|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2018 23:54:11 GMT
That YOU don't desire it is purely a personal preference and NOT a universality. The rest of what you said is nonsense. I didn't claim it as a universality. But if we didn't bring more people into existence, we would be doing nobody a disservice, because there would be nobody who was being deprived the opportunity to exist. We would however, be refraining from imposing risk and harm on people. Your opinion of life is not universal so you have no right to suggest denying it to others especially as you already have it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 23:57:07 GMT
I didn't claim it as a universality. But if we didn't bring more people into existence, we would be doing nobody a disservice, because there would be nobody who was being deprived the opportunity to exist. We would however, be refraining from imposing risk and harm on people. Your opinion of life is not universal so you have no right to suggest denying it to others especially as you already have it. OK, so suppose, starting tomorrow, nobody on the planet conceives any more children. Who would then be the people who were "denied" life? How would you identify these people? Are there spirit people who are floating around space who would be denied the right to be incarnated into flesh? Who are the "others" that I'm suggesting we should deny existence to?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 0:00:44 GMT
tpfkar Your opinion of life is not universal so you have no right to suggest denying it to others especially as you already have it. OK, so suppose, starting tomorrow, nobody on the planet conceives any more children. Who would then be the people who were "denied" life? How would you identify these people? Are there spirit people who are floating around space who would be denied the right to be incarnated into flesh? Who are the "others" that I'm suggesting we should deny existence to? We'll deal with that if we can keep the crazies who want to nuke the place at bay. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 25, 2018 0:07:21 GMT
Your opinion of life is not universal so you have no right to suggest denying it to others especially as you already have it. OK, so suppose, starting tomorrow, nobody on the planet conceives any more children. Who would then be the people who were "denied" life? How would you identify these people? Are there spirit people who are floating around space who would be denied the right to be incarnated into flesh? Who are the "others" that I'm suggesting we should deny existence to? I am not interested in your illogical nonsense hypotheticals. The fact is that because YOU don't seem to like your life you advocate that no-one else should have one. All your assertions are purely an 'affectation' to make yourself seem clever and important, when you are really a miserable git.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 0:09:50 GMT
OK, so suppose, starting tomorrow, nobody on the planet conceives any more children. Who would then be the people who were "denied" life? How would you identify these people? Are there spirit people who are floating around space who would be denied the right to be incarnated into flesh? Who are the "others" that I'm suggesting we should deny existence to? I am not interested in your illogical nonsense hypotheticals. The fact is that because YOU don't seem to like your life you advocate that no-one else should have one. All your assertions are purely an 'affectation' to make yourself seem clever and important, when you are really a miserable git. You've accused me of wanting to deny people the opportunity to live (if my philosophy obtained in the real world), so it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask you where and whom these people are. What about the children that you denied the opportunity to live when you decided not to have any more?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 25, 2018 0:13:08 GMT
I am not interested in your illogical nonsense hypotheticals. The fact is that because YOU don't seem to like your life you advocate that no-one else should have one. All your assertions are purely an 'affectation' to make yourself seem clever and important, when you are really a miserable git. You've accused me of wanting to deny people the opportunity to live (if my philosophy obtained in the real world), so it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask you where and whom these people are. What about the children that you denied the opportunity to live when you decided not to have any more? They are where and who we all are before we are born.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 0:18:06 GMT
You've accused me of wanting to deny people the opportunity to live (if my philosophy obtained in the real world), so it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask you where and whom these people are. What about the children that you denied the opportunity to live when you decided not to have any more? They are where and who we all are before we are born. So you think that we all float around in disembodied form before conception, as what, souls? And you claim to be an atheist? ::giveup::
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 0:19:41 GMT
tpfkar I am not interested in your illogical nonsense hypotheticals. The fact is that because YOU don't seem to like your life you advocate that no-one else should have one. All your assertions are purely an 'affectation' to make yourself seem clever and important, when you are really a miserable git. You've accused me of wanting to deny people the opportunity to live (if my philosophy obtained in the real world), so it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask you where and whom these people are. What about the children that you denied the opportunity to live when you decided not to have any more? The ones you've said countless times are "imposed" upon. This is typical of the crazy. Proffering that choosing to not procreate is somehow analogous to forcibly preventing all from procreating, or that a good thing sustainably yields that it should be ramped up past collapse. Peeps in the real world overwhelmingly prefer/preferred to have had the shot. What the nonexistent anything about anything, much like "the dead can't hurt" as argument for anything, is pure unhinged nothing. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 25, 2018 0:25:04 GMT
They are where and who we all are before we are born. So you think that we all float around in disembodied form before conception, as what, souls? And you claim to be an atheist? No. Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 6:19:37 GMT
So you think that we all float around in disembodied form before conception, as what, souls? And you claim to be an atheist? No. Yes. Then antinatalism seeks to deny nobody the right to exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 6:37:22 GMT
tpfkar You've accused me of wanting to deny people the opportunity to live (if my philosophy obtained in the real world), so it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask you where and whom these people are. What about the children that you denied the opportunity to live when you decided not to have any more? The ones you've said countless times are "imposed" upon. This is typical of the crazy. Proffering that choosing to not procreate is somehow analogous to forcibly preventing all from procreating, or that a good thing sustainably yields that it should be ramped up past collapse. Peeps in the real world overwhelmingly prefer/preferred to have had the shot. What the nonexistent anything about anything, much like "the dead can't hurt" as argument for anything, is pure unhinged nothing. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?If I have claimed "countless times" that there is imposition upon the non-existent, then cite where I've made that claim. If I have, then it would have been by careless wording, and I will admit my mistake. But what I'm currently stating is that having a child is an imposition on the child that is produced as a result who wouldn't have had to exist if not for that decision. And in terms of 'denying' anyone the opportunity to exist, then antinatalism is the same as just not having another child. In neither case is there anyone to be denied the opportunity to exist.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 25, 2018 6:54:18 GMT
Then antinatalism seeks to deny nobody the right to exist. What about the ones that you chronically claim are imposed upon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 7:00:36 GMT
Then antinatalism seeks to deny nobody the right to exist. What about the ones that you chronically claim are imposed upon? Nobody non-existent is ever imposed upon, and if I have ever claimed that there is such an imposition, then it would have been a carelessness with words, which I would take back. I'm quite certain that I haven't made that claim recently, let alone 'chronically'. If a child is born, then that child is imposed upon by its parents. Conversely, if the mother gets pregnant, but then aborts the foetus, then there is no imposition occurring.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 25, 2018 8:08:01 GMT
What about the ones that you chronically claim are imposed upon? Nobody non-existent is ever imposed upon, and if I have ever claimed that there is such an imposition, then it would have been a carelessness with words, which I would take back. I'm quite certain that I haven't made that claim recently, let alone 'chronically'. If a child is born, then that child is imposed upon by its parents. Conversely, if the mother gets pregnant, but then aborts the foetus, then there is no imposition occurring. In your mania of anti-natalism, you did...many times. Mic, the point is that 'life' happens. For YOU to claim that it is an imposition is just ridiculous. Life is a lottery, and you are misguided, at least, and stupid at worst to put too great a deterministic spin on the beginnings of life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 8:38:58 GMT
Nobody non-existent is ever imposed upon, and if I have ever claimed that there is such an imposition, then it would have been a carelessness with words, which I would take back. I'm quite certain that I haven't made that claim recently, let alone 'chronically'. If a child is born, then that child is imposed upon by its parents. Conversely, if the mother gets pregnant, but then aborts the foetus, then there is no imposition occurring. In your mania of anti-natalism, you did...many times. Mic, the point is that 'life' happens. For YOU to claim that it is an imposition is just ridiculous. Life is a lottery, and you are misguided, at least, and stupid at worst to put too great a deterministic spin on the beginnings of life. Have you got a quote which shows me doing that? It's possible that I did, but it would be a carelessness with words that would have brought it about, rather than anything reflecting my actual philosophical beliefs. Perhaps cupcakes, which his obsessive cataloging of other people's posts, might be able to come up with an example. In any case, I would own up to the mistake and I have repeatedly clarified the fact that the imposition is upon the person who does come into existence and has to spend a lifetime dealing with the repercussions of the decision, not upon a non-existent person. I want to move forward on the basis of what I'm stating now about imposition, and not what I might have carelessly misstated in the past. Life is an imposition because it's not necessary or desirable for a non-existent person's wellbeing to bring them into existence, and it's done for the projected benefit of the parents (at least when it is a planned decision and not an accident).
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Jan 25, 2018 9:10:16 GMT
Common sense, logic and grown ups.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 17:10:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 17:21:10 GMT
Where did I claim that. Since you are an obsessive cataloger of posts, you should be able to find the one where I claimed that non-existent people could be imposed upon. If it so happens that I did, through careless misuse of language, then I will own up to the mistake. But I've been very clear that I am concerned about the imposition on creatures that come into being, not ones that never come into being.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 17:24:39 GMT
tpfkar The ones you've said countless times are "imposed" upon. This is typical of the crazy. Proffering that choosing to not procreate is somehow analogous to forcibly preventing all from procreating, or that a good thing sustainably yields that it should be ramped up past collapse. Peeps in the real world overwhelmingly prefer/preferred to have had the shot. What the nonexistent anything about anything, much like "the dead can't hurt" as argument for anything, is pure unhinged nothing. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?If I have claimed "countless times" that there is imposition upon the non-existent, then cite where I've made that claim. If I have, then it would have been by careless wording, and I will admit my mistake. But what I'm currently stating is that having a child is an imposition on the child that is produced as a result who wouldn't have had to exist if not for that decision. And in terms of 'denying' anyone the opportunity to exist, then antinatalism is the same as just not having another child. In neither case is there anyone to be denied the opportunity to exist. You've been making it for months, only denying it when the absurdity of it and the coupled "can't consider the good" is pointed out. Just recently you slipped the overt "If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist)"Giving the option of experiencing this great ride or quitting early is the farthest thing from an imposition possible. Especially compared to purposeful termination because you "know better". And "antinatalism" does include force and mass murder and you many other shattered ideas. "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 25, 2018 17:33:12 GMT
That quote pertains to a person who is going to exist, hence the imposition falls not on the non-existent person who doesn't exist at the time of conception; it falls upon the actual person who does exist as a consequence of the reproductive choices of the parents. So this example does not illustrate what you are claiming that it illustrates. Termination of a non-sentient foetus is not an imposition, because only conscious entities can be imposed upon. Even if it could be proven that the foetus was aware of its termination (and therefore by some stretch of the language, we could designate this as an imposition), it would be by light years the lesser of the two possible impositions. Not all antinatalists will endorse forcible extermination of the species. My personal views are that some kind of extermination may be the only thing that could stop the cycle of imposition, and would be permissible due to the fact that the harm inflicted on those currently living would be as nothing when compared to the harm inflicted on any number of generations of future animals and people by failing to do everything necessary to prevent the imposition. I'm not claiming that all antinatalists agree with me on how to best approach the issue, or even whether anything at all should be done.
|
|