Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 9:17:12 GMT
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. Ok, and these people with depression that you work with; have you ever told them that their suffering is a price worth paying so that other people (including yourself) can experience pleasure? How about any homeless people, freezing out on the streets - have you tried telling them that? How about just telling them 'you have to suffer, because I'm worth it'? I never made any statement about people who enjoy their lives not perceiving clearly (so as well as an ad hominem attack to try and discredit me, this is a straw man argument); simply that it isn't right for you to risk the wellbeing of those who cannot consent in order to enable you to better enjoy your life. What I'm arguing is that it's fine for you to go ahead and have your jollies; but just don't drag someone else into it who cannot consent and is going to be vulnerable to harm. As for the other ad hominems, I am not going to answer anything that isn't related to what I'm arguing and which is intended to discredit the rational argument that I'm espousing. So you can continue insulting, but I'm only going to respond to your attempts to find fault with my argument, not any attempt to bypass the argument by discrediting me personally. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 9:30:22 GMT
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. Ok, and these people with depression that you work with; have you ever told them that their suffering is a price worth paying so that other people (including yourself) can experience pleasure? Nope. How about any homeless people, freezing out on the streets - have you tried telling them that? How about just telling them 'you have to suffer, because I'm worth it'? WTF are you talking about? Is that what you read from my posts? I'm questioning your reading comprehension now. I never made any statement about people who enjoy their lives not perceiving clearly (so as well as an ad hominem attack to try and discredit me, this is a straw man argument); simply that it isn't right for you to risk the wellbeing of those who cannot consent in order to enable you to better enjoy your life. What I'm arguing is that it's fine for you to go ahead and have your jollies; but just don't drag someone else into it who cannot consent and is going to be vulnerable to harm. Fair enough, I apologize for implying that you feel like you see the world clearly but others do not.
For the rest of that, IMO you thinking you can speak for all the unborn because of your personal experience is completely narcissistic and frankly, idiotic.
Thinking that anyone needs to obtain the consent of an unborn soul before you bring them into the world.. sure that sounds fantastic but it's also not going to happen.... ever.. so it's a stupid thing to discuss. Sure you're saying 'They can't consent'.. Well duhhhhh. As for the other ad hominems, I am not going to answer anything that isn't related to what I'm arguing and which is intended to discredit the rational argument that I'm espousing. So you can continue insulting, but I'm only going to respond to your attempts to find fault with my argument, not any attempt to bypass the argument by discrediting me personally. Well, good for you in not having kids. I agree with you 100% that you having children would be a bad decision.
I also agree with you that many, many people who have kids have them for the wrong reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 2, 2018 9:49:24 GMT
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. Ok, and these people with depression that you work with; have you ever told them that their suffering is a price worth paying so that other people (including yourself) can experience pleasure? How about any homeless people, freezing out on the streets - have you tried telling them that? How about just telling them 'you have to suffer, because I'm worth it'? I never made any statement about people who enjoy their lives not perceiving clearly (so as well as an ad hominem attack to try and discredit me, this is a straw man argument); simply that it isn't right for you to risk the wellbeing of those who cannot consent in order to enable you to better enjoy your life. What I'm arguing is that it's fine for you to go ahead and have your jollies; but just don't drag someone else into it who cannot consent and is going to be vulnerable to harm. As for the other ad hominems, I am not going to answer anything that isn't related to what I'm arguing and which is intended to discredit the rational argument that I'm espousing. So you can continue insulting, but I'm only going to respond to your attempts to find fault with my argument, not any attempt to bypass the argument by discrediting me personally. The fault in your argument is that it's not rational, because of all the logical errors. Example: You respond to "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." with "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?" Formulated like a rhetoric question. But that's a non sequitur. The poster you replied to is an existing person. This person can experience regret. At one point, this person did not exist, but now they do. Therefore, the fact that a nonexisting person does not experience regret is irrelevant for the existing person. Therefore, bringing up that a nonexisting person does not experience anything is a non sequitur when we discuss the experiences of an existing person. Because your arguments are full of logical errors of that sort, and yet you call your arguments rational, the facts that others reply with ad hominems is not really a surprise. Sort of like someone pretending to be good at maths and claiming that the odds of a coin falling on heads is 70%, and trying to justify it with some made-up stuff full of errors, even after being shown that their "reasoning" is wrong. Such people invite personal insults. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 9:51:24 GMT
Ok, and these people with depression that you work with; have you ever told them that their suffering is a price worth paying so that other people (including yourself) can experience pleasure? Nope. How about any homeless people, freezing out on the streets - have you tried telling them that? How about just telling them 'you have to suffer, because I'm worth it'? I never made any statement about people who enjoy their lives not perceiving clearly (so as well as an ad hominem attack to try and discredit me, this is a straw man argument); simply that it isn't right for you to risk the wellbeing of those who cannot consent in order to enable you to better enjoy your life. What I'm arguing is that it's fine for you to go ahead and have your jollies; but just don't drag someone else into it who cannot consent and is going to be vulnerable to harm. Fair enough, I apologize for implying that you feel like you see the world clearly but others do not.
As for the other ad hominems, I am not going to answer anything that isn't related to what I'm arguing and which is intended to discredit the rational argument that I'm espousing. So you can continue insulting, but I'm only going to respond to your attempts to find fault with my argument, not any attempt to bypass the argument by discrediting me personally. Well, good for you in not having kids. I agree with you 100% that you having children would be a bad decision.
You're arguing in favour of reproducing that depression (or any other myriad different debilitating harms, or combination thereof) in future generations, because speaking from the perspective of someone who has been lucky in the lottery, you appear to think that collateral damage (which is inflicted on the unfortunate, such as the depressed individuals that you work with) is a price worth paying. I can't speak for any unborn, because those unborn do not have selves to speak for. But I'm certainly speaking on behalf of the future people who will be brought into existence and will suffer horribly for it. When we cannot obtain consent for a risky and unnecessary decision that affects the wellbeing of someone else, we should presume non-consent. That's how it would work in just about any other scenario that could be imagined. At least in civilised societies. The unborn would be no worse off for the decision, will have been deprived of absolutely nothing and will be spared harm. Yes, and "I want it" is the wrong reason. There are no right reasons, because all reasons stem from the self-interest of the people having kids, or the interests of the society which already exists. Mostly the former. Those who are not yet born have no pressing need or desire to be born; and that would remain so in the event that they were never born. Therefore, the decision can never be one that is taken to benefit the future child. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 9:55:35 GMT
Ok, and these people with depression that you work with; have you ever told them that their suffering is a price worth paying so that other people (including yourself) can experience pleasure? How about any homeless people, freezing out on the streets - have you tried telling them that? How about just telling them 'you have to suffer, because I'm worth it'? I never made any statement about people who enjoy their lives not perceiving clearly (so as well as an ad hominem attack to try and discredit me, this is a straw man argument); simply that it isn't right for you to risk the wellbeing of those who cannot consent in order to enable you to better enjoy your life. What I'm arguing is that it's fine for you to go ahead and have your jollies; but just don't drag someone else into it who cannot consent and is going to be vulnerable to harm. As for the other ad hominems, I am not going to answer anything that isn't related to what I'm arguing and which is intended to discredit the rational argument that I'm espousing. So you can continue insulting, but I'm only going to respond to your attempts to find fault with my argument, not any attempt to bypass the argument by discrediting me personally. The fault in your argument is that it's not rational, because of all the logical errors. Example: You respond to "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." with "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?" Formulated like a rhetoric question. But that's a non sequitur. The poster you replied to is an existing person. This person can experience regret. At one point, this person did not exist, but now they do. Therefore, the fact that a nonexisting person does not experience regret is irrelevant for the existing person. Therefore, bringing up that a nonexisting person does not experience anything is a non sequitur when we discuss the experiences of an existing person. You haven't pointed out a single logical error; nor has anyone else. An existing person who was brought into existence, and cannot regret a condition that did not come to pass. You can't regret not being born if you were born.  But if he hadn't have been born, he wouldn't have regretted not being born, because he'd have no brain with which to experience that regret. So the salient fact, which remains unchallenged, is that he would not have been deprived of any of those experiences were he never to have been born. So where is the logical error that you've spotted? But you've only cited one example, and I've just shown above what an absurd and non-sensical example that is. You're claiming that a person who was born can regret not being born. Since you've stated that my position is riddled with logical errors, do try again. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 2, 2018 10:15:16 GMT
But you've only cited one example, and I've just shown above what an absurd and non-sensical example that is. You're claiming that a person who was born can regret not being born. Since you've stated that my position is riddled with logical errors, do try again. No I didn't. I said a born person can experience regret. But of course, since this born person was born, the regret will not be about not being born. Maybe regret is the wrong word; but you just claimed I made a statement which I didn't make. Not very rational, if you ask me. About the above example: Maybe instead of regret, happiness about being born would be a better choice of words. The happiness outweighs the sadness (apparently), and having missed out on this happiness could seem like a missed opportunity, which can lead to regret. That's just a guess; but it doesn't change that it's something the existing person experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 10:18:01 GMT
You're arguing in favour of reproducing that depression (or any other myriad different debilitating harms, or combination thereof) in future generations, because speaking from the perspective of someone who has been lucky in the lottery, you appear to think that collateral damage (which is inflicted on the unfortunate, such as the depressed individuals that you work with) is a price worth paying. I can't speak for any unborn, because those unborn do not have selves to speak for. But I'm certainly speaking on behalf of the future people who will be brought into existence and will suffer horribly for it. How mind-numbingly presumptuous of you. At least you didn't try to say you're not narcissistic, lol. When we cannot obtain consent for a risky and unnecessary decision that affects the wellbeing of someone else, we should presume non-consent. That's how it would work in just about any other scenario that could be imagined. At least in civilised societies. The unborn would be no worse off for the decision, will have been deprived of absolutely nothing and will be spared harm. We should presume that everyone not born doesn't want to be born... LOL OKAY!!! But wait... I'M GLAD I WAS BORN!!!
So where would your infallible logic leave me? No experience is not an experience. I like experience, so maybe others do too, so what gives you the right to speak for others?Yes, and "I want it" is the wrong reason. There are no right reasons, because all reasons stem from the self-interest of the people having kids, or the interests of the society which already exists. Mostly the former. Those who are not yet born have no pressing need or desire to be born; and that would remain so in the event that they were never born. Therefore, the decision can never be one that is taken to benefit the future child. If you don't want kids that's fine, but for the love of the Gods please stop turning yourself into Sye Ten Bruggencate.
I'm glad I have kids. My kids like being alive.
I guess your kids are glad they'll never be born... OMG are you getting the comedy in this? I'm loving it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 10:21:14 GMT
But you've only cited one example, and I've just shown above what an absurd and non-sensical example that is. You're claiming that a person who was born can regret not being born. Since you've stated that my position is riddled with logical errors, do try again. No I didn't. I said a born person can experience regret. But of course, since this born person was born, the regret will not be about not being born. Maybe regret is the wrong word; but you just claimed I made a statement which I didn't make. Not very rational, if you ask me. About the above example: Maybe instead of regret, happiness about being born would be a better choice of words. The happiness outweighs the sadness (apparently), and having missed out on this happiness could seem like a missed opportunity, which can lead to regret. That's just a guess; but it doesn't change that it's something the existing person experiences. Well I'm not sure what you are referring to, but the quote to which I was responding was (damn, now I'm going to have to go back through the thread to find the quote  ): "I would personally really regret not having experienced my life". On the face of it, this is an illogical statement, because if he hadn't experienced his life (because he wasn't born), he would not have any brain with which to experience regret. And yes, it's good that some people are happy about having being born, but there are also people who aren't happy about having been born. You can't have a cycle of life which produces only the first type of person, which makes the latter type of person the collateral damage of that process. Since I'm sure that you'll agree that the welfare of both types of person are equally important, and that it's effectively a lottery which determines who gets born into which camp, there's no good justification for the continuation of the cycle when the cessation of the cycle would leave nobody deprived of life (after all the existing people had died off) and nobody harmed. So really what Sam's (or any natalist's) argument boils down to is 'sure there's a lot of undeserved and unfair suffering going on, but without all of that I wouldn't have been born, and I'm worth it'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 10:30:28 GMT
You're arguing in favour of reproducing that depression (or any other myriad different debilitating harms, or combination thereof) in future generations, because speaking from the perspective of someone who has been lucky in the lottery, you appear to think that collateral damage (which is inflicted on the unfortunate, such as the depressed individuals that you work with) is a price worth paying. I can't speak for any unborn, because those unborn do not have selves to speak for. But I'm certainly speaking on behalf of the future people who will be brought into existence and will suffer horribly for it. How mind-numbingly presumptuous of you. At least you didn't try to say you're not narcissistic, lol. When we cannot obtain consent for a risky and unnecessary decision that affects the wellbeing of someone else, we should presume non-consent. That's how it would work in just about any other scenario that could be imagined. At least in civilised societies. The unborn would be no worse off for the decision, will have been deprived of absolutely nothing and will be spared harm. We should presume that everyone not born doesn't want to be born... LOL OKAY!!! But wait... I'M GLAD I WAS BORN!!!
So where would your infallible logic leave me? No experience is not an experience. I like experience, so maybe others do too, so what gives you the right to speak for others?Yes, and "I want it" is the wrong reason. There are no right reasons, because all reasons stem from the self-interest of the people having kids, or the interests of the society which already exists. Mostly the former. Those who are not yet born have no pressing need or desire to be born; and that would remain so in the event that they were never born. Therefore, the decision can never be one that is taken to benefit the future child. If you don't want kids that's fine, but for the love of the Gods please stop turning yourself into Sye Ten Bruggencate.
I'm glad I have kids. My kids like being alive.
I guess your kids are glad they'll never be born... OMG are you getting the comedy in this? I'm loving it! Not presumptious at all. Suffering and harm exists, and there's absolutely no good reason to think that they are not going to exist in the next generation of humans. There are many people alive right now who wish that they hadn't been born, and given that nothing seems to be about to change, it's logical to assume that the same is going to be the case for those born in the future. Those who are unborn don't want to be born (or want to not be born, just to be clear on my meaning), because they have no consciousness within which that desire could be formulated. If this situation maintains, they will continue not having any desire to be born, and will never have missed out on any of the experiences that they'd have enjoyed if they'd have been born. Your experience doesn't challenge my logic in the least, and I think that it is likely a willful misapprehension of what I'm actually saying. By stopping the cycle of imposition, I'm not depriving anybody of anything, so I have nothing to answer to from counterfactual generations of people who my philosophy may prevent from being born. Well it's good (for them and you) that so far you/they seem to be winning the lottery. But the kids who are born and go on to be severely harmed to the point where they hate being alive are equally as important as you and your kids, and they exist as collateral damage to the happiness of you and your kids. There's no fairness or karmic mechanism evident which justifies why you and your kids have happy lives, and why others are born with severe disabilities, suffer from chronic illnesses (physical and mental), or are born into a poverty trap from which they won't be able to escape. Therefore, the only logical and fair upshot of this is that we shouldn't keep producing happy people if the cost of that is going to be severely unhappy people. Basically there are other people footing the (metaphorical) bill for the happiness of you and your kids, and you (the person who's getting virtually a free ride off of their backs) is saying that the price is worth (other people) paying. I'm perceiving the frantic desperation (on your part), certainly. Not seeing the same comedy that you're seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 2, 2018 10:38:26 GMT
And yes, it's good that some people are happy about having being born, but there are also people who aren't happy about having been born. You can't have a cycle of life which produces only the first type of person, which makes the latter type of person the collateral damage of that process. Since I'm sure that you'll agree that the welfare of both types of person are equally important, and that it's effectively a lottery which determines who gets born into which camp, there's no good justification for the continuation of the cycle when the cessation of the cycle would leave nobody deprived of life (after all the existing people had died off) and nobody harmed. The bolded statement is unproven, and can be assumed to be false. In logic, when one premise or step is faulty, the entire conclusion is invalidated. People who use rationality and logic know that. So I stand by what I said before: You are entitled to your opinion, and believe in antinatalism. But you shouldn't call it a rational position. It's just an opinion based on feelings, and apparently faulty reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2018 10:41:23 GMT
Not presumptious at all. Suffering and harm exists, and there's absolutely no good reason to think that they are not going to exist in the next generation of humans. There are many people alive right now who wish that they hadn't been born, and given that nothing seems to be about to change, it's logical to assume that the same is going to be the case for those born in the future. COMPLETELY presumptuous of you. You even presumptuously assumed that my life has been all sugar and cream. You seem to be great at presuming things. Those who are unborn don't want to be born (or want to not be born, just to be clear on my meaning), because they have no consciousness within which that desire could be formulated. If this situation maintains, they will continue not having any desire to be born, and will never have missed out on any of the experiences that they'd have enjoyed if they'd have been born. Your experience doesn't challenge my logic in the least, and I think that it is likely a willful misapprehension of what I'm actually saying. By stopping the cycle of imposition, I'm not depriving anybody of anything, so I have nothing to answer to from counterfactual generations of people who my philosophy may prevent from being born. I did. I wanted to be born, here I am. Again, COMPLETELY PRESUMPTUOUS of you to assume you know what happens before or after death. I've been born countless times and I've died countless times, so have you.
I have no proof in reincarnation, but the belief exists (I'm not alone in this belief) because MILLIONS of people also believe (and in my case feel instinctively).
Your beliefs are just that, beliefs.. and stating them as absolute facts does not make them so. Well it's good (for them and you) that so far you/they seem to be winning the lottery. But the kids who are born and go on to be severely harmed to the point where they hate being alive are equally as important as you and your kids, and they exist as collateral damage to the happiness of you and your kids. There's no fairness or karmic mechanism evident which justifies why you and your kids have happy lives, and why others are born with severe disabilities, suffer from chronic illnesses (physical and mental), or are born into a poverty trap from which they won't be able to escape. Therefore, the only logical and fair upshot of this is that we shouldn't keep producing happy people if the cost of that is going to be severely unhappy people. Basically there are other people footing the (metaphorical) bill for the happiness of you and your kids, and you (the person who's getting virtually a free ride off of their backs) is saying that the price is worth (other people) paying. From my perspective life is a short dream and consciousness doesn't end. You're a child who thinks the roller-coaster is going to really kill him.
I have empathy for those who believe they can die. I'm perceiving the frantic desperation (on your part), certainly. Not seeing the same comedy that you're seeing. I'm guessing that a lot of comedy goes directly over your head. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 11:16:47 GMT
And yes, it's good that some people are happy about having being born, but there are also people who aren't happy about having been born. You can't have a cycle of life which produces only the first type of person, which makes the latter type of person the collateral damage of that process. Since I'm sure that you'll agree that the welfare of both types of person are equally important, and that it's effectively a lottery which determines who gets born into which camp, there's no good justification for the continuation of the cycle when the cessation of the cycle would leave nobody deprived of life (after all the existing people had died off) and nobody harmed. The bolded statement is unproven, and can be assumed to be false. In logic, when one premise or step is faulty, the entire conclusion is invalidated. People who use rationality and logic know that. So I stand by what I said before: You are entitled to your opinion, and believe in antinatalism. But you shouldn't call it a rational position. It's just an opinion based on feelings, and apparently faulty reasoning. If it's possible only to produce happy people who will barely suffer, why hasn't science done it yet? It cannot be assumed to be false because nobody (or at least nobody credible) has come up with any plan for how that could come to pass in the foreseeable future. If it's possible that it could happen in the future but not now, why should countless people be thrown into the thresher as collateral damage whilst we're figuring out how to eliminate harm and suffering? In order to invalidate the logic of the statement that I made, the onus is on you to show how it is feasible to ensure that only happy people and animals are produced henceforth. Even cupcakes isn't making as bold a claim as that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 11:27:17 GMT
Not presumptious at all. Suffering and harm exists, and there's absolutely no good reason to think that they are not going to exist in the next generation of humans. There are many people alive right now who wish that they hadn't been born, and given that nothing seems to be about to change, it's logical to assume that the same is going to be the case for those born in the future. COMPLETELY presumptuous of you. You even presumptuously assumed that my life has been all sugar and cream. You seem to be great at presuming things. Those who are unborn don't want to be born (or want to not be born, just to be clear on my meaning), because they have no consciousness within which that desire could be formulated. If this situation maintains, they will continue not having any desire to be born, and will never have missed out on any of the experiences that they'd have enjoyed if they'd have been born. Your experience doesn't challenge my logic in the least, and I think that it is likely a willful misapprehension of what I'm actually saying. By stopping the cycle of imposition, I'm not depriving anybody of anything, so I have nothing to answer to from counterfactual generations of people who my philosophy may prevent from being born. I did. I wanted to be born, here I am. Again, COMPLETELY PRESUMPTUOUS of you to assume you know what happens before or after death. I've been born countless times and I've died countless times, so have you.
I have no proof in reincarnation, but the belief exists (I'm not alone in this belief) because MILLIONS of people also believe (and in my case feel instinctively).
Your beliefs are just that, beliefs.. and stating them as absolute facts does not make them so. Well it's good (for them and you) that so far you/they seem to be winning the lottery. But the kids who are born and go on to be severely harmed to the point where they hate being alive are equally as important as you and your kids, and they exist as collateral damage to the happiness of you and your kids. There's no fairness or karmic mechanism evident which justifies why you and your kids have happy lives, and why others are born with severe disabilities, suffer from chronic illnesses (physical and mental), or are born into a poverty trap from which they won't be able to escape. Therefore, the only logical and fair upshot of this is that we shouldn't keep producing happy people if the cost of that is going to be severely unhappy people. Basically there are other people footing the (metaphorical) bill for the happiness of you and your kids, and you (the person who's getting virtually a free ride off of their backs) is saying that the price is worth (other people) paying. From my perspective life is a short dream and consciousness doesn't end. You're a child who thinks the roller-coaster is going to really kill him.
I have empathy for those who believe they can die. I'm perceiving the frantic desperation (on your part), certainly. Not seeing the same comedy that you're seeing. I'm guessing that a lot of comedy goes directly over your head. I wish you would stop replying within the quote box. It's rather annoying. Well what basis do you have to think that although there are people alive NOW who wish that they hadn't been born, there won't be anyone born as of now who will go on to wish that they hadn't been born? And if you haven't been absolutely ravaged to the point of desperation by suffering, then your life has been all 'sugar and cream' by the universal standard. Heck, even I've gotten off pretty lightly in terms of suffering. As admitted, you have absolutely no evidence to support your belief that this is true. Speaking as someone who used to semi-believe in this sort of mystical nonsense of reincarnation (and can therefore perhaps empathise), this seems to be a psychological construct that you have created for yourself in order to shut out the mundane reality of things. If that's true, then the need to prevent future births becomes even more urgent, because they could literally be being entered into an eternity of suffering. Death is the only thing that is fair, because being dead is the only thing that is the same for everyone. If you're in the mood for comedy, check out this antinatalist comedy skit: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 13:00:07 GMT
tpfkar 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."That isn't the lived experience of countless people; and if you're accusing all those people of lying, you're a judgemental bigot. Learned fearlessness has little or nothing to do with doubt or desire to live. Those who are most severely depressed are likely to find it more difficult to commit suicide compared to those who are more mildly depressed, because coming up with a suicide plan and following through with it requires motivation and perseverence. Since severe depression saps people of their motivation, they're more likely to wallow in a stupor than be able to work up the energy to follow through with suicide. What value you place on human light ought not to mean that a person is required to stay alive against their wishes in order that you can continue to value them. And all you're saying with the last part again is that you'd still want to live even if you wanted with every rudiment of your being to die. From your present perspective, you haven't yet experienced the thing that would make you desperate to die; so what you think at this moment doesn't count for anything. A lot of people say that they'd rather be tortured for eternity rather than fade into non-existence; but I wouldn't want any of them to be held to that because it's a certainty that they'd have a different view if they were granted their wish. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 2, 2018 13:05:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 2, 2018 13:08:53 GMT
tpfkar 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."That isn't the lived experience of countless people; and if you're accusing all those people of lying, you're a judgemental bigot. Learned fearlessness has little or nothing to do with doubt or desire to live. Those who are most severely depressed are likely to find it more difficult to commit suicide compared to those who are more mildly depressed, because coming up with a suicide plan and following through with it requires motivation and perseverence. Since severe depression saps people of their motivation, they're more likely to wallow in a stupor than be able to work up the energy to follow through with suicide. What value you place on human light ought not to mean that a person is required to stay alive against their wishes in order that you can continue to value them. And all you're saying with the last part again is that you'd still want to live even if you wanted with every rudiment of your being to die. From your present perspective, you haven't yet experienced the thing that would make you desperate to die; so what you think at this moment doesn't count for anything. A lot of people say that they'd rather be tortured for eternity rather than fade into non-existence; but I wouldn't want any of them to be held to that because it's a certainty that they'd have a different view if they were granted their wish. Only in your head, like your "Great Objective Morals". You're just an irrational pathologically morbid psychopath.  We don't abuse the vulnerable, at least the moral among us do not. Nor wish to nuke the world and mass murder billions.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 13:14:48 GMT
tpfkar That isn't the lived experience of countless people; and if you're accusing all those people of lying, you're a judgemental bigot. Learned fearlessness has little or nothing to do with doubt or desire to live. Those who are most severely depressed are likely to find it more difficult to commit suicide compared to those who are more mildly depressed, because coming up with a suicide plan and following through with it requires motivation and perseverence. Since severe depression saps people of their motivation, they're more likely to wallow in a stupor than be able to work up the energy to follow through with suicide. What value you place on human light ought not to mean that a person is required to stay alive against their wishes in order that you can continue to value them. And all you're saying with the last part again is that you'd still want to live even if you wanted with every rudiment of your being to die. From your present perspective, you haven't yet experienced the thing that would make you desperate to die; so what you think at this moment doesn't count for anything. A lot of people say that they'd rather be tortured for eternity rather than fade into non-existence; but I wouldn't want any of them to be held to that because it's a certainty that they'd have a different view if they were granted their wish. Only in your head, like your "Great Objective Morals". You're just an irrational pathologically morbid psychopath. We don't abuse the vulnerable, at least the moral among us do not. Nor wish to nuke the world and mass murder billions.
Does Free Will Exist?Except your idea of not abusing the vulnerable is making it a legal requirement that they continue to be vulnerable (to harm). And there is no immutable moral code. In Pakistan the most 'moral' (according to the moral norms of that society) want to see blasphemers executed. In the society of Western Europe, perhaps 20-30 years from now (if it doesn't become overrun by Muslims, that is), people with your attitudes towards the right to die will likely be seen as atavistic throwbacks. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 2, 2018 13:16:20 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? Nor would he "feel deprived" if a deranged lunatic snuck up behind him an put a bullet into his brain. And the borkeness of scaling a good thing until it is an unsustainable bad thing is the deranged thinking par for the brilliant course. And your math sucks.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 13:40:23 GMT
I feel imposed upon by being born, when I had no need or desire for it before birth. You cannot disprove my feeling that I was imposed upon. You can't explain why it wasn't an imposition. And if people currently alive feel that they were imposed upon by being born, then there's no reason to think that the same will not be true of future people, even supposing that the overall level of happiness in society was trending upwards. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 2, 2018 13:42:33 GMT
tpfkar Only in your head, like your "Great Objective Morals". You're just an irrational pathologically morbid psychopath. We don't abuse the vulnerable, at least the moral among us do not. Nor wish to nuke the world and mass murder billions.
Does Free Will Exist?Except your idea of not abusing the vulnerable is making it a legal requirement that they continue to be vulnerable (to harm). And there is no immutable moral code. In Pakistan the most 'moral' (according to the moral norms of that society) want to see blasphemers executed. In the society of Western Europe, perhaps 20-30 years from now (if it doesn't become overrun by Muslims, that is), people with your attitudes towards the right to die will likely be seen as atavistic throwbacks. No, only that other peeps don't kill them. And like any religious nut you're one who believes there are "Objective Morals" upon which your prayers to your "suffering" are founded. And in 30-40 years I'm sure there'll still be deranged lunatic psychopaths hoping for Don Jr. to nuke the world.
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." |
|
