Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 20:06:59 GMT
The question of whether people would enjoy existing only comes into play once one is committed to the fact that they will come into existence. In the condition in which nobody comes into existence, there isn't anybody missing out, and there is no moral reason to consider the joy that would have existed had we brought people into the world in order to experience the joy. Joy is something that people (existing people) need. We don't need to create people in order that joy can exist. People need food, and therefore once they exist they should be fed. But that statement doesn't imply that we need to bring people into existence so that they will be able to eat food, and you would surely see how 'deranged' it would be to make such a claim, and yet it is the exact equivalent to what you've been claiming all along as an ethical rationale for procreation.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 20:18:10 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.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 noted that your posts are pathetic for the reasons stated whenever applicable, including your frequent inept-if-convenient pathetic begs to "implying", and "no doubt"ing and the vacuous like in order to crap out Ada-style whatever pops into your head that you think can serve your horrendous self-contradictory pathologically morbid deranged shrill horsecrap. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 20:22:36 GMT
tpfkar The question of whether people would enjoy existing only comes into play once one is committed to the fact that they will come into existence. In the condition in which nobody comes into existence, there isn't anybody missing out, and there is no moral reason to consider the joy that would have existed had we brought people into the world in order to experience the joy. Joy is something that people (existing people) need. We don't need to create people in order that joy can exist. People need food, and therefore once they exist they should be fed. But that statement doesn't imply that we need to bring people into existence so that they will be able to eat food, and you would surely see how 'deranged' it would be to make such a claim, and yet it is the exact equivalent to what you've been claiming all along as an ethical rationale for procreation. Absurdity. The question is there in any place it is contemplated. "Nobody missing out" is meaningless, other than being an extreme personal preference, deranged homicidal in this case. Your morals are utterly borked. "Need" for or not for existence is an incoherent fielding of pure babble. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 20:35:51 GMT
tpfkar The question of whether people would enjoy existing only comes into play once one is committed to the fact that they will come into existence. In the condition in which nobody comes into existence, there isn't anybody missing out, and there is no moral reason to consider the joy that would have existed had we brought people into the world in order to experience the joy. Joy is something that people (existing people) need. We don't need to create people in order that joy can exist. People need food, and therefore once they exist they should be fed. But that statement doesn't imply that we need to bring people into existence so that they will be able to eat food, and you would surely see how 'deranged' it would be to make such a claim, and yet it is the exact equivalent to what you've been claiming all along as an ethical rationale for procreation. Absurdity. The question is there in any place it is contemplated. "Nobody missing out" is meaningless, other than being an extreme personal preference, deranged homicidal in this case. Your morals are utterly borked. "Need" for or not for existence is an incoherent fielding of pure babble. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEIn that case there ought to be a moral obligation to reproduce. But in more advanced societies, the obligation not to do harm is considered to come before the obligation to do good, and it wouldn't normally be considered acceptable to impose risks (and nobody can seriously be denying that life is a risky business, or that one has to be alive in order to be at risk) in order to unilaterally make the determination that you are going to do something that you think/hope will benefit that person. Especially when it can be easily demonstrated that the person who you're deciding to benefit would not miss the benefit, or be aware that they were lacking it, if you refrained from conferring it upon them.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 20:36:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 20:39:25 GMT
tpfkar Absurdity. The question is there in any place it is contemplated. "Nobody missing out" is meaningless, other than being an extreme personal preference, deranged homicidal in this case. Your morals are utterly borked. "Need" for or not for existence is an incoherent fielding of pure babble. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEIn that case there ought to be a moral obligation to reproduce. But in more advanced societies, the obligation not to do harm is considered to come before the obligation to do good, and it wouldn't normally be considered acceptable to impose risks (and nobody can seriously be denying that life is a risky business, or that one has to be alive in order to be at risk) in order to unilaterally make the determination that you are going to do something that you think/hope will benefit that person. Especially when it can be easily demonstrated that the person who you're deciding to benefit would not miss the benefit, or be aware that they were lacking it, if you refrained from conferring it upon them. Your "ought" is pure deranged shyte. And no, "advanced societies" neither nuke people for their own benefit nor do they consider giving creatures a shot to choose or reject this blast to be "harm". Advanced societies strive to improve peoples' lots, not wipe them out. 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 21:17:32 GMT
As with the food example above, choice is a beneficial thing to people. That is very different from saying that we should bring people into existence so that they will have choices. In the case where we don't create people, then there isn't any person who is limited to just one choice, because the referrent in your claim doesn't exist as an entity. There's no non-existent person of whom we can say that they are lacking a choice.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 21:21:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 21:28:14 GMT
Then why do you keep claiming that if we don't bring someone into existence, they're limited to just one choice instead of the choice to live and 'have a blast' or reject existence (after having suffered for untold number of years before getting to that point)? Where is this person who is lacking in choice, and how do we identify them?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 21:35:15 GMT
tpfkar Then why do you keep claiming that if we don't bring someone into existence, they're limited to just one choice instead of the choice to live and 'have a blast' or reject existence (after having suffered for untold number of years before getting to that point)? Where is this person who is lacking in choice, and how do we identify them? Because we're considering either 1) bringing them into existence, or 2) not, of course, silly. And once you push through considering "impositions" on the actual nonexistent we can surely consider the fabulous gifts to creatures already being constructed, regardless of your nonsensical chants otherwise. All before we get to the high religious crazy of both forcing not and murdering large populations to carry out the cult ends. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 22:31:33 GMT
tpfkar Then why do you keep claiming that if we don't bring someone into existence, they're limited to just one choice instead of the choice to live and 'have a blast' or reject existence (after having suffered for untold number of years before getting to that point)? Where is this person who is lacking in choice, and how do we identify them? Because we're considering either 1) bringing them into existence, or 2) not, of course, silly. And once you push through considering "impositions" on the actual nonexistent we can surely consider the fabulous gifts to creatures already being constructed, regardless of your nonsensical chants otherwise. All before we get to the high religious crazy of both forcing not and murdering large populations to carry out the cult ends. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceBut if 'they' don't get brought into existence, then there is no 'them' that is limited to only one option. You've repeatedly claimed that being brought into existence is beneficial on the basis that instead of only having one option, you get the options that life affords. But you're attributing that dearth of choices to someone who doesn't exist. I've never stated that someone who is non-existent is imposed upon. You can't get any less imposed upon than being non-existent. Procreation creates a person who will be imposed upon by the decision to create a new person. If you deem that to be illogical, then you must also deem it to be illogical to do anything in the present to curb climate change for the sake of future generations. Whether it is necessary to kill someone in order to prevent them from imposing is a question to be visited after any attempt to persuade people not to impose has failed. It's also worth noting that when you create a person, you condemn them to the inevitability of death and are therefore the ultimate cause of that person's death. So you're the one who wants to keep causing more and more death in a never ending cycle.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 22:42:34 GMT
tpfkar Because we're considering either 1) bringing them into existence, or 2) not, of course, silly. And once you push through considering "impositions" on the actual nonexistent we can surely consider the fabulous gifts to creatures already being constructed, regardless of your nonsensical chants otherwise. All before we get to the high religious crazy of both forcing not and murdering large populations to carry out the cult ends. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceBut if 'they' don't get brought into existence, then there is no 'them' that is limited to only one option. You've repeatedly claimed that being brought into existence is beneficial on the basis that instead of only having one option, you get the options that life affords. But you're attributing that dearth of choices to someone who doesn't exist. I've never stated that someone who is non-existent is imposed upon. You can't get any less imposed upon than being non-existent. Procreation creates a person who will be imposed upon by the decision to create a new person. If you deem that to be illogical, then you must also deem it to be illogical to do anything in the present to curb climate change for the sake of future generations. There's no "them" until there's a "them". And for the non- life-crushed deranged/dishonest, if you consider the "bad" then you consider all, including the preponderant "good". Having the choice is the superior position to having one side forced, regardless of how facilely you try to switch between actual nonexistence and not yet cognizant/competent. If you actually don't care about the nonexistent, even though you've gone on for months about them, them we start talking about them when they are extant. "Procreation" triggers a person that will have all manner of experiences, all to be considered, including the incredibly potent evidence that the creatures will greatly desire it by overwhelming margins. And no, I don't want to spike the Earth nor all pregnancies through greed & negligence or from homicidal malice. I'd like to keep both healthy. Your halfwit "reasoning" noted once more. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 23:00:17 GMT
tpfkar But if 'they' don't get brought into existence, then there is no 'them' that is limited to only one option. You've repeatedly claimed that being brought into existence is beneficial on the basis that instead of only having one option, you get the options that life affords. But you're attributing that dearth of choices to someone who doesn't exist. I've never stated that someone who is non-existent is imposed upon. You can't get any less imposed upon than being non-existent. Procreation creates a person who will be imposed upon by the decision to create a new person. If you deem that to be illogical, then you must also deem it to be illogical to do anything in the present to curb climate change for the sake of future generations. There's no "them" until there's a "them". And for the non- life-crushed deranged/dishonest, if you consider the "bad" then you consider all, including the preponderant "good". Having the choice is the superior position to having one side forced, regardless of how facilely you try to switch between actual nonexistence and not yet cognizant/competent. If you actually don't care about the nonexistent, even though you've gone on for months about them, them we start talking about them when they are extant. "Procreation" triggers a person that will have all manner of experiences, all to be considered, including the incredibly potent evidence that the creatures will greatly desire it by overwhelming margins. And no, I don't want to spike the Earth nor all pregnancies through greed & negligence or from homicidal malice. I'd like to keep both healthy. Your halfwit "reasoning" noted once more. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.No need to consider the good if we don't create the people who need the good. Just like I don't worry about how my child is going to get fed, because I don't have one and don't intend to ever have one. I'm not neglecting to feed my child, nor am I failing in some kind of moral duty to create a happy person. If I did have a strong desire to bring happiness to a child, then I'd do something for one of the children already extant. They need the happiness, whereas there aren't any non-existent people who are champing at the bit to get an opportunity to experience happiness. If there is "one side forced", then upon whom is it being forced? Who is suffering under the yoke of this force? The extent to which people are happy to be born speaks to our own optimism bias, and the extent to which our species is adept at cleaning up its own messes. Don't create the situation where there is someone who can be deprived of positive experiences, then there will be no need to find ways of pre-emptively keeping the wolf from the door. And based on your reasoning above (that it's foolish, deranged and irrational to spare any consideration for the welfare of the not-yet-extant), why is it not also foolish to act in the interests of the people who don't exist yet, but will in the future?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 23:10:20 GMT
tpfkar There's no "them" until there's a "them". And for the non- life-crushed deranged/dishonest, if you consider the "bad" then you consider all, including the preponderant "good". Having the choice is the superior position to having one side forced, regardless of how facilely you try to switch between actual nonexistence and not yet cognizant/competent. If you actually don't care about the nonexistent, even though you've gone on for months about them, them we start talking about them when they are extant. "Procreation" triggers a person that will have all manner of experiences, all to be considered, including the incredibly potent evidence that the creatures will greatly desire it by overwhelming margins. And no, I don't want to spike the Earth nor all pregnancies through greed & negligence or from homicidal malice. I'd like to keep both healthy. Your halfwit "reasoning" noted once more. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.No need to consider the good if we don't create the people who need the good. Just like I don't worry about how my child is going to get fed, because I don't have one and don't intend to ever have one. I'm not neglecting to feed my child, nor am I failing in some kind of moral duty to create a happy person. If I did have a strong desire to bring happiness to a child, then I'd do something for one of the children already extant. They need the happiness, whereas there aren't any non-existent people who are champing at the bit to get an opportunity to experience happiness. If there is "one side forced", then upon whom is it being forced? Who is suffering under the yoke of this force? The extent to which people are happy to be born speaks to our own optimism bias, and the extent to which our species is adept at cleaning up its own messes. Don't create the situation where there is someone who can be deprived of positive experiences, then there will be no need to find ways of pre-emptively keeping the wolf from the door. And based on your reasoning above (that it's foolish, deranged and irrational to spare any consideration for the welfare of the not-yet-extant), why is it not also foolish to act in the interests of the people who don't exist yet, but will in the future? Need for is irrelevant to whether a creature exists or not, regardless of your continuing babbles on it. "No worry at all" is by far not the biggest consideration of anything. The nuked and the terminated are forced, of course. The "suffering under a yoke" helpless framing is irrelevant to the overt psychopathic bad of the vanquishing of life. And I don't care about your further babbles to how you know what things really mean. People prefer it, regardless of how that is just one of the things that completely upend your morbid nonsensical "ideas". And experiencing this great experience is not the morbid wolf that makes you tremble so. What's foolish of course is not considering all but seriously persisting in trying to push that only the bad can be contemplated while fielding absolute perversions of "do no harm" and "rape", and "imposition" and the like. 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 21, 2018 7:23:07 GMT
tpfkar No need to consider the good if we don't create the people who need the good. Just like I don't worry about how my child is going to get fed, because I don't have one and don't intend to ever have one. I'm not neglecting to feed my child, nor am I failing in some kind of moral duty to create a happy person. If I did have a strong desire to bring happiness to a child, then I'd do something for one of the children already extant. They need the happiness, whereas there aren't any non-existent people who are champing at the bit to get an opportunity to experience happiness. If there is "one side forced", then upon whom is it being forced? Who is suffering under the yoke of this force? The extent to which people are happy to be born speaks to our own optimism bias, and the extent to which our species is adept at cleaning up its own messes. Don't create the situation where there is someone who can be deprived of positive experiences, then there will be no need to find ways of pre-emptively keeping the wolf from the door. And based on your reasoning above (that it's foolish, deranged and irrational to spare any consideration for the welfare of the not-yet-extant), why is it not also foolish to act in the interests of the people who don't exist yet, but will in the future? Need for is irrelevant to whether a creature exists or not, regardless of your continuing babbles on it. "No worry at all" is by far not the biggest consideration of anything. The nuked and the terminated are forced, of course. The "suffering under a yoke" helpless framing is irrelevant to the overt psychopathic bad of the vanquishing of life. And I don't care about your further babbles to how you know what things really mean. People prefer it, regardless of how that is just one of the things that completely upend your morbid nonsensical "ideas". And experiencing this great experience is not the morbid wolf that makes you tremble so. What's foolish of course is not considering all but seriously persisting in trying to push that only the bad can be contemplated while fielding absolute perversions of "do no harm" and "rape", and "imposition" and the like. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldIts relevance is that the only motivations for bringing someone into existence are those that reflect the needs and desires of those who currently exist, and therefore (when deliberate) is always a selfish act. The foetus is not a morally relevant entity at the time of termination and therefore has no will which is being contravened at the time of termination. And a rational and non-religious person would realise that termination is in the foetus' best interests. It is the rabid right-wing religious who believe that the foetus has moral standing or any interest in existing. As for the 'nuked person', then I agree that it would be a drastic use of force on the part of the person doing the nuking. However, if the motivation behind the action was to prevent currently existing people from using their power to impose and perpetuate the cycle of harm, then this would still be a benevolent action which could be morally sanctioned as the lesser of 2 evils. And peaceful antinatalism and refraining from reproduction does not constitute 'vanquishing of life'. If we can imagine a scenario in which all the world's people had agreed not to reproduce, then what would ensue would not be a vanquishing of life, but the discontinuation of life. If action was forcibly taken to prevent reproduction, then this would be a case of protecting the future victims from those who would do them harm. People don't have anything against which to compare existence, so it would be a logical error to claim that they prefer existence over non-existence. The only thing that person has ever experienced, or ever can experience, is existence. Therefore nobody is in any position to logically claim a preference for existence over non-existence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 14:40:50 GMT
tpfkar Need for is irrelevant to whether a creature exists or not, regardless of your continuing babbles on it. "No worry at all" is by far not the biggest consideration of anything. The nuked and the terminated are forced, of course. The "suffering under a yoke" helpless framing is irrelevant to the overt psychopathic bad of the vanquishing of life. And I don't care about your further babbles to how you know what things really mean. People prefer it, regardless of how that is just one of the things that completely upend your morbid nonsensical "ideas". And experiencing this great experience is not the morbid wolf that makes you tremble so. What's foolish of course is not considering all but seriously persisting in trying to push that only the bad can be contemplated while fielding absolute perversions of "do no harm" and "rape", and "imposition" and the like. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldIts relevance is that the only motivations for bringing someone into existence are those that reflect the needs and desires of those who currently exist, and therefore (when deliberate) is always a selfish act. The foetus is not a morally relevant entity at the time of termination and therefore has no will which is being contravened at the time of termination. And a rational and non-religious person would realise that termination is in the foetus' best interests. It is the rabid right-wing religious who believe that the foetus has moral standing or any interest in existing. As for the 'nuked person', then I agree that it would be a drastic use of force on the part of the person doing the nuking. However, if the motivation behind the action was to prevent currently existing people from using their power to impose and perpetuate the cycle of harm, then this would still be a benevolent action which could be morally sanctioned as the lesser of 2 evils. And peaceful antinatalism and refraining from reproduction does not constitute 'vanquishing of life'. If we can imagine a scenario in which all the world's people had agreed not to reproduce, then what would ensue would not be a vanquishing of life, but the discontinuation of life. If action was forcibly taken to prevent reproduction, then this would be a case of protecting the future victims from those who would do them harm. People don't have anything against which to compare existence, so it would be a logical error to claim that they prefer existence over non-existence. The only thing that person has ever experienced, or ever can experience, is existence. Therefore nobody is in any position to logically claim a preference for existence over non-existence. That has no relevance of any kind to any "need" for. Just more of your made-up slop trying to turn vacuous truisms like that all people act in their own interests ultimately into something that you think will serve your pathology and not just highlight it. As you do with your needs and desires to bring all down to your own pitiful state. Your assessment of "moral relevance" is of course wholly borked, and you have precious little grasp of the rational, and are markedly farther from being non-religious than any devout Catholic. And I'm glad you agree that your murderous inclinations are "drastic". Your conception of two evils being psycopathically deranged, of course. And again you yap-deny straw-dishonesties - "peaceful antinatalism" for your murderous and utterly callous narcissism is another of your egregious "rapes" of language. And you can keep trying to justify your desire for jackboot thugism as you wish, your silly, hysterical, halfwitted Arlorewellianisms will just keep getting flagged. 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 21, 2018 22:33:57 GMT
tpfkar Its relevance is that the only motivations for bringing someone into existence are those that reflect the needs and desires of those who currently exist, and therefore (when deliberate) is always a selfish act. The foetus is not a morally relevant entity at the time of termination and therefore has no will which is being contravened at the time of termination. And a rational and non-religious person would realise that termination is in the foetus' best interests. It is the rabid right-wing religious who believe that the foetus has moral standing or any interest in existing. As for the 'nuked person', then I agree that it would be a drastic use of force on the part of the person doing the nuking. However, if the motivation behind the action was to prevent currently existing people from using their power to impose and perpetuate the cycle of harm, then this would still be a benevolent action which could be morally sanctioned as the lesser of 2 evils. And peaceful antinatalism and refraining from reproduction does not constitute 'vanquishing of life'. If we can imagine a scenario in which all the world's people had agreed not to reproduce, then what would ensue would not be a vanquishing of life, but the discontinuation of life. If action was forcibly taken to prevent reproduction, then this would be a case of protecting the future victims from those who would do them harm. People don't have anything against which to compare existence, so it would be a logical error to claim that they prefer existence over non-existence. The only thing that person has ever experienced, or ever can experience, is existence. Therefore nobody is in any position to logically claim a preference for existence over non-existence. That has no relevance of any kind to any "need" for. Just more of your made-up slop trying to turn vacuous truisms like that all people act in their own interests ultimately into something that you think will serve your pathology and not just highlight it. As you do with your needs and desires to bring all down to your own pitiful state. Your assessment of "moral relevance" is of course wholly borked, and you have precious little grasp of the rational, and are markedly farther from being non-religious than any devout Catholic. And I'm glad you agree that your murderous inclinations are "drastic". Your conception of two evils being psycopathically deranged, of course. And again you yap-deny straw-dishonesties - "peaceful antinatalism" for your murderous and utterly callous narcissism is another of your egregious "rapes" of language. And you can keep trying to justify your desire for jackboot thugism as you wish, your silly, hysterical, halfwitted Arlorewellianisms will just keep getting flagged. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"There's no need for, no desire for, no perceived benefit for, and no interest for existence on the part of the non-existence. That's just a fact. In order for someone to be deprived of any of the good things you tout about existence, they need to exist as a sentient consciousness. And you don't seem to care about creating this deprivation, just so long as you get your benefits. So much like a Republican. If I have "precious little grasp rational", then how come it's you that are coming out with such absurd contradictions as 'I wouldn't want to die if I wanted to die', 'we need to protect people from harm by preventing them from attaining the requested state in which they can never be harmed' and 'the non-existent are disadvantaged by not having any options'. And I'm a non-violent person, and the entire reason why I'm an antinatalist is because I don't like other people and animals to suffer. Even if I were enjoying my own life, I think that I'd still be aware of how arbitrary it would be that I was blessed with an advantage whilst others had to struggle with oppressive suffering throughout life. And my position is the antithesis of the idea of religion. So not wanting risk and harm to be imposed on those who can't consent is equivalent to fascism, is it?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 22:56:19 GMT
tpfkar That has no relevance of any kind to any "need" for. Just more of your made-up slop trying to turn vacuous truisms like that all people act in their own interests ultimately into something that you think will serve your pathology and not just highlight it. As you do with your needs and desires to bring all down to your own pitiful state. Your assessment of "moral relevance" is of course wholly borked, and you have precious little grasp of the rational, and are markedly farther from being non-religious than any devout Catholic. And I'm glad you agree that your murderous inclinations are "drastic". Your conception of two evils being psycopathically deranged, of course. And again you yap-deny straw-dishonesties - "peaceful antinatalism" for your murderous and utterly callous narcissism is another of your egregious "rapes" of language. And you can keep trying to justify your desire for jackboot thugism as you wish, your silly, hysterical, halfwitted Arlorewellianisms will just keep getting flagged. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"There's no need for, no desire for, no perceived benefit for, and no interest for existence on the part of the non-existence. That's just a fact. In order for someone to be deprived of any of the good things you tout about existence, they need to exist as a sentient consciousness. And you don't seem to care about creating this deprivation, just so long as you get your benefits. So much like a Republican. If I have "precious little grasp rational", then how come it's you that are coming out with such absurd contradictions as 'I wouldn't want to die if I wanted to die', 'we need to protect people from harm by preventing them from attaining the requested state in which they can never be harmed' and 'the non-existent are disadvantaged by not having any options'. And I'm a non-violent person, and the entire reason why I'm an antinatalist is because I don't like other people and animals to suffer. Even if I were enjoying my own life, I think that I'd still be aware of how arbitrary it would be that I was blessed with an advantage whilst others had to struggle with oppressive suffering throughout life. And my position is the antithesis of the idea of religion. So not wanting risk and harm to be imposed on those who can't consent is equivalent to fascism, is it? And no relevance to the existence or nonexistence of life, or really, to anything else. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) You're great at absolutely meaningless non-sequitur "facts". The great good of having gobs of great good is unrelated to whatever additional great good hasn't happened (yet, anyway). I'm not insane enough to think the nonexistent are actually capable of anything, much less "rape imposition" and your many other tender squeals. As for your utter irrationality, your supposed quote is enough to thoroughly demonstrate your incompetence yet again. Just further babble from you. As for the fact that we as society attempt to protect the mentally incompetent and other vulnerable from both malice, deranged or other, as well as self-harm is just how mostly sane non-psychopaths roll. Not to mention you think being a "non-violent person" involves mass-murder for your "drastic" reasons. Your death cult is just the flip side of your previous life faith in which you were dedicating sappy pop songs of the past century to procreation. Like every cult some kind of perfection is the goal - the paradise of eternal life or the jannah of universal death. Wanting to use force to drag all to your personal misery even to the point of murdering masses is worse than any garden-variety "fascism". ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) "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 22, 2018 8:41:06 GMT
tpfkar There's no need for, no desire for, no perceived benefit for, and no interest for existence on the part of the non-existence. That's just a fact. In order for someone to be deprived of any of the good things you tout about existence, they need to exist as a sentient consciousness. And you don't seem to care about creating this deprivation, just so long as you get your benefits. So much like a Republican. If I have "precious little grasp rational", then how come it's you that are coming out with such absurd contradictions as 'I wouldn't want to die if I wanted to die', 'we need to protect people from harm by preventing them from attaining the requested state in which they can never be harmed' and 'the non-existent are disadvantaged by not having any options'. And I'm a non-violent person, and the entire reason why I'm an antinatalist is because I don't like other people and animals to suffer. Even if I were enjoying my own life, I think that I'd still be aware of how arbitrary it would be that I was blessed with an advantage whilst others had to struggle with oppressive suffering throughout life. And my position is the antithesis of the idea of religion. So not wanting risk and harm to be imposed on those who can't consent is equivalent to fascism, is it? And no relevance to the existence or nonexistence of life, or really, to anything else. ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) You're great at absolutely meaningless non-sequitur "facts". The great good of having gobs of great good is unrelated to whatever additional great good hasn't happened (yet, anyway). I'm not insane enough to think the nonexistent are actually capable of anything, much less "rape imposition" and your many other tender squeals. As for your utter irrationality, your supposed quote is enough to thoroughly demonstrate your incompetence yet again. Just further babble from you. As for the fact that we as society attempt to protect the mentally incompetent and other vulnerable from both malice, deranged or other, as well as self-harm is just how mostly sane non-psychopaths roll. Not to mention you think being a "non-violent person" involves mass-murder for your "drastic" reasons. Your death cult is just the flip side of your previous life faith in which you were dedicating sappy pop songs of the past century to procreation. Like every cult some kind of perfection is the goal - the paradise of eternal life or the jannah of universal death. Wanting to use force to drag all to your personal misery even to the point of murdering masses is worse than any garden-variety "fascism". ![mctrump](https://s1.postimg.org/1ybrdqax9b/mctrump.gif) "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."It's entirely relevant to the fact that you're positioning coming into existence as an advantage for the previously non-existing person. You may think that there are all kinds of wonderful things that a child can experience (if that child is lucky enough to have most things go their way), but you're not saving that child from a disadvantageous position. It's entirely for your benefit, and you just cross your fingers and hope that the child isn't going to be badly harmed by your selfish choice. Funny that you criticise me for "typo hunting", and then allege that my missing a couple of words from a quote "is enough to thoroughly demonstrate [my] incompetence". As I've stated, I want to persuade people, through non-violent means, not to impose risk and harm on a defenceless person who is at the mercy of their position of power to play god. And as for my previous sentimentalising of having children, it would actually be possible to have that sentiment alongside strong antinatalist views (although I wasn't an antinatalist at that time). At that time, I wasn't extolling the virtues of existence from the perspective of the person who arrives as a consequence of reproduction, I was extolling parenthood. It would be possible for an antinatalist to recognise parenthood as an enriching life experience, but to still believe that it is immoral to bring new children into the world.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 11:08:44 GMT
tpfkar It's entirely relevant to the fact that you're positioning coming into existence as an advantage for the previously non-existing person. You may think that there are all kinds of wonderful things that a child can experience (if that child is lucky enough to have most things go their way), but you're not saving that child from a disadvantageous position. It's entirely for your benefit, and you just cross your fingers and hope that the child isn't going to be badly harmed by your selfish choice. Funny that you criticise me for "typo hunting", and then allege that my missing a couple of words from a quote "is enough to thoroughly demonstrate [my] incompetence". As I've stated, I want to persuade people, through non-violent means, not to impose risk and harm on a defenceless person who is at the mercy of their position of power to play god. And as for my previous sentimentalising of having children, it would actually be possible to have that sentiment alongside strong antinatalist views (although I wasn't an antinatalist at that time). At that time, I wasn't extolling the virtues of existence from the perspective of the person who arrives as a consequence of reproduction, I was extolling parenthood. It would be possible for an antinatalist to recognise parenthood as an enriching life experience, but to still believe that it is immoral to bring new children into the world. "Need" for is not relevant to existence, period, regardless of your babble. I'm not positioning anything as an advantage to an nonexistent person, you're continuously positioning as "impositions" to the nonexistent. Once you go project to that, then the good and the bad is all considered, nit just your freakish lugubrious framings. The luck of the child is having the option of the experience or to give it up early as opposed to only having one side of the choice. Your pathetic narcissistic selfishness and murderous jackbootism is directly for your own benefit, and not just in the philosophical sense that anything anybody does is ultimately for they're own benefit. In everyday usage, having kids is primarily for the benefit of the kids, and quite a sacrifice for the parents, when parenting is done anywhere near right and when parents don't let budding psychopaths fester. I didn't notice any missing couple of words, I just noted another bizarre set of thoughts from you. In your case missing words vs. too many words doesn't make much difference, as the underlying ideas are so shattered and out-the-Ada-ass. And right, persuade people when you don't "believe" actual choice exist is just a smidgen of you pure nutcrackers. Your advocacy of "non-violent" mass murder that's ok because it's "drastic" and not "personal", is another hunk of the pure crazy. And sure, you thought having children was the way, dedicated sappy pop songs to procreation, and now you say you had strong antinatalist views at the same time. I can see where that's compatible with your brand of "rationality". ![trumpshrug](https://s7.postimg.org/jyv2idyjf/shrugforthedoofus.png) Any old rationalization of pure crazy you feel like. And "it is possible". ![(Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes](https://s1.postimg.org/1aeeq0jfe7/sfwomatce.a.png) You guys and your constant dissembling weaseling. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|