as much opportunity and happiness as is increasingly feasible and to strive for continuous improvement for all. Quite unlike the "kill you to save you" lunacy while maniacally babbling on about impositions to the nonexistent, with doctrinaire wishes to accomplish cult raptures regardless of how much increased savagery and suffering such madman plans would yield. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldIf it's a superior position to have the choice, then a non-existent person would have to be able to grasp the inferiority of their position. There's absolutely no way around that. Having a choice to live or die is a situation that exists, but not existing and therefore not having any choices regarding whether to live is not a situation that exists at all. Therefore, a situation that exists cannot be superior to one that doesn't and cannot exist. When you make a comparison, you have to have two different actual situations to compare (that could at least hypothetically exist in reality). A non-existent being reflecting on its lack of choice is not a situation that could obtain even in a hypothetical scenario. There are no such thing as non-existent people to have choices, or be lacking choices.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 1:51:37 GMT
tpfkar Ha ha, back to imposing on the nonexistent. ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) And there is only your loopy hole flapping. If they are extant, then doing nothing is not imposing, regardless of how agitated it makes you when your utter ludicrousness is pointed out. If you want to talk about what's coming up, you consider all aspects, not just idiot spin on your deranged "the dead can't hurt'. And anti-abortion is denying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, psychopathic Arlon-dude. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. It's not imposing on the non-existent. The act creates burdens and vulnerability where there need have been none (except in the opinion of the parents). The very definition of an imposition. Therefore when a life is created, it is imposed upon. If it is not created, it cannot be imposed upon. And using your same logic, nobody should have any concern about what effects global warming will have on future generations because since they don't exist yet, they can't be imposed upon or their future welfare is irrelevant. Based on your reasoning, you must at least morally disapprove of a woman getting an abortion, because that foetus will never become a person who will have multiple choices to 'have a blast' rather than not having any options at all. Such circular madness. And no, I consider future welfare, but of course reject your morbidly one-sided considerations of future "welfare". You want to consider your comically deranged "impositions" and "harms", then the benefits, pleasures, experiences, options are also considered. The "act" has ramifications and all can be considered, not just your hopelessly morbidly deranged pathologies. Based on your "reasoning" you have a comically malfunctioning "reasoner". A woman's rights trumps a zygotes and a fetus's up to a certain level of maturity, regardless of your pitched wars with dictionaries and basic sense. 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."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 1:57:01 GMT
tpfkar It's not imposing on the non-existent. The act creates burdens and vulnerability where there need have been none (except in the opinion of the parents). The very definition of an imposition. Therefore when a life is created, it is imposed upon. If it is not created, it cannot be imposed upon. And using your same logic, nobody should have any concern about what effects global warming will have on future generations because since they don't exist yet, they can't be imposed upon or their future welfare is irrelevant. Based on your reasoning, you must at least morally disapprove of a woman getting an abortion, because that foetus will never become a person who will have multiple choices to 'have a blast' rather than not having any options at all. Such circular madness. And no, I consider future welfare, but of course reject your morbidly one-sided considerations of future "welfare". You want to consider your comically deranged "impositions" and "harms", then the benefits, pleasures, experiences, options are also considered. The "act" has ramifications and all can be considered, not just your hopelessly morbidly deranged pathologies. Based on your "reasoning" you have a comically malfunctioning "reasoner". A woman's rights trumps a zygotes and a fetus's up to a certain level of maturity, regardless of your pitched wars with dictionaries and basic sense. 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."The reason that I'm only considering the harms is because that scenario imposes a harmful burden on some, for a benefit that wasn't needed and wouldn't have been missed in a barren universe. 'First, do no harm'. If you can give everyone a blast with a guarantee that there will be no harm, then that would be a different situation. But as it is, to reproduce is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken, and have the cost of that borne by unlucky people who couldn't consent.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 1:57:33 GMT
tpfkar Such deranged "thinking". The kind that led you to hope your man nukes the world. ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) Your lugubriously morbid subjective characterizations and opinions around "subject people to harm" is the core of all your arguments, right along with the psychopathic supervillain "the dead can't hurt" vacuous truism as justification for anything. The reason for this blast is that the option to enjoy and experience it or reject it is always a superior position over not having a choice at all. And there's of course nothing hypocritical with trying to afford as much opportunity and happiness as is increasingly feasible and to strive for continuous improvement for all. Quite unlike the "kill you to save you" lunacy while maniacally babbling on about impositions to the nonexistent, with doctrinaire wishes to accomplish cult raptures regardless of how much increased savagery and suffering such madman plans would yield. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldIf it's a superior position to have the choice, then a non-existent person would have to be able to grasp the inferiority of their position. There's absolutely no way around that. Having a choice to live or die is a situation that exists, but not existing and therefore not having any choices regarding whether to live is not a situation that exists at all. Therefore, a situation that exists cannot be superior to one that doesn't and cannot exist. When you make a comparison, you have to have two different actual situations to compare (that could at least hypothetically exist in reality). A non-existent being reflecting on its lack of choice is not a situation that could obtain even in a hypothetical scenario. Does not follow. At all. The quality of a position requires no such reflection whatsoever. Much like a nonexistent being could/can't be imposed upon depending on whatever you think helps your morbidly deranged framings at any given moment. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 2:06:48 GMT
tpfkar If it's a superior position to have the choice, then a non-existent person would have to be able to grasp the inferiority of their position. There's absolutely no way around that. Having a choice to live or die is a situation that exists, but not existing and therefore not having any choices regarding whether to live is not a situation that exists at all. Therefore, a situation that exists cannot be superior to one that doesn't and cannot exist. When you make a comparison, you have to have two different actual situations to compare (that could at least hypothetically exist in reality). A non-existent being reflecting on its lack of choice is not a situation that could obtain even in a hypothetical scenario. Does not follow. At all. The quality of a position requires no such reflection whatsoever. Much like a nonexistent being could/can't be imposed upon depending on whatever you think helps your morbidly deranged framings at any given moment. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?I've never claimed that a non-existent person could be imposed upon. Impositions can only be visited upon the living, and the biggest and mother of all impositions is to force someone to live who could not possibly refuse. You can't compare how one living person would feel about being alive to how one person would feel about being non-existent, because nobody could ever be non-existent to be able to have any opinion on it.
|
|