Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 11:28:44 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". Any old rationalization of pure crazy you feel like. And "it is possible". 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. How can having kids be for the benefit of the kids, if their existence would not confer upon them an advantage when compared to the scenario where the parents never had any children? Who is missing out on the benefit and losing the 'lottery', when even the aborted foetuses never develop sentience? And antinatalists generally don't espouse these views for their own benefit, because nobody can prevent his or her own birth. And good, attentive, caring and nurturing parents like mine can give birth to (genuine) psychopathic monsters, many leagues worse than I could be even in my worst moments. You've admitted to having been a flawed parent yourself, and whether or not that is the case, it could easily be one of your own kids coming to you with these antinatalist views. And I never stated that I had any antinatalist views at the time when I was judging people's lifestyle choices for remaining childless; I'm merely saying that it would be possible to fetishise parenthood whilst also realising that bringing someone into existence is the most harmful and selfish act that one could possibly commit. It's the same as how many paedophiles fetishise the idea of sexually molesting children, but understand that doing so would cause undue harm to a child, and therefore restrain their urges. I'm not claiming that this was how I was viewing the issue years ago, although it never made sense to me how we could say that abortion wasn't an immoral act, but then also say that it would be beneficial for people to be brought into existence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 11:45:38 GMT
tpfkar "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". Any old rationalization of pure crazy you feel like. And "it is possible". 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. How can having kids be for the benefit of the kids, if their existence would not confer upon them an advantage when compared to the scenario where the parents never had any children? Who is missing out on the benefit and losing the 'lottery', when even the aborted foetuses never develop sentience? And antinatalists generally don't espouse these views for their own benefit, because nobody can prevent his or her own birth. And good, attentive, caring and nurturing parents like mine can give birth to (genuine) psychopathic monsters, many leagues worse than I could be even in my worst moments. You've admitted to having been a flawed parent yourself, and whether or not that is the case, it could easily be one of your own kids coming to you with these antinatalist views. And I never stated that I had any antinatalist views at the time when I was judging people's lifestyle choices for remaining childless; I'm merely saying that it would be possible to fetishise parenthood whilst also realising that bringing someone into existence is the most harmful and selfish act that one could possibly commit. It's the same as how many paedophiles fetishise the idea of sexually molesting children, but understand that doing so would cause undue harm to a child, and therefore restrain their urges. I'm not claiming that this was how I was viewing the issue years ago, although it never made sense to me how we could say that abortion wasn't an immoral act, but then also say that it would be beneficial for people to be brought into existence. Sure it would, an option to experience this great blast or choose to check out early is always superior to only one side of that choice. Who's "missing out" by not existing is as irrelevant as "need" for existence, although zygotes and fetuses are at least actually extent as opposed to fantasies of "imposition". In any case once you answer who's "imposed upon" by the great great good of existence then you'll have your answer, homicidal not-suicidal grasshopper. You espouse your views for nothing but your own morbid narcissistic benefit, as you try to peddle the word, and much more so than parents in the everyday use of the word. And basically competent parents would try to get help for their budding psychopaths and not let them fester in their homicidal misery. And right, your prolix shatting about antinatalist views while you were still worshiping procreation was of course simply more of your dissembling weaseling. Abortion is simple in concept and hard in reality - the mother wins, up to a certain maturity of the fetus. I do realize that you crazies think it has to be Every Sperm Is Sacred or Kill 'Em All, but the rest of us are extant (^▽^) in reality. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 12:25:20 GMT
tpfkar How can having kids be for the benefit of the kids, if their existence would not confer upon them an advantage when compared to the scenario where the parents never had any children? Who is missing out on the benefit and losing the 'lottery', when even the aborted foetuses never develop sentience? And antinatalists generally don't espouse these views for their own benefit, because nobody can prevent his or her own birth. And good, attentive, caring and nurturing parents like mine can give birth to (genuine) psychopathic monsters, many leagues worse than I could be even in my worst moments. You've admitted to having been a flawed parent yourself, and whether or not that is the case, it could easily be one of your own kids coming to you with these antinatalist views. And I never stated that I had any antinatalist views at the time when I was judging people's lifestyle choices for remaining childless; I'm merely saying that it would be possible to fetishise parenthood whilst also realising that bringing someone into existence is the most harmful and selfish act that one could possibly commit. It's the same as how many paedophiles fetishise the idea of sexually molesting children, but understand that doing so would cause undue harm to a child, and therefore restrain their urges. I'm not claiming that this was how I was viewing the issue years ago, although it never made sense to me how we could say that abortion wasn't an immoral act, but then also say that it would be beneficial for people to be brought into existence. Sure it would, an option to experience this great blast or choose to check out early is always superior to only one side of that choice. Who's "missing out" by not existing is as irrelevant as "need" for existence, although zygotes and fetuses are at least actually extent as opposed to fantasies of "imposition". In any case once you answer who's "imposed upon" by the great great good of existence then you'll have your answer, homicidal not-suicidal grasshopper. You espouse your views for nothing but your own morbid narcissistic benefit, as you try to peddle the word, and much more so than parents in the everyday use of the word. And basically competent parents would try to get help for their budding psychopaths and not let them fester in their homicidal misery. And right, your prolix shatting about antinatalist views while you were still worshiping procreation was of course simply more of your dissembling weaseling. Abortion is simple in concept and hard in reality - the mother wins, up to a certain maturity of the fetus. I do realize that you crazies think it has to be Every Sperm Is Sacred or Kill 'Em All, but the rest of us are extant (^▽^) in reality. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME Does Free Will Exist?By the definition of 'benefit', a benefit needs to be something that confers an advantage on someone, compared to if they didn't have that benefit. Therefore life cannot fulfill the definition of 'benefit', if we presume (with good reason) that there are no such thing as disembodied souls waiting for incarnation into flesh. A non-existent person could never feel that they would be advantaged by being brought into existence. When you decided that you weren't going to have any more children, did you and your wife hire a medium to break the news to the non-existent people who were going to remain consigned to that oblivion for the rest of eternity? When discussing imposition, there has to be someone who could feel burdened, which requires consciousness. I'm not imposing on my chair by sitting on it, because the chair is inanimate and therefore doesn't feel burdened by bearing my weight. Likewise, there is no imposition on a foetus that comes from aborting it. It probably was never aware of its own existence to begin with, and it certainly won't be aware of the aborted potential for existence after it is terminated. You've stated that it's an imposition on the foetus to terminate it, which is a slightly softer view of the opinion expressed by fundamentalist, rabid anti-abortion Christians.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 12:38:24 GMT
tpfkar Sure it would, an option to experience this great blast or choose to check out early is always superior to only one side of that choice. Who's "missing out" by not existing is as irrelevant as "need" for existence, although zygotes and fetuses are at least actually extent as opposed to fantasies of "imposition". In any case once you answer who's "imposed upon" by the great great good of existence then you'll have your answer, homicidal not-suicidal grasshopper. You espouse your views for nothing but your own morbid narcissistic benefit, as you try to peddle the word, and much more so than parents in the everyday use of the word. And basically competent parents would try to get help for their budding psychopaths and not let them fester in their homicidal misery. And right, your prolix shatting about antinatalist views while you were still worshiping procreation was of course simply more of your dissembling weaseling. Abortion is simple in concept and hard in reality - the mother wins, up to a certain maturity of the fetus. I do realize that you crazies think it has to be Every Sperm Is Sacred or Kill 'Em All, but the rest of us are extant (^▽^) in reality. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME Does Free Will Exist?By the definition of 'benefit', a benefit needs to be something that confers an advantage on someone, compared to if they didn't have that benefit. Therefore life cannot fulfill the definition of 'benefit', if we presume (with good reason) that there are no such thing as disembodied souls waiting for incarnation into flesh. A non-existent person could never feel that they would be advantaged by being brought into existence. When you decided that you weren't going to have any more children, did you and your wife hire a medium to break the news to the non-existent people who were going to remain consigned to that oblivion for the rest of eternity? When discussing imposition, there has to be someone who could feel burdened, which requires consciousness. I'm not imposing on my chair by sitting on it, because the chair is inanimate and therefore doesn't feel burdened by bearing my weight. Likewise, there is no imposition on a foetus that comes from aborting it. It probably was never aware of its own existence to begin with, and it certainly won't be aware of the aborted potential for existence after it is terminated. You've stated that it's an imposition on the foetus to terminate it, which is a slightly softer view of the opinion expressed by fundamentalist, rabid anti-abortion Christians. No, benefit is something "beneficial", and life is super duper happening beneficial. So much beneficial goodness. Add parents making sure kids grow up sound and have blast after blast is what minimally competent parents who have any regard for their kids do. And I'm sorry you're still pining for "disembodied souls", but this life is all there is, so helping people get the most enjoyment out of it before they're dust is where it's at, and definitely not wallowing in homicidal narcissistic self-pity pretending it's for the "benefit" of those you would mass murder. As for imposition, you're correct. Nothing (not even your ratty chair) can possibly be imposed upon, until it exists. And even if your deranged version of "imposed upon" is entertained for a microsecond, at that point all aspects can be considered by the honest, all the good and the bad. And there is certainly more "imposition" in terminating something than not terminating it, regardless of your continuing "rapes" of the language. And of course "anti-abortion Christians" of the rabid persuasion (from you, (^∀^)) don't support a mother's right to abortion and say "the ma wins", regardless of the deranged manglings of language and basic sense from the death cultist who before worshiped procreation. "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 24, 2018 1:04:00 GMT
tpfkar By the definition of 'benefit', a benefit needs to be something that confers an advantage on someone, compared to if they didn't have that benefit. Therefore life cannot fulfill the definition of 'benefit', if we presume (with good reason) that there are no such thing as disembodied souls waiting for incarnation into flesh. A non-existent person could never feel that they would be advantaged by being brought into existence. When you decided that you weren't going to have any more children, did you and your wife hire a medium to break the news to the non-existent people who were going to remain consigned to that oblivion for the rest of eternity? When discussing imposition, there has to be someone who could feel burdened, which requires consciousness. I'm not imposing on my chair by sitting on it, because the chair is inanimate and therefore doesn't feel burdened by bearing my weight. Likewise, there is no imposition on a foetus that comes from aborting it. It probably was never aware of its own existence to begin with, and it certainly won't be aware of the aborted potential for existence after it is terminated. You've stated that it's an imposition on the foetus to terminate it, which is a slightly softer view of the opinion expressed by fundamentalist, rabid anti-abortion Christians. No, benefit is something "beneficial", and life is super duper happening beneficial. So much beneficial goodness. Add parents making sure kids grow up sound and have blast after blast is what minimally competent parents who have any regard for their kids do. And I'm sorry you're still pining for "disembodied souls", but this life is all there is, so helping people get the most enjoyment out of it before they're dust is where it's at, and definitely not wallowing in homicidal narcissistic self-pity pretending it's for the "benefit" of those you would mass murder. As for imposition, you're correct. Nothing (not even your ratty chair) can possibly be imposed upon, until it exists. And even if your deranged version of "imposed upon" is entertained for a microsecond, at that point all aspects can be considered by the honest, all the good and the bad. And there is certainly more "imposition" in terminating something than not terminating it, regardless of your continuing "rapes" of the language. And of course "anti-abortion Christians" of the rabid persuasion (from you, (^∀^)) don't support a mother's right to abortion and say "the ma wins", regardless of the deranged manglings of language and basic sense from the death cultist who before worshiped procreation. "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."This is semantically, philosophically and logically invalid. Benefit is always a relative term, meaning that you are better off for having it than if you would have been without it. Since non-existence is a condition which cannot be improved upon, and in which you experience no desire for improvements, then existence can never be a benefit; especially one which is fraught with risk and harm. As for the right to die, I have every right to feel aggrieved by the fact that there exist arbitrary restrictions on my personal autonomy that were put in place who insist on imposing their religious beliefs on something that has nothing to do with them. In terms of antinatalism, I want to prevent people from creating more suffering, because the future sufferers do not have a voice to stand up for themselves. As far as already living people are concerned, I don't have a problem with them continuing to live, as long as they don't perpetuate the cycle of harm by creating new harmable life forms. The 'nuclear solution' isn't for the sake of people already existing, it's for the sake of those who would be forced to exist, absent some form of action being taken to prevent them from being imposed upon. And of course nothing that doesn't exist can be imposed upon, but that also stands for any life form which is non-sentient, including a foetus. Conversely, if we don't terminate the human foetus, then it will normally develop into a sentient human being who will be imposed upon and burdened by suffering and the maintenance requirements of continuing to exist, or will have to go to the trouble and risk of terminating their own existence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 1:23:54 GMT
tpfkar No, benefit is something "beneficial", and life is super duper happening beneficial. So much beneficial goodness. Add parents making sure kids grow up sound and have blast after blast is what minimally competent parents who have any regard for their kids do. And I'm sorry you're still pining for "disembodied souls", but this life is all there is, so helping people get the most enjoyment out of it before they're dust is where it's at, and definitely not wallowing in homicidal narcissistic self-pity pretending it's for the "benefit" of those you would mass murder. As for imposition, you're correct. Nothing (not even your ratty chair) can possibly be imposed upon, until it exists. And even if your deranged version of "imposed upon" is entertained for a microsecond, at that point all aspects can be considered by the honest, all the good and the bad. And there is certainly more "imposition" in terminating something than not terminating it, regardless of your continuing "rapes" of the language. And of course "anti-abortion Christians" of the rabid persuasion (from you, (^∀^)) don't support a mother's right to abortion and say "the ma wins", regardless of the deranged manglings of language and basic sense from the death cultist who before worshiped procreation. "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."This is semantically, philosophically and logically invalid. Benefit is always a relative term, meaning that you are better off for having it than if you would have been without it. Since non-existence is a condition which cannot be improved upon, and in which you experience no desire for improvements, then existence can never be a benefit; especially one which is fraught with risk and harm. As for the right to die, I have every right to feel aggrieved by the fact that there exist arbitrary restrictions on my personal autonomy that were put in place who insist on imposing their religious beliefs on something that has nothing to do with them. In terms of antinatalism, I want to prevent people from creating more suffering, because the future sufferers do not have a voice to stand up for themselves. As far as already living people are concerned, I don't have a problem with them continuing to live, as long as they don't perpetuate the cycle of harm by creating new harmable life forms. The 'nuclear solution' isn't for the sake of people already existing, it's for the sake of those who would be forced to exist, absent some form of action being taken to prevent them from being imposed upon. And of course nothing that doesn't exist can be imposed upon, but that also stands for any life form which is non-sentient, including a foetus. Conversely, if we don't terminate the human foetus, then it will normally develop into a sentient human being who will be imposed upon and burdened by suffering and the maintenance requirements of continuing to exist, or will have to go to the trouble and risk of terminating their own existence. In your kooky head. Kids are most assuredly better for how well parents take care of them. And non-existence is massively improved upon by having the option of experiencing the blast if life or chucking in the towel, or even just constantly moaning on it. And risk and harm of course is relative and balanced by great reward and nurture and pleasure, and experience for the great lucky time you have the option. You want to prevent "more suffering" by nuking the world and directly causing great affliction and in fact increasing vicious barbarity and misery exponentially by destroying the ever-tempering influence of modern society and sending things back ages or even crashing them back to savage pre- and early sentience all over again. And who cares what excuses you give for your pitiful desires to bring all down to your wallowing state and your psychopathic homicidal lusts. Your assertion on imposition and sentience does not follow other than it's something you want; terminating any creature is imposing on it in one form or another. In any case the positives and options far outweigh the negatives overall by leagues of leagues. And when competent they can make their choices independent of your sanguinary jackboot impulses. 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 24, 2018 1:41:24 GMT
tpfkar This is semantically, philosophically and logically invalid. Benefit is always a relative term, meaning that you are better off for having it than if you would have been without it. Since non-existence is a condition which cannot be improved upon, and in which you experience no desire for improvements, then existence can never be a benefit; especially one which is fraught with risk and harm. As for the right to die, I have every right to feel aggrieved by the fact that there exist arbitrary restrictions on my personal autonomy that were put in place who insist on imposing their religious beliefs on something that has nothing to do with them. In terms of antinatalism, I want to prevent people from creating more suffering, because the future sufferers do not have a voice to stand up for themselves. As far as already living people are concerned, I don't have a problem with them continuing to live, as long as they don't perpetuate the cycle of harm by creating new harmable life forms. The 'nuclear solution' isn't for the sake of people already existing, it's for the sake of those who would be forced to exist, absent some form of action being taken to prevent them from being imposed upon. And of course nothing that doesn't exist can be imposed upon, but that also stands for any life form which is non-sentient, including a foetus. Conversely, if we don't terminate the human foetus, then it will normally develop into a sentient human being who will be imposed upon and burdened by suffering and the maintenance requirements of continuing to exist, or will have to go to the trouble and risk of terminating their own existence. In your kooky head. Kids are most assuredly better for how well parents take care of them. And non-existence is massively improved upon by having the option of experiencing the blast if life or chucking in the towel, or even just constantly moaning on it. And risk and harm of course is relative and balanced by great reward and nurture and pleasure, and experience for the great lucky time you have the option. You want to prevent "more suffering" by nuking the world and directly causing great affliction and in fact increasing vicious barbarity and misery exponentially by destroying the ever-tempering influence of modern society and sending things back ages or even crashing them back to savage pre- and early sentience all over again. And who cares what excuses you give for your pitiful desires to bring all down to your wallowing state and your psychopathic homicidal lusts. Your assertion on imposition and sentience does not follow other than it's something you want; terminating any creature is imposing on it in one form or another. In any case the positives and options far outweigh the negatives overall by leagues of leagues. And when competent they can make their choices independent of your sanguinary jackboot impulses. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldIf the kids have to exist in the first place, then good parenting is beneficial to them. But well parented children have no advantage over children who never came into existence at all. Kind of like you may be a smoker and it would be beneficial to you to have 50% off cigarettes at your local shop, for life. I could be offered the same thing, but as I'm not a smoker, it would not be of any benefit to me. There are no non-existent children that are in need of any benefits; it is the parents who want the benefit of having children and come up with rationalisations to justify how the children would also benefit. It isn't lucky to exist, because 100% of people who get the opportunity to comprehend whether they want to exist are already extant. None of the hypothetical people who didn't get that opportunity were unlucky not to exist. It may be necessary to inflict suffering in order to prevent the people currently alive from imposing suffering on others. An imposition would be warranted in order to save the would-be victims of the current crop of extant people; but if possible it would be preferable to have the least amount of imposition possible. So if an AI system got built and filled the atmosphere with Carbon Monoxide until we all passed away peacefully, this would be a minimal imposition. An imposition can only become actualised when someone has the conscious ability to feel imposed upon. So let's imagine a pregnant woman who is a heavy alcohol drinker. If she gives birth to that child, her alcoholism will likely impose on that child via an increased likelihood of birth defects. If she is going to abort the child anyway, then there will be no sentient mind to be imposed upon.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 1:50:08 GMT
tpfkar In your kooky head. Kids are most assuredly better for how well parents take care of them. And non-existence is massively improved upon by having the option of experiencing the blast if life or chucking in the towel, or even just constantly moaning on it. And risk and harm of course is relative and balanced by great reward and nurture and pleasure, and experience for the great lucky time you have the option. You want to prevent "more suffering" by nuking the world and directly causing great affliction and in fact increasing vicious barbarity and misery exponentially by destroying the ever-tempering influence of modern society and sending things back ages or even crashing them back to savage pre- and early sentience all over again. And who cares what excuses you give for your pitiful desires to bring all down to your wallowing state and your psychopathic homicidal lusts. Your assertion on imposition and sentience does not follow other than it's something you want; terminating any creature is imposing on it in one form or another. In any case the positives and options far outweigh the negatives overall by leagues of leagues. And when competent they can make their choices independent of your sanguinary jackboot impulses. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldIf the kids have to exist in the first place, then good parenting is beneficial to them. But well parented children have no advantage over children who never came into existence at all. Kind of like you may be a smoker and it would be beneficial to you to have 50% off cigarettes at your local shop, for life. I could be offered the same thing, but as I'm not a smoker, it would not be of any benefit to me. There are no non-existent children that are in need of any benefits; it is the parents who want the benefit of having children and come up with rationalisations to justify how the children would also benefit. It isn't lucky to exist, because 100% of people who get the opportunity to comprehend whether they want to exist are already extant. None of the hypothetical people who didn't get that opportunity were unlucky not to exist. It may be necessary to inflict suffering in order to prevent the people currently alive from imposing suffering on others. An imposition would be warranted in order to save the would-be victims of the current crop of extant people; but if possible it would be preferable to have the least amount of imposition possible. So if an AI system got built and filled the atmosphere with Carbon Monoxide until we all passed away peacefully, this would be a minimal imposition. An imposition can only become actualised when someone has the conscious ability to feel imposed upon. So let's imagine a pregnant woman who is a heavy alcohol drinker. If she gives birth to that child, her alcoholism will likely impose on that child via an increased likelihood of birth defects. If she is going to abort the child anyway, then there will be no sentient mind to be imposed upon. They don't "have" to exist, they just wonderfully do. There is no comparison of any kind, much like there isn't your multitude-post asserted "imposition" to anything that never came into existence at all. Such "comparison" is the ramblings of homicidal madmen. And I know you consistently try to justify your sanguinary psychopathy and pathetic narcissism. "Imposition" for the gift of the superior option of experiencing or rejecting this wonderful experience is strictly the lugubrious framing of the morbidly (and in this case both mass-murdering homicidal and comically irrational) mentally ill. "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 24, 2018 20:09:54 GMT
tpfkar If the kids have to exist in the first place, then good parenting is beneficial to them. But well parented children have no advantage over children who never came into existence at all. Kind of like you may be a smoker and it would be beneficial to you to have 50% off cigarettes at your local shop, for life. I could be offered the same thing, but as I'm not a smoker, it would not be of any benefit to me. There are no non-existent children that are in need of any benefits; it is the parents who want the benefit of having children and come up with rationalisations to justify how the children would also benefit. It isn't lucky to exist, because 100% of people who get the opportunity to comprehend whether they want to exist are already extant. None of the hypothetical people who didn't get that opportunity were unlucky not to exist. It may be necessary to inflict suffering in order to prevent the people currently alive from imposing suffering on others. An imposition would be warranted in order to save the would-be victims of the current crop of extant people; but if possible it would be preferable to have the least amount of imposition possible. So if an AI system got built and filled the atmosphere with Carbon Monoxide until we all passed away peacefully, this would be a minimal imposition. An imposition can only become actualised when someone has the conscious ability to feel imposed upon. So let's imagine a pregnant woman who is a heavy alcohol drinker. If she gives birth to that child, her alcoholism will likely impose on that child via an increased likelihood of birth defects. If she is going to abort the child anyway, then there will be no sentient mind to be imposed upon. They don't "have" to exist, they just wonderfully do. There is no comparison of any kind, much like there isn't your multitude-post asserted "imposition" to anything that never came into existence at all. Such "comparison" is the ramblings of homicidal madmen. And I know you consistently try to justify your sanguinary psychopathy and pathetic narcissism. "Imposition" for the gift of the superior option of experiencing or rejecting this wonderful experience is strictly the lugubrious framing of the morbidly (and in this case both mass-murdering homicidal and comically irrational) mentally ill. "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."They have to exist in the sense that they didn't get a choice in the matter, and it was left to someone else's decision which was made without consultation with them. If you're claiming that life is 'beneficial', then that is a comparative statement between life and non-existence. If I'm mentally ill then what would my formal diagnosis be, what clinical credentials do you have in order to be able to make such a diagnosis (especially remotely), and what specifically were you picking up on in my posts that supports your formal diagnosis? I've never been diagnosed with any mental illness in my life, and at present I certainly don't feel as though I'm suffering from a mood imbalance, or any behavioural disorders which prevent me from functioning on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 20:16:50 GMT
tpfkar They have to exist in the sense that they didn't get a choice in the matter, and it was left to someone else's decision which was made without consultation with them. If you're claiming that life is 'beneficial', then that is a comparative statement between life and non-existence. If I'm mentally ill then what would my formal diagnosis be, what clinical credentials do you have in order to be able to make such a diagnosis (especially remotely), and what specifically were you picking up on in my posts that supports your formal diagnosis? I've never been diagnosed with any mental illness in my life, and at present I certainly don't feel as though I'm suffering from a mood imbalance, or any behavioural disorders which prevent me from functioning on a daily basis. "They have to exist in the sense that they didn't get a choice in the matter, and it was left to someone else's decision which was made without consultation with them." - pure babble. And life is "beneficial" as peeps derive many benefits from it. Couldn't be more simple or you "rape" it more bigly. You're mentally ill again to seriously crap out that one has to be a clinician in the field to have the opinion that some utterly bonkers psychopath who dreams of nuking the world and repeats bizarre irrationality after bizarre irrationality is mentally ill. But I know, you're on top o' the world, really! 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 24, 2018 23:13:25 GMT
tpfkar They have to exist in the sense that they didn't get a choice in the matter, and it was left to someone else's decision which was made without consultation with them. If you're claiming that life is 'beneficial', then that is a comparative statement between life and non-existence. If I'm mentally ill then what would my formal diagnosis be, what clinical credentials do you have in order to be able to make such a diagnosis (especially remotely), and what specifically were you picking up on in my posts that supports your formal diagnosis? I've never been diagnosed with any mental illness in my life, and at present I certainly don't feel as though I'm suffering from a mood imbalance, or any behavioural disorders which prevent me from functioning on a daily basis. "They have to exist in the sense that they didn't get a choice in the matter, and it was left to someone else's decision which was made without consultation with them." - pure babble. And life is "beneficial" as peeps derive many benefits from it. Couldn't be more simple or you "rape" it more bigly. You're mentally ill again to seriously crap out that one has to be a clinician in the field to have the opinion that some utterly bonkers psychopath who dreams of nuking the world and repeats bizarre irrationality after bizarre irrationality is mentally ill. But I know, you're on top o' the world, really! And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.Nobody is disadvantaged by not coming into existence; ergo nobody benefits from coming into existence. None of the points that I've made on antinatalism, right to die or free will have been irrational; they've been remorselessly logical and secular. With regards to what I post about Muslims and SJWs, I will admit that I allow myself license to inject a soupçon of whimsical hyperbole into my musings, and I'm less intellectually committed to those views. Evolution itself militates against anyone being deliriously happy at all times, because if this were the norm, then people would become complacent and would not feel the motivation to breed, or solve problems. I'm a dour individual, but my low moods aren't overwhelming and are a rational and not disproportionate to the situation in which I find myself.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 23:27:18 GMT
tpfkar "They have to exist in the sense that they didn't get a choice in the matter, and it was left to someone else's decision which was made without consultation with them." - pure babble. And life is "beneficial" as peeps derive many benefits from it. Couldn't be more simple or you "rape" it more bigly. You're mentally ill again to seriously crap out that one has to be a clinician in the field to have the opinion that some utterly bonkers psychopath who dreams of nuking the world and repeats bizarre irrationality after bizarre irrationality is mentally ill. But I know, you're on top o' the world, really! And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. Nobody is disadvantaged by not coming into existence; ergo nobody benefits from coming into existence. None of the points that I've made on antinatalism, right to die or free will have been irrational; they've been remorselessly logical and secular. With regards to what I post about Muslims and SJWs, I will admit that I allow myself license to inject a soupçon of whimsical hyperbole into my musings, and I'm less intellectually committed to those views. Evolution itself militates against anyone being deliriously happy at all times, because if this were the norm, then people would become complacent and would not feel the motivation to breed, or solve problems. I'm a dour individual, but my low moods aren't overwhelming and are a rational and not disproportionate to the situation in which I find myself. Does not follow. Livin' this life is a massive benefit, ergo, BAM, we're benefitting baby! And "Nobody is disadvantaged by not coming into existence" is meaningless prattle. You "know" choice doesn't really exist yet you choose to furiously try to get people to choose to follow you into your pit of morbid psychopathy, you assert your deranged framings are somehow "objective", you say the nonexistent are somehow imposed upon in any way, but not the actual existent when terminated, you want to nuke us to save us, that you're nonviolent but that you'd mass-murder everybody, you say you want to end savagery & suffering but then support what would magnify it exponentially by stripping away the tempering influence of developed society. And on and on, all covered, many times. And a "soupçon of whimsical hyperbole"! That's what you alt-righters call that, do you? "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 24, 2018 23:33:45 GMT
tpfkar Nobody is disadvantaged by not coming into existence; ergo nobody benefits from coming into existence. None of the points that I've made on antinatalism, right to die or free will have been irrational; they've been remorselessly logical and secular. With regards to what I post about Muslims and SJWs, I will admit that I allow myself license to inject a soupçon of whimsical hyperbole into my musings, and I'm less intellectually committed to those views. Evolution itself militates against anyone being deliriously happy at all times, because if this were the norm, then people would become complacent and would not feel the motivation to breed, or solve problems. I'm a dour individual, but my low moods aren't overwhelming and are a rational and not disproportionate to the situation in which I find myself. Does not follow. Livin' this life is a massive benefit, ergo, BAM, we're benefitting baby! And "Nobody is disadvantaged by not coming into existence" is meaningless prattle. You "know" choice doesn't really exist yet you choose to furiously try to get people to choose to follow you into your pit of morbid psychopathy, you assert your deranged framings are somehow "objective", you say the nonexistent are somehow imposed upon in any way, but not the actual existent when terminated, you want to nuke us to save us, that you're nonviolent but that you'd mass-murder everybody, you say you want to end savagery & suffering but then support what would magnify it exponentially by stripping away the tempering influence of developed society. And on and on, all covered, many times. And a "soupçon of whimsical hyperbole"! That's what you alt-righters call that, do you? "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."I've never claimed that anything non-existent is ever imposed upon. Imposition is causing a sentient consciousness to exist, and it only becomes an imposition once that life does exist. And the fact that people don't magically choose which thoughts to think before thinking them does not mean that they cannot be influenced in their thinking by other thinkers, whose thinking is also caused by events beyond their control. If you had someone who was impervious to all external influences, that would be a stronger (although probably insufficient) case for free will than someone who responds to external influences (all of which are deterministic). I'm not wanting to 'save' people who currently exist and don't want to be 'saved'. I want to prevent the likes of you from imposing on others just because you have the power and the ability to do so. Although I'm non-violent, I would have to stack that up against the scale of the suffering that would be permitted to be created and perpetuated indefinitely if people like you weren't stopped from doing what you intend to do.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 23:46:41 GMT
tpfkar Does not follow. Livin' this life is a massive benefit, ergo, BAM, we're benefitting baby! And "Nobody is disadvantaged by not coming into existence" is meaningless prattle. You "know" choice doesn't really exist yet you choose to furiously try to get people to choose to follow you into your pit of morbid psychopathy, you assert your deranged framings are somehow "objective", you say the nonexistent are somehow imposed upon in any way, but not the actual existent when terminated, you want to nuke us to save us, that you're nonviolent but that you'd mass-murder everybody, you say you want to end savagery & suffering but then support what would magnify it exponentially by stripping away the tempering influence of developed society. And on and on, all covered, many times. And a "soupçon of whimsical hyperbole"! That's what you alt-righters call that, do you? "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."I've never claimed that anything non-existent is ever imposed upon. Imposition is causing a sentient consciousness to exist, and it only becomes an imposition once that life does exist. And the fact that people don't magically choose which thoughts to think before thinking them does not mean that they cannot be influenced in their thinking by other thinkers, whose thinking is also caused by events beyond their control. If you had someone who was impervious to all external influences, that would be a stronger (although probably insufficient) case for free will than someone who responds to external influences (all of which are deterministic). I'm not wanting to 'save' people who currently exist and don't want to be 'saved'. I want to prevent the likes of you from imposing on others just because you have the power and the ability to do so. Although I'm non-violent, I would have to stack that up against the scale of the suffering that would be permitted to be created and perpetuated indefinitely if people like you weren't stopped from doing what you intend to do. And you think that's not pure babble. And once that life exists then all can and should be considered, the good and the bad, and not just the morbid framing of the superior position of having a choice to experience this great blast or to reject it, as the morbidly framed "imposition". And there's no way you can rehabilitate "holding" that there is no choice yet choosing to furiously try to get people to choose to do anything differently than what you "believe" they've been "preprogrammed" to do as "robots" since when, before time? And then there's the mass-murder and general psychopathy thing. Free will is simply doing what you choose according to who and what you are and what you want. Belly-staring about how we got there doesn't change that the creatures are part and parcel of the process and are making the choices. 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 25, 2018 17:09:03 GMT
tpfkar I've never claimed that anything non-existent is ever imposed upon. Imposition is causing a sentient consciousness to exist, and it only becomes an imposition once that life does exist. And the fact that people don't magically choose which thoughts to think before thinking them does not mean that they cannot be influenced in their thinking by other thinkers, whose thinking is also caused by events beyond their control. If you had someone who was impervious to all external influences, that would be a stronger (although probably insufficient) case for free will than someone who responds to external influences (all of which are deterministic). I'm not wanting to 'save' people who currently exist and don't want to be 'saved'. I want to prevent the likes of you from imposing on others just because you have the power and the ability to do so. Although I'm non-violent, I would have to stack that up against the scale of the suffering that would be permitted to be created and perpetuated indefinitely if people like you weren't stopped from doing what you intend to do. And you think that's not pure babble. And once that life exists then all can and should be considered, the good and the bad, and not just the morbid framing of the superior position of having a choice to experience this great blast or to reject it, as the morbidly framed "imposition". Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.No, because once life exists, that means that you've created problems, both potential and actual, that needn't have existed. Better just not to create the problem. All changes of mind and people choosing to differently than they have in the past, whether by influence from another person or influence from other causal agents, are all part of determinism.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 17:14:13 GMT
tpfkar No, because once life exists, that means that you've created problems, both potential and actual, that needn't have existed. Better just not to create the problem. All changes of mind and people choosing to differently than they have in the past, whether by influence from another person or influence from other causal agents, are all part of determinism. "Need" is not a factor in existence or not. And what's been created is great opportunity, your wallowingly morbid "better" is wholly rejected. And cause and effect doesn't yield the religious "pre-determinism" you spout just like "antinatalism" doesn't yield you mass-murderous psychopathy and coarse irrationality. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 1, 2018 6:37:08 GMT
tpfkar 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. Why are you raping him by contradicting him? I too hate it when you get raped daily by gravity, or by a mugger taking your wallet, or even by a stranger resuscitating you after you've choked-out on a chicken bone. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.
|
|