|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 12:43:09 GMT
People often refuse to listen to comments on medical data from anyone who is not a doctor. One reason for that is of course because the doctor has first hand information. What you and they do not seem to understand is that very little of a doctor's information is first hand. Insurance companies have data from hundreds and even thousands of doctors. The state has "cause of death" data from all the doctors. Of course doctors have access to that data as well, but no longer is it "first hand" to them. In fact it's more "first hand" to the insurance companies and the state. In others words I am not impressed by your veterinarian's silly word games. A huge problem with health care politically is that so many people refuse to take advice from insurance companies "because they aren't doctor's" despite the fact the insurance companies have better information than the doctors. This might shock you but most of my close relatives work in some medical capacity or other although only one is a full doctor. We know perhaps better than others how doctors are human beings. No, they are not always the most intelligent people in the room. Often they are selfless. Often they are dedicated. Those are fine qualities that can lead to success. Not all of them are even that though. Elsewhere I said that if lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests then lumberjacks would score higher on them. I stand by that. Still I say that doctors are not the most "reasonable" or "scientific" people. I believe I can say that from good standing. In my long experience they are not good at making arguments. That's probably because they never have to make any argument. People are accustomed to take their word without question. I however am not accustomed to taking anyone's word without a healthy skepticism. I know you don't have a sense of humour, butt despite that I am going to re-tell one of my all time favourite jokes, as someone else might enjoy it. "So there was a queue of the recently deceased at the Pearly Gates, waiting for St Peter to assess their case for admission into Heaven. They had their noses pressed up against the gates searching for clues as to what Heaven was really like. Suddenly, a gaunt bearded figure appeared rushing inside the gates with long hair flowing, wearing a white coat and with a stethoscope around his neck and a biro in his top pocket, mumbling to himself and barking orders to a few unfortunate angels. One of the deceased raised up the courage to enquire of St Peter...'Who is that, St Peter?' St Peter replies...' Oh! That's God....he thinks he's a doctor'!" You told that joke before on the other board. I suppose it's a harmless enough joke, but do you know who really doesn't like it? Most good doctors.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 12:49:51 GMT
From you. We've been over this before and you actually did have a link back then. I argued successfully that the most accomplished hospitals have strong religious ties and/or dependence on religious funding. Cedar Sinai, Loma Linda, Catholic hospitals too numerous to mention. Did you know Oral Roberts founded a hospital? You argued that the AAAS was/is atheist. I asked whether anyone in the AAAS actually has a job. You still haven't answered. I think you're confusing me with someone else, and you've managed to completely change the subject from IQ and atheists/believers to something completely unrelated. The links I just provided are refuting your silly claims that the studies showing atheists have higher average IQs than believers didn't use standardized IQ tests.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 12:56:52 GMT
From you. We've been over this before and you actually did have a link back then. I argued successfully that the most accomplished hospitals have strong religious ties and/or dependence on religious funding. Cedar Sinai, Loma Linda, Catholic hospitals too numerous to mention. Did you know Oral Roberts founded a hospital? You argued that the AAAS was/is atheist. I asked whether anyone in the AAAS actually has a job. You still haven't answered. I think you're confusing me with someone else, and you've managed to completely change the subject from IQ and atheists/believers to something completely unrelated. The links I just provided are refuting your silly claims that the studies showing atheists have higher average IQs than believers didn't use standardized IQ tests. Maybe there was another before you, but you have the same problem. A "meta-analysis" (it takes less than a second to see that) is not a "standardized" intelligence test. Rather read "lumberjacks" analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 13:04:55 GMT
I think you're confusing me with someone else, and you've managed to completely change the subject from IQ and atheists/believers to something completely unrelated. The links I just provided are refuting your silly claims that the studies showing atheists have higher average IQs than believers didn't use standardized IQ tests. A "meta-analysis" (it takes less than a second to see that) is not a "standardized" intelligence test. Duh, the meta-analysis is analyzing other studies that used standardized IQ tests. They even list which ones were used in the 60-some studies they analyzed. I posted the meta-study to show that it's not just one study that shows this correlation, but most all of them. Do you really think they all had an atheist bias and/or didn't use standardized tests?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 13:57:17 GMT
A "meta-analysis" (it takes less than a second to see that) is not a "standardized" intelligence test. Duh, the meta-analysis is analyzing other studies that used standardized IQ tests. They even list which ones were used in the 60-some studies they analyzed. I posted the meta-study to show that it's not just one study that shows this correlation, but most all of them. Do you really think they all had an atheist bias and/or didn't use standardized tests? Since you would never find it yourself I'll show you the problem with that. Whose concept of "religious beliefs" are being used? Remember how I said we need to agree on a definition of terms? Every other time "religious beliefs" were found to be troublesome it was Christianity. Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists, Christians have lower incomes than atheists and on and on. I told you that Christianity is an exception, you can prove that to yourselves, even with the internet being as unreliable as it is. "Other" religions, actual religions, do not have higher divorce rates than atheists. Actual religions do not have lower incomes than atheists. The notable thing here is that atheists and Christians have more in common with each other than with any religion. This has been my main point here for two years. I suggest you use belief in a moral code like the Ten Commandments as a measure religious belief. Then you'll get the same results I have. "Christians" can be remarkably oblivious to a moral code. In Darwin's time it was at least marginally "intelligent" to believe life arose on Earth by ordinary or "natural" agencies. With each passing year and development in science the most intelligent people in that group leave. What now remains are just the severely mentally retarded.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 14:04:53 GMT
Duh, the meta-analysis is analyzing other studies that used standardized IQ tests. They even list which ones were used in the 60-some studies they analyzed. I posted the meta-study to show that it's not just one study that shows this correlation, but most all of them. Do you really think they all had an atheist bias and/or didn't use standardized tests? Since you would never find it yourself I'll show you the problem with that. Whose concept of "religious beliefs" are being used? Remember how I said we need to agree on a definition of terms? So now you've once again switched tactics from "the tests had an atheist bias" to "the tests weren't standardized IQ tests" to now "they used the wrong concept of 'religious beliefs'." I think I'm done here. Your goal-post shifting and endless ad-hoc excuses are tiring and only serve to reveal what a biased fool you are. EDIT: BTW, I know you've said before that you think Christians and atheists are more alike than not for various reasons. This really doesn't have anything to do, though, with whether or not someone believes in a God. Believing in God and identifying with any religion doesn't mean that one has to act all that differently from atheists based on that belief/identification. The issue was simply whether or not IQ correlates with belief or not. What do you plan on doing? Filtering out the believers by only leaving those with high IQs? How in the world would you filter for those having the correct beliefs, or whatever criteria you want? I suggest you use belief in a moral code like the Ten Commandments as a measure religious belief. Then you'll get the same results I have. "Christians" can be remarkably oblivious to a moral code. In Darwin's time it was at least marginally "intelligent" to believe life arose on Earth by ordinary or "natural" agencies. With each passing year and development in science the most intelligent people in that group leave. What now remains are just the severely mentally retarded. And once again with the ass-pull claims you have no evidence for. Remember how well this worked out for you last time; it took you three tries to work your way out of the hole you dug (and even then it only worked because I got tired of bopping your head back down like a whack-an-Arlon).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 17:05:21 GMT
Since you would never find it yourself I'll show you the problem with that. Whose concept of "religious beliefs" are being used? Remember how I said we need to agree on a definition of terms? So now you've once again switched tactics from "the tests had an atheist bias" to "the tests weren't standardized IQ tests" to now "they used the wrong concept of 'religious beliefs'." I think I'm done here. Your goal-post shifting and endless ad-hoc excuses are tiring and only serve to reveal what a biased fool you are. EDIT: BTW, I know you've said before that you think Christians and atheists are more alike than not for various reasons. This really doesn't have anything to do, though, with whether or not someone believes in a God. Believing in God and identifying with any religion doesn't mean that one has to act all that differently from atheists based on that belief/identification. The issue was simply whether or not IQ correlates with belief or not. What do you plan on doing? Filtering out the believers by only leaving those with high IQs? How in the world would you filter for those having the correct beliefs, or whatever criteria you want? I suggest you use belief in a moral code like the Ten Commandments as a measure religious belief. Then you'll get the same results I have. "Christians" can be remarkably oblivious to a moral code. In Darwin's time it was at least marginally "intelligent" to believe life arose on Earth by ordinary or "natural" agencies. With each passing year and development in science the most intelligent people in that group leave. What now remains are just the severely mentally retarded. And once again with the ass-pull claims you have no evidence for. Remember how well this worked out for you last time; it took you three tries to work your way out of the hole you dug (and even then it only worked because I got tired of bopping your head back down like a whack-an-Arlon). Every other time "religious beliefs" were found to be troublesome it was Christianity. Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists, Christians have lower incomes than atheists and on and on. I told you that Christianity is an exception, you can prove that to yourselves, even with the internet being as unreliable as it is. "Other" religions, actual religions, do not have higher divorce rates than atheists. Actual religions do not have lower incomes than atheists. The notable thing here is that atheists and Christians have more in common with each other than with any religion. This has been my main point here for two years. Since you believe repeating yourself means anything, I thought I'd give it a try.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 17:09:49 GMT
So now you've once again switched tactics from "the tests had an atheist bias" to "the tests weren't standardized IQ tests" to now "they used the wrong concept of 'religious beliefs'." I think I'm done here. Your goal-post shifting and endless ad-hoc excuses are tiring and only serve to reveal what a biased fool you are. EDIT: BTW, I know you've said before that you think Christians and atheists are more alike than not for various reasons. This really doesn't have anything to do, though, with whether or not someone believes in a God. Believing in God and identifying with any religion doesn't mean that one has to act all that differently from atheists based on that belief/identification. The issue was simply whether or not IQ correlates with belief or not. What do you plan on doing? Filtering out the believers by only leaving those with high IQs? How in the world would you filter for those having the correct beliefs, or whatever criteria you want? And once again with the ass-pull claims you have no evidence for. Remember how well this worked out for you last time; it took you three tries to work your way out of the hole you dug (and even then it only worked because I got tired of bopping your head back down like a whack-an-Arlon). Since you believe repeating yourself means anything, I thought I'd give it a try. The only thing from that post I'd repeated was the accusation you were ass-pulling claims. I repeated the accusation because that's what you did. When will you learn that nobody around here (except maybe Erjen) will take what you claim seriously without evidence? I offered evidence of atheists having a higher IQ than believers; now it's your turn to offer something besides your say-so.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 10, 2018 17:25:41 GMT
It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... Elsewhere I mentioned that I met smarter atheists in real life than I have here. I mentioned they did not claim to be idealistic, rather they claimed to be realistic. There's more though. The very smartest atheists (very rare) I met in real life believed that there could and should be an atheist's "ten" commandments, much like the Jewish Ten Commandments except that it would exclude any rule that a person acknowledge any god. Some of my best work on Examiner.com addressed those atheists and their ideas. I noted that failure to acknowledge a god at least by individuals in their own minds (publicly not so much necessary) left no check on the tyranny of the majority. A good argument does appear that the problems today are the result of a tyrannical (very misinformed) majority. You may disagree of course, but too many have failed science, not because they they are religious, but because they failed religion first. Science doesn't work by voting, maybe it should, but it got along rather well without voting before. Too many amateur "scientists" are voting and there is a need to correct that. I believe fear of god would give them the circumspection they lack. I'm sorry I have no experience to compare to yours with cancer. I see people on television who believe they would be in far worse condition except for medical treatments they received. They should know if anyone does I suppose. However they don't know. Medical science isn't the same as physics or chemistry, however much it employs them. It can be very difficult to tell what things would be like in other conditions we cannot test. The math strongly suggests that more "cancer" is being detected recently, but not that would have lead to death. Compare cancer "cure" rates with cancer "death" rates to see the problem. You are clearly not qualified to determine who is and who is not smart.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 10, 2018 17:29:20 GMT
It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... Elsewhere I mentioned that I met smarter atheists in real life than I have here. I mentioned they did not claim to be idealistic, rather they claimed to be realistic. There's more though. The very smartest atheists (very rare) I met in real life believed that there could and should be an atheist's "ten" commandments, much like the Jewish Ten Commandments except that it would exclude any rule that a person acknowledge any god. Some of my best work on Examiner.com addressed those atheists and their ideas. I noted that failure to acknowledge a god at least by individuals in their own minds (publicly not so much necessary) left no check on the tyranny of the majority. A good argument does appear that the problems today are the result of a tyrannical (very misinformed) majority. You may disagree of course, but too many have failed science, not because they they are religious, but because they failed religion first. Science doesn't work by voting, maybe it should, but it got along rather well without voting before. Too many amateur "scientists" are voting and there is a need to correct that. I believe fear of god would give them the circumspection they lack. I'm sorry I have no experience to compare to yours with cancer. I see people on television who believe they would be in far worse condition except for medical treatments they received. They should know if anyone does I suppose. However they don't know. Medical science isn't the same as physics or chemistry, however much it employs them. It can be very difficult to tell what things would be like in other conditions we cannot test. The math strongly suggests that more "cancer" is being detected recently, but not that would have lead to death. Compare cancer "cure" rates with cancer "death" rates to see the problem. Any chance you can link some?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 10, 2018 17:40:31 GMT
tpfkar The fact is that we cannot possibly know what happens prior or post incarnation in this life, which means your argument is predicated on there only being this life. We can't know, which makes it extremely irresponsible to gamble on someone else's behalf. We should go with what all of the evidence shows about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain, as well as what is known from unbiased observation about the nature of the material world that we, and any future generations, inhabit or will inhabit. We should go with both the evidence that this life is all there is and that people overwhelmingly prefer to have had the option, by massive margins. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 21:59:50 GMT
tpfkar By what measure could we say it was broken, if broken vs fixed is only a subjective judgement and there were no conscious minds around to cast subjective judgement? What you call 'good' is nothing but a sticking plaster solution to a problem that always lies in thread. This is so because the only way for life to evolve is for it to biologically flourish in order to pass on genetic material, and in an unintelligent universe, the only way that this can happen is for the organism to be constantly threatened with great harm. In your second paragraph, your implication is that absolutely anyone should have children if it's what they want, and there's no circumstances where it would be unwise. Such as in an impoverished African country where the parents struggle even to reliably feed and hydrate themselves, let alone any children that they may have. Or 2 parents who both carry certain genes which would very likely result in their child suffering from a terrible disability for their entire life. But according to you, even being condemned to suffer in unimaginable pain every minute of one's existence is 'winning the lottery', even if they ultimately have no choice in the situation due to being too severely disabled to commit suicide, or even express the wish to refuse nutrition and hydration. Slavery is a condition where one must maintain a burden imposed upon the individual by someone else. This is especially the case when individuals such as yourself demand that the state implement the teachings of the Catholic Church into the laws that everyone must obey, making it unnecessarily risky to commit suicide (and impossible for some, who do not have any independence or capability). Doesn't have this wonderful life stuff. Broken as sh!t. Conscious minds are around now and doing the talking so your what-ifs are pure wankadoodlery. What you call "nothing but a blah blah blah whimper" is nothing but a morbidly deranged perspective of good. A universe with no life is bad. There's no such implication about "anyone having children" from me, that's all your off-to-the-races unbridled crazy. Of the ma, pa, and kid, only the ma and pa may be inherently imposed upon, the kid's just received a wicked cool upgrade. Not concerned with your wallowing into murderous madness concerning extremes to be eliminated and things we just work on fixing. There's no burden imposed on a kid by someone else just by having the kid; that takes some kind of added psychopathy on the same plain as the "must kill you to save you" "nuke the world" homicidal maniacs. And the mentally ill and just constantly lugubrious utter cowards & narcissists shouldn't be facilitated in their patchiness but in fact treated to reduce it. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. So after taunting me over "objective morals", you're now claiming that in a universe with no life (and hence no subjective observers), the state of affairs would be objectively 'bad' and 'broken'? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/3wodnervd/weird.gif) And you've stated that there should be no encroachment on reproductive rights and that being born is never an imposition or worse than non-existent. So even if the child was severely disabled and was going to be in excruciating pain for every moment of their existence (and this was known to be a likelihood before birth) that there a)shouldn't be any recrimination of the parents in choosing that for a child; and b) the lifetime filled every moment with unbearable pain would still be infinitely superior to non-existence and not being aware of not having the opportunity to exist. The burden placed on the child is whatever adversity it will be forced to face, including the possibility of a scenario as described above wherein literally every second of the child's existence was going to be filled with pain worse than most people are capable of imagining; or even for the relatively lucky ones, the obligation to work in order to maintain the unasked existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 22:02:39 GMT
tpfkar We can't know, which makes it extremely irresponsible to gamble on someone else's behalf. We should go with what all of the evidence shows about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain, as well as what is known from unbiased observation about the nature of the material world that we, and any future generations, inhabit or will inhabit. We should go with both the evidence that this life is all there is and that people overwhelmingly prefer to have had the option, by massive margins. Does Free Will Exist?Only if the non-existent could also be surveyed and we found that the non-existent would overwhelmingly prefer to have come into existence over not having had the option. Also, even just asking those who do exist, the survey is biased by the fact that those currently existing do not have any memories of non-existence, and it's impossible to imagine what it would be like not to exist (because it wouldn't be like anything). If it was possible to make 9 people happy by torturing 1, then I suppose you think that we should do that as well.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 10, 2018 22:05:50 GMT
tpfkar It is meaningful because it demonstrates that the action of conceiving a child is initiated for the benefit of the parents (if a planned pregnancy), and not out of concern for the child who would otherwise miss out on life. The way you're leaning on "benefit", everything everyone does is ultimately for their own "benefit". People can project the spread of happiness and like it (desired for their own reasons). And once conceived, it's for the extant one (of course ultimately for their own reasons). Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 22:22:05 GMT
tpfkar It is meaningful because it demonstrates that the action of conceiving a child is initiated for the benefit of the parents (if a planned pregnancy), and not out of concern for the child who would otherwise miss out on life. The way you're leaning on "benefit", everything everyone does is ultimately for their own "benefit". People can project the spread of happiness and like it (desired for their own reasons). And once conceived, it's for the extant one (of course ultimately for their own reasons). Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceIf people think that what they're doing is spreading happiness, then they need to learn that happiness is only something that's needed as a solution to a problem, whether an imminent one or a potential one. Our minds aren't happiness factories. Evolution didn't have a guiding principle to try and maximise happiness, only to maximise genetic success. Once we find one thing that satisfies us, it makes us happy for a while, and then our happiness level restores to its normal equilibrium. Even a lot of very wealthy people who have lots of friends and family are extremely miserable, and just end up in the position where it gets harder and harder to satisfy their cravings, and they end up on a path through life of escalating risk and danger.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 10, 2018 22:26:52 GMT
tpfkar Doesn't have this wonderful life stuff. Broken as sh!t. Conscious minds are around now and doing the talking so your what-ifs are pure wankadoodlery. What you call "nothing but a blah blah blah whimper" is nothing but a morbidly deranged perspective of good. A universe with no life is bad. There's no such implication about "anyone having children" from me, that's all your off-to-the-races unbridled crazy. Of the ma, pa, and kid, only the ma and pa may be inherently imposed upon, the kid's just received a wicked cool upgrade. Not concerned with your wallowing into murderous madness concerning extremes to be eliminated and things we just work on fixing. There's no burden imposed on a kid by someone else just by having the kid; that takes some kind of added psychopathy on the same plain as the "must kill you to save you" "nuke the world" homicidal maniacs. And the mentally ill and just constantly lugubrious utter cowards & narcissists shouldn't be facilitated in their patchiness but in fact treated to reduce it. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. So after taunting me over "objective morals", you're now claiming that in a universe with no life (and hence no subjective observers), the state of affairs would be objectively 'bad' and 'broken'? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/3wodnervd/weird.gif) And you've stated that there should be no encroachment on reproductive rights and that being born is never an imposition or worse than non-existent. So even if the child was severely disabled and was going to be in excruciating pain for every moment of their existence (and this was known to be a likelihood before birth) that there a)shouldn't be any recrimination of the parents in choosing that for a child; and b) the lifetime filled every moment with unbearable pain would still be infinitely superior to non-existence and not being aware of not having the opportunity to exist. The burden placed on the child is whatever adversity it will be forced to face, including the possibility of a scenario as described above wherein literally every second of the child's existence was going to be filled with pain worse than most people are capable of imagining; or even for the relatively lucky ones, the obligation to work in order to maintain the unasked existence. Such a universe doesn't exist. And the sh!tness of a universe without life is entirely subjective, although the call made by most un- morbidly-deranged non- homicidal-maniacs. I have never in any way said there should be no encroachment on reproductive rights. Certainly any for patently psychopathic reasons would be wholly rejected. And I also never suggested every specific "existence" is infinitely preferable to nonexistence, in fact I've stated outright there are a multitude of fates worse than death. You just have a combination of crippled processing power and complete lack of integrity. We work to ameliorate extreme cases and eliminate them in the future - without the slaughterous supervillain psychopathy. It's not a burden, but a wonderful option to dance it out or leave early. They can decide for themselves once mature/competent enough to make the call. 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 11, 2018 1:16:35 GMT
I know you don't have a sense of humour, butt despite that I am going to re-tell one of my all time favourite jokes, as someone else might enjoy it. "So there was a queue of the recently deceased at the Pearly Gates, waiting for St Peter to assess their case for admission into Heaven. They had their noses pressed up against the gates searching for clues as to what Heaven was really like. Suddenly, a gaunt bearded figure appeared rushing inside the gates with long hair flowing, wearing a white coat and with a stethoscope around his neck and a biro in his top pocket, mumbling to himself and barking orders to a few unfortunate angels. One of the deceased raised up the courage to enquire of St Peter...'Who is that, St Peter?' St Peter replies...' Oh! That's God....he thinks he's a doctor'!" You told that joke before on the other board. I suppose it's a harmless enough joke, but do you know who really doesn't like it? Most good doctors. Strangely enough, I heard it from a good friend who attended a specialist medical conference and when it was told, it brought the house down with laughter and cheers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 15:27:16 GMT
tpfkar So after taunting me over "objective morals", you're now claiming that in a universe with no life (and hence no subjective observers), the state of affairs would be objectively 'bad' and 'broken'? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/3wodnervd/weird.gif) And you've stated that there should be no encroachment on reproductive rights and that being born is never an imposition or worse than non-existent. So even if the child was severely disabled and was going to be in excruciating pain for every moment of their existence (and this was known to be a likelihood before birth) that there a)shouldn't be any recrimination of the parents in choosing that for a child; and b) the lifetime filled every moment with unbearable pain would still be infinitely superior to non-existence and not being aware of not having the opportunity to exist. The burden placed on the child is whatever adversity it will be forced to face, including the possibility of a scenario as described above wherein literally every second of the child's existence was going to be filled with pain worse than most people are capable of imagining; or even for the relatively lucky ones, the obligation to work in order to maintain the unasked existence. Such a universe doesn't exist. And the sh!tness of a universe without life is entirely subjective, although the call made by most un- morbidly-deranged non- homicidal-maniacs. I have never in any way said there should be no encroachment on reproductive rights. Certainly any for patently psychopathic reasons would be wholly rejected. And I also never suggested every specific "existence" is infinitely preferable to nonexistence, in fact I've stated outright there are a multitude of fates worse than death. You just have a combination of crippled processing power and complete lack of integrity. We work to ameliorate extreme cases and eliminate them in the future - without the slaughterous supervillain psychopathy. It's not a burden, but a wonderful option to dance it out or leave early. They can decide for themselves once mature/competent enough to make the call. 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."Such a universe once existed, and may exist now (if 'now' has any meaning in relation to parallel universes). If there's nobody to subjectively judge a universe without life as being bad, then how can it be subjectively bad? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/bb9421od5/wazup.gif) Your earlier posts on this have never allowed for any possibility for the action of deliberate procreation to be irresponsible or harmful; or for the child to be anything but cock-a-hoop about having the 'wonderful choice' of suffering in unimaginable excruciating pain every moment of their life, or opting out (which likely wouldn't be an option at all for someone so severely disabled).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:08:21 GMT
tpfkar We should go with both the evidence that this life is all there is and that people overwhelmingly prefer to have had the option, by massive margins. Does Free Will Exist?Only if the non-existent could also be surveyed and we found that the non-existent would overwhelmingly prefer to have come into existence over not having had the option. Also, even just asking those who do exist, the survey is biased by the fact that those currently existing do not have any memories of non-existence, and it's impossible to imagine what it would be like not to exist (because it wouldn't be like anything). If it was possible to make 9 people happy by torturing 1, then I suppose you think that we should do that as well. Nope, nothing depends upon "the nonexistent", nor the absurd babble of "memories of nonexistence", despite your comical denials and vacillations about them. The impossibility of imagining anything is relevant to nothing. (p.i.)And I suppose you have all sorts or savage and ludicrous impulses that you freely attempt to project. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) And sorry you're feeling "taunted", btw. ![(Mozilla) Crying Face](https://s26.postimg.org/g61uxktkp/mozilla_crying-face_1f622.png) 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 11, 2018 16:14:21 GMT
tpfkar Only if the non-existent could also be surveyed and we found that the non-existent would overwhelmingly prefer to have come into existence over not having had the option. Also, even just asking those who do exist, the survey is biased by the fact that those currently existing do not have any memories of non-existence, and it's impossible to imagine what it would be like not to exist (because it wouldn't be like anything). If it was possible to make 9 people happy by torturing 1, then I suppose you think that we should do that as well. Nope, nothing depends upon "the nonexistent", nor the absurd babble of "memories of nonexistence", despite your comical denials and vacillations about them. The impossibility of imagining anything is relevant to nothing. (p.i.)And I suppose you have all sorts or savage and ludicrous impulses that you freely attempt to project. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) And sorry you're feeling "taunted", btw. ![(Mozilla) Crying Face](https://s26.postimg.org/g61uxktkp/mozilla_crying-face_1f622.png) Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.If you don't get reports from the non-existent, or at least reports about what non-existence was life from people who currently exist, then you don't have 2 different conditions to compare. There can be no attempt to compare existence to non-existence without knowing what each of them are like. You've no basis to claim that coming into existence is a great boon for all concerned. when you don't know what the alternative would have been like.
|
|