|
Post by sugarbiscuits on Jan 17, 2018 13:10:05 GMT
when I see other people of my age with kids. I also feel frustration and anger. I don't know how to exactly deal with this. What age are you? I don't have any kids. No desire for biological children, maybe I could adopt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 14:55:38 GMT
tpfkar 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. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) 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*****"The rape analogy is very apt. Not only because it's an act of aggression which is done without consent and for the pleasure of the aggressor, but also the culture of victim blaming which exists around rape. You've criticised me for not having a chipper enough attitude towards being the collateral damage of procreation, and even told me that having merely had experiences that I wish that I hadn't had, makes me 'pathetic'. Then called me a "psychopath" on many occasions because I think that action ought to be taken in order to prevent those who currently possess the power to impose from reproducing that suffering (and many orders of magnitude worse than anything that I've experiened) in countless numbers of new copies of me, and copies of the most wretched individuals ever to exist. Not only that, but you think that (after not having given birth to myself, or consented to have someone else give birth to me) the burden should be completely upon myself if I want to relieve myself of the burden that was imposed upon me without consent. All of the above is reminiscent of how rape is treated in less civilised nations; places where women are blamed and condemned for being the victims of rape, and can even be imprisoned (in some conservative Islamic cultures) for having been raped. Just because an outlook is subjective, doesn't make it deserving of being dismissed out of hand. Subjective, qualitative conscious experience is the only source of value in the universe. And there is no justification for creating conscious experience that has a negative quality in order to satisfy the cravings of conscious entities that already exist. Antinatalism is a philosophy which branches out from the secularisation of certain parts of the world. Historically, religion has been what humans have bought into in order to convince themselves that there was a purpose to this arbitrary and harmful existence. When you take the shared mythology away, then you take away the illusion of purpose and greater good. Most atheists (such as yourself, goz and most of the atheists on this forum) still buy into the spirit of the the mythology, even whilst rejecting the factual claims that undergird that mythology. But then you now have atheists such as myself who refuse to buy into the mythology on any level at all, and demand that people not use their own metaphysical beliefs as a justification to impose unneeded risk on defenceless others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 14:59:07 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. It's possible, at least in theory, that rape can bring pleasure to a woman. It may not be the perfect analogy (given that there's no act that is completely analogous to forcing someone into existence), but it is an act of might makes right. And it's very difficult to extract onesself from the situation of life, as it is to escape the clutches of a rapist. In both cases, you need to fight against forces that aren't under your own control. You're either fighting against your own instincts, or fighting against someone of greater strength. And in both cases, failure to win the fight can have even worse consequences than the harm that you're already trying to escape.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 17, 2018 15:11:38 GMT
tpfkar Sure, you believe in mass murder. Even hope that your man Trump carries it out for you. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) 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*****"The rape analogy is very apt. Not only because it's an act of aggression which is done without consent and for the pleasure of the aggressor, but also the culture of victim blaming which exists around rape. You've criticised me for not having a chipper enough attitude towards being the collateral damage of procreation, and even told me that having merely had experiences that I wish that I hadn't had, makes me 'pathetic'. Then called me a "psychopath" on many occasions because I think that action ought to be taken in order to prevent those who currently possess the power to impose from reproducing that suffering (and many orders of magnitude worse than anything that I've experiened) in countless numbers of new copies of me, and copies of the most wretched individuals ever to exist. Not only that, but you think that (after not having given birth to myself, or consented to have someone else give birth to me) the burden should be completely upon myself if I want to relieve myself of the burden that was imposed upon me without consent. All of the above is reminiscent of how rape is treated in less civilised nations; places where women are blamed and condemned for being the victims of rape, and can even be imprisoned (in some conservative Islamic cultures) for having been raped. Just because an outlook is subjective, doesn't make it deserving of being dismissed out of hand. Subjective, qualitative conscious experience is the only source of value in the universe. And there is no justification for creating conscious experience that has a negative quality in order to satisfy the cravings of conscious entities that already exist. Antinatalism is a philosophy which branches out from the secularisation of certain parts of the world. Historically, religion has been what humans have bought into in order to convince themselves that there was a purpose to this arbitrary and harmful existence. When you take the shared mythology away, then you take away the illusion of purpose and greater good. Most atheists (such as yourself, goz and most of the atheists on this forum) still buy into the spirit of the the mythology, even whilst rejecting the factual claims that undergird that mythology. But then you now have atheists such as myself who refuse to buy into the mythology on any level at all, and demand that people not use their own metaphysical beliefs as a justification to impose unneeded risk on defenceless others. Only to deranged utterly unrestrained squealers and their constituents. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) There's no sexual inference at all. And I've criticized you for your patently deranged and breathtakingly dishonest posts and advocacy of mass murder - I could care less how you nourish your misery otherwise. And words have meaning - those who use "they cant' feel it anymore" as justification for anything, much less killing, are deranged psychopaths. No rape involved other than yours of language, although I'm sure you'll try to gasp out some highly ironic shrill "SJW" absurdity or another. And yes, I do not think that society should be in the business of offing the mentally incompetent. And now you've gone from "objective" to "not deserving to be dismissed out of hand". No, your shrill, dishonest absurdities and death-worship are what make it so. Antinatalism is a spectrum of philosophies. I don't think many of them aspire as you do to be extreme-worshiping utterly narcissistic homicidal psychopaths. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 16:14:36 GMT
tpfkar The rape analogy is very apt. Not only because it's an act of aggression which is done without consent and for the pleasure of the aggressor, but also the culture of victim blaming which exists around rape. You've criticised me for not having a chipper enough attitude towards being the collateral damage of procreation, and even told me that having merely had experiences that I wish that I hadn't had, makes me 'pathetic'. Then called me a "psychopath" on many occasions because I think that action ought to be taken in order to prevent those who currently possess the power to impose from reproducing that suffering (and many orders of magnitude worse than anything that I've experiened) in countless numbers of new copies of me, and copies of the most wretched individuals ever to exist. Not only that, but you think that (after not having given birth to myself, or consented to have someone else give birth to me) the burden should be completely upon myself if I want to relieve myself of the burden that was imposed upon me without consent. All of the above is reminiscent of how rape is treated in less civilised nations; places where women are blamed and condemned for being the victims of rape, and can even be imprisoned (in some conservative Islamic cultures) for having been raped. Just because an outlook is subjective, doesn't make it deserving of being dismissed out of hand. Subjective, qualitative conscious experience is the only source of value in the universe. And there is no justification for creating conscious experience that has a negative quality in order to satisfy the cravings of conscious entities that already exist. Antinatalism is a philosophy which branches out from the secularisation of certain parts of the world. Historically, religion has been what humans have bought into in order to convince themselves that there was a purpose to this arbitrary and harmful existence. When you take the shared mythology away, then you take away the illusion of purpose and greater good. Most atheists (such as yourself, goz and most of the atheists on this forum) still buy into the spirit of the the mythology, even whilst rejecting the factual claims that undergird that mythology. But then you now have atheists such as myself who refuse to buy into the mythology on any level at all, and demand that people not use their own metaphysical beliefs as a justification to impose unneeded risk on defenceless others. Only to deranged utterly unrestrained squealers and their constituents. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) There's no sexual inference at all. And I've criticized you for your patently deranged and breathtakingly dishonest posts and advocacy of mass murder - I could care less how you nourish your misery otherwise. And words have meaning - those who use "they cant' feel it anymore" as justification for anything, much less killing, are deranged psychopaths. No rape involved other than yours of language, although I'm sure you'll try to gasp out some highly ironic shrill "SJW" absurdity or another. And yes, I do not think that society should be in the business of offing the mentally incompetent. And now you've gone from "objective" to "not deserving to be dismissed out of hand". No, your shrill, dishonest absurdities and death-worship are what make it so. Antinatalism is a spectrum of philosophies. I don't think many of them aspire as you do to be extreme-worshiping utterly narcissistic homicidal psychopaths. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.You've called my experienced "pathetic", and you're also implying that anyone who speaks out against the abuse of imposition is suffering from a character defect (for which you would deem that they are to blame, no doubt). I've never used "they cant' [sic] feel it anymore" as a justification for killing a person; the only justification needed is the desire of the person to die. As for for antinatalism, I agree that most prominent antinatalists don't advocate for 'the nuclear option' (also known as ' the red button'), because that's a nuts and bolts issue of how to go about preventing imposition, and how far would someone be justified in going to prevent others from perpetuating the cycle of unconsensual imposition. All I personally care about is preventing the imposition, and if it were possible to prevent that without killing a single individual, that would be optimal. Although I think that in that case, most people would consider death to be a preferable option to the slow, dragged out death. The issue is that I don't see how we can stop the cycle of imposition without such a drastic option. I've also been very clear that I don't justify the killing of people as individuals (except in cases where the individual has requested death, or is in a terrible situation but is incapable of indicating whether they want to die, such as comatose individuals), as much as you've tried to goad me into saying that such an action would be acceptable. Ideally, I'd like to achieve a non-violent resolution whereby people just refrain from imposing on others, and agree to facilitate the unburdening of those who wish to be unburdened.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 17, 2018 16:26:58 GMT
tpfkar Only to deranged utterly unrestrained squealers and their constituents. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) There's no sexual inference at all. And I've criticized you for your patently deranged and breathtakingly dishonest posts and advocacy of mass murder - I could care less how you nourish your misery otherwise. And words have meaning - those who use "they cant' feel it anymore" as justification for anything, much less killing, are deranged psychopaths. No rape involved other than yours of language, although I'm sure you'll try to gasp out some highly ironic shrill "SJW" absurdity or another. And yes, I do not think that society should be in the business of offing the mentally incompetent. And now you've gone from "objective" to "not deserving to be dismissed out of hand". No, your shrill, dishonest absurdities and death-worship are what make it so. Antinatalism is a spectrum of philosophies. I don't think many of them aspire as you do to be extreme-worshiping utterly narcissistic homicidal psychopaths. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I've never used "they cant' [sic] feel it anymore" as a justification for killing a person; the only justification needed is the desire of the person to die. As for for antinatalism, I agree that most prominent antinatalists don't advocate for 'the nuclear option' (also known as ' the red button'), because that's a nuts and bolts issue of how to go about preventing imposition, and how far would someone be justified in going to prevent others from perpetuating the cycle of unconsensual imposition. All I personally care about is preventing the imposition, and if it were possible to prevent that without killing a single individual, that would be optimal. Although I think that in that case, most people would consider death to be a preferable option to the slow, dragged out death. The issue is that I don't see how we can stop the cycle of imposition without such a drastic option. I've also been very clear that I don't justify the killing of people as individuals (except in cases where the individual has requested death, or is in a terrible situation but is incapable of indicating whether they want to die, such as comatose individuals), as much as you've tried to goad me into saying that such an action would be acceptable. Ideally, I'd like to achieve a non-violent resolution whereby people just refrain from imposing on others, and agree to facilitate the unburdening of those who wish to be unburdened. Of course you have, multiple times. You've referenced it every time it's come up. And love how you love to typo-hunt when you're agitated, or feel "goaded" or even "taunted". ![walleyed](https://s10.postimg.org/6eqhblkmx/walleyed.png) And your mass-murder predilections are just the "nuts" version, that goes on with your "imposition" nattering for giving the eminently superior option of having a choice vs. only on side of it. There is nothing "unconsensual" involved, that's strictly more of your "rape" of language. And I don't doubt that you'd like to encourage death by torturing people, for "drastic" or other excuses. And your deranged distinction between "killing of people as individuals" and mass-murder makes all the difference! Really, you seem much saner for it. Non-violence via nuclear holocaust. ![thumbs up](https://s26.postimg.org/3pmy70kop/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png) You and your boy work it out. ![yerboy](https://s33.postimg.org/ek0gvsnq7/yerboy.png) Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 17, 2018 21:46:09 GMT
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. It's possible, at least in theory, that rape can bring pleasure to a woman. It may not be the perfect analogy (given that there's no act that is completely analogous to forcing someone into existence), but it is an act of might makes right. So? From an earlier post of yours: You failed to prove that it doesn't work, and you also failed (as I expected) to rationally explain why this would be a bad thing. So your opinion is nothing more than that: An opinion. And it's very difficult to extract onesself from the situation of life, as it is to escape the clutches of a rapist. In both cases, you need to fight against forces that aren't under your own control. You're either fighting against your own instincts, or fighting against someone of greater strength. And in both cases, failure to win the fight can have even worse consequences than the harm that you're already trying to escape. My instincts are part of me. I don't need to fight against my instincts. Actually, I shouldn't do it. Fighting against yourself means that you always lose. Another thing: My instincts work for me; a potential rapist doesn't. Another reason why your "analogy" is a poor one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 2:41:40 GMT
It's possible, at least in theory, that rape can bring pleasure to a woman. It may not be the perfect analogy (given that there's no act that is completely analogous to forcing someone into existence), but it is an act of might makes right. So? From an earlier post of yours: You failed to prove that it doesn't work, and you also failed (as I expected) to rationally explain why this would be a bad thing. So your opinion is nothing more than that: An opinion. And it's very difficult to extract onesself from the situation of life, as it is to escape the clutches of a rapist. In both cases, you need to fight against forces that aren't under your own control. You're either fighting against your own instincts, or fighting against someone of greater strength. And in both cases, failure to win the fight can have even worse consequences than the harm that you're already trying to escape. My instincts are part of me. I don't need to fight against my instincts. Actually, I shouldn't do it. Fighting against yourself means that you always lose. Another thing: My instincts work for me; a potential rapist doesn't. Another reason why your "analogy" is a poor one. It's a bad thing because everyone has roughly the same quality of conscious experience. Therefore more people would have a negative quality of experience in the event that a small privileged group were able to oppress as they see fit, and the negative conscious experience would be very unfairly and unequally distributed in this scenario. As a matter of utilitarian ethics, it doesn't make sense to heap up all the rewards for a very small group, and have the large majority subject to oppressive harms, especially as spreading harm out over a large number of harmed subjects doesn't dilute the quality orr severity of harm that each person experiences And you aren't, of course in any way obligated to curb or fight against your instincts in respect to matters that only concern you and your wellbeing. However, your right to obey your instinct should be limited to cases where you are not directly putting someone in harm's way in doing so. Therefore, this would exclude procreation, which is the ultimate source of all harm. In both the case of procreation and rape, the person is obeying their instincts to the detriment of an innocent person's wellbeing, which makes it a good analogy. It shouldn't be your right to cause someone else to be harmed because you will 'lose' if you don't obey instincts which are deleterious to the wellbeing of others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 2:54:00 GMT
tpfkar I've never used "they cant' [sic] feel it anymore" as a justification for killing a person; the only justification needed is the desire of the person to die. As for for antinatalism, I agree that most prominent antinatalists don't advocate for 'the nuclear option' (also known as ' the red button'), because that's a nuts and bolts issue of how to go about preventing imposition, and how far would someone be justified in going to prevent others from perpetuating the cycle of unconsensual imposition. All I personally care about is preventing the imposition, and if it were possible to prevent that without killing a single individual, that would be optimal. Although I think that in that case, most people would consider death to be a preferable option to the slow, dragged out death. The issue is that I don't see how we can stop the cycle of imposition without such a drastic option. I've also been very clear that I don't justify the killing of people as individuals (except in cases where the individual has requested death, or is in a terrible situation but is incapable of indicating whether they want to die, such as comatose individuals), as much as you've tried to goad me into saying that such an action would be acceptable. Ideally, I'd like to achieve a non-violent resolution whereby people just refrain from imposing on others, and agree to facilitate the unburdening of those who wish to be unburdened. Of course you have, multiple times. You've referenced it every time it's come up. And love how you love to typo-hunt when you're agitated, or feel "goaded" or even "taunted". ![walleyed](https://s10.postimg.org/6eqhblkmx/walleyed.png) And your mass-murder predilections are just the "nuts" version, that goes on with your "imposition" nattering for giving the eminently superior option of having a choice vs. only on side of it. There is nothing "unconsensual" involved, that's strictly more of your "rape" of language. And I don't doubt that you'd like to encourage death by torturing people, for "drastic" or other excuses. And your deranged distinction between "killing of people as individuals" and mass-murder makes all the difference! Really, you seem much saner for it. Non-violence via nuclear holocaust. ![thumbs up](https://s26.postimg.org/3pmy70kop/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png) You and your boy work it out. ![yerboy](https://s33.postimg.org/ek0gvsnq7/yerboy.png) Does Free Will Exist?I've never stated that we should kill someone who doesn't want to die just because they won't care after they are dead. The only necessary justification for killing someone in most instances is if they have requested death. The issue of whether they can regret dying after being dead only comes into it after you've made the counter-scientific claim that peacefully assisting someone to die after they've requested such assistance would be more harmful than refusing the assistance and leaving them to suffer. Anything that imposes risk without consent is by definition unconsensual. That applies even if the person who will be bearing the risk didn't exist before the act of imposition, because the imposition is borne by the future person who will live with the consequences of that action, not by a non-existent entity. And I'm the one who is against torture, whereas you think that it is justified in order that you can continue to accrue benefits as a byproduct of that harm. I'm saying that we need to turn off the machinery until at least such time as we can find a way to make it operate without producing harmful content. If there was a factory which produced food which delighted most customers, but 1 batch out of every 10 produced was poisonous and unsafe for consumption, that factory would be mandated to shut down for health and safety concerns, until it could be guaranteed that everything that it produced was safe for consumption.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 3:02:39 GMT
tpfkar Of course you have, multiple times. You've referenced it every time it's come up. And love how you love to typo-hunt when you're agitated, or feel "goaded" or even "taunted". ![walleyed](https://s10.postimg.org/6eqhblkmx/walleyed.png) And your mass-murder predilections are just the "nuts" version, that goes on with your "imposition" nattering for giving the eminently superior option of having a choice vs. only on side of it. There is nothing "unconsensual" involved, that's strictly more of your "rape" of language. And I don't doubt that you'd like to encourage death by torturing people, for "drastic" or other excuses. And your deranged distinction between "killing of people as individuals" and mass-murder makes all the difference! Really, you seem much saner for it. Non-violence via nuclear holocaust. ![thumbs up](https://s26.postimg.org/3pmy70kop/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png) You and your boy work it out. ![yerboy](https://s33.postimg.org/ek0gvsnq7/yerboy.png) Does Free Will Exist?I've never stated that we should kill someone who doesn't want to die just because they won't care after they are dead. The only necessary justification for killing someone in most instances is if they have requested death. The issue of whether they can regret dying after being dead only comes into it after you've made the counter-scientific claim that peacefully assisting someone to die after they've requested such assistance would be more harmful than refusing the assistance and leaving them to suffer. Anything that imposes risk without consent is by definition unconsensual. That applies even if the person who will be bearing the risk didn't exist before the act of imposition, because the imposition is borne by the future person who will live with the consequences of that action, not by a non-existent entity. And I'm the one who is against torture, whereas you think that it is justified in order that you can continue to accrue benefits as a byproduct of that harm. I'm saying that we need to turn off the machinery until at least such time as we can find a way to make it operate without producing harmful content. If there was a factory which produced food which delighted most customers, but 1 batch out of every 10 produced was poisonous and unsafe for consumption, that factory would be mandated to shut down for health and safety concerns, until it could be guaranteed that everything that it produced was safe for consumption. Right, nuking them isn't killing them. I guess this is what patent crazy look's like. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) And your rogering of "scientific" is right in line with your rape of "rape". Nothing is imposed without consent, so your natterings remain that of the psychopathic madman. Terminating would be an "imposition without consent". You're the one that just endorsed nuclear torture in order to make people want death. And we take contaminants in everything we buy. Thankfully we just keep advancing and making it constantly net-improve. "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 19, 2018 3:16:46 GMT
tpfkar I've never stated that we should kill someone who doesn't want to die just because they won't care after they are dead. The only necessary justification for killing someone in most instances is if they have requested death. The issue of whether they can regret dying after being dead only comes into it after you've made the counter-scientific claim that peacefully assisting someone to die after they've requested such assistance would be more harmful than refusing the assistance and leaving them to suffer. Anything that imposes risk without consent is by definition unconsensual. That applies even if the person who will be bearing the risk didn't exist before the act of imposition, because the imposition is borne by the future person who will live with the consequences of that action, not by a non-existent entity. And I'm the one who is against torture, whereas you think that it is justified in order that you can continue to accrue benefits as a byproduct of that harm. I'm saying that we need to turn off the machinery until at least such time as we can find a way to make it operate without producing harmful content. If there was a factory which produced food which delighted most customers, but 1 batch out of every 10 produced was poisonous and unsafe for consumption, that factory would be mandated to shut down for health and safety concerns, until it could be guaranteed that everything that it produced was safe for consumption. Right, nuking them isn't killing them. I guess this is what patent crazy look's like. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) And your rogering of "scientific" is right in line with your rape of "rape". Nothing is imposed without consent, so your natterings remain that of the psychopathic madman. Terminating would be an "imposition without consent". You're the one that just endorsed nuclear torture in order to make people want death. And we take contaminants in everything we buy. Thankfully we just keep advancing and making it constantly net-improve. "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."The nuclear scenario was only suggested as a last resort to prevent harm from being imposed on others. Imagine that an evil genius had a very sophisticated computer which was able to make vast numbers of virtual (but conscious) copies of the minds of your children, and torture them. You would likely think that fatal action would be justifiable in order to prevent that action from taking place. In fact, we may all be vulnerable to just such a scenario if AI and computing power continues to develop at an exponential rate. And if it was ultimately necessary to kill people in order to prevent them from imposing on others, I would want it done in the most peaceful way. The best way would be such that nobody would even know that it happened. But causing finite suffering to those who already exist with the end goal of preventing future procreation would be preferable to allowing the cycle of harm and imposition to continue. Procreation is imposition without consent. The person did not exist at the time when the action was taken and thus could not consent; but this piece of philosophical and semantical legerdemain that you are attempting does not get around the fact that once the life becomes actualised, then a real person is being imposed upon as a result of actions taken in the past. And in my analogy, I'm referring to a factory that makes a product that makes a significant proportion of consumers severely ill, but the product never gets recalled and the factory is never required to shut down until it can make its product safe.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 3:27:35 GMT
tpfkar The nuclear scenario was only suggested as a last resort to prevent harm from being imposed on others. Imagine that an evil genius had a very sophisticated computer which was able to make vast numbers of virtual (but conscious) copies of the minds of your children, and torture them. You would likely think that fatal action would be justifiable in order to prevent that action from taking place. In fact, we may all be vulnerable to just such a scenario if AI and computing power continues to develop at an exponential rate. And if it was ultimately necessary to kill people in order to prevent them from imposing on others, I would want it done in the most peaceful way. The best way would be such that nobody would even know that it happened. But causing finite suffering to those who already exist with the end goal of preventing future procreation would be preferable to allowing the cycle of harm and imposition to continue. Procreation is imposition without consent. The person did not exist at the time when the action was taken and thus could not consent; but this piece of philosophical and semantical legerdemain that you are attempting does not get around the fact that once the life becomes actualised, then a real person is being imposed upon as a result of actions taken in the past. And in my analogy, I'm referring to a factory that makes a product that makes a significant proportion of consumers severely ill, but the product never gets recalled and the factory is never required to shut down until it can make its product safe. Your gushed reams of excuses make all the difference. "Last resort" of mass murder (but not on a personal level of course, for the jabbering life-crushed mice) is an "only". And I know about the "evil geniuses" you support. ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) Procreation is a gift of an option, certainly not an imposition without consent or at all. Once life is actualized then choices can be made at ability to consent. Termination would be an imposition, regardless of your hysterical "rapes" of language. And of course you and your boy starting a nuclear apocalypse would be an imposition. For those not batsh!t homicidally nutwackers. And your analogy is relevant to nothing but the fevered babbles of an utterly deranged comically-morbid psychopath. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 3:36:41 GMT
tpfkar The nuclear scenario was only suggested as a last resort to prevent harm from being imposed on others. Imagine that an evil genius had a very sophisticated computer which was able to make vast numbers of virtual (but conscious) copies of the minds of your children, and torture them. You would likely think that fatal action would be justifiable in order to prevent that action from taking place. In fact, we may all be vulnerable to just such a scenario if AI and computing power continues to develop at an exponential rate. And if it was ultimately necessary to kill people in order to prevent them from imposing on others, I would want it done in the most peaceful way. The best way would be such that nobody would even know that it happened. But causing finite suffering to those who already exist with the end goal of preventing future procreation would be preferable to allowing the cycle of harm and imposition to continue. Procreation is imposition without consent. The person did not exist at the time when the action was taken and thus could not consent; but this piece of philosophical and semantical legerdemain that you are attempting does not get around the fact that once the life becomes actualised, then a real person is being imposed upon as a result of actions taken in the past. And in my analogy, I'm referring to a factory that makes a product that makes a significant proportion of consumers severely ill, but the product never gets recalled and the factory is never required to shut down until it can make its product safe. Your gushed reams of excuses make all the difference. "Last resort" of mass murder (but not on a personal level of course, for the jabbering life-crushed mice) is an "only". And I know about the "evil geniuses" you support. ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) Procreation is a gift of an option, certainly not an imposition without consent or at all. Once life is actualized then choices can be made at ability to consent. Termination would be an imposition, regardless of your hysterical "rapes" of language. And of course you and your boy starting a nuclear apocalypse would be an imposition. For those not batsh!t homicidally nutwackers. And your analogy is relevant to nothing but the fevered babbles of an utterly deranged comically-morbid psychopath. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Termination of a foetus would not be an imposition, because there would be no burden on the person terminated. And if you feel that way about abortion, then why do you support the right to termination? The 'gift of life' is most certainly an imposition, because there is no option to refuse it at the point of being born, and even to retroactively refuse the gift means that a lot of unnecessary suffering would need to have been endured first. That's not like any gift that I've received, nor ever hope to receive. My understanding of gift giving is that the recipient can refuse the gift at the time of giving, and is under absolutely no obligation nor necessity to be burdened nor inconvenienced by the gift for any length of time; let alone the years of suffering that would take place before the recipient could decide that the gift was actually a curse and attempt to dispose of the gift at great personal risk and pain. A nuclear war would be an imposition, becuase there would be suffering that was endured. However, if the purpose of the nuclear blast was to prevent innumerable and incalculable others from being imposed upon in the future, then although it would be an evil, it would be a very small evil in relation to the one that it was designed to prevent from occurring in the future. So if people won't give up their feeling of entitlement to impose upon others, then they must be forcibly stopped from imposing (aggression against the aggressors who won't respond to persuasion), even if this in itself results in an imposition.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 3:46:14 GMT
tpfkar Your gushed reams of excuses make all the difference. "Last resort" of mass murder (but not on a personal level of course, for the jabbering life-crushed mice) is an "only". And I know about the "evil geniuses" you support. ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) Procreation is a gift of an option, certainly not an imposition without consent or at all. Once life is actualized then choices can be made at ability to consent. Termination would be an imposition, regardless of your hysterical "rapes" of language. And of course you and your boy starting a nuclear apocalypse would be an imposition. For those not batsh!t homicidally nutwackers. And your analogy is relevant to nothing but the fevered babbles of an utterly deranged comically-morbid psychopath. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Termination of a foetus would not be an imposition, because there would be no burden on the person terminated. And if you feel that way about abortion, then why do you support the right to termination? The 'gift of life' is most certainly an imposition, because there is no option to refuse it at the point of being born, and even to retroactively refuse the gift means that a lot of unnecessary suffering would need to have been endured first. That's not like any gift that I've received, nor ever hope to receive. My understanding of gift giving is that the recipient can refuse the gift at the time of giving, and is under absolutely no obligation nor necessity to be burdened nor inconvenienced by the gift for any length of time; let alone the years of suffering that would take place before the recipient could decide that the gift was actually a curse and attempt to dispose of the gift at great personal risk and pain. A nuclear war would be an imposition, becuase there would be suffering that was endured. However, if the purpose of the nuclear blast was to prevent innumerable and incalculable others from being imposed upon in the future, then although it would be an evil, it would be a very small evil in relation to the one that it was designed to prevent from occurring in the future. So if people won't give up their feeling of entitlement to impose upon others, then they must be forcibly stopped from imposing (aggression against the aggressors who won't respond to persuasion), even if this in itself results in an imposition. Nah, you supporting nuking everybody is pure homicidal psychopathy regardless of how much you Arlon-hose the place with language (and basic sense) "rapings". Termination is imposing your will on them, by definition an imposition anywhere except in morbid jelly dictionary coo-coo land. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 4:04:41 GMT
tpfkar Termination of a foetus would not be an imposition, because there would be no burden on the person terminated. And if you feel that way about abortion, then why do you support the right to termination? The 'gift of life' is most certainly an imposition, because there is no option to refuse it at the point of being born, and even to retroactively refuse the gift means that a lot of unnecessary suffering would need to have been endured first. That's not like any gift that I've received, nor ever hope to receive. My understanding of gift giving is that the recipient can refuse the gift at the time of giving, and is under absolutely no obligation nor necessity to be burdened nor inconvenienced by the gift for any length of time; let alone the years of suffering that would take place before the recipient could decide that the gift was actually a curse and attempt to dispose of the gift at great personal risk and pain. A nuclear war would be an imposition, becuase there would be suffering that was endured. However, if the purpose of the nuclear blast was to prevent innumerable and incalculable others from being imposed upon in the future, then although it would be an evil, it would be a very small evil in relation to the one that it was designed to prevent from occurring in the future. So if people won't give up their feeling of entitlement to impose upon others, then they must be forcibly stopped from imposing (aggression against the aggressors who won't respond to persuasion), even if this in itself results in an imposition. Nah, you supporting nuking everybody is pure homicidal psychopathy regardless of how much you Arlon-hose the place with language (and basic sense) "rapings". Termination is imposing your will on them, by definition an imposition anywhere except in morbid jelly dictionary coo-coo land. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceI think that's you trying to find another semantical loophole which doesn't quite work, once again. I don't think that you can truly impose upon someone if they will never be cognisant of any imposition, or the consequences of anything that stems from an act of imposition. For there to be an imposition, I think that there needs to be someone who is imposed upon, and you can't be imposed upon if 'you' never exist as a conscious and aware entity in order to suffer the consequences of the imposition.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 4:14:46 GMT
tpfkar Nah, you supporting nuking everybody is pure homicidal psychopathy regardless of how much you Arlon-hose the place with language (and basic sense) "rapings". Termination is imposing your will on them, by definition an imposition anywhere except in morbid jelly dictionary coo-coo land. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceI think that's you trying to find another semantical loophole which doesn't quite work, once again. I don't think that you can truly impose upon someone if they will never be cognisant of any imposition, or the consequences of anything that stems from an act of imposition. For there to be an imposition, I think that there needs to be someone who is imposed upon, and you can't be imposed upon if 'you' never exist as a conscious and aware entity in order to suffer the consequences of the imposition. Sure you do, but you're insane and frankly just incompetent. You're like that incel guy, posting the most deranged self-trampling things in a constant stream, shifting from one "rationalization" to another without batting a twitching eye. You can't even realize the hilarious self-contradictory absurdities as you stream them out. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 4:16:05 GMT
tpfkar I think that's you trying to find another semantical loophole which doesn't quite work, once again. I don't think that you can truly impose upon someone if they will never be cognisant of any imposition, or the consequences of anything that stems from an act of imposition. For there to be an imposition, I think that there needs to be someone who is imposed upon, and you can't be imposed upon if 'you' never exist as a conscious and aware entity in order to suffer the consequences of the imposition. Sure you do, but you're insane and frankly just incompetent. You're like that incel guy, posting the most deranged self-trampling things in a constant stream, shifting from one "rationalization" to another without batting a twitching eye. You can't even realize the hilarious self-contradictory absurdities as you stream them out. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.How can a non existent consciousness ever feel imposed upon? So now you are the one claiming that the non-existent can be imposed upon, after falsely alleging that I was doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 13:23:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 19, 2018 14:01:26 GMT
It's [might makes right] a bad thing because everyone has roughly the same quality of conscious experience. Unproven. Unproven. Unproven. Your opinion, also unproven. Unproven, and probably untrue. Refuting your "arguments" is easy, but gets boring after a while. I guess in the future I'll reply to this thread only if you make good or at least discussionworthy arguments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 20:02:16 GMT
It's [might makes right] a bad thing because everyone has roughly the same quality of conscious experience. Unproven. Unproven. Unproven. Your opinion, also unproven. Unproven, and probably untrue. Refuting your "arguments" is easy, but gets boring after a while. I guess in the future I'll reply to this thread only if you make good or at least discussionworthy arguments. So you're wanting me to prove a question of ethics and values? How would I do that? If someone burgled your home, would you want it to need to be 'proven' that it was unethical to do so before they could go about trying to prosecute the perpetrator? My argument proceeds from the basis that everyone has the same quality of conscious experience because there's no evidence to suggest that just because you have the ability to impose your will on someone, that means that they somehow have a lesser richness of conscious experience than you (how does it even make sense to think this?) and it would be bigoted to assume that you can just assume that someone is unworthy of ethical consideration of their wellbeing, when there's no compelling reason to think so. Need I remind you that some of the greatest evils that history has seen have stemmed from the fact that a group of powerful individuals have determined that a certain class of people are arbitrarily less human. Slavery, to give an obvious example. So is your argument now coming down to the justifications that were given for slavery? I have the right to oppress and harm people without their consent, because they're lesser beings than myself? The outcomes which result from a tiny group being privileged and the masses being exploited are very well documented in history. For example the French Revolution, to name just one event. And are you seriously asking me to prove that non-existent people cannot be harmed, and ergo all harms that one experiences during life are contingent upon existing in the first place? What is it with you gushing natalists and your grandiose exits. If you don't want to respond to my posts, just don't respond. There's no obligation to respond, but it's extremely childish to slope off claiming that you've refuted all my arguments when all you've actually done is ask me to 'prove' that ethical questions ought to be taken into consideration.
|
|