|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 11:14:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 17:08:30 GMT
The concept that humans are organic robots is proven beyond any reasonable scientific or philosophical doubt. My antinatalst beliefs didn't arise out of any supernatural ability on my part, nor does it require such for me to pass the memes that are hosted by my brain on to others.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 17:15:24 GMT
tpfkar The concept that humans are organic robots is proven beyond any reasonable scientific or philosophical doubt. My antinatalst beliefs didn't arise out of any supernatural ability on my part, nor does it require such for me to pass the memes that are hosted by my brain on to others. Only for the ultra-simplistic mind. Cause and effect does not yield that sentient beings are "robots"; it is headsmackingly obvious that we are quite unlike them. Which is irrelevant to the pure derangement of continuously choosing to frantically attempt to to get people to choose "differently" while simultaneously "holding" that real choice does not exist. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 26, 2018 20:06:16 GMT
I didn't interact with them either, but I seemed to recall people complaining about it. I know I'm late to this discussion but here's a more detailed account. I don't know if it counts as doxxing, but DT and his gang attempted to harass people in their real lives which could be worse. Around 2010, another longtime regular named worov told me about a message board he had been on which was occupied and disrupted by a troll group led by someone named Aye Lewis. I didn't take it seriously because I had never seen anything like that happen and I didn't think they would ever show up on the IMDb. When I later googled "Aye Lewis", I found other websites where people talked about how Lewis' group had destroyed their community. Apparently this is their hobby. I'm not sure such a person actually exists. I suspect the name is used by several of them to help create an internet legend. Around 2012 a poster appeared named 'He_Cant...'. He used variations of the name but it always began with 'He_Cant' That was his trademark. He seemed like just another poster. I later learned he was part of the Lewis group. He may have been an advance scout for what they were planning to do. Later I learned that just before the trouble began, DT (DiscerninglyTasteful) had contacted Twinkwrangler (a longtime demi-troll regular) and asked if he wanted to join them in "taking over the board". They even gave him an extra account and password. Twink never played well with others and declined the offer. They started spamming the board in 2013. Among other things they attempted to stir up old feuds between regular posters, encouraged new feuds and started rigged polls. Many of the voters in those polls had never before been seen on the board. It was pointless to vote because if they didn't like the results, they would delete the thread and start another identical poll. After getting a couple of accounts wiped, they were even bold enough to start a thread asking who they should target next. We had seen troll attacks before and weathered them well enough. But what was different this time was they seemed to have the uncanny ability to have threads deleted and accounts wiped at will. Many of us grew to believe that an IMDb admin was among them or at least sympathetic to their goal. By this time the IMDb had turned over responsibility for handling abuse reports to GetSatisfaction.com. It seemed too suspicious that there was an admin there who refused to act on any complaints against members of the Lewis group. They first targeted ChucklesOToole and thefleetsin. Chuckles was a particularly rude and aggressive atheist and I suppose they didn't like fleets' poetry. Somehow the trolls discovered the Facebook pages of each poster. Chuckles taught music and made the mistake of putting his phone number on his FB page. They discovered fleets' place of employment and threatened to contact his boss and accuse him of attacking Christians, etc. Successful or not, these activities were what most unnerved many in the community. Chuckles acquired a board on another website and offered it as a refuge from the trolls. Many of us took him up on the offer. It was supposed to be temporary, but for many it ended up being permanent. I'm the one who discovered the manlymovies forum which was their current little clubhouse. At that time it was open to the public but not for long. Before it went private I learned some things about the Lewis group from reading all the threads. There were about a dozen of them and they referred to themselves as "The Platoon". Many of the names there were nearly identical to their IMDb names. In one thread they were laughing it up and waxing nostalgic about all the communities they had wrecked in the past few years. That's where I learned that He_Cant was one of them. One of their advantages was they had access to a nearly unlimited supply of phone SIM cards. If the IMDB wiped out one of their accounts, they just used a new SIM card to create a new account. That's why the IMDb could never get rid of them. I view that chapter as the most significant change in a community history which goes back to 2003. It's just still astounding that anyone would devote so much time and effort into trolling and attacking individuals and random communities. I had no idea of how virulent, destructive and organized this trolling got. For me it really sheds new light on the closure of the original IMDb boards and the management of this one. I used to think the moderation of this board was at times heavy handed, and while I still don't agree with every move made I do see the need for vigorous moderation. Without a police force it gets to be like Lord of the Flies.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 26, 2018 20:54:47 GMT
After all these years, I have actually found the flaw in your argument. ( aside from the numerous I have already pointed out) You are so certain that your argument of anti-natalism is waterproof butt you have forgotten one thing. EVEN despite IVF treatment which STILL has inexplicable failure rates, the conception of new people is largely due to 'chance'. (This is not a religious statement butt a pragmatic and scientific one) There are young people who have sex once who get pregnant, there are allegedly women who somehow pickup semen from a toilet seat who get pregnant, and YET there are people who DESPERATELY want to have a child and NO MATTER what they do it never happens. The point of this is that humans actually don't have control over the conception of the next generation unless sex is banned and no-one has sex in CASE they (according) to you 'impose' on a new life and within one generation the human population is wiped out. Is this what you want? If so, you are a quantum leap loopier and sociopathic than Hitler. I like how you added the statement in parentheses after admitting that you'd been unable heretofore to find a weakness in my argument (which you have still failed to do). I know that there are accidental pregnancies which occur, and that there is an element of chance in procreation. That's why I have been at pains to say that in cases where there is a planned pregnancy, the mother deliberately imposes. But in societies where women have access to contraceptives and prophylactics, they are able to take precautionary measures, and usually abort the foetus after they are pregnant. The reason why accidental pregnancies still occur so frequently and the women cannot terminate the pregnancies should they choose is due to the fact that womens' rights and access to healthcare is not universal. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air. I never took you for a Nazi, Mic, just loopy. NOW I know that you are certifiably insane. You are not worth my time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 20:59:58 GMT
tpfkar The concept that humans are organic robots is proven beyond any reasonable scientific or philosophical doubt. My antinatalst beliefs didn't arise out of any supernatural ability on my part, nor does it require such for me to pass the memes that are hosted by my brain on to others. Only for the ultra-simplistic mind. Cause and effect does not yield that sentient beings are "robots"; it is headsmackingly obvious that we are quite unlike them. Which is irrelevant to the pure derangement of continuously choosing to frantically attempt to to get people to choose "differently" while simultaneously "holding" that real choice does not exist. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?It would depend what types of robots can be made, but robots, or even just ordinary computers, have the same 'free will' that humans have. Humans have a broader array of inputs than the usual type of robots that one would imagine; as one usually doesn't imagine that robots will be sensitive to pain, they won't have biological needs, and probably won't suffer. But in the case of both the human and the robot, inputs go into the decision making centre and produce an output. How varied the inputs are, or how intricately they interact has no bearing on the free will question; because it isn't like in the case of humans we have all these inputs pushing us towards one decision, but our 'free will' can just decide to override all of those factors and choose the other way. I'm not trying to get anyone to choose differently than how they are inevitably going to choose; it just happens that my persuasion is one of the causal factors. I don't know how they are ultimately going to choose or what the effect of my memes is going to be.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 21:01:53 GMT
tpfkar Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air. You and Arlon. And you'd make a great effete DC villain. Keep praying for your AImmanuel! On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 21:02:34 GMT
I like how you added the statement in parentheses after admitting that you'd been unable heretofore to find a weakness in my argument (which you have still failed to do). I know that there are accidental pregnancies which occur, and that there is an element of chance in procreation. That's why I have been at pains to say that in cases where there is a planned pregnancy, the mother deliberately imposes. But in societies where women have access to contraceptives and prophylactics, they are able to take precautionary measures, and usually abort the foetus after they are pregnant. The reason why accidental pregnancies still occur so frequently and the women cannot terminate the pregnancies should they choose is due to the fact that womens' rights and access to healthcare is not universal. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air. I never took you for a Nazi, Mic, just loopy. NOW I know that you are certifiably insane. You are not worth my time. So heretofore, you thought that although I have been stating that reproduction is the source of all harm, I never wanted anything to be done to prevent people from procreating? And because I don't venerate the right/privilege to impose on others for selfish reasons, you've deduced that I'm 'certifiably insane' (what diagnosis would be on the certificate, and what credentials do you have in order to be making this clinical diagnosis)?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 21:16:11 GMT
tpfkar Only for the ultra-simplistic mind. Cause and effect does not yield that sentient beings are "robots"; it is headsmackingly obvious that we are quite unlike them. Which is irrelevant to the pure derangement of continuously choosing to frantically attempt to to get people to choose "differently" while simultaneously "holding" that real choice does not exist. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?It would depend what types of robots can be made, but robots, or even just ordinary computers, have the same 'free will' that humans have. Humans have a broader array of inputs than the usual type of robots that one would imagine; as one usually doesn't imagine that robots will be sensitive to pain, they won't have biological needs, and probably won't suffer. But in the case of both the human and the robot, inputs go into the decision making centre and produce an output. How varied the inputs are, or how intricately they interact has no bearing on the free will question; because it isn't like in the case of humans we have all these inputs pushing us towards one decision, but our 'free will' can just decide to override all of those factors and choose the other way. I'm not trying to get anyone to choose differently than how they are inevitably going to choose; it just happens that my persuasion is one of the causal factors. I don't know how they are ultimately going to choose or what the effect of my memes is going to be. Nope that's horsesh!t for cause. You're still just leaning on the simplistic "cause and effect" meaning no free will. Robots are strictly sophisticated dippy birds, and we know exactly how all their behaviors obtain. We have no reason whatsoever to suspect they have consciousnesses, and every reason to assume they do not. And free will is the fact that we make choices based on who and what we are and what we want. Regardless of the fact that events led to everything, and nothing else would make sense, it's still people choosing and doing, part and parcel of the process. Of course you're trying to get people to choose differently and you've frantically posted as much many times. With what you "hold" it wouldn't matter if you took a nap in front of a train or got your desired access to the nuke button, no difference could be made, so your scrambled efforts while "believing" that can only be the actions of an unhinged person. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 26, 2018 21:25:22 GMT
I never took you for a Nazi, Mic, just loopy. NOW I know that you are certifiably insane. You are not worth my time. So heretofore, you thought that although I have been stating that reproduction is the source of all harm, I never wanted anything to be done to prevent people from procreating? And because I don't venerate the right/privilege to impose on others for selfish reasons, you've deduced that I'm 'certifiably insane' (what diagnosis would be on the certificate, and what credentials do you have in order to be making this clinical diagnosis)? Sane people don't want to end ALL life on earth. ( except your own of course because you have to prothelytise for ending all the OTHER lives on earth) lol Mic must be last man standing! Tell that to the psychiatric board!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 21:26:02 GMT
tpfkar It would depend what types of robots can be made, but robots, or even just ordinary computers, have the same 'free will' that humans have. Humans have a broader array of inputs than the usual type of robots that one would imagine; as one usually doesn't imagine that robots will be sensitive to pain, they won't have biological needs, and probably won't suffer. But in the case of both the human and the robot, inputs go into the decision making centre and produce an output. How varied the inputs are, or how intricately they interact has no bearing on the free will question; because it isn't like in the case of humans we have all these inputs pushing us towards one decision, but our 'free will' can just decide to override all of those factors and choose the other way. I'm not trying to get anyone to choose differently than how they are inevitably going to choose; it just happens that my persuasion is one of the causal factors. I don't know how they are ultimately going to choose or what the effect of my memes is going to be. Nope that's horsesh!t for cause. You're still just leaning on the simplistic "cause and effect" meaning no free will. Robots are strictly sophisticated dippy birds, and we know exactly how all their behaviors obtain. We have no reason whatsoever to suspect they have consciousnesses, and every reason to assume they do not. And free will is the fact that we make choices based on who and what we are and what we want. Regardless of the fact that events led to everything, and nothing else would make sense, it's still people choosing and doing, part and parcel of the process. Of course you're trying to get people to choose differently and you've as much many times. With what you "hold" it wouldn't matter if you took a nap in front of a train or got your desired access to the nuke button, no difference could be made, so your scrambled efforts while "believing" that can only be the actions of an unhinged person. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceIf we had sufficient data about the inputs that are going into the decision making of any human, then we'd know 'how all their behaviours obtain' and what they'd do next. We need less data in order to predict what the (primitive) robot's going to do next; that's currently the only difference. Consciousness doesn't change anything about the free will argument, it's just something that's been adapted by evolution. And it's not known that conscious robots may be created in the future (even though it would probably be unethical to do so). I'm glad that you're at least admitting "events led to everything, and nothing else would make sense" nowadays. I want people to choose differently than they intend to at present, but of course I cannot get people to choose different from how cause and effect (with me of course being one of the causes) dictate that they will choose. Your ridiculous scenario presupposes that I can claim absolute knowledge of what the outcome will be of my actions, and therefore I can do anything I want and the result will always be the same; rather than that I'm doing what I think is going to lead to the desired outcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 21:27:39 GMT
So heretofore, you thought that although I have been stating that reproduction is the source of all harm, I never wanted anything to be done to prevent people from procreating? And because I don't venerate the right/privilege to impose on others for selfish reasons, you've deduced that I'm 'certifiably insane' (what diagnosis would be on the certificate, and what credentials do you have in order to be making this clinical diagnosis)? Sane people don't want to end ALL life on earth. ( except your own of course because you have to prothelytise for ending all the OTHER lives on earth) lol Mic must be last man standing! Tell that to the psychiatric board! So which clinical diagnosis does wanting the cycle of imposition and harm to end fall under?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 21:36:28 GMT
tpfkar Nope that's horsesh!t for cause. You're still just leaning on the simplistic "cause and effect" meaning no free will. Robots are strictly sophisticated dippy birds, and we know exactly how all their behaviors obtain. We have no reason whatsoever to suspect they have consciousnesses, and every reason to assume they do not. And free will is the fact that we make choices based on who and what we are and what we want. Regardless of the fact that events led to everything, and nothing else would make sense, it's still people choosing and doing, part and parcel of the process. Of course you're trying to get people to choose differently and you've as much many times. With what you "hold" it wouldn't matter if you took a nap in front of a train or got your desired access to the nuke button, no difference could be made, so your scrambled efforts while "believing" that can only be the actions of an unhinged person. Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceIf we had sufficient data about the inputs that are going into the decision making of any human, then we'd know 'how all their behaviours obtain' and what they'd do next. We need less data in order to predict what the (primitive) robot's going to do next; that's currently the only difference. Consciousness doesn't change anything about the free will argument, it's just something that's been adapted by evolution. And it's not known that conscious robots may be created in the future (even though it would probably be unethical to do so). I'm glad that you're at least admitting "events led to everything, and nothing else would make sense" nowadays. I want people to choose differently than they intend to at present, but of course I cannot get people to choose different from how cause and effect (with me of course being one of the causes) dictate that they will choose. Your ridiculous scenario presupposes that I can claim absolute knowledge of what the outcome will be of my actions, and therefore I can do anything I want and the result will always be the same; rather than that I'm doing what I think is going to lead to the desired outcome. "Sufficient data about the inputs that are going into the decision making of any human" is pure handwaving emptiness. If you had "sufficient" data about anything you'd be able to know whatever the data was sufficient in revealing. And what you conjecture for cause is nothing but (silly) conjecture for cause. And you repeating your "want people to choose differently" line simply hammers in the derangement. No matter what you frantically scramble to do, no action or "outcome" can be any different from what's been locked in since the "beginning of time". And before! Or with your last unhinged para are you now saying things could be different than set in stone from the beginning depending on whether you do or do not keep dumping the crazy? Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 21:45:13 GMT
tpfkar If we had sufficient data about the inputs that are going into the decision making of any human, then we'd know 'how all their behaviours obtain' and what they'd do next. We need less data in order to predict what the (primitive) robot's going to do next; that's currently the only difference. Consciousness doesn't change anything about the free will argument, it's just something that's been adapted by evolution. And it's not known that conscious robots may be created in the future (even though it would probably be unethical to do so). I'm glad that you're at least admitting "events led to everything, and nothing else would make sense" nowadays. I want people to choose differently than they intend to at present, but of course I cannot get people to choose different from how cause and effect (with me of course being one of the causes) dictate that they will choose. Your ridiculous scenario presupposes that I can claim absolute knowledge of what the outcome will be of my actions, and therefore I can do anything I want and the result will always be the same; rather than that I'm doing what I think is going to lead to the desired outcome. "Sufficient data about the inputs that are going into the decision making of any human" is pure handwaving emptiness. If you had "sufficient" data about anything you'd be able to know whatever the data was sufficient in revealing. And what you conjecture for cause is nothing but (silly) conjecture for cause. Does Free Will Exist?Including human choices. And there would be absolutely no need to posit 'free will' as some kind of wild card factor which could cause the person to act contra-causally. Never stated any differently. I'm not a soothsayer, so I don't know what that inevitable outcome will be, therefore I can neither change the inevitable outcome, nor even have the belief that I am doing so. Nope, the outcome for everything is predestined, but I have absolutely no idea how the causal chain will unfold from my choices and actions. Therefore I'm choosing the way that I am caused to choose by events outside of my control, as I can do no differently. No free will is necessary to either have opinions, nor to share them with others. No expectation of subverting some predestined outcome is a pre-requisite of acting based on one's own impulses. In order to believe onesself to be changing a predestined outcome, one would have to believe onesself to know what that outcome is going to be in the first place. So that would require that one be a soothsayer, or to have had access to a time machine.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 21:59:53 GMT
tpfkar "Sufficient data about the inputs that are going into the decision making of any human" is pure handwaving emptiness. If you had "sufficient" data about anything you'd be able to know whatever the data was sufficient in revealing. And what you conjecture for cause is nothing but (silly) conjecture for cause. Does Free Will Exist?Including human choices. And there would be absolutely no need to posit 'free will' as some kind of wild card factor which could cause the person to act contra-causally. Never stated any differently. I'm not a soothsayer, so I don't know what that inevitable outcome will be, therefore I can neither change the inevitable outcome, nor even have the belief that I am doing so. Nope, the outcome for everything is predestined, but I have absolutely no idea how the causal chain will unfold from my choices and actions. Therefore I'm choosing the way that I am caused to choose by events outside of my control, as I can do no differently. No free will is necessary to either have opinions, nor to share them with others. No expectation of subverting some predestined outcome is a pre-requisite of acting based on one's own impulses. In order to believe onesself to be changing a predestined outcome, one would have to believe onesself to know what that outcome is going to be in the first place. So that would require that one be a soothsayer, or to have had access to a time machine. Knowing what somebody will do doesn't mean there's no free will. I know what many people will do under certain circumstances, that doesn't mean they're not doing the choosing, of course. And your frantic scrambling while there being no difference to be made is pure derangement, again, of course. You "having no idea" does not add one whit of effect to anything you think you might do. We covered waaaay back that it could be you understood that it makes no difference but that the forces in motion dictate that you frantically act like it does or that those same forces just made and keep you highly irrational. But you could still be screaming on the inside that you understand, but the forces keep you hands typing different things. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 22:06:29 GMT
tpfkar Including human choices. And there would be absolutely no need to posit 'free will' as some kind of wild card factor which could cause the person to act contra-causally. Never stated any differently. I'm not a soothsayer, so I don't know what that inevitable outcome will be, therefore I can neither change the inevitable outcome, nor even have the belief that I am doing so. Nope, the outcome for everything is predestined, but I have absolutely no idea how the causal chain will unfold from my choices and actions. Therefore I'm choosing the way that I am caused to choose by events outside of my control, as I can do no differently. No free will is necessary to either have opinions, nor to share them with others. No expectation of subverting some predestined outcome is a pre-requisite of acting based on one's own impulses. In order to believe onesself to be changing a predestined outcome, one would have to believe onesself to know what that outcome is going to be in the first place. So that would require that one be a soothsayer, or to have had access to a time machine. Knowing what somebody will do doesn't mean there's no free will. I know what many people will do under certain circumstances, that doesn't mean they're not doing the choosing, of course. And your frantic scrambling while there being no difference to be made is pure derangement, again, of course. You "having no idea" does not add one whit of effect to anything you think you might do. We covered waaaay back that it could be you understood that it makes no difference but that the forces in motion dictate that you frantically act like it does or that those same forces just made and keep you highly irrational. But you could still be screaming on the inside that you understand, but the forces keep you hands typing different things. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."If you can know what someone is going to do, given all the necessary data, then that means that the person was acting deterministically, and hence with no free will (in any meaningful sense). That means that the sadistic killer was inevitably going to commit his crimes, and he's a victim of the chain of causality also. All I can do is act based on the probabilities that I perceive, due to the fact that I'm not a soothsayer and do not have access to sufficient data (nor the necessary computing power in my brain) to be able to project the future based on what has led up to the present moment. Based on probabilities that I can calculate (granting that probability itself is an illusion based on insufficient data), I am compelled to spread antinatalist views on the Internet because it appears to be more likely that there will be more antinatalists if I do expose my views to a broader audience than if I did not.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 22:07:28 GMT
tpfkar Sane people don't want to end ALL life on earth. ( except your own of course because you have to prothelytise for ending all the OTHER lives on earth) lol Mic must be last man standing! Tell that to the psychiatric board! So which clinical diagnosis does wanting the cycle of imposition and harm to end fall under? The bats!t crazy of calling the superior position of an option of experiencing this blast or checking out early as a "cycle of imposition and harm" and of course "rape". Oh yeah, the claims being of nonviolent while wanting the world nuked as well as people forcibly prevented from procreating. And the endless utter irrationality. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 22:12:37 GMT
tpfkar So which clinical diagnosis does wanting the cycle of imposition and harm to end fall under? The bats!t crazy of calling the superior position of an option of experiencing this blast or checking out early as a "cycle of imposition and harm" and of course "rape". Oh yeah, the claims being of nonviolent while wanting the world nuked as well as people forcibly prevented from procreating. And the endless utter irrationality. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"There is no "bats!t crazy" in the DSM, or whatever other diagnostic manual qualified professionals may put stock in. I am nonviolent in the sense that I have never been violent to anyone else and have absolutely no violent impulses, and abhor causing pain or harm to people or animals (hence why I'm an antinatalist in the first place).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 22:15:56 GMT
tpfkar If you can know what someone is going to do, given all the necessary data, then that means that the person was acting deterministically, and hence with no free will (in any meaningful sense). That means that the sadistic killer was inevitably going to commit his crimes, and he's a victim of the chain of causality also. All I can do is act based on the probabilities that I perceive, due to the fact that I'm not a soothsayer and do not have access to sufficient data (nor the necessary computing power in my brain) to be able to project the future based on what has led up to the present moment. Based on probabilities that I can calculate (granting that probability itself is an illusion based on insufficient data), I am compelled to spread antinatalist views on the Internet because it appears to be more likely that there will be more antinatalists if I do expose my views to a broader audience than if I did not. Nope, sorry, cause & effect doesn't mean no free will. The sadistic killer and everybody else are always going to do whatever they end up doing driven by who and what they are and what they choose, because that's how things work. And no, also sorry, choosing to frantically scramble to try to get people to choose differently while simultaneously "holding" that real choice doesn't exist is pure nutcrackers on in the same line as being "nonviolent" while wanting to nuke the world. Again, unless on the inside you know how crazy it looks but the Big Bang Devil keeps making your hands do bad bad things on the keyboard. More or less anything than what is already pre-writ is pure unadulterated fruit-loopers (pi!) given what you claim to hold. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 22:20:54 GMT
tpfkar There is no "bats!t crazy" in the DSM, or whatever other diagnostic manual qualified professionals may put stock in. I am nonviolent in the sense that I have never been violent to anyone else and have absolutely no violent impulses, and abhor causing pain or harm to people or animals (hence why I'm an antinatalist in the first place). There is batsh!t crazy in thinking that only "qualified professionals" can have strong opinions about how batsh!t crazy a wannabe "nonviolent" world-nuker is, among countless other derangements. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|