Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 17:10:01 GMT
tpfkar How would it be bad if nobody ever had to experience it, and 'bad' is something that can only be a subjective judgement? This is going back to your initial claim that a lifeless universe (which would include one that existed before sentient life, as well as one that existed after it) would be intrinsically "bad" and "broken" somehow. You can declare that it would be 'bad', but that's without having experienced it already, imagining what it would be like, or having any expectation of experiencing it in the future. So you have insufficient data to be able to claim that. Of course good and bad are purely concepts that exist in the eye of the sentient beholder; which is why a universe without life cannot be bad, and there is no productive use in such a universe for 'good' to be brought into existence. It would be missing this wonderful good thing we have. "Missing good" == "baaaaaaad". We're making the subjective judgments from here. Good/bad don't exist anywhere else. And there you go trying to shat in "intrinsically" again, whatever you're frantically trying to work it to mean. And it's definitely not without concept or imagining, regardless of how many time you bot-repeat that particular stupidity. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Missing can only be a bad thing when there's a sentient being 'missing out'. If there's nobody with any needs or desires to be met, then 'good' is neither a productive or necessary ingredient of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 17:12:01 GMT
tpfkar It's impossible to imagine a lifeless universe, because when you try to imagine it you are making yourself an observer of this imagined universe. Since such a universe has no observers, then your own conception of the universe has to be inaccurate, because when you think that you're imagining a universe with no life, you're actually imagining a universe with 1 human in it (you, the imaginer), bereft of company. Yet you keep conjecturing qualities on it post after post. You really are flat bonkers. Accuracy does not impact the existence of conceptions/imaginings. Especially "accuracy" of the tendentious, unobtainable, incoherent kind. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "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 11, 2018 17:26:22 GMT
tpfkar It's impossible to imagine a lifeless universe, because when you try to imagine it you are making yourself an observer of this imagined universe. Since such a universe has no observers, then your own conception of the universe has to be inaccurate, because when you think that you're imagining a universe with no life, you're actually imagining a universe with 1 human in it (you, the imaginer), bereft of company. Yet you keep conjecturing qualities on it post after post. You really are flat bonkers. Accuracy does not impact the existence of conceptions/imaginings. Especially "accuracy" of the tendentious, unobtainable, incoherent kind. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "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."I'm not conjecturing qualities on it. It could have any qualities at all, just be without any form of consciousness, and it would be neither good nor bad. If there is no consciousness contained in the universe, nor overseeing it, then there can never be any problems needing to be fixed, as problems only exist inside/projected from conscious minds.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 17:26:40 GMT
tpfkar It would be missing this wonderful good thing we have. "Missing good" == "baaaaaaad". We're making the subjective judgments from here. Good/bad don't exist anywhere else. And there you go trying to shat in "intrinsically" again, whatever you're frantically trying to work it to mean. And it's definitely not without concept or imagining, regardless of how many time you bot-repeat that particular stupidity. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Missing can only be a bad thing when there's a sentient being 'missing out'. If there's nobody with any needs or desires to be met, then 'good' is neither a productive or necessary ingredient of the universe. Nope, "bad" can only be a thing for the sentient doing the judging. And a universe without life as well as crazies wanting Trump to nuke the world are bad bad things. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 18:04:54 GMT
tpfkar Missing can only be a bad thing when there's a sentient being 'missing out'. If there's nobody with any needs or desires to be met, then 'good' is neither a productive or necessary ingredient of the universe. Nope, "bad" can only be a thing for the sentient doing the judging. And a universe without life as well as crazies wanting Trump to nuke the world are bad bad things. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 18:07:31 GMT
tpfkar I'm not conjecturing qualities on it. It could have any qualities at all, just be without any form of consciousness, and it would be neither good nor bad. If there is no consciousness contained in the universe, nor overseeing it, then there can never be any problems needing to be fixed, as problems only exist inside/projected from conscious minds. "Without consciousness" is a quality. "Need" or "productive" being relevant to anything" is a quality. "Better than a universe with sentience" is more than a quality, it's morbidly subjective judgement (that you can't possibly conceive of as you haven't experienced it, right? ). All insane flipside belly-orifice poking and just plain nutbaggery, as we can judge it good and bad from here, the only place that matters in things like "good" and "bad". And a universe with life is kickin', baby, and a universe without is sh!t and the dream of insensible homicidal madmen. 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 11, 2018 18:12:10 GMT
tpfkar I'm not conjecturing qualities on it. It could have any qualities at all, just be without any form of consciousness, and it would be neither good nor bad. If there is no consciousness contained in the universe, nor overseeing it, then there can never be any problems needing to be fixed, as problems only exist inside/projected from conscious minds. "Without consciousness" is a quality. "Need" or "productive" being relevant to anything" is a quality. "Better than a universe with sentience" is more than a quality, it's morbidly subjective judgement (that you can't possibly conceive of as you haven't experienced it, right? ). is a quality. All insane flipside belly-orifice poking and just plain nutbaggery, as we can judge it good and bad from here, the only place that matters in things like "good" and "bad". And a universe with life is kickin', baby, and a universe without is sh!t and the dream of insensible homicidal madmen. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The universe without life has no subjectively determinable qualities, it has objective properties (I should have made this clear in my previous post). Certainly nothing 'broken' which needs to be 'fixed'. I also didn't say that it was 'better', I only made statements to the effect that there was nothing that needed improvement upon (and this is undoubtedly true, because there would be no subjective conscious entities demanding or hoping for the improvements).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 18:12:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 16, 2018 17:17:00 GMT
tpfkar "Without consciousness" is a quality. "Need" or "productive" being relevant to anything" is a quality. "Better than a universe with sentience" is more than a quality, it's morbidly subjective judgement (that you can't possibly conceive of as you haven't experienced it, right? ). is a quality. All insane flipside belly-orifice poking and just plain nutbaggery, as we can judge it good and bad from here, the only place that matters in things like "good" and "bad". And a universe with life is kickin', baby, and a universe without is sh!t and the dream of insensible homicidal madmen. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****The universe without life has no subjectively determinable qualities, it has objective properties (I should have made this clear in my previous post). Certainly nothing 'broken' which needs to be 'fixed'. I also didn't say that it was 'better', I only made statements to the effect that there was nothing that needed improvement upon (and this is undoubtedly true, because there would be no subjective conscious entities demanding or hoping for the improvements). The only "objective" qualities outside of a colloquial usage of a shared subjective is the wishful stuff of the religious. Nothing is "fixed" that "needs" to be preserved in a universe without life. You've many times said it was better, in fact you work in hilariously demented fashion post after post trying to convince others that it's so much better that it needs to be striven for, even including the support of mass murder in service to it. And of course any "need" for remains absolutely orthogonal to the existence of life, save again for the innately or otherwise religious. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "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 17, 2018 5:12:12 GMT
The universe without conscious experience has objective properties, which aren't qualitatively good or bad, or lacking anything. I never claimed that anything was 'fixed' in a universe prior to conscious life, because if sentient life never existed, there was never anything broken. A barren universe has no needs at all, and it is the creation of need (the problem) which demands a solution. Without sentient life, there is no need for 'having a blast'; and 'having a blast' is only ever a profoundly imperfect and ephemeral solution to a problematic situation. And yes, I think that aggression is warranted in order to prevent acts of aggression being committed against those who cannot defend themselves. The only thing that's 'religious' is people trying to convince themselves that there's some kind of purpose or meaning which transcends the ethical conundrums of consent, imposition, risk and harm.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 17, 2018 5:35:32 GMT
tpfkar The universe without conscious experience has objective properties, which aren't qualitatively good or bad, or lacking anything. I never claimed that anything was 'fixed' in a universe prior to conscious life, because if sentient life never existed, there was never anything broken. A barren universe has no needs at all, and it is the creation of need (the problem) which demands a solution. Without sentient life, there is no need for 'having a blast'; and 'having a blast' is only ever a profoundly imperfect and ephemeral solution to a problematic situation. And yes, I think that aggression is warranted in order to prevent acts of aggression being committed against those who cannot defend themselves. The only thing that's 'religious' is people trying to convince themselves that there's some kind of purpose or meaning which transcends the ethical conundrums of consent, imposition, risk and harm. Only to the religious. Or you don't know what "objective" means other than your religious bastardizations of it. And you don't even seem to grok what "the problem" means nor a "problematic situation". Just garbledy walking all over yourself, regardless of how much you're actually assigning "qualitative" properties continuously, rabidly, from a morbidly perverse pathetic viewpoint. Can't have "consent" of nothing, and if you're projecting ahead to future existence then you can look at the actual evidence of what people demonstrably will want overwhelmingly, by massive margins. And not just "aggression", psychopathic mass murder via your man Trump, with more care for your crumpled narcissistic homicidal goals than for the greatly magnified suffering such deranged self-inflections would wreak upon the world. No "need" for having a blast, just the great great good of having it. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 6:06:26 GMT
tpfkar The universe without conscious experience has objective properties, which aren't qualitatively good or bad, or lacking anything. I never claimed that anything was 'fixed' in a universe prior to conscious life, because if sentient life never existed, there was never anything broken. A barren universe has no needs at all, and it is the creation of need (the problem) which demands a solution. Without sentient life, there is no need for 'having a blast'; and 'having a blast' is only ever a profoundly imperfect and ephemeral solution to a problematic situation. And yes, I think that aggression is warranted in order to prevent acts of aggression being committed against those who cannot defend themselves. The only thing that's 'religious' is people trying to convince themselves that there's some kind of purpose or meaning which transcends the ethical conundrums of consent, imposition, risk and harm. Only to the religious. Or you don't know what "objective" means other than your religious bastardizations of it. And you don't even seem to grok what "the problem" means nor a "problematic situation". Just garbledy walking all over yourself, regardless of how much you're actually assigning "qualitative" properties continuously, rabidly, from a morbidly perverse pathetic viewpoint. Can't have "consent" of nothing, and if you're projecting ahead to future existence then you can look at the actual evidence of what people demonstrably will want overwhelmingly, by massive margins. And not just "aggression", psychopathic mass murder via your man Trump, with more care for your crumpled narcissistic homicidal goals than for the greatly magnified suffering such deranged self-inflections would wreak upon the world. No "need" for having a blast, just the great great good of having it. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldAre you claiming that the universe doesn't exist without people to observe it? If not, then the universe has objective properties, which exist regardless of whether there is any sentience extant to observe its existence. The problem is that of need. Before sentient life existed, there were no needs to be met. When sentient life came into existence, that created need, most of which went unmet. Unmet need causes suffering. If most people say that they prefer life to something that they've never experienced, have no concept of, and wouldn't have a negative disposition towards if that condition obtained, then I'd counter with the fact that most people are strongly invested in religious mythology. It's only the weakening of the hold that religion has over humanity which has allowed the radically secular philosophy of antinatalism to start to sneak in through a crack in the door. When people realise that the religious myths aren't true, it's natural to start questioning what the point, or justification, is of bringing people into existence for them to suffer. Without sentient life, there would be nobody who was being deprived of enjoying themselves. In order to create the possibility of 'having a blast', you need to also create the threat of 'not having a blast'. Looking at the state of things, it's obvious to anyone who assesses the situation with a degree of objectivity that this project has created a net deficit of 'having a blast', as opposed to the neutral state of affairs which obtained without sentient life, and which will obtain again once sentient life is eradicated.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 17, 2018 6:06:35 GMT
I apologize, I have not read this entire thread, since it is very long, but I just wanted to give my 2 cents, for whatever it's worth.
I'm single, and I have no children. I have traveled the world, and I'm currently in Fiji, just on my way to Australia. I have accomplished everything I wanted to do in life, all of my dreams, pretty much my entire bucket list. I have all the material things I want or need. I have friends and family who love me.
And strangely enough, none of that matters. I've found that the one thing that creates happiness is very simple. Service. To do something to help others, to feel like you're doing something to contribute to another life, or to humanity, or the world. I suppose some people do service through raising children. Personally, I tend to do it through volunteering. Without service, everything you do seems empty and meaningless.
The road to misery is to focus on yourself. The road to joy is to forget yourself by focusing on others, or on some other passion in life. If you want to be happy, don't live for yourself. Live for others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 6:13:42 GMT
To do something to help others, to feel like you're doing something to contribute to another life, or to humanity, or the world. I suppose some people do service through raising children. The one thing to bear in mind here is that you aren't providing a service to your children by bringing them into being. Before they existed, they had no needs which had to be met, and by bringing them into being, you're just imposing a liability on the child. I'm glad that you've managed to find a way to serve humanity without imposing on someone who did not have the ability to consent.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 17, 2018 6:24:30 GMT
To do something to help others, to feel like you're doing something to contribute to another life, or to humanity, or the world. I suppose some people do service through raising children. The one thing to bear in mind here is that you aren't providing a service to your children by bringing them into being. Before they existed, they had no needs which had to be met, and by bringing them into being, you're just imposing a liability on the child. I'm glad that you've managed to find a way to serve humanity without imposing on someone who did not have the ability to consent. You're preaching to the choir, mic. I'm personally an antinatalist, but if other people decide to have children, then they're free to make that choice. My only problem with people having kids is when they want to play the martyr and brag about all the sacrifices they've made for their children and how hard it is. I really don't care and I give them no sympathy, because they made those choices themselves. I'm very glad that I don't have kids. I like my life to be fun, interesting and adventurous. Not spending my days surrounded by screaming brats. To each their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 6:36:05 GMT
The one thing to bear in mind here is that you aren't providing a service to your children by bringing them into being. Before they existed, they had no needs which had to be met, and by bringing them into being, you're just imposing a liability on the child. I'm glad that you've managed to find a way to serve humanity without imposing on someone who did not have the ability to consent. You're preaching to the choir, mic. I'm personally an antinatalist, but if other people decide to have children, then they're free to make that choice. My only problem with people having kids is when they want to play the martyr and brag about all the sacrifices they've made for their children and how hard it is. I really don't care and I give them no sympathy, because they made those choices themselves. I'm very glad that I don't have kids. I like my life to be fun, interesting and adventurous. Not spending my days surrounded by screaming brats. To each their own. I'm glad that you take the antinatalist view with regards to your own reproductive choices. I don't share your liberal attitude towards those who do have children though, because I don't believe that it should be anyone's fundamental and inalienable right to impose such a heavy burden on someone who cannot consent, in order for the imposer to satisfy their personal desires. I don't think that individuals deciding "I will personally refrain from raping" would be enough protection to stop people from being raped. I think that it needs to be 'rape is bad and shouldn't be tolerable, no matter who is doing it', to give an analogy. Might simply doesn't make right, no matter how deeply the privilege to use power to impose risk and harm on others is embedded into social norms.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 17, 2018 6:53:32 GMT
You're preaching to the choir, mic. I'm personally an antinatalist, but if other people decide to have children, then they're free to make that choice. My only problem with people having kids is when they want to play the martyr and brag about all the sacrifices they've made for their children and how hard it is. I really don't care and I give them no sympathy, because they made those choices themselves. I'm very glad that I don't have kids. I like my life to be fun, interesting and adventurous. Not spending my days surrounded by screaming brats. To each their own. I'm glad that you take the antinatalist view with regards to your own reproductive choices. I don't share your liberal attitude towards those who do have children though, because I don't believe that it should be anyone's fundamental and inalienable right to impose such a heavy burden on someone who cannot consent, in order for the imposer to satisfy their personal desires. I don't think that individuals deciding "I will personally refrain from raping" would be enough protection to stop people from being raped. I think that it needs to be 'rape is bad and shouldn't be tolerable, no matter who is doing it', to give an analogy. Might simply doesn't make right, no matter how deeply the privilege to use power to impose risk and harm on others is embedded into social norms. I have no desire to impose my views on others, or even to judge them for it. I've gotten to the point where I can accept that other people have a different point of view than I do, and accept it. The truth is that life is very short, and if someone doesn't like their life, it will be over soon enough anyway. There are very few things in life that are worth getting upset over, because in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. There is no legacy, for any of us. As someone once told me, we're remembered for 3 generations, and nothing more. Our descendants might know our names and perhaps a story or two about us, but they won't really know us. And if nothing matters, then we're free to live life on our own terms, to find our own adventures, our own truths, our own meaning. That is true freedom, and I think it's kind of cool, actually.
That being said, I'm also a staunch believer that suicide should be just as accessible as abortion, since it is basically self abortion, and it truly is their body and their choice. If someone truly does not want to be alive, I think they should be free to end it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 17, 2018 12:06:57 GMT
tpfkar You're preaching to the choir, mic. I'm personally an antinatalist, but if other people decide to have children, then they're free to make that choice. My only problem with people having kids is when they want to play the martyr and brag about all the sacrifices they've made for their children and how hard it is. I really don't care and I give them no sympathy, because they made those choices themselves. I'm very glad that I don't have kids. I like my life to be fun, interesting and adventurous. Not spending my days surrounded by screaming brats. To each their own. I'm glad that you take the antinatalist view with regards to your own reproductive choices. I don't share your liberal attitude towards those who do have children though, because I don't believe that it should be anyone's fundamental and inalienable right to impose such a heavy burden on someone who cannot consent, in order for the imposer to satisfy their personal desires. I don't think that individuals deciding "I will personally refrain from raping" would be enough protection to stop people from being raped. I think that it needs to be 'rape is bad and shouldn't be tolerable, no matter who is doing it', to give an analogy. Might simply doesn't make right, no matter how deeply the privilege to use power to impose risk and harm on others is embedded into social norms. Sure, you believe in mass murder. Even hope that your man Trump carries it out for you. Shrilly squealing about "rape", pathetically attempting to take advantage of sexual abuse victims is just par for your gushy course grabbing at any stupid you can. Your utterly subjective outlook of "burden" vs. satisfaction, joy, experience. Your utterly personally crushed outlook that a universe without life is better than one with it. Your personal homicidal outlook that you're willing to murder masses to reach your goal, and your utterly narcissistic willingness to plunge the world into the far greater savagery and suffering of either knocking civilization backwards or having sentient life start up again w/o the tempering/sublimating influence that more advanced civilization continues to expand - just to bring others to your constant state of misery. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 17, 2018 12:31:38 GMT
I'm glad that you take the antinatalist view with regards to your own reproductive choices. I don't share your liberal attitude towards those who do have children though, because I don't believe that it should be anyone's fundamental and inalienable right to impose such a heavy burden on someone who cannot consent, in order for the imposer to satisfy their personal desires. I don't think that individuals deciding "I will personally refrain from raping" would be enough protection to stop people from being raped. I think that it needs to be 'rape is bad and shouldn't be tolerable, no matter who is doing it', to give an analogy. A bad analogy, for two reasons. 1) Rape is always bad. Life is not. 2) People being raped usually can not extract themselves from the situation. People living a "bad" life usually can.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 17, 2018 12:48:04 GMT
tpfkar Only to the religious. Or you don't know what "objective" means other than your religious bastardizations of it. And you don't even seem to grok what "the problem" means nor a "problematic situation". Just garbledy walking all over yourself, regardless of how much you're actually assigning "qualitative" properties continuously, rabidly, from a morbidly perverse pathetic viewpoint. Can't have "consent" of nothing, and if you're projecting ahead to future existence then you can look at the actual evidence of what people demonstrably will want overwhelmingly, by massive margins. And not just "aggression", psychopathic mass murder via your man Trump, with more care for your crumpled narcissistic homicidal goals than for the greatly magnified suffering such deranged self-inflections would wreak upon the world. No "need" for having a blast, just the great great good of having it. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldAre you claiming that the universe doesn't exist without people to observe it? If not, then the universe has objective properties, which exist regardless of whether there is any sentience extant to observe its existence. The problem is that of need. Before sentient life existed, there were no needs to be met. When sentient life came into existence, that created need, most of which went unmet. Unmet need causes suffering. If most people say that they prefer life to something that they've never experienced, have no concept of, and wouldn't have a negative disposition towards if that condition obtained, then I'd counter with the fact that most people are strongly invested in religious mythology. It's only the weakening of the hold that religion has over humanity which has allowed the radically secular philosophy of antinatalism to start to sneak in through a crack in the door. When people realise that the religious myths aren't true, it's natural to start questioning what the point, or justification, is of bringing people into existence for them to suffer. Without sentient life, there would be nobody who was being deprived of enjoying themselves. In order to create the possibility of 'having a blast', you need to also create the threat of 'not having a blast'. Looking at the state of things, it's obvious to anyone who assesses the situation with a degree of objectivity that this project has created a net deficit of 'having a blast', as opposed to the neutral state of affairs which obtained without sentient life, and which will obtain again once sentient life is eradicated. No, that would be another of your dippy "interpretations". You making shattered flops on your subjective religious "objective" ("the problem is that of need", "not lacking of anything", "never anything broken", "imperfect", "problematic", "imposition", etc.) in terms of what's good and what's bad, and apply that to a universe with, and a universe without life. Your every post is how one is not only better, but the other is anathema - like rape and Hannibal Lecter / Dahmer torture and watching Jedward all rolled together. Suffering is not the be all end all, and "unmet suffering" being more important than all the satisfaction and pleasure and other things is simply your pathetic outlook on life, regardless of how you constantly attempt to assert what you feelz as an "objective", and then immediately deny it. We work to reduce the bad and increase the good - continuously. And there have always been homicidal psychopaths, even when religion was at it's height; no lessening of religious hold necessary for you guys to exist worshiping or anti-worshiping life, or in your case rocketing from one to the other. The blast and the experience outweighs the suffering by light years, and keeps getting net-better. ヽ(•‿•)ノ "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "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."
|
|