|
|
Post by You_Got_A_Stew_Goin_Baby on Jan 9, 2018 5:02:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 9, 2018 8:16:42 GMT
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting in it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting in it forever just because this is the thread that never ends...
(with all due respect to Shari Lewis)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 8:39:44 GMT
tpfkar If there's nothing wrong, then nothing needs to be made right. And you can only have 'right' if there is possibility of 'wrong'. And if you say that it's not important to consider the welfare of those who don't yet exist, then you're condoning all manner of recklessness with regards to the environment, sociopolitical issues, etc. Someone who will exist is going to have to be burdened by an imposed existence which was chosen for them without their consent. When you are dead and no longer exist, you will not have any preference for having existed over having never been born. Whether most people do go on to prefer existing does not justify allowing those to come into existence who feel burdened by their existence. If the welfare of black people is equally important to that of white people, then we can't wave away slavery as though it wasn't important because it was only happening to a minority (and a minority which was characterised by lottery of birth, at that) and the majority in that society were not slaves and even benefited from slavery. It's no different here. Some people are born to be collateral damage, whilst others are born to reap all the benefits. And it's a lottery which determines who will fall into which group. You can only say 'the suffering of the minority doesn't matter, because most people are happy' from the secure perspective of someone who was born with a good measure of luck and looks set to retain that luck. Whereas if you didn't know coming into it what luck you were going to have, but were able to make a decision about whether or not to be born, you might determine that the risks weren't worth it.  And again, we raise things for all. Even for the crazy as much as we can. Life itself is not slavery except maybe to you massively hypocritical alt-righters ever trying to minimize slavery & racism. Existence is winning the lottery of getting the option. Everybody's suffering matters and we do what we can to continuously reduce it, in a large part by not following you crazies' desires to have your boy in the WH nuke things back into the massively-increased savagery & suffering of a new Stone Age. And just make the call on your life. Because as you might know, deep down, thoughts of what you might determine while nonexistent is pure boobats.  And peoples "preferences" not had when dead remains the concern of deranged! psychopathic supervillain types. 
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."There's no need for the 'right' without creating the wrong first. The 'right' is for the selfish benefit of the people bringing children into existence. I'm not considering the welfare or consent of non-existent people. The moment that someone's desire results in a new sentient life being born is the point where an imposition and violation of consent occurs. Whereas the natalist argument makes no sense unless it is presupposed that there are non-existent people with desires to be brought into existence. I don't know if it's possible to do the 'homo sapiens' thing (or any other sentient animal life) without the necessity to have the slaves (metaphorical and sometimes literal) toiling away on the plantation under brutal conditions. None of your panglossian assertions of 'having a blast' or 'getting better and better' diminishes the fact that the creation of life is a creation of need. It also cannot be the lottery to be brought into existence, because if that were true, then some people would have to be aware of having lost the lottery. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 9, 2018 11:52:28 GMT
tpfkar Nothing is not needed and there's nothing to be broken. Likewise by your reasoning parents can't make a decision against the interests of the nonexistent child. And you said both "optimal state" and "flawless', both nonsensical religious ideas and nothing but subjective when contemplated at all. As for the GOP silly it was just another of your many ludicrous projections of your own characteristics. And now that you're mining blacks again, I wonder what shrill gushes of nonsense you'll shriek out next?  Here it is again for you Lex - we work on everybody having a better time. Having kids is not "subjugating" as a rule. It's setting them up for the option to have a blast or opt out. And man do they have blasts.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Right, before sentient life there was nothing to be broken in the universe. Since sentient life has existed, there has always been some kind of grievous harm to be avoided, and a threat of suffering that motivates living creaturs to pass on their genetic material. There's no benefit to anyone other than the parents in taking the deliberate action to bring a new life into existence. When the new life becomes extant, it becomes burdened with the millstone that the parents decided needed to be hung around the neck of someone who couldn't refuse consent, in order that the parents can get what they want out of life. So far, there are no credible proposals on how to make human life work without the need to have the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) slaves toiling away and being brutalised on the plantation. So as far as can be projected into the future, the 'better time' is still always going to come at the expense of some people and some animals. The only point that you're making is that it appears to you that the slaves are in the minority, and therefore their suffering is a price worth paying for your happiness.  To have children is to create slaves to your desires. As much of a 'blast' as you're having now, you wouldn't have missed a single minute of it had you not been born, nor will you miss any of it once you have died. By the exact same measure we could say it was massively broken as there was nothing "fixed" in the universe. All (in your case morbidly, lugubriously, comically) highly subjective, although one that is widely shared. There is "harm" and great good. And now, the desire for the great times and enjoyment that greatly surpass the negatives, at least for those not built on the extremes of religious perfection. There's no negative to anyone other than potentially the parents in f!cking. However, when a life becomes extant, then that life is gifted with wondrous opportunities for great things that they can choose to experience or reject. Parents are ultimately the benefactors for these great times. And your ludicrously Arlorwellian repurposing of "slavery" is just as deranged as your many other gross abuses of language (and reason, comity, basic sense, etc.). Simple comparisons of what we have now to the past leads many to believe most work will become unnecessary, much less the actual slavery and dreams of mass homicide carried out by sociopaths of one stripe or another. You can rattle stupid with your deranged "dead can't hurt" truisms and your twitted "slavery" and "GOP" comparisons that apply more to you than most all your nonsensical hysterical little heart desires to, it will just be laughed at.
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 gadreel on Jan 9, 2018 17:53:28 GMT
It seems to me (and sorry but I am not reading through pages of this to find out if you have given thought to it) that you are precluding the possiblity of there being a life other than this. Is that the case? EDIT: Apologies for the formatting had issues getting this to display the quote. There's absolutely no reason to believe that there is a life other than this (given that it has been observed that consciousness relies on a healthy and live brain, and when the brain decays such as with Alzheimer's patients, the quality of consciousness is severely diminished); but even if there is, there's no reason to suppose that it is specially designed to make us happy and isn't just more drudgery like this life, or worse, some kind of eternal torture. And alternatively it could be paradise, it could also be a situation where you chose to get born into this life as something just to experience it. But the point is no one knows and your entire premise is based on there being no afterlife, if there was an afterlife it would throw everything you say out of the water. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 20:14:08 GMT
There's absolutely no reason to believe that there is a life other than this (given that it has been observed that consciousness relies on a healthy and live brain, and when the brain decays such as with Alzheimer's patients, the quality of consciousness is severely diminished); but even if there is, there's no reason to suppose that it is specially designed to make us happy and isn't just more drudgery like this life, or worse, some kind of eternal torture. And alternatively it could be paradise, it could also be a situation where you chose to get born into this life as something just to experience it. But the point is no one knows and your entire premise is based on there being no afterlife, if there was an afterlife it would throw everything you say out of the water. Only the part about people not caring about whether they'd lived or not after a specified period of time. The people who had never been born would still not be missing out on anything. As far as I know, mainstream Christianity doesn't posit the existence of souls which exist before conception (I could be wrong on this, as I'm not a scholar on religion). And I don't see why it should be your prerogative to take that gamble (especially when you've absolutely no evidence of a paradise, only a blind and emotionally biased leap of faith) for someone else who would never have minded missing out on life and/or the afterlife, when there are so many hidden risks. The evidence from the universe that we can perceive suggests that if there is any intelligent force that has created our world and conscious experience, it is either indifferent or malevolent. Free will (in the sense that Christians believe in it) cannot exist, and yet there is so much terrible suffering which could easily have either been corrected by God, or missed out on altogether by not needlessly creating sentience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 20:23:49 GMT
tpfkar Right, before sentient life there was nothing to be broken in the universe. Since sentient life has existed, there has always been some kind of grievous harm to be avoided, and a threat of suffering that motivates living creaturs to pass on their genetic material. There's no benefit to anyone other than the parents in taking the deliberate action to bring a new life into existence. When the new life becomes extant, it becomes burdened with the millstone that the parents decided needed to be hung around the neck of someone who couldn't refuse consent, in order that the parents can get what they want out of life. So far, there are no credible proposals on how to make human life work without the need to have the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) slaves toiling away and being brutalised on the plantation. So as far as can be projected into the future, the 'better time' is still always going to come at the expense of some people and some animals. The only point that you're making is that it appears to you that the slaves are in the minority, and therefore their suffering is a price worth paying for your happiness. To have children is to create slaves to your desires. As much of a 'blast' as you're having now, you wouldn't have missed a single minute of it had you not been born, nor will you miss any of it once you have died. By the exact same measure we could say it was massively broken as there was nothing "fixed" in the universe. All (in your case morbidly, lugubriously, comically) highly subjective, although one that is widely shared. There is "harm" and great good. And now, the desire for the great times and enjoyment that greatly surpass the negatives, at least for those not built on the extremes of religious perfection. There's no negative to anyone other than potentially the parents in f!cking. However, when a life becomes extant, then that life is gifted with wondrous opportunities for great things that they can choose to experience or reject. Parents are ultimately the benefactors for these great times. And your ludicrously Arlorwellian repurposing of "slavery" is just as deranged as your many other gross abuses of language (and reason, comity, basic sense, etc.). Simple comparisons of what we have now to the past leads many to believe most work will become unnecessary, much less the actual slavery and dreams of mass homicide carried out by sociopaths of one stripe or another. You can rattle stupid with your deranged "dead can't hurt" truisms and your twitted "slavery" and "GOP" comparisons that apply more to you than most all your nonsensical hysterical little heart desires to, it will just be laughed at.
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."By what measure could we say it was broken, if broken vs fixed is only a subjective judgement and there were no conscious minds around to cast subjective judgement? What you call 'good' is nothing but a sticking plaster solution to a problem that always lies in thread. This is so because the only way for life to evolve is for it to biologically flourish in order to pass on genetic material, and in an unintelligent universe, the only way that this can happen is for the organism to be constantly threatened with great harm. In your second paragraph, your implication is that absolutely anyone should have children if it's what they want, and there's no circumstances where it would be unwise. Such as in an impoverished African country where the parents struggle even to reliably feed and hydrate themselves, let alone any children that they may have. Or 2 parents who both carry certain genes which would very likely result in their child suffering from a terrible disability for their entire life. But according to you, even being condemned to suffer in unimaginable pain every minute of one's existence is 'winning the lottery', even if they ultimately have no choice in the situation due to being too severely disabled to commit suicide, or even express the wish to refuse nutrition and hydration. Slavery is a condition where one must maintain a burden imposed upon the individual by someone else. This is especially the case when individuals such as yourself demand that the state implement the teachings of the Catholic Church into the laws that everyone must obey, making it unnecessarily risky to commit suicide (and impossible for some, who do not have any independence or capability). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 9, 2018 20:26:23 GMT
tpfkar Sorry, having kids having a blast is a whole lot of right! Possibility of wrong is A-OK, except to the religious in search of their deranged ideas of Perfection. And ok now, are you or are you not considering "welfare" and "consent" of the nonexistent. And again, we raise things for all. Even for the crazy as much as we can. Life itself is not slavery except maybe to you massively hypocritical alt-righters ever trying to minimize slavery & racism. Existence is winning the lottery of getting the option. Everybody's suffering matters and we do what we can to continuously reduce it, in a large part by not following you crazies' desires to have your boy in the WH nuke things back into the massively-increased savagery & suffering of a new Stone Age. And just make the call on your life. Because as you might know, deep down, thoughts of what you might determine while nonexistent is pure boobats. And peoples "preferences" not had when dead remains the concern of deranged! psychopathic supervillain types.
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." There's no need for the 'right' without creating the wrong first. The 'right' is for the selfish benefit of the people bringing children into existence. I'm not considering the welfare or consent of non-existent people. The moment that someone's desire results in a new sentient life being born is the point where an imposition and violation of consent occurs. Whereas the natalist argument makes no sense unless it is presupposed that there are non-existent people with desires to be brought into existence. I don't know if it's possible to do the 'homo sapiens' thing (or any other sentient animal life) without the necessity to have the slaves (metaphorical and sometimes literal) toiling away on the plantation under brutal conditions. None of your panglossian assertions of 'having a blast' or 'getting better and better' diminishes the fact that the creation of life is a creation of need. It also cannot be the lottery to be brought into existence, because if that were true, then some people would have to be aware of having lost the lottery. There's no need for your pathological "not right" either. The "wrong" is the worship of morbid Perfection" that exists now, the "right" is wonderful experience allowed by the superior gifted option to partake or reject. You have gone on a incessantly about the consent of the nonexistent, regardless that you've scrambled to "being born". "Creating a need" is not inherently bad and in fact is many times quite good. Not terminating a pregnancy is not an "imposition" to a zygote or fetus, except in the fevered minds of psychopathic Arlon acolytes dreaming of slaves and their man Trump nuking the world back to exponentially raised suffering. And of course a lottery is still a lottery whether any particular participant "realizes" anything about it at all. You just choke out any old airheaded thing.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 9, 2018 20:32:41 GMT
And alternatively it could be paradise, it could also be a situation where you chose to get born into this life as something just to experience it. But the point is no one knows and your entire premise is based on there being no afterlife, if there was an afterlife it would throw everything you say out of the water. Only the part about people not caring about whether they'd lived or not after a specified period of time. The people who had never been born would still not be missing out on anything. As far as I know, mainstream Christianity doesn't posit the existence of souls which exist before conception (I could be wrong on this, as I'm not a scholar on religion). And I don't see why it should be your prerogative to take that gamble (especially when you've absolutely no evidence of a paradise, only a blind and emotionally biased leap of faith) for someone else who would never have minded missing out on life and/or the afterlife, when there are so many hidden risks. The evidence from the universe that we can perceive suggests that if there is any intelligent force that has created our world and conscious experience, it is either indifferent or malevolent. Free will (in the sense that Christians believe in it) cannot exist, and yet there is so much terrible suffering which could easily have either been corrected by God, or missed out on altogether by not needlessly creating sentience. Actually, you would have to be a Talmudic scholar, or have watched this movie, to know about the Hall of Souls: It is a strange movie; Christians who have seen it call it a Christian movie, but it is labelled as a horror movie. Either way, it stars a young Demi Moore, Michael Biehn and Jurgen Prochnow as a weirdly creepy Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 9, 2018 20:33:57 GMT
And alternatively it could be paradise, it could also be a situation where you chose to get born into this life as something just to experience it. But the point is no one knows and your entire premise is based on there being no afterlife, if there was an afterlife it would throw everything you say out of the water. Only the part about people not caring about whether they'd lived or not after a specified period of time. The people who had never been born would still not be missing out on anything. As far as I know, mainstream Christianity doesn't posit the existence of souls which exist before conception (I could be wrong on this, as I'm not a scholar on religion). And I don't see why it should be your prerogative to take that gamble (especially when you've absolutely no evidence of a paradise, only a blind and emotionally biased leap of faith) for someone else who would never have minded missing out on life and/or the afterlife, when there are so many hidden risks. The evidence from the universe that we can perceive suggests that if there is any intelligent force that has created our world and conscious experience, it is either indifferent or malevolent. Free will (in the sense that Christians believe in it) cannot exist, and yet there is so much terrible suffering which could easily have either been corrected by God, or missed out on altogether by not needlessly creating sentience. If there is an afterlife, that would suggest a pre-life as well, as souls would be a permanent thing. So yes if there is a soul independent from the body, then this life is just a part of that souls existence and so your premise that there is nothing to be gained or any impact to that soul due to not being physically incarnated in this existence would therefore be wrong. I never mentioned a paradise, those are words you put in, but the fact is that we cannot possibly know what happens prior or post incarnation in this life, which means your argument is predicated on there only being this life. It's an observation, as there is no proof either way I don't really see any point in pushing it too far, I just wanted to know if your stance was predicated on that assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 9, 2018 20:35:42 GMT
Only the part about people not caring about whether they'd lived or not after a specified period of time. The people who had never been born would still not be missing out on anything. As far as I know, mainstream Christianity doesn't posit the existence of souls which exist before conception (I could be wrong on this, as I'm not a scholar on religion). And I don't see why it should be your prerogative to take that gamble (especially when you've absolutely no evidence of a paradise, only a blind and emotionally biased leap of faith) for someone else who would never have minded missing out on life and/or the afterlife, when there are so many hidden risks. The evidence from the universe that we can perceive suggests that if there is any intelligent force that has created our world and conscious experience, it is either indifferent or malevolent. Free will (in the sense that Christians believe in it) cannot exist, and yet there is so much terrible suffering which could easily have either been corrected by God, or missed out on altogether by not needlessly creating sentience. Actually, you would have to be a Talmudic scholar, or have watched this movie, to know about the Hall of Souls: It is a strange movie; Christians who have seen it call it a Christian movie, but it is labelled as a horror movie. Either way, it stars a young Demi Moore, Michael Biehn and Jurgen Prochnow as a weirdly creepy Jesus. It's a great movie, I am not convinced I would call it Christian, but as I have previously said, I am a fringe Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 9, 2018 20:38:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 9, 2018 20:57:38 GMT
Actually, you would have to be a Talmudic scholar, or have watched this movie, to know about the Hall of Souls: It is a strange movie; Christians who have seen it call it a Christian movie, but it is labelled as a horror movie. Either way, it stars a young Demi Moore, Michael Biehn and Jurgen Prochnow as a weirdly creepy Jesus. It's a great movie, I am not convinced I would call it Christian, but as I have previously said, I am a fringe Christian. Wow, I cannot believe that you have actually seen it, what a coincidence! It's an oldie, and didn't do that well at the box office. To me, it seemed less Christian and more Old Testament Jewish. Abby says, as she and the young man are driving through the chaos, "They taught us in Sunday School that God was a god of Love." That notion wasn't supported much in the movie. Having been raised in Christianity, I thought it was an interesting premise, and very graphically depicted. But at the time I saw it, I was well on my way to atheism. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 9, 2018 21:04:40 GMT
It's a great movie, I am not convinced I would call it Christian, but as I have previously said, I am a fringe Christian. Wow, I cannot believe that you have actually seen it, what a coincidence! It's an oldie, and didn't do that well at the box office. To me, it seemed less Christian and more Old Testament Jewish. Abby says, as she and the young man are driving through the chaos, "They taught us in Sunday School that God was a god of Love." That notion wasn't supported much in the movie. Having been raised in Christianity, I thought it was an interesting premise, and very graphically depicted. But at the time I saw it, I was well on my way to atheism. I used to own it on video, have never seen it on dvd or blu ray, at the time I watched it I was an atheist. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 9, 2018 21:26:59 GMT
Wow, I cannot believe that you have actually seen it, what a coincidence! It's an oldie, and didn't do that well at the box office. To me, it seemed less Christian and more Old Testament Jewish. Abby says, as she and the young man are driving through the chaos, "They taught us in Sunday School that God was a god of Love." That notion wasn't supported much in the movie. Having been raised in Christianity, I thought it was an interesting premise, and very graphically depicted. But at the time I saw it, I was well on my way to atheism. I used to own it on video, have never seen it on dvd or blu ray, at the time I watched it I was an atheist. Again, what a coincidence - did it influence you towards your so-called fringe Christianity? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 9, 2018 22:08:26 GMT
I used to own it on video, have never seen it on dvd or blu ray, at the time I watched it I was an atheist. Again, what a coincidence - did it influence you towards your so-called fringe Christianity? No not in the slightest, I came to religion through reading. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 9, 2018 22:19:21 GMT
Again, what a coincidence - did it influence you towards your so-called fringe Christianity? No not in the slightest, I came to religion through reading. I am a reader, too, but as an artist, a picture is worth a thousand words. And the pictures I saw in my Italian High Renaissance art history class was what started my questioning. Odd, because it was originally painted to support Christian beliefs, not make one question beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 9, 2018 23:59:01 GMT
No not in the slightest, I came to religion through reading. I am a reader, too, but as an artist, a picture is worth a thousand words. And the pictures I saw in my Italian High Renaissance art history class was what started my questioning. Odd, because it was originally painted to support Christian beliefs, not make one question beliefs. I would be interested in seeing that picture. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 0:19:07 GMT
Only the part about people not caring about whether they'd lived or not after a specified period of time. The people who had never been born would still not be missing out on anything. As far as I know, mainstream Christianity doesn't posit the existence of souls which exist before conception (I could be wrong on this, as I'm not a scholar on religion). And I don't see why it should be your prerogative to take that gamble (especially when you've absolutely no evidence of a paradise, only a blind and emotionally biased leap of faith) for someone else who would never have minded missing out on life and/or the afterlife, when there are so many hidden risks. The evidence from the universe that we can perceive suggests that if there is any intelligent force that has created our world and conscious experience, it is either indifferent or malevolent. Free will (in the sense that Christians believe in it) cannot exist, and yet there is so much terrible suffering which could easily have either been corrected by God, or missed out on altogether by not needlessly creating sentience. If there is an afterlife, that would suggest a pre-life as well, as souls would be a permanent thing. So yes if there is a soul independent from the body, then this life is just a part of that souls existence and so your premise that there is nothing to be gained or any impact to that soul due to not being physically incarnated in this existence would therefore be wrong. I never mentioned a paradise, those are words you put in, but the fact is that we cannot possibly know what happens prior or post incarnation in this life, which means your argument is predicated on there only being this life. It's an observation, as there is no proof either way I don't really see any point in pushing it too far, I just wanted to know if your stance was predicated on that assumption. There's no evidence of either the pre-life or the after-life. All the extant evidence regarding consciousness suggests that as the brain deteriorates, so does our personality. All of it is inside the brain, according to all scientific evidence that's been presented. And surely when you had your daughter, you weren't doing so off the back of some notion that her soul was floating around the ether and begging you subliminally to be given the chance to be incarnated into the flesh. It was likely either an unplanned pregnancy, or something that you and your partner thought would enrich your lives. You did mention a paradise in the very post I was responding to. The very word "paradise" appears in your post, if you would scroll up. My stance is predicated on the assumption that there aren't such things as souls floating around in the ether before conception, hoping for the opportunity to come into existence. The afterlife, if there is one, is either irrelevant (because it wouldn't be missed anyway, and nobody can claim to know for certain that it exists in order to justify their decision), or helps my case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 0:20:18 GMT
It is meaningful because it demonstrates that the action of conceiving a child is initiated for the benefit of the parents (if a planned pregnancy), and not out of concern for the child who would otherwise miss out on life. |
|
