Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 1:25:05 GMT
tpfkar You're trivialising suffering, or at least marginalising the sufferers and trying to shut down that side of the debate. You've also claimed countless of times that suicide is a trivially easy act, in spite of the overwhelming and conclusive evidence to the contrary, both to justify denying people access to state-assisted suicide and also to wave away any concerns for the wellbeing of people who will exist in the future. In answering shrill lugubriously nonsensical framings posed as "fact', one isn't required to respond with nuance. How pray tell am I "shutting down" any debate? Is this more of your hissing about others wanting "safe spaces" while howling about people having the gall to not respond to you or the temerity to respond to your utter horsesh!t? As you well know, my position is that state-assisted suicide is warranted for the terminal who aren't mentally ill and where we can reliably separate their sound wants from derangements from their pathology. And the wellbeing of future peeps is getting net-better rapidly, at least for as long as we can keep the psychopaths from nuking the place back into abject savagery and exponentially-ramped suffering.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceYou're denying the testimony of those who suffer, not to mention trying to stigmatise the mentally ill or suicidal to try and prevent them from participating in the debate, or having their wishes taken seriously. And you've stated many times that everyone's having a blast and downplayed the fate of anyone who reports that they aren't having a blast and aren't finding it easy to commit suicide. Your opinion on state assisted suicide is the same as most mainstream Christians, and is a trivial concession to people's bodily autonomy and it denies people full rights over their own body because of a discredited and bigoted misconception about mental illness and rational decision making. And it's really just a fig leaf for the theological sanctity of life, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 31, 2017 1:27:08 GMT
tpfkar Goodness you're thick. That link doesn't support what you think it does. It simply states that there's no linear progression. It certainly does not state that there is no cause and effect. The thick of "Objective Morals", and furiously choosing to try to persuade people to choose differently when you don't believe choice exists? Or just harping bizarre on experiments that you don't comprehend? Or <longlist>.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 31, 2017 1:35:51 GMT
tpfkar In answering shrill lugubriously nonsensical framings posed as "fact', one isn't required to respond with nuance. How pray tell am I "shutting down" any debate? Is this more of your hissing about others wanting "safe spaces" while howling about people having the gall to not respond to you or the temerity to respond to your utter horsesh!t? As you well know, my position is that state-assisted suicide is warranted for the terminal who aren't mentally ill and where we can reliably separate their sound wants from derangements from their pathology. And the wellbeing of future peeps is getting net-better rapidly, at least for as long as we can keep the psychopaths from nuking the place back into abject savagery and exponentially-ramped suffering.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceYou're denying the testimony of those who suffer, not to mention trying to stigmatise the mentally ill or suicidal to try and prevent them from participating in the debate, or having their wishes taken seriously. And you've stated many times that everyone's having a blast and downplayed the fate of anyone who reports that they aren't having a blast and aren't finding it easy to commit suicide. Your opinion on state assisted suicide is the same as most mainstream Christians, and is a trivial concession to people's bodily autonomy and it denies people full rights over their own body because of a discredited and bigoted misconception about mental illness and rational decision making. And it's really just a fig leaf for the theological sanctity of life, anyway. I'm not putting them down via listening to their derangements. Which mentally ill am I stigmatizing by not wanting to kill them because they ask for it? I never stated that everyone's having a blast; clearly some are not. And it is an unassailable fact that anyone of minimum physical capability who is competent of mind can trivially accomplish it if they have truly decided and aren't actually struggling with the decision, lashing out, acting rashly, disconsolate, etc. My opinion of preferring clean air over smog is the same as most mainstream Christians as well. Your opinion on state assisted suicide is the same as most deranged psychopaths who want their man in the White House to nuke the world.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 1:56:40 GMT
tpfkar You're denying the testimony of those who suffer, not to mention trying to stigmatise the mentally ill or suicidal to try and prevent them from participating in the debate, or having their wishes taken seriously. And you've stated many times that everyone's having a blast and downplayed the fate of anyone who reports that they aren't having a blast and aren't finding it easy to commit suicide. Your opinion on state assisted suicide is the same as most mainstream Christians, and is a trivial concession to people's bodily autonomy and it denies people full rights over their own body because of a discredited and bigoted misconception about mental illness and rational decision making. And it's really just a fig leaf for the theological sanctity of life, anyway. I'm not putting them down via listening to their derangements. Which mentally ill am I stigmatizing by not wanting to kill them because they ask for it? I never stated that everyone's having a blast; clearly some are not. And it is an unassailable fact that anyone of minimum physical capability who is competent of mind can trivially accomplish it if they have truly decided and aren't actually struggling with the decision, lashing out, acting rashly, disconsolate, etc. My opinion of preferring clean air over smog is the same as most mainstream Christians as well. Your opinion on state assisted suicide is the same as most deranged psychopaths who want their man in the White House to nuke the world.
Does Free Will Exist?You are putting them down by calling them 'deranged' and making a blanket assessment that they are incapable of making informed and rational decisions concerning their own wellbeing, without knowing the specifics of each individual case. And you are stigmatising all individuals that you wish to continue to deny access to assisted dying. You either refer to them as 'deranged' (and many of these are people who hold down a steady job, pay their taxes and mortgage, and make many decisions for themselves day after day without the need for oversight) or more euphemistically, 'vulnerable' ( everyone is vulnerable to harm, so it makes no sense to single out any particular group). And the statistics and personal reports from many people who have not committed suicide, or had a failed attempt conclusively refutes your claims. Which is another way that you are marginalising the suicidal, by refusing to accept the validity of the statements that they are making concerning their own experiences. Atheists in general (most of whom aren't antinatalists) are increasingly in favour of broadening the scope for the right to die beyond the terminally ill; whilst you wouldn't even support it for paralysed but not terminally ill people who were found by a panel of psychiatrists to not be suffering from mental illness, which just exposes your 'not of sound mind' calumnies as being a fig leaf for the sanctity of life. Saying that it's OK for terminally ill people to check out a week or two early after they've been analysed by every psychiatrist practicing within 50 miles of their home postcode really seems to be more saving face than any real idealogical shift away from the Catholic concept of the sanctity of life. It's tokenistic lip service to the idea of bodily autonomy, and no more. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 31, 2017 2:14:47 GMT
tpfkar I'm not putting them down via listening to their derangements. Which mentally ill am I stigmatizing by not wanting to kill them because they ask for it? I never stated that everyone's having a blast; clearly some are not. And it is an unassailable fact that anyone of minimum physical capability who is competent of mind can trivially accomplish it if they have truly decided and aren't actually struggling with the decision, lashing out, acting rashly, disconsolate, etc. My opinion of preferring clean air over smog is the same as most mainstream Christians as well. Your opinion on state assisted suicide is the same as most deranged psychopaths who want their man in the White House to nuke the world.
Does Free Will Exist?You are putting them down by calling them 'deranged' and making a blanket assessment that they are incapable of making informed and rational decisions concerning their own wellbeing, without knowing the specifics of each individual case. And you are stigmatising all individuals that you wish to continue to deny access to assisted dying. You either refer to them as 'deranged' (and many of these are people who hold down a steady job, pay their taxes and mortgage, and make many decisions for themselves day after day without the need for oversight) or more euphemistically, 'vulnerable' ( everyone is vulnerable to harm, so it makes no sense to single out any particular group). And the statistics and personal reports from many people who have not committed suicide, or had a failed attempt conclusively refutes your claims. Which is another way that you are marginalising the suicidal, by refusing to accept the validity of the statements that they are making concerning their own experiences. Atheists in general (most of whom aren't antinatalists) are increasingly in favour of broadening the scope for the right to die beyond the terminally ill; whilst you wouldn't even support it for paralysed but not terminally ill people who were found by a panel of psychiatrists to not be suffering from mental illness, which just exposes your 'not of sound mind' calumnies as being a fig leaf for the sanctity of life. Saying that it's OK for terminally ill people to check out a week or two early after they've been analysed by every psychiatrist practicing within 50 miles of their home postcode really seems to be more saving face than any real idealogical shift away from the Catholic concept of the sanctity of life. It's tokenistic lip service to the idea of bodily autonomy, and no more. I'm calling you deranged for your deranged posts, as in choosing to furiously try to persuade people to choose differently when you don't believe actual choice exists, your psychopathic desire for your man to nuke the world, and even your latest life sanctity/malediction false dichotomy brain implosion. Not to mention your bawls about insults when you continuously field insults. And I'm comfortable that if they were mentally competent they would not need the help. And I'm not concerned with "stigmatizing" people by discussing facts, nor your raw inept massively hypocritical attempt to "stifle" debate by calling that stigmatizing. Find you one of those safe spaces you like to alt-hiss about so much. No statistics even dings my assertions, your deranged analysis and presentations notwithstanding. And some are obviously more vulnerable that others and we as a society have set up special protections for them and so your rant about all being the same is just that, more deranged rant. As multiple times discussed, the massively paralyzed could easily be considered terminal without ongoing life support; it's just more of your gushing into extremes to try to justify your blanket crazy. And as also repeatedly discussed, there is palliation with refusal of nutrition and hydration.
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
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 22:26:58 GMT
tpfkar Goodness you're thick. That link doesn't support what you think it does. It simply states that there's no linear progression. It certainly does not state that there is no cause and effect. The thick of "Objective Morals", and furiously choosing to try to persuade people to choose differently when you don't believe choice exists? Or just harping bizarre on experiments that you don't comprehend? Or <longlist>.
Does Free Will Exist?More along the lines of we need to protect the vulnerable from harm by ensuring that their requests to be assisted to attain a state where they cannot be harmed are refused and that they have to continue indefinitely enduring the harm to which they are vulnerable type of thick. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 31, 2017 22:46:56 GMT
tpfkar The thick of "Objective Morals", and furiously choosing to try to persuade people to choose differently when you don't believe choice exists? Or just harping bizarre on experiments that you don't comprehend? Or <longlist>.
Does Free Will Exist?More along the lines of we need to protect the vulnerable from harm by ensuring that their requests to be assisted to attain a state where they cannot be harmed are refused and that they have to continue indefinitely enduring the harm to which they are vulnerable type of thick. Sure, the deranged psychopath who wants Trump to nuke the world's ever-chanted mantra.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 23:08:01 GMT
tpfkar You are putting them down by calling them 'deranged' and making a blanket assessment that they are incapable of making informed and rational decisions concerning their own wellbeing, without knowing the specifics of each individual case. And you are stigmatising all individuals that you wish to continue to deny access to assisted dying. You either refer to them as 'deranged' (and many of these are people who hold down a steady job, pay their taxes and mortgage, and make many decisions for themselves day after day without the need for oversight) or more euphemistically, 'vulnerable' ( everyone is vulnerable to harm, so it makes no sense to single out any particular group). And the statistics and personal reports from many people who have not committed suicide, or had a failed attempt conclusively refutes your claims. Which is another way that you are marginalising the suicidal, by refusing to accept the validity of the statements that they are making concerning their own experiences. Atheists in general (most of whom aren't antinatalists) are increasingly in favour of broadening the scope for the right to die beyond the terminally ill; whilst you wouldn't even support it for paralysed but not terminally ill people who were found by a panel of psychiatrists to not be suffering from mental illness, which just exposes your 'not of sound mind' calumnies as being a fig leaf for the sanctity of life. Saying that it's OK for terminally ill people to check out a week or two early after they've been analysed by every psychiatrist practicing within 50 miles of their home postcode really seems to be more saving face than any real idealogical shift away from the Catholic concept of the sanctity of life. It's tokenistic lip service to the idea of bodily autonomy, and no more. I'm calling you deranged for your deranged posts, as in choosing to furiously try to persuade people to choose differently when you don't believe actual choice exists, your psychopathic desire for your man to nuke the world, and even your latest life sanctity/malediction false dichotomy brain implosion. Not to mention your bawls about insults when you continuously field insults. And I'm comfortable that if they were mentally competent they would not need the help. And I'm not concerned with "stigmatizing" people by discussing facts, nor your raw inept massively hypocritical attempt to "stifle" debate by calling that stigmatizing. Find you one of those safe spaces you like to alt-hiss about so much. No statistics even dings my assertions, your deranged analysis and presentations notwithstanding. And some are obviously more vulnerable that others and we as a society have set up special protections for them and so your rant about all being the same is just that, more deranged rant. As multiple times discussed, the massively paralyzed could easily be considered terminal without ongoing life support; it's just more of your gushing into extremes to try to justify your blanket crazy. And as also repeatedly discussed, there is palliation with refusal of nutrition and hydration.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.You've referred to all mentally ill people as 'deranged' to justify refusing them the right to assisted dying. The statistics and also personal accounts overwhelmingly and conclusively prove that suicide is not easy for those who have not developed learned fearlessness, and I've actually provided links to science articles to corroborate the claim that learned fearlessness is required. Coupled with the high failure rate for suicide attempts, this is an unanswerable case. You are stigmatising the mentally ill by treating them as a deranged monolith who are incapable of making rational decisions. And there are no 'special protections' for the mentally ill with regards to assisted dying. The 'special protections' are for your belief system and the value that you attribute to human life. Those protections are there for the comfort of people like you; and the mentally ill are the ones who pay the cost of keeping you from having to confront your own mortality or the stark meaninglessness of human life. It isn't possible to get any more protected than being in a state where you are not vulnerable to harm (i.e. death). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 31, 2017 23:23:55 GMT
tpfkar I'm calling you deranged for your deranged posts, as in choosing to furiously try to persuade people to choose differently when you don't believe actual choice exists, your psychopathic desire for your man to nuke the world, and even your latest life sanctity/malediction false dichotomy brain implosion. Not to mention your bawls about insults when you continuously field insults. And I'm comfortable that if they were mentally competent they would not need the help. And I'm not concerned with "stigmatizing" people by discussing facts, nor your raw inept massively hypocritical attempt to "stifle" debate by calling that stigmatizing. Find you one of those safe spaces you like to alt-hiss about so much. No statistics even dings my assertions, your deranged analysis and presentations notwithstanding. And some are obviously more vulnerable that others and we as a society have set up special protections for them and so your rant about all being the same is just that, more deranged rant. As multiple times discussed, the massively paralyzed could easily be considered terminal without ongoing life support; it's just more of your gushing into extremes to try to justify your blanket crazy. And as also repeatedly discussed, there is palliation with refusal of nutrition and hydration.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.You've referred to all mentally ill people as 'deranged' to justify refusing them the right to assisted dying. The statistics and also personal accounts overwhelmingly and conclusively prove that suicide is not easy for those who have not developed learned fearlessness, and I've actually provided links to science articles to corroborate the claim that learned fearlessness is required. Coupled with the high failure rate for suicide attempts, this is an unanswerable case. You are stigmatising the mentally ill by treating them as a deranged monolith who are incapable of making rational decisions. And there are no 'special protections' for the mentally ill with regards to assisted dying. The 'special protections' are for your belief system and the value that you attribute to human life. Those protections are there for the comfort of people like you; and the mentally ill are the ones who pay the cost of keeping you from having to confront your own mortality or the stark meaninglessness of human life. It isn't possible to get any more protected than being in a state where you are not vulnerable to harm (i.e. death). If they are physically capable and can't manage then they have some sort of mental disability / derangement.  That's just definitional fact. If the derangement/deficit wasn't present they wouldn't need the "assist" for the trivially accomplished once decided act. Learned fearlessness is needed to overcome their remaining doubt and desire to live. High failure rates of course includes predominantly those acting rashly and irrationally and otherwise incompetently, of course irrelevant to the point that if someone has really worked it out they wouldn't be in such a state nor position. Of course I attribute value to human life just as I attribute value to countless things. Not pushing the mentally ill/rash/narcissistic/highly irrational off cliffs is very different from the impossible task of stopping the competent from doing what they want with/to themselves. As for my own mortality I understand it fully, which is why I'd hope someone would protect me from harming myself if I was mentally ill and not encourage any self-harm thoughts I had if I was deranged / disconsolate over something. I'd hope they'd help me to use up whatever I had left.
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"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." |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 1, 2018 0:47:08 GMT
tpfkar The thick of "Objective Morals", and furiously choosing to try to persuade people to choose differently when you don't believe choice exists? Or just harping bizarre on experiments that you don't comprehend? Or <longlist>.
Does Free Will Exist?More along the lines of we need to protect the vulnerable from harm by ensuring that their requests to be assisted to attain a state where they cannot be harmed are refused and that they have to continue indefinitely enduring the harm to which they are vulnerable type of thick. OK Mic. What is your end game? What is it you actually want. Given that you could direct the course of humanity how would you want it to pan out? Do you want no-one to be born? Do you want humans to die out within one hundred years? Do you want anyone who is tired of life and wishes they had never been born to have an assisted suicide? What is it you are actually advocating that would be the end result of your argument? You state that you won't commit suicide yourself because you have to plead this case, what ever it is. What is it? What do you actually want and think is the moral solution for human beings that you are advocating? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 7:25:14 GMT
More along the lines of we need to protect the vulnerable from harm by ensuring that their requests to be assisted to attain a state where they cannot be harmed are refused and that they have to continue indefinitely enduring the harm to which they are vulnerable type of thick. OK Mic. What is your end game? What is it you actually want. Given that you could direct the course of humanity how would you want it to pan out? Do you want no-one to be born? Do you want humans to die out within one hundred years? Do you want anyone who is tired of life and wishes they had never been born to have an assisted suicide? What is it you are actually advocating that would be the end result of your argument? You state that you won't commit suicide yourself because you have to plead this case, what ever it is. What is it? What do you actually want and think is the moral solution for human beings that you are advocating? I'd like to see the cycle of imposition ended (so no more births), and anyone who has yet been imposed upon to have the legally protected right to end the imposition through peaceful means. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 7:29:04 GMT
OK Mic. What is your end game? What is it you actually want. Given that you could direct the course of humanity how would you want it to pan out? Do you want no-one to be born? Do you want humans to die out within one hundred years? Do you want anyone who is tired of life and wishes they had never been born to have an assisted suicide? What is it you are actually advocating that would be the end result of your argument? You state that you won't commit suicide yourself because you have to plead this case, what ever it is. What is it? What do you actually want and think is the moral solution for human beings that you are advocating? I'd like to see the cycle of imposition ended (so no more births), and anyone who has yet been imposed upon to have the legally protected right to end the imposition through peaceful means. LOL His answer to suffering is to lobby for non-existence. Poor guy. Life sure sucks for some people I guess. You are excellent at articulating depression and using logic to justify a depressed state. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 7:33:05 GMT
I'd like to see the cycle of imposition ended (so no more births), and anyone who has yet been imposed upon to have the legally protected right to end the imposition through peaceful means. LOL His answer to suffering is to lobby for non-existence. Poor guy. Life sure sucks for some people I guess. You are excellent at articulating depression and using logic to justify a depressed state. Nobody ever minded not existing before they were born. Nobody was being deprived of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 7:36:40 GMT
LOL His answer to suffering is to lobby for non-existence. Poor guy. Life sure sucks for some people I guess. You are excellent at articulating depression and using logic to justify a depressed state. Nobody ever minded not existing before they were born. Nobody was being deprived of anything. Speak for yourself. Of course missing out on your life doesn't seem like much... but I would personally really regret not having experienced my life just because some depressed person decided that nobody should be born anymore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 7:39:46 GMT
Nobody ever minded not existing before they were born. Nobody was being deprived of anything. Speak for yourself. Of course missing out on your life doesn't seem like much... but I would personally really regret not having experienced my life just because some depressed person decided that nobody should be born anymore. So you did mind not existing before you were born, and believe that you would have felt deprived (with your non-existent brain) of your life had you not been born? If that's the case, then you ought to believe that there should be an obligation for everyone to have as many children as possible. Your heart certainly must bleed for all those non-existent people who are feeling deprived of their counterfactual lives right now.  That's literally an infinite number of non-existent people who are right now being tortured by deprivation, according to your beliefs and being ravaged with regret. What do you think should be done about such a rank injustice? |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 7:43:11 GMT
Speak for yourself. Of course missing out on your life doesn't seem like much... but I would personally really regret not having experienced my life just because some depressed person decided that nobody should be born anymore. So you did mind not existing before you were born, and believe that you would have felt deprived (with your non-existent brain) of your life had you not been born? If that's the case, then you ought to believe that there should be an obligation for everyone to have as many children as possible. Your heart certainly must bleed for all those non-existent people who are feeling deprived of their counterfactual lives right now. That's literally an infinite number of non-existent people who are right now being tortured by deprivation, according to your beliefs and being ravaged with regret. What do you think should be done about such a rank injustice? I feel like I existed in many bodies before I was born in this one. Like I said, you are very good at articulating depression and using logic to justify depression. Let me guess, you're very adept at pulling people around you IRL into your little mud pit of self pity? Or do you simply not have anyone around you to push away? I'm here for you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 7:46:25 GMT
So you did mind not existing before you were born, and believe that you would have felt deprived (with your non-existent brain) of your life had you not been born? If that's the case, then you ought to believe that there should be an obligation for everyone to have as many children as possible. Your heart certainly must bleed for all those non-existent people who are feeling deprived of their counterfactual lives right now. That's literally an infinite number of non-existent people who are right now being tortured by deprivation, according to your beliefs and being ravaged with regret. What do you think should be done about such a rank injustice? I feel like I existed in many bodies before I was born in this one. Like I said, you are very good at articulating depression and using logic to justify depression. Let me guess, you're very adept at pulling people around you IRL into your little mud pit of self pity? Or do you simply not have anyone around you to push away? I'm here for you. Yeah, and you 'feel like' that way because the truth isn't emotionally satisfying to you. Not wanting to impose on other people with risks and harms to which they cannot consent has nothing to do with 'depression'. How many children have you personally benefited by bringing into existence? However many it is, it isn't enough, going by your beliefs. Still an infinite number of hypothetical children floating about the ether who are regretting that it was inconvenient for you to bring them into existence, causing them to miss out (with their non-existent brains) on the life that they could have had. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 8:03:50 GMT
I feel like I existed in many bodies before I was born in this one. Like I said, you are very good at articulating depression and using logic to justify depression. Let me guess, you're very adept at pulling people around you IRL into your little mud pit of self pity? Or do you simply not have anyone around you to push away? I'm here for you. Yeah, and you 'feel like' that way because the truth isn't emotionally satisfying to you. Not wanting to impose on other people with risks and harms to which they cannot consent has nothing to do with 'depression'. How many children have you personally benefited by bringing into existence? However many it is, it isn't enough, going by your beliefs. Still an infinite number of hypothetical children floating about the ether who are regretting that it was inconvenient for you to bring them into existence, causing them to miss out (with their non-existent brains) on the life that they could have had. Your truth is not my truth. You can say 'nothing to do with depression', but someone who advocates for no more babies being born is not a happy person or a person who is enjoying their life. A person who sees only the suffering in the world and seeks to ensure nobody suffers by advocating for 'no more babies' is basically the textbook definition of depressed. Sucks to be you. But hey, at least you can justify your depression to yourself! LOL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 8:52:16 GMT
Yeah, and you 'feel like' that way because the truth isn't emotionally satisfying to you. Not wanting to impose on other people with risks and harms to which they cannot consent has nothing to do with 'depression'. How many children have you personally benefited by bringing into existence? However many it is, it isn't enough, going by your beliefs. Still an infinite number of hypothetical children floating about the ether who are regretting that it was inconvenient for you to bring them into existence, causing them to miss out (with their non-existent brains) on the life that they could have had. Your truth is not my truth. You can say 'nothing to do with depression', but someone who advocates for no more babies being born is not a happy person or a person who is enjoying their life. A person who sees only the suffering in the world and seeks to ensure nobody suffers by advocating for 'no more babies' is basically the textbook definition of depressed. Sucks to be you. But hey, at least you can justify your depression to yourself! LOL Which textbook are you looking at, then? And could you quote the relevant passage from the textbook. That would be helpful. But getting back to the actual point...is it pathological to be concerned about the issue of consent and of people being subject to harms in order to satisfy someone else's end? Couldn't that just as easily be turned around to say that you're only interested in acknowledging the side of reality that you wish to see? So, for example, you couldn't give less of a shit about the sweatshop workers who toil away under oppressive conditions for 16 hours a day in order to manufacture the goods that you consume. Furthermore your hoodoo spiritualistic beliefs seem to be a way of suppressing facets of reality that you wish to ignore. Someone who is perfectly happy with the way things are (or at least, as they appear on the surface) isn't going to be the type of person to cobble together such an incoherent and childish fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 9:08:25 GMT
Your truth is not my truth. You can say 'nothing to do with depression', but someone who advocates for no more babies being born is not a happy person or a person who is enjoying their life. A person who sees only the suffering in the world and seeks to ensure nobody suffers by advocating for 'no more babies' is basically the textbook definition of depressed. Sucks to be you. But hey, at least you can justify your depression to yourself! LOL Which textbook are you looking at, then? And could you quote the relevant passage from the textbook. That would be helpful. But getting back to the actual point...is it pathological to be concerned about the issue of consent and of people being subject to harms in order to satisfy someone else's end? Couldn't that just as easily be turned around to say that you're only interested in acknowledging the side of reality that you wish to see? So, for example, you couldn't give less of a shit about the sweatshop workers who toil away under oppressive conditions for 16 hours a day in order to manufacture the goods that you consume. Furthermore your hoodoo spiritualistic beliefs seem to be a way of suppressing facets of reality that you wish to ignore. Someone who is perfectly happy with the way things are (or at least, as they appear on the surface) isn't going to be the type of person to cobble together such an incoherent and childish fantasy. I work with depressed people every day. I don't need to look at a textbook to see you're someone who is valiantly attempting to intellectualize his depression. People like you are harder to treat, because they see their low mood and negative perspective of the world as being completely logical. People who enjoy their lives and see the positives, they're the ones who aren't seeing clearly!!! Have you tried many anti-depressants? How about minimizing your consumption of news media? What's stopping you from ending your misery? I'm curious. |
|
