Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 12:02:24 GMT
tpfkar The opening statement doesn't support your cause. When there is nobody in need of anything, whether that's a benefit or the staving off of harm, then there are no problems which need to be solved. At the inception of the universe, there was no sentient life, and that wasn't a problem for anyone. Nobody missed out on any of the purported benefits or 'blasts' of the life of a human being. The link that I posted does support the idea that having children isn't the panacea for the feeling of being unfulfilled that the OP expressed. I wasn't justifying my case solely on that evidence however, because frankly no matter what's in it for the parents, it should not be deemed permissible to take those unnecessary risks on behalf of someone who cannot consent. The link was only really intended to console the OP that they might not be missing out on anything so wonderful after all. It supports upending your one-sided morbid analysis, it's only point. There's no nothing for the nonexistent, or if you need to pretend religious pretend then both the potential benefit/harm must both be analyzed, if one is actually at all interested in rational. The link was provided for you to try to leave the impression that people who had children were less happy in the general sense, not because of regressive policies of some states. Nobody said anything on "solely", which is another irrelevancy, and you haven't sanely "justified" anything, from your freakishly morbid slants, to losing aversion to rape when one's unconscious, to your advocacy of mass murder by Trump and your putting your own narcissism above the manifold increase in overall suffering such psychopathic barbarity would entail. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The study ignores the sociological factors which underpin why some people might not have children, and yet in most of the nations, the people who have children are still no happier and usually unhappier than those who don't have children. In all but 1 of the 8 nations wherein there is a happiness benefit associated with having children, the effect is less than 5%. And considering that most people who have a strong desire to have children will likely go on to have them, it doesn't say anything much for the actual value of the benefit. It would be interesting if they did a study on parents who have a child with low functioning autism, and compared them to the childless. Even if having children lead to an almost guarantee happiness boost, that still would not justify the unnecessary gamble that is taken with the wellbeing of another person. And no, it is not necessary to consider anything for the non-existent, only for the people who do exist and are harmed because of an unnecessary decision made on their behalf vs a scenario where there is no harm being caused and there are no problems needing to be solved.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:05:25 GMT
tpfkar Yes, of course humanity ought to be ended. The reason why I'm stressing that there's no reason or purpose is because there's no moral authority that gives validation of what we're doing here. There's nobody who ultimately ensures that the rules of the game are fair. It's understandable why theists want to believe that there is an objective authority who has deemed life 'fit for purpose' and who dispenses out justice in the afterlife. Are there any benefits that you enjoy for being alive that you feel that you would miss had you never been born? I think that anyone who wants euthanasia or assisted suicide should have a right to it. If there is a right to live, then there should be the right not to live; otherwise we're really dressing up an obligation as a 'right'. The reason that the right to die doesn't currently exist is because 'pro-lifers' take the suffering of the most unfortunate as validation of the value of their own existence (or 'sanctity of life'). And what we've always had are people (martyrs sacrificed for a cause that they don't support and want nothing to do with) who are suffering far more intensely, and for far longer than Christ allegedly suffered on the cross. Sorry the boss god you desperately crave just does not exit. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) The reason that the suicide pills at the drug store that you advocate aren;t there is because we as a whole wish to protect mad bombers and toddlers and other deranged/less reasoned from their rashness, derangements, incapacities, etc. Regardless of your mirror image religion wish to purify the world at the altar of your sacred suffering. 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 Dec 15, 2017 12:10:03 GMT
Thanks for your post. But it really isn't the issue whether or not it confers a benefit upon the parent to have children, it's whether it should be deemed morally permissible to gamble with someone else's welfare without necessity. The link that I posted was really only to try and reassure the OP that many people without children are at least as happy, or even happier than those with children, and that the drive to procreate is really a trick that our genetic programming plays on us. I probably should have made it clear that I was only trying to console the OP with that link, rather than resting my entire case on that. Kids really aren't an option for me, as I'm homosexual. If you read on a little further down the thread, I do point out that the people less likely to have children are likely to be the type of people who are dealing with adverse sociological factors themselves than those who have kids, which makes it more remarkable that in most nations, having kids incurs a happiness deficit. Even the nations where there is a happiness benefit (8 out of a total 22), this is small, and in only 1 nation out of the 22 reported upon does it exceed 5%. I wonder what the stats would be for parents of children with low-functioning autism, or other severe disabilities, but I guess that all parents just assume that the bad things won't happen to them and their children, it only other happens to other people (Google 'optimism bias'). What you're saying is valid only if we completely ignore the unnecessary risks that are imposed upon the child when 2 people give in to their biological or socially programmed desires to pass on their genetic material. If you're going to wait till you're not 'gambling with someone else's welfare' before you have kids, nobody would ever have kids. You can never guarantee safety or happiness to anyone. But I do agree that it's not smart to have kids just to save a relationship or in a misguided selfish attempt to make yourself happier. If you're having trouble paying your bills and satisfying basic needs (food, shelter, clothing), don't have kids.
I think I see what you were saying and and I agree. I do believe that nobody should ever have kids. I'm an antinatalist, and as an atheist I can't see what problem giving birth to someone solves on the part of the person who is coming into existence and would otherwise not exist. All I can see are selfish and social justifications for the act. Even kids born into a family that is financially and emotionally stable, then that still leaves open the risk to all kinds of nasty harms. Little trap doors hidden under the surface of life, that can maim people indiscriminately. They could be disabled, they might end up abusing drugs, may end up with cancer, may end up unemployed and on the streets, may end up with mental illness, etc.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:12:04 GMT
tpfkar It supports upending your one-sided morbid analysis, it's only point. There's no nothing for the nonexistent, or if you need to pretend religious pretend then both the potential benefit/harm must both be analyzed, if one is actually at all interested in rational. The link was provided for you to try to leave the impression that people who had children were less happy in the general sense, not because of regressive policies of some states. Nobody said anything on "solely", which is another irrelevancy, and you haven't sanely "justified" anything, from your freakishly morbid slants, to losing aversion to rape when one's unconscious, to your advocacy of mass murder by Trump and your putting your own narcissism above the manifold increase in overall suffering such psychopathic barbarity would entail. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The study ignores the sociological factors which underpin why some people might not have children, and yet in most of the nations, the people who have children are still no happier and usually unhappier than those who don't have children. In all but 1 of the 8 nations wherein there is a happiness benefit associated with having children, the effect is less than 5%. And considering that most people who have a strong desire to have children will likely go on to have them, it doesn't say anything much for the actual value of the benefit. It would be interesting if they did a study on parents who have a child with low functioning autism, and compared them to the childless. Even if having children lead to an almost guarantee happiness boost, that still would not justify the unnecessary gamble that is taken with the wellbeing of another person. And no, it is not necessary to consider anything for the non-existent, only for the people who do exist and are harmed because of an unnecessary decision made on their behalf vs a scenario where there is no harm being caused and there are no problems needing to be solved. "It wasn't all bad: in the top eight ranked countries – Portugal, Hungary, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France and Russia – parents reported being happier than non-parents.
But that left 14 countries where the childless were happier than those with kids.
So what accounted for the happiness gap? Co-author of the study and professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Jennifer Glass, wrote that what they found "astonishing" was that their data provided a clear and simple answer.
"The negative effects of parenthood on happiness were entirely explained by the presence or absence of social policies allowing parents to better combine paid work with family obligations," she reported.
"And this was true for both mothers and fathers. Countries with better family policy 'packages' had no happiness gap between parents and non-parents."It's not a "gamble" taken on wellbeing. As you say (at this time, out this side of your mouth), there is no consideration of the nonexistent. It's just more of your silly morbid framing in the attempt to support your desire to end the world via Trump apocalypse. And you keep harming people every day via your continued base and selfish use of infrastructure. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/py0f8ura1/sad.gif) For the aesthetics, yes. I have even stayed for 2 religious services that happened to have been occurring. They have all been Christian churches, though. I would not turn down an opportunity to visit a mosque to see the brown men in the funny white robes carrying our one of their daily genuflections, but alas, that isn't an option that often presents itself. I did miss out on a mosque open day for curious white people in recent years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 12:18:41 GMT
tpfkar The study ignores the sociological factors which underpin why some people might not have children, and yet in most of the nations, the people who have children are still no happier and usually unhappier than those who don't have children. In all but 1 of the 8 nations wherein there is a happiness benefit associated with having children, the effect is less than 5%. And considering that most people who have a strong desire to have children will likely go on to have them, it doesn't say anything much for the actual value of the benefit. It would be interesting if they did a study on parents who have a child with low functioning autism, and compared them to the childless. Even if having children lead to an almost guarantee happiness boost, that still would not justify the unnecessary gamble that is taken with the wellbeing of another person. And no, it is not necessary to consider anything for the non-existent, only for the people who do exist and are harmed because of an unnecessary decision made on their behalf vs a scenario where there is no harm being caused and there are no problems needing to be solved. "It wasn't all bad: in the top eight ranked countries – Portugal, Hungary, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France and Russia – parents reported being happier than non-parents.
But that left 14 countries where the childless were happier than those with kids.
So what accounted for the happiness gap? Co-author of the study and professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Jennifer Glass, wrote that what they found "astonishing" was that their data provided a clear and simple answer.
"The negative effects of parenthood on happiness were entirely explained by the presence or absence of social policies allowing parents to better combine paid work with family obligations," she reported.
"And this was true for both mothers and fathers. Countries with better family policy 'packages' had no happiness gap between parents and non-parents."It's not a "gamble" taken on wellbeing. As you say (at this time, out this side of your mouth), there is no consideration of the nonexistent. It's just more of your silly morbid framing in the attempt to support your desire to end the world via Trump apocalypse. And you keep harming people every day via your continued base and selfish use of infrastructure. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/py0f8ura1/sad.gif) For the aesthetics, yes. I have even stayed for 2 religious services that happened to have been occurring. They have all been Christian churches, though. I would not turn down an opportunity to visit a mosque to see the brown men in the funny white robes carrying our one of their daily genuflections, but alas, that isn't an option that often presents itself. I did miss out on a mosque open day for curious white people in recent years.I never stated that there was any gamble taken on the part of the non-existent, or that the wellbeing of the nonexistent was worth taking into consideration. It's a gamble taken for someone who will come into existence (if the gamble is permitted to occur) for a purported benefit that would not have been missed had the gamble not been allowed to take place. And I commit harm to others via my use of infrastructure, because it was determined on my behalf that I would be brought into existence; and also determined on my behalf that it would not be made easy for me to surcease the burden that my existence imposes. And if my continued existence contributes towards spreading the cause of antinatalism, then I would say that I've added more value than I've taken away.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:25:49 GMT
tpfkar "It wasn't all bad: in the top eight ranked countries – Portugal, Hungary, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France and Russia – parents reported being happier than non-parents.
But that left 14 countries where the childless were happier than those with kids.
So what accounted for the happiness gap? Co-author of the study and professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Jennifer Glass, wrote that what they found "astonishing" was that their data provided a clear and simple answer.
"The negative effects of parenthood on happiness were entirely explained by the presence or absence of social policies allowing parents to better combine paid work with family obligations," she reported.
"And this was true for both mothers and fathers. Countries with better family policy 'packages' had no happiness gap between parents and non-parents."It's not a "gamble" taken on wellbeing. As you say (at this time, out this side of your mouth), there is no consideration of the nonexistent. It's just more of your silly morbid framing in the attempt to support your desire to end the world via Trump apocalypse. And you keep harming people every day via your continued base and selfish use of infrastructure. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/py0f8ura1/sad.gif) For the aesthetics, yes. I have even stayed for 2 religious services that happened to have been occurring. They have all been Christian churches, though. I would not turn down an opportunity to visit a mosque to see the brown men in the funny white robes carrying our one of their daily genuflections, but alas, that isn't an option that often presents itself. I did miss out on a mosque open day for curious white people in recent years. I never stated that there was any gamble taken on the part of the non-existent, or that the wellbeing of the nonexistent was worth taking into consideration. It's a gamble taken for someone who will come into existence (if the gamble is permitted to occur) for a purported benefit that would not have been missed had the gamble not been allowed to take place. And I commit harm to others via my use of infrastructure, because it was determined on my behalf that I would be brought into existence; and also determined on my behalf that it would not be made easy for me to surcease the burden that my existence imposes. And if my continued existence contributes towards spreading the cause of antinatalism, then I would say that I've added more value than I've taken away. Of course you did. If it's on the extant, then doing everything to make them thrive is much less "gamble" than extermination, obviously. And jesus, you can't even manage to be coherent for a single para. "Will come into existence" is nonexistence. But again if you want play pretend, then yes we can consider what a projected being will want. Like I said before, if you really wanted to promote antinatalism, you'd snap back to your previous position of glorifying procreation via sappy 70s songs. 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 Dec 15, 2017 12:31:31 GMT
tpfkar I never stated that there was any gamble taken on the part of the non-existent, or that the wellbeing of the nonexistent was worth taking into consideration. It's a gamble taken for someone who will come into existence (if the gamble is permitted to occur) for a purported benefit that would not have been missed had the gamble not been allowed to take place. And I commit harm to others via my use of infrastructure, because it was determined on my behalf that I would be brought into existence; and also determined on my behalf that it would not be made easy for me to surcease the burden that my existence imposes. And if my continued existence contributes towards spreading the cause of antinatalism, then I would say that I've added more value than I've taken away. Of course you did. If it's on the extant, then doing everything to make them thrive is much less "gamble" than extermination, obviously. And jesus, you can't even manage to be coherent for a single para. "Will come into existence" is nonexistence. But again if you want play pretend, then yes we can consider what a projected being will want. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Going on that reasoning, nobody should be worried about global warming or planning for the future of the human race. The people who will be affected the most don't exist yet, and since it's irrational to consider the wellbeing of those who presently don't exist, it would be irrational to take any steps to ensure that the future generations will inherit a sustainable environment and economy.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:34:49 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 12:36:47 GMT
So you're saying that we ought to be considering the wellbeing of the non-existent after all?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:39:14 GMT
tpfkar So you're saying that we ought to be considering the wellbeing of the non-existent after all? No, as I've said a gazbijillion times, you have to argue coherently. If you want to consider the projected futures of the nonexistent we can. Most humans are perfectly capable of such thought exercises. If not, you can't consider only the aspects dear to your morbidity, but in fact all aspects of it. 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 Dec 15, 2017 12:40:58 GMT
tpfkar So you're saying that we ought to be considering the wellbeing of the non-existent after all? No, as I've said a gazbijillion times, you have to argue coherently. If you want to consider the projected futures of the nonexistent we can. Most humans are perfectly capable of such thought exercises. If not, you can't consider only the aspects dear to your morbidity, but in fact all aspects of it. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I have been arguing coherently. I want to consider the projected futures of those who currently don't exist, but will exist in the future (specifically whether this represents a needed benefit over a scenario in which they do not come into existence).
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 12:42:18 GMT
If you're going to wait till you're not 'gambling with someone else's welfare' before you have kids, nobody would ever have kids. You can never guarantee safety or happiness to anyone. But I do agree that it's not smart to have kids just to save a relationship or in a misguided selfish attempt to make yourself happier. If you're having trouble paying your bills and satisfying basic needs (food, shelter, clothing), don't have kids.
I think I see what you were saying and and I agree. I do believe that nobody should ever have kids. I'm an antinatalist, and as an atheist I can't see what problem giving birth to someone solves on the part of the person who is coming into existence and would otherwise not exist. All I can see are selfish and social justifications for the act.Even kids born into a family that is financially and emotionally stable, then that still leaves open the risk to all kinds of nasty harms. Little trap doors hidden under the surface of life, that can maim people indiscriminately. They could be disabled, they might end up abusing drugs, may end up with cancer, may end up unemployed and on the streets, may end up with mental illness, etc. So, because suffering isn't optional in this world having children is inherently bad because they will invariably suffer? It's better to not exist, because if you exist you will feel negative emotions and pain? What a pessimistic view of the Universe, and of the human race.. the thought that people are so fragile and so unable to deal with pain that it's preferable that they don't exist.. People grow through suffering, IMO being human is Gods way of experiencing suffering, mortality.. all that.
I have to ask, if you think that way then what's keeping you alive???
You actually have the nerve to call other people selfish when you're advocating for others to not exist just because of your personal inability to assimilate suffering into the human experience? Okay... I guess it's a good thing you don't have kids.. your perspective seems like one that is predisposed to depression.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 12:46:01 GMT
tpfkar I have been arguing coherently. I want to consider the projected futures of those who currently don't exist, but will exist in the future. I do not want to consider the wellbeing of those who do not exist and never will exist. Not even slightly. Feel free to not consider yet freakishly mention those that never will exist under any circumstances. But the topic under discussion is of those who might or might not come into existence. And in considerations of these potentialities you can't ignore the overwhelming likelihood that such creatures would prefer having had the opportunity. 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 Dec 15, 2017 12:53:50 GMT
I do believe that nobody should ever have kids. I'm an antinatalist, and as an atheist I can't see what problem giving birth to someone solves on the part of the person who is coming into existence and would otherwise not exist. All I can see are selfish and social justifications for the act.Even kids born into a family that is financially and emotionally stable, then that still leaves open the risk to all kinds of nasty harms. Little trap doors hidden under the surface of life, that can maim people indiscriminately. They could be disabled, they might end up abusing drugs, may end up with cancer, may end up unemployed and on the streets, may end up with mental illness, etc. So, because suffering isn't optional in this world having children is inherently bad because they will invariably suffer? It's better to not exist, because if you exist you will feel negative emotions and pain? What a pessimistic view of the Universe, and of the human race.. the thought that people are so fragile and so unable to deal with pain that it's preferable that they don't exist.. People grow through suffering, IMO being human is Gods way of experiencing suffering, mortality.. all that.
I have to ask, if you think that way then what's keeping you alive???
You actually have the nerve to call other people selfish when you're advocating for others to not exist just because of your personal inability to assimilate suffering into the human experience? Okay... I guess it's a good thing you don't have kids.. your perspective seems like one that is predisposed to depression. Some people are vulnerable to suffering, and some are more hardy. But it's axiomatic that those who are most vulnerable will be those who suffer most. So the continuation of the human race basically ensures that there will be a group who reaps all the purported benefits, and a rump which has to endure all the costs. It's basically like if you imagine a progressive system of taxation, and then invert that. All the costs fall on those who are the most vulnerable. The ones who end up experiencing a disproportionate amount of suffering are equal to you in terms of the value of their conscious experience, so why should we be creating that sort of collateral damage so that a few may experience fleeting pleasures (pleasures really mainly being defined by the temporary staving off of deprivation and suffering anyway). The wellbeing of the unfortunate is exactly as important as the wellbeing of yourself, or your kids (if you have any), and there's no sort of fairness mechanism which distributes risk and suffering equally. And 'people grow through suffering' is only a solution to a problem that needn't exist in the first place, and merely illustrates that suffering; not joy is the engine which drives the entire endeavour forwards. I still exist because suicide is difficult, for one reason and another. Also, I think that if I can be part of spreading consciousness of this philosophy, I may be able to contribute towards saving other people from suffering in the future. And I suppose it's likely that antinatalists are probably more likely to be disposed to depression than natalists (although I myself have never been diagnosed with a mental illness and do not believe myself to be suffering from the same). Usually because when people are experiencing good fortune, they're less likely to dwell on the injustices that are being endured by others. Happy people generalise their own condition to the extent where they overlook the fact that a very large proportion of the world's population are suffering from food insecurity, and even many people in the prosperous parts of the world are suffering with adversity that is not their fault and that will not be overcome.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 12:56:28 GMT
Some people are vulnerable to suffering, and some are more hardy. Before I read the rest.. how are you going to find out what people can handle suffering if you don't have any people? "And 'people grow through suffering' is only a solution to a problem that needn't exist in the first place, and merely illustrates that suffering; not joy is the engine which drives the entire endeavour forwards." False, it is the contrast between suffering and joy that makes the joy stand out. BOTH are essential. If all you experience is joy all the time, you don't need to call it joy.. because there is nothing to contrast it with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 12:56:35 GMT
tpfkar I have been arguing coherently. I want to consider the projected futures of those who currently don't exist, but will exist in the future. I do not want to consider the wellbeing of those who do not exist and never will exist. Not even slightly. Feel free to not consider yet freakishly mention those that never will exist under any circumstances. But the topic under discussion is of those who might or might not come into existence. And in considerations of these potentialities you can't ignore the overwhelming likelihood that such creatures would prefer having had the opportunity. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.I think that it's highly disputable that people have an informed preference for existence over non-existence. But setting that aside, the consideration is whether people would be worse off for not coming into existence, and whether there is any benefit that is compelling enough to justify the collateral damage which is imposed on the unfortunate. In the scenario where nobody exists, there is no wellbeing to be harmed, and a barren universe can never be unfair or unjust.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 12:58:08 GMT
Some people are vulnerable to suffering, and some are more hardy. Before I read the rest.. how are you going to find out what people can handle suffering if you don't have any people? Out of the ones that do exist, some are suffering grievously, and others are doing well. Desert has nothing to do with the distribution of suffering, or ability to endure suffering. The ability to endure suffering really just means that you are less vulnerable than those who have extremely low tolerances for suffering.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 13:00:16 GMT
Before I read the rest.. how are you going to find out what people can handle suffering if you don't have any people? Out of the ones that do exist, some are suffering grievously, and others are doing well. Desert has nothing to do with the distribution of suffering, or ability to endure suffering. The ability to endure suffering really just means that you are less vulnerable than those who have extremely low tolerances for suffering. I realize your philosophy makes it impossible to answer my question, even tough my question is directly involved with your philosophy. With such a pessimistic view of the human race.. why do you bother?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 13:01:44 GMT
tpfkar I think that it's highly disputable that people have an informed preference for existence over non-existence. But setting that aside, the consideration is whether people would be worse off for not coming into existence, and whether there is any benefit that is compelling enough to justify the collateral damage which is imposed on the unfortunate. In the scenario where nobody exists, there is no wellbeing to be harmed, and a barren universe can never be unfair or unjust. Sure, I'm sure you can dispute anything and try to wash it away with "they don't think like I think ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) ". It's simply not disputable that the vast majority would refer to have had the option than none. And "worse off" is highly subjective, and not your highly morbid Great Objective. There is no necessary collateral damage to be imposed on the unfortunate; certainly not like Trump-exterminating them and putting countless through additional eras of savagery & barbarity at the behest of your psychopathy & personal inability to thrive. 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 Dec 15, 2017 13:03:07 GMT
Out of the ones that do exist, some are suffering grievously, and others are doing well. Desert has nothing to do with the distribution of suffering, or ability to endure suffering. The ability to endure suffering really just means that you are less vulnerable than those who have extremely low tolerances for suffering. I realize your philosophy makes it impossible to answer my question, even tough my question is directly involved with your philosophy. With such a pessimistic view of the human race.. why do you bother? I don't understand your question. Are you saying that life is worth it as some kind of 'endurance test' to see what kind of suffering can be withstood? What would be the point of such an experiment? Are you approaching this from a theological perspective, of a God who puts us through our paces, or what?
|
|