|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 2:07:45 GMT
tpfkar 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. There's no such thing as "needed" without context. Nuking the bathtub to clean up wee wee is of course the stuff of supervillain psychopaths. There's no "fix" nor "break", there's just us having an option at this super-duper upgrade / add-on, or not. And no cost for one birth need be in any way entangled with any other contemporaneous birth. And the way to reduce even your "suffering" is to continuously improve, not nuke the world back into stone-age savagery and barbarism and it's concomitantly greatly increased "suffering". 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 8, 2018 2:31:07 GMT
tpfkar 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. There's no such thing as "needed" without context. Nuking the bathtub to clean up wee wee is of course the stuff of supervillain psychopaths. There's no "fix" nor "break", there's just us having an option at this super-duper upgrade / add-on, or not. And no cost for one birth need be in any way entangled with any other contemporaneous birth. And the way to reduce even your "suffering" is to continuously improve, not nuke the world back into stone-age savagery and barbarism and it's concomitantly greatly increased "suffering". Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Before you were born, you were not in the slightest bit desirous of life, or feeling that you were missing out on anything, or eagerly anticipating whether you were going to be incarnated into a body to be able to experience existence. That's the context. If we start from the basis that everyone's wellbeing is equally important and valuable as everyone else's (which is not an unreasonable starting point), then the optimal state of the universe from a wellbeing perspective is for there to be no sentient beings under threat from harm, need or deprivation. Such a condition obtains in a barren universe. To create life in anything but an environment that is permanently free from harm or suffering is a step from a flawless state to a problematic one, unless you're arbitrarily deciding that only the people who got the long straws are worth caring about and that blind luck determines who is worthy of the benefit and whose misfortune is a price worth paying (which is basically the platform of the Republican Party in the US encapsulated in a nutshell). The only way not to bring new harmables into existence is not to allow procreation at all.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 2:31:50 GMT
tpfkar 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. You've countless times rattled on how we can't consider future joys/wishes for "the non-existent" because they are nonexistent, but must consider their future suffering/wishes, because "doom despair, agony on me". Regardless of your chagrined denials at this stage. If we talk about "creatures", then we consider all aspects of whatever hypotheticals you wish to field, also regardless of your ludicrously morbid subjective classifications of all as "imposition". And your last line is meaningless yap, as I'd not want to make any such comparison. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 3:04:55 GMT
tpfkar 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. You've countless times rattled on how we can't consider future joys/wishes for "the non-existent" because they are nonexistent, but must consider their future suffering/wishes, because "doom despair, agony on me". Regardless of your chagrined denials at this stage. If we talk about "creatures", then we consider all aspects of whatever hypotheticals you wish to field, also regardless of your ludicrously morbid subjective classifications of all as "imposition". And your last line is meaningless yap, as I'd not want to make any such comparison. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.That's not my point at all. The point is that there can be nothing wrong with not existing, whereas there can always be something wrong with existing. Since it cannot be known how much a child will suffer, or how well it will cope with suffering, then the non-aggression principle dictates that the child must not be born. Never am I taking into account the wellbeing of a non-existent person, only a person who will exist and whether there were justifiable grounds for the risk to be taken. And when you claim that it's 'better' to have the option of living or dying than not to exist and have no option, you are making a comparison. Saying that something is 'better' is always comparing it to something inferior (and in this case the thing that's allegedly inferior doesn't exist, so there can be no valid comparison drawn). That's just the definition of the word:
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 3:05:52 GMT
tpfkar There's no such thing as "needed" without context. Nuking the bathtub to clean up wee wee is of course the stuff of supervillain psychopaths. There's no "fix" nor "break", there's just us having an option at this super-duper upgrade / add-on, or not. And no cost for one birth need be in any way entangled with any other contemporaneous birth. And the way to reduce even your "suffering" is to continuously improve, not nuke the world back into stone-age savagery and barbarism and it's concomitantly greatly increased "suffering". Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Before you were born, you were not in the slightest bit desirous of life, or feeling that you were missing out on anything, or eagerly anticipating whether you were going to be incarnated into a body to be able to experience existence. That's the context. If we start from the basis that everyone's wellbeing is equally important and valuable as everyone else's (which is not an unreasonable starting point), then the optimal state of the universe from a wellbeing perspective is for there to be no sentient beings under threat from harm, need or deprivation. Such a condition obtains in a barren universe. To create life in anything but an environment that is permanently free from harm or suffering is a step from a flawless state to a problematic one, unless you're arbitrarily deciding that only the people who got the long straws are worth caring about and that blind luck determines who is worthy of the benefit and whose misfortune is a price worth paying (which is basically the platform of the Republican Party in the US encapsulated in a nutshell). The only way not to bring new harmables into existence is not to allow procreation at all. The truism that the nonexistent can't feel anything is relevant only to psychopathic supervillian types. In such a context nothing is "needed" nor not "needed", so it is also wholly irrelevant. There is no Watcher for "everyone's" wellbeing to be as important as any others and it is pretty obvious that the importance of any particular creature's wellbeing only exists within the context of an individual's subjective, however widely that context and evaluation may or may not be shared with others. There is no such thing as an "optimal state of the universe" for anyone other than the religious. Likewise for your "flawless" paradise. The "long straws" are the lottery wins of the option to give this blast a shot or reject it. The way to deal is to have universal healthcare and increasing services and the like to make sure all are cared for, definitely not your typically ludicrous comparison to the GOP with whom you share both hopes for their leader and their general megalomaniacal derangements, bellicose attitudes, and immigrant bugabooing & baiting. 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
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 3:15:37 GMT
tpfkar Before you were born, you were not in the slightest bit desirous of life, or feeling that you were missing out on anything, or eagerly anticipating whether you were going to be incarnated into a body to be able to experience existence. That's the context. If we start from the basis that everyone's wellbeing is equally important and valuable as everyone else's (which is not an unreasonable starting point), then the optimal state of the universe from a wellbeing perspective is for there to be no sentient beings under threat from harm, need or deprivation. Such a condition obtains in a barren universe. To create life in anything but an environment that is permanently free from harm or suffering is a step from a flawless state to a problematic one, unless you're arbitrarily deciding that only the people who got the long straws are worth caring about and that blind luck determines who is worthy of the benefit and whose misfortune is a price worth paying (which is basically the platform of the Republican Party in the US encapsulated in a nutshell). The only way not to bring new harmables into existence is not to allow procreation at all. The truism that the nonexistent can't feel anything is relevant only to psychopathic supervillian types. In such a context nothing is "needed" nor not "needed", so it is also wholly irrelevant. There is no Watcher for "everyone's" wellbeing to be as important as any others and it is pretty obvious that the importance of any particular creature's wellbeing only exists within the context of an individual's subjective, however widely that context and evaluation may or may not be shared with others. There is no such thing as an "optimal state of the universe" for anyone other than the religious. Likewise for your "flawless" paradise. The "long straws" are the lottery wins of the option to give this blast a shot or reject it. The way to deal is to have universal healthcare and increasing services and the like to make sure all are cared for, definitely not your typically ludicrous comparison to the GOP with whom you share both hopes for their leader and their general megalomaniacal derangements, bellicose attitudes, and immigrant bugabooing & baiting. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.Nothing is needed and there's nothing to be fixed. When parents decide to have a child, they can't be making that decision in the interests of the child, because if they didn't have the child, there would be no child that they were letting down. If there are no conscious entities, including observers in a universe, then there can be no flaws. There can't be anyone in need of rescuing. I meant optimal in the sense of lack of problems to be perceived in need of fixing. In a barren universe there aren't any problems going unsolved. As for the GOP, that was a mild comparison. Your attitude is actually more akin to the justification of slavery. Why worry about all the black people who are being forced to work against their will and without pay? Why not focus on all the white people who are having a great time, aided by economic benefits of slavery? In both cases, the subjugated class is separated from the oppressing class only by something that was determined by lottery of birth, and yet is used as a justification for accepting the divergence in outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 3:17:00 GMT
tpfkar You've countless times rattled on how we can't consider future joys/wishes for "the non-existent" because they are nonexistent, but must consider their future suffering/wishes, because "doom despair, agony on me". Regardless of your chagrined denials at this stage. If we talk about "creatures", then we consider all aspects of whatever hypotheticals you wish to field, also regardless of your ludicrously morbid subjective classifications of all as "imposition". And your last line is meaningless yap, as I'd not want to make any such comparison. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.That's not my point at all. The point is that there can be nothing wrong with not existing, whereas there can always be something wrong with existing. Since it cannot be known how much a child will suffer, or how well it will cope with suffering, then the non-aggression principle dictates that the child must not be born. Never am I taking into account the wellbeing of a non-existent person, only a person who will exist and whether there were justifiable grounds for the risk to be taken. And when you claim that it's 'better' to have the option of living or dying than not to exist and have no option, you are making a comparison. Saying that something is 'better' is always comparing it to something inferior (and in this case the thing that's allegedly inferior doesn't exist, so there can be no valid comparison drawn). That's just the definition of the word: Nor is there anything "right". And with existing there can and be many things that are "right". Your version of "non-aggression principle" is something you read on the back of your Orwell Rangers Decoder Ring box. Gifting the option to experience life or reject it is neither aggression nor imposition. "Will exist" == nonexistent, regardless of how far down the crazy hole you are. If you want to consider "will exist", then we consider all aspects, not just your maniacal worship of suffering. And I made no comparison to how any person would feel about being nonexistent. Preferring to have had the option over not having it is just that, and a preference that any can and most do actually have. They may or may not then go on to prefer existence or nonexistence. 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 3:28:36 GMT
tpfkar That's not my point at all. The point is that there can be nothing wrong with not existing, whereas there can always be something wrong with existing. Since it cannot be known how much a child will suffer, or how well it will cope with suffering, then the non-aggression principle dictates that the child must not be born. Never am I taking into account the wellbeing of a non-existent person, only a person who will exist and whether there were justifiable grounds for the risk to be taken. And when you claim that it's 'better' to have the option of living or dying than not to exist and have no option, you are making a comparison. Saying that something is 'better' is always comparing it to something inferior (and in this case the thing that's allegedly inferior doesn't exist, so there can be no valid comparison drawn). That's just the definition of the word: Nor is there anything "right". And with existing there can and be many things that are "right". Your version of "non-aggression principle" is something you read on the back of your Orwell Rangers Decoder Ring box. Gifting the option to experience life or reject it is neither aggression nor imposition. "Will exist" == nonexistent, regardless of how far down the crazy hole you are. If you want to consider "will exist", then we consider all aspects, not just your maniacal worship of suffering. And I made no comparison to how any person would feel about being nonexistent. Preferring to have had the option over not having it is just that, and a preference that any can and most do actually have. They may or may not then go on to prefer existence or nonexistence. 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."If there's nothing wrong, then nothing needs to be made right. And you can only have 'right' if there is possibility of 'wrong'. And if you say that it's not important to consider the welfare of those who don't yet exist, then you're condoning all manner of recklessness with regards to the environment, sociopolitical issues, etc. Someone who will exist is going to have to be burdened by an imposed existence which was chosen for them without their consent. When you are dead and no longer exist, you will not have any preference for having existed over having never been born. Whether most people do go on to prefer existing does not justify allowing those to come into existence who feel burdened by their existence. If the welfare of black people is equally important to that of white people, then we can't wave away slavery as though it wasn't important because it was only happening to a minority (and a minority which was characterised by lottery of birth, at that) and the majority in that society were not slaves and even benefited from slavery. It's no different here. Some people are born to be collateral damage, whilst others are born to reap all the benefits. And it's a lottery which determines who will fall into which group. You can only say 'the suffering of the minority doesn't matter, because most people are happy' from the secure perspective of someone who was born with a good measure of luck and looks set to retain that luck. Whereas if you didn't know coming into it what luck you were going to have, but were able to make a decision about whether or not to be born, you might determine that the risks weren't worth it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 8, 2018 3:29:27 GMT
tpfkar The truism that the nonexistent can't feel anything is relevant only to psychopathic supervillian types. In such a context nothing is "needed" nor not "needed", so it is also wholly irrelevant. There is no Watcher for "everyone's" wellbeing to be as important as any others and it is pretty obvious that the importance of any particular creature's wellbeing only exists within the context of an individual's subjective, however widely that context and evaluation may or may not be shared with others. There is no such thing as an "optimal state of the universe" for anyone other than the religious. Likewise for your "flawless" paradise. The "long straws" are the lottery wins of the option to give this blast a shot or reject it. The way to deal is to have universal healthcare and increasing services and the like to make sure all are cared for, definitely not your typically ludicrous comparison to the GOP with whom you share both hopes for their leader and their general megalomaniacal derangements, bellicose attitudes, and immigrant bugabooing & baiting. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.Nothing is needed and there's nothing to be fixed. When parents decide to have a child, they can't be making that decision in the interests of the child, because if they didn't have the child, there would be no child that they were letting down. If there are no conscious entities, including observers in a universe, then there can be no flaws. There can't be anyone in need of rescuing. I meant optimal in the sense of lack of problems to be perceived in need of fixing. In a barren universe there aren't any problems going unsolved. As for the GOP, that was a mild comparison. Your attitude is actually more akin to the justification of slavery. Why worry about all the black people who are being forced to work against their will and without pay? Why not focus on all the white people who are having a great time, aided by economic benefits of slavery? In both cases, the subjugated class is separated from the oppressing class only by something that was determined by lottery of birth, and yet is used as a justification for accepting the divergence in outcomes. Nothing is not needed and there's nothing to be broken. Likewise by your reasoning parents can't make a decision against the interests of the nonexistent child. And you said both "optimal state" and "flawless', both nonsensical religious ideas and nothing but subjective when contemplated at all. As for the GOP silly it was just another of your many ludicrous projections of your own characteristics. And now that you're mining blacks again, I wonder what shrill gushes of nonsense you'll shriek out next? Here it is again for you Lex - we work on everybody having a better time. Having kids is not "subjugating" as a rule. It's setting them up for the option to have a blast or opt out. And man do they have blasts. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 1:02:33 GMT
tpfkar Nothing is needed and there's nothing to be fixed. When parents decide to have a child, they can't be making that decision in the interests of the child, because if they didn't have the child, there would be no child that they were letting down. If there are no conscious entities, including observers in a universe, then there can be no flaws. There can't be anyone in need of rescuing. I meant optimal in the sense of lack of problems to be perceived in need of fixing. In a barren universe there aren't any problems going unsolved. As for the GOP, that was a mild comparison. Your attitude is actually more akin to the justification of slavery. Why worry about all the black people who are being forced to work against their will and without pay? Why not focus on all the white people who are having a great time, aided by economic benefits of slavery? In both cases, the subjugated class is separated from the oppressing class only by something that was determined by lottery of birth, and yet is used as a justification for accepting the divergence in outcomes. Nothing is not needed and there's nothing to be broken. Likewise by your reasoning parents can't make a decision against the interests of the nonexistent child. And you said both "optimal state" and "flawless', both nonsensical religious ideas and nothing but subjective when contemplated at all. As for the GOP silly it was just another of your many ludicrous projections of your own characteristics. And now that you're mining blacks again, I wonder what shrill gushes of nonsense you'll shriek out next? Here it is again for you Lex - we work on everybody having a better time. Having kids is not "subjugating" as a rule. It's setting them up for the option to have a blast or opt out. And man do they have blasts. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Right, before sentient life there was nothing to be broken in the universe. Since sentient life has existed, there has always been some kind of grievous harm to be avoided, and a threat of suffering that motivates living creaturs to pass on their genetic material. There's no benefit to anyone other than the parents in taking the deliberate action to bring a new life into existence. When the new life becomes extant, it becomes burdened with the millstone that the parents decided needed to be hung around the neck of someone who couldn't refuse consent, in order that the parents can get what they want out of life. So far, there are no credible proposals on how to make human life work without the need to have the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) slaves toiling away and being brutalised on the plantation. So as far as can be projected into the future, the 'better time' is still always going to come at the expense of some people and some animals. The only point that you're making is that it appears to you that the slaves are in the minority, and therefore their suffering is a price worth paying for your happiness. To have children is to create slaves to your desires. As much of a 'blast' as you're having now, you wouldn't have missed a single minute of it had you not been born, nor will you miss any of it once you have died.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 9, 2018 1:45:14 GMT
tpfkar Nor is there anything "right". And with existing there can and be many things that are "right". Your version of "non-aggression principle" is something you read on the back of your Orwell Rangers Decoder Ring box. Gifting the option to experience life or reject it is neither aggression nor imposition. "Will exist" == nonexistent, regardless of how far down the crazy hole you are. If you want to consider "will exist", then we consider all aspects, not just your maniacal worship of suffering. And I made no comparison to how any person would feel about being nonexistent. Preferring to have had the option over not having it is just that, and a preference that any can and most do actually have. They may or may not then go on to prefer existence or nonexistence. 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."If there's nothing wrong, then nothing needs to be made right. And you can only have 'right' if there is possibility of 'wrong'. And if you say that it's not important to consider the welfare of those who don't yet exist, then you're condoning all manner of recklessness with regards to the environment, sociopolitical issues, etc. Someone who will exist is going to have to be burdened by an imposed existence which was chosen for them without their consent. When you are dead and no longer exist, you will not have any preference for having existed over having never been born. Whether most people do go on to prefer existing does not justify allowing those to come into existence who feel burdened by their existence. If the welfare of black people is equally important to that of white people, then we can't wave away slavery as though it wasn't important because it was only happening to a minority (and a minority which was characterised by lottery of birth, at that) and the majority in that society were not slaves and even benefited from slavery. It's no different here. Some people are born to be collateral damage, whilst others are born to reap all the benefits. And it's a lottery which determines who will fall into which group. You can only say 'the suffering of the minority doesn't matter, because most people are happy' from the secure perspective of someone who was born with a good measure of luck and looks set to retain that luck. Whereas if you didn't know coming into it what luck you were going to have, but were able to make a decision about whether or not to be born, you might determine that the risks weren't worth it. Sorry, having kids having a blast is a whole lot of right! Possibility of wrong is A-OK, except to the religious in search of their deranged ideas of Perfection. And ok now, are you or are you not considering "welfare" and "consent" of the nonexistent. And again, we raise things for all. Even for the crazy as much as we can. Life itself is not slavery except maybe to you massively hypocritical alt-righters ever trying to minimize slavery & racism. Existence is winning the lottery of getting the option. Everybody's suffering matters and we do what we can to continuously reduce it, in a large part by not following you crazies' desires to have your boy in the WH nuke things back into the massively-increased savagery & suffering of a new Stone Age. And just make the call on your life. Because as you might know, deep down, thoughts of what you might determine while nonexistent is pure boobats. And peoples "preferences" not had when dead remains the concern of deranged! psychopathic supervillain types. 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 gadreel on Jan 9, 2018 1:57:37 GMT
It seems to me (and sorry but I am not reading through pages of this to find out if you have given thought to it) that you are precluding the possiblity of there being a life other than this. Is that the case? EDIT: Apologies for the formatting had issues getting this to display the quote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 2:23:01 GMT
It seems to me (and sorry but I am not reading through pages of this to find out if you have given thought to it) that you are precluding the possiblity of there being a life other than this. Is that the case? EDIT: Apologies for the formatting had issues getting this to display the quote. There's absolutely no reason to believe that there is a life other than this (given that it has been observed that consciousness relies on a healthy and live brain, and when the brain decays such as with Alzheimer's patients, the quality of consciousness is severely diminished); but even if there is, there's no reason to suppose that it is specially designed to make us happy and isn't just more drudgery like this life, or worse, some kind of eternal torture.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jan 9, 2018 2:55:36 GMT
you mean like this thread? seriously guys this is 26 pages of you two going at it hammer and tongs!
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jan 9, 2018 4:14:10 GMT
you mean like this thread? seriously guys this is 26 pages of you two going at it hammer and tongs! They’re just jerking each other off. Don’t judge them, just let them do their thing.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 9, 2018 4:50:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jan 9, 2018 5:02:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 9, 2018 8:16:42 GMT
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting in it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting in it forever just because this is the thread that never ends...
(with all due respect to Shari Lewis)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 8:39:44 GMT
tpfkar If there's nothing wrong, then nothing needs to be made right. And you can only have 'right' if there is possibility of 'wrong'. And if you say that it's not important to consider the welfare of those who don't yet exist, then you're condoning all manner of recklessness with regards to the environment, sociopolitical issues, etc. Someone who will exist is going to have to be burdened by an imposed existence which was chosen for them without their consent. When you are dead and no longer exist, you will not have any preference for having existed over having never been born. Whether most people do go on to prefer existing does not justify allowing those to come into existence who feel burdened by their existence. If the welfare of black people is equally important to that of white people, then we can't wave away slavery as though it wasn't important because it was only happening to a minority (and a minority which was characterised by lottery of birth, at that) and the majority in that society were not slaves and even benefited from slavery. It's no different here. Some people are born to be collateral damage, whilst others are born to reap all the benefits. And it's a lottery which determines who will fall into which group. You can only say 'the suffering of the minority doesn't matter, because most people are happy' from the secure perspective of someone who was born with a good measure of luck and looks set to retain that luck. Whereas if you didn't know coming into it what luck you were going to have, but were able to make a decision about whether or not to be born, you might determine that the risks weren't worth it. Sorry, having kids having a blast is a whole lot of right! Possibility of wrong is A-OK, except to the religious in search of their deranged ideas of Perfection. And ok now, are you or are you not considering "welfare" and "consent" of the nonexistent. And again, we raise things for all. Even for the crazy as much as we can. Life itself is not slavery except maybe to you massively hypocritical alt-righters ever trying to minimize slavery & racism. Existence is winning the lottery of getting the option. Everybody's suffering matters and we do what we can to continuously reduce it, in a large part by not following you crazies' desires to have your boy in the WH nuke things back into the massively-increased savagery & suffering of a new Stone Age. And just make the call on your life. Because as you might know, deep down, thoughts of what you might determine while nonexistent is pure boobats. And peoples "preferences" not had when dead remains the concern of deranged! psychopathic supervillain types. 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."There's no need for the 'right' without creating the wrong first. The 'right' is for the selfish benefit of the people bringing children into existence. I'm not considering the welfare or consent of non-existent people. The moment that someone's desire results in a new sentient life being born is the point where an imposition and violation of consent occurs. Whereas the natalist argument makes no sense unless it is presupposed that there are non-existent people with desires to be brought into existence. I don't know if it's possible to do the 'homo sapiens' thing (or any other sentient animal life) without the necessity to have the slaves (metaphorical and sometimes literal) toiling away on the plantation under brutal conditions. None of your panglossian assertions of 'having a blast' or 'getting better and better' diminishes the fact that the creation of life is a creation of need. It also cannot be the lottery to be brought into existence, because if that were true, then some people would have to be aware of having lost the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 9, 2018 11:52:28 GMT
tpfkar Nothing is not needed and there's nothing to be broken. Likewise by your reasoning parents can't make a decision against the interests of the nonexistent child. And you said both "optimal state" and "flawless', both nonsensical religious ideas and nothing but subjective when contemplated at all. As for the GOP silly it was just another of your many ludicrous projections of your own characteristics. And now that you're mining blacks again, I wonder what shrill gushes of nonsense you'll shriek out next? Here it is again for you Lex - we work on everybody having a better time. Having kids is not "subjugating" as a rule. It's setting them up for the option to have a blast or opt out. And man do they have blasts. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Right, before sentient life there was nothing to be broken in the universe. Since sentient life has existed, there has always been some kind of grievous harm to be avoided, and a threat of suffering that motivates living creaturs to pass on their genetic material. There's no benefit to anyone other than the parents in taking the deliberate action to bring a new life into existence. When the new life becomes extant, it becomes burdened with the millstone that the parents decided needed to be hung around the neck of someone who couldn't refuse consent, in order that the parents can get what they want out of life. So far, there are no credible proposals on how to make human life work without the need to have the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) slaves toiling away and being brutalised on the plantation. So as far as can be projected into the future, the 'better time' is still always going to come at the expense of some people and some animals. The only point that you're making is that it appears to you that the slaves are in the minority, and therefore their suffering is a price worth paying for your happiness. To have children is to create slaves to your desires. As much of a 'blast' as you're having now, you wouldn't have missed a single minute of it had you not been born, nor will you miss any of it once you have died. By the exact same measure we could say it was massively broken as there was nothing "fixed" in the universe. All (in your case morbidly, lugubriously, comically) highly subjective, although one that is widely shared. There is "harm" and great good. And now, the desire for the great times and enjoyment that greatly surpass the negatives, at least for those not built on the extremes of religious perfection. There's no negative to anyone other than potentially the parents in f!cking. However, when a life becomes extant, then that life is gifted with wondrous opportunities for great things that they can choose to experience or reject. Parents are ultimately the benefactors for these great times. And your ludicrously Arlorwellian repurposing of "slavery" is just as deranged as your many other gross abuses of language (and reason, comity, basic sense, etc.). Simple comparisons of what we have now to the past leads many to believe most work will become unnecessary, much less the actual slavery and dreams of mass homicide carried out by sociopaths of one stripe or another. You can rattle stupid with your deranged "dead can't hurt" truisms and your twitted "slavery" and "GOP" comparisons that apply more to you than most all your nonsensical hysterical little heart desires to, it will just be laughed at. 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."
|
|