Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 13:09:10 GMT
tpfkar No, Philip Nitschke and Exit International have never expressed any ideas about forced sterilisation and forced extinction. Nor is he a philosopher on Youtube. And I'm not arguing in favour of any kind of formalised system for people to elect to be tortured, I just tend to come down on the side of personal autonomy. Even the most conservative type of assisted suicide is only legal in a small number of jurisdictions in the world. Also, there are a lot of different hurdles that applicants have to clear before they can be approved, such that it's hardly even worth the trouble if you know that you're soon to die anyway. Those aren't meaningful 'right to die' laws, they are granting the privilege of bodily autonomy to a very small group of people, and only then after a lot of time consuming bureaucratic hurdles. It's a tokenistic snub-nose to evangelicals, and little more. There are probably more jurisdictions where even attempted suicide is illegal and punishable with a very severe penalty. And of course, most people are delusional and are worried that the entire 'sanctity of life' house of cards will start to collapse if we allow people an easy way out. What you really fear is not a 'cost' that the vulnerable will never have to pay (because they won't exist after the procedure has been completed, and it has been established that non-existent people do not have a wellbeing state); what you fear is that eventually you'll feel that society will start viewing life to be meaningless. That you will lose whatever hubristic delusion helps you get through the day. Why exactly is abortion a "hard compromise"? What is the aborted foetus feeling deprived of? People came into existence because someone else decided it for them. They should be able to decide for themselves (and be fully supported in the decision by the society which sanctioned their birth) if they decide that it isn't their cup of tea. The counter arguments all have some kind of intangible mysticism at their base (or more rarely, some kind of draconian authoritarian policy). I've allowed that treatment isn't brainwashing in the case of people having actual psychoses and be helped to function normally. But convincing someone that life is worth living is just a re-education plan to get them invested again in the great fairytale that the human race tells itself about how meaningful and precious human life is. That's what I was referring to with the 'brainwashing' remark. Getting people to believe something that is utterly absurd, so that they can sweep their existential dilemmas back under the rug. Right, they aren't in the totally bonkers playtime youtube psychopath camp. And you've already asserted that the mentally ill should be able to be sexually cannibalized and gutted if they assent to it, whatever twittedness you're struggling to straddle here with "formalized system".  Assistance for the terminally ill is spreading most everywhere and is pretty standard in places where it is not formally codified. There aren't many "hurdles" to relieving pain to the point of curtailing time and consciousness left, it just happens all over. Regardless of your continuing fascinations with your sister-religions. And getting help is not "severe penalty". What you really shat is whatever stupidity pops into your shattered morbid perfection-seeking brain, Ada like. "Hubristic", I like it. And you Pee-Wee'd "delusional" (very convincingly, too  ) I suppose I should start your bawling for safe spaces now.  People value new chillens. I understand psychopaths who beep themselves to whatever insanity can't grok that and apparently all kinds of basics. And they can't "decide" for themselves to make a trivial exit with your force abortion daydreams. And right, helping people get over their unnecessary morbidity and to valuing what they have while they have it is "brainwashing". You can repeat your crazytime all you like, I sure will as appropriate.  And of course you see "mysticism" in everything, as it is part and parcel to your whole life and current being. And of course, those in the throws of wild psychoses often don't recognize their humorously non-"authoritarian" murderous psychopathies. Sorry, you just weren't made for the hinged and rational world. 
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I didn't claim that they were part of that. But the right to die is something that intelligent and educated secular atheists (such as Philip Nitschke) support, because not to support it is to impose religion on people's bodily autonomy. There's no reason against it that doesn't ultimately boil down to either 'it offends my religious beliefs' or 'we need those people to pay taxes'. The former is the most common, and is the one that you're espousing, even if cognitive dissonance makes it hard to admit to. Assistance for the terminally ill hasn't even been made law here in the UK, and this is hardly thought of as being a fundamentalist religious theocracy. The doctrine of double effect doesn't really help people who aren't already in a hospital bed and is at the discretion of the attending physicians. People value new children, but the value has to be paid for via the wellbeing of the future children and foetuses do not have a desire to be born. So people such as yourself want to get the value and then make those "chillen" pay the high price of the benefit that you will be reaping. The narrative that is being pushed by psychiatry (life is infinitely valuable and always infinitely preferable to death, and death should never be an option under any circumstances and the only reason people are ever allowed to die is because it's currently scientifically impossible to force people to remain alive eternally) is based on a fairy tale narrative that humans have built up about our importance and place in the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 15:05:16 GMT
tpfkar And I'm saying that such incoherence, fielded repeatedly in your case as if it were great profundity  , is another bit indicative of the shattered nature of your thought processes. Uncrushed peepazoids here, now are able to value, feel and consider hypotheticals, as the at least minimally mental competent know. I stated that the mentally ill should not be harmed nor facilitated/encouraged to harm themselves but instead have their symptoms treated. Anyone dying should have have assistance with it. And your "cost" to your nonexistent also remains pure nutbaggery. "Not intentionally harming the the mentally ill" is a religion only in the mind of one who flipped from worshiping birth to worshiping death for all for the fear of the imperfection of the possible existence anything that could make him feel bad, all based on a religious Objective, of course. Not understanding the incarcerable "to save you I must kill you all" supervillain psychosis is still funny knowing that you're completely impotent with it and every time you offer it you make 100 more people think antinatalists are crazy bent than Erj-types you reel in to bark on/about youtube sillies. 
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"If you imagine a hypothetical scenario in which the entire universe is barren, and it's sad, then you aren't imagining the hypothetical scenario correctly, because there would need to be at least one sentient mind inhabiting that universe in order to feel sad about the otherwise barrenness of the universe. It doesn't concern anyone who is living in this universe whether there may be a parallel universe which is barren of life. Where uncrushed peepazoids exist, the barren universe does not. Where the barren universe exists, uncrushed peepazoids do not. Therefore, it is irrational to be negatively disposed towards the hypothetical barren universe. I've never advocated for mentally ill people to be clinically assisted in being harmed, only that they should have the right to be clinically assisted in avoiding harm. If they want to take the risk of more harm in the future in order to continue with their life via some form of clinical treatment, then they should have that right. But if they want to avoid any possibility of future harm by opting out of life altogether, they should equally have that right. If there's no cost accruing to someone who doesn't exist (and the person who previously existed had requested for their existence to cease), then the only thing that you can be defending is some kind of sacred essence that the formerly extant person possessed whilst they were still alive, or some kind of shared subjective superstitious notion of the value of human life. Nobody on this board has ever suggested that the mentally ill should be intentionally harmed (notwithstanding the dilemma of someone who wants to do something that may likely be experienced as harm, which is something that I wouldn't want formally instituted anyway). Nah, it's sad from here, regardless of your continuing jabbers. Just as your ruminations on hooking up with Arlon will remain sad even after your aged self finally passes while still grasping for yet more time with your posed half-naked southeast Asians in dungeon torture pics. Uncrushed peepaziods don't generally beep themselves into utter psychopathic stupidity like that of "you can't feel that a barren universe would be sad because you won't be there to feel it even if you are here now feeling it, and by the way, if I vaporize you with my AI-delivered Illudium Pu-36, you won't be harmed". And blah blah blah, Arlonize "being harmed" and "avoiding harm" as much as you feel like Orwellijabbering. The mentally ill should be assisted in recovering. The mentally competent would never gain the notice of any mental health professionals. And I understand that all you can see are "sacred essences" and the like. As that has been your whole life up to and including your current cult worshiping of bizarre Objective and morbid perfection and the like via pure impotent wannabe tinpot psychopathy.
It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 15:12:27 GMT
tpfkar If you imagine a hypothetical scenario in which the entire universe is barren, and it's sad, then you aren't imagining the hypothetical scenario correctly, because there would need to be at least one sentient mind inhabiting that universe in order to feel sad about the otherwise barrenness of the universe. It doesn't concern anyone who is living in this universe whether there may be a parallel universe which is barren of life. Where uncrushed peepazoids exist, the barren universe does not. Where the barren universe exists, uncrushed peepazoids do not. Therefore, it is irrational to be negatively disposed towards the hypothetical barren universe. I've never advocated for mentally ill people to be clinically assisted in being harmed, only that they should have the right to be clinically assisted in avoiding harm. If they want to take the risk of more harm in the future in order to continue with their life via some form of clinical treatment, then they should have that right. But if they want to avoid any possibility of future harm by opting out of life altogether, they should equally have that right. If there's no cost accruing to someone who doesn't exist (and the person who previously existed had requested for their existence to cease), then the only thing that you can be defending is some kind of sacred essence that the formerly extant person possessed whilst they were still alive, or some kind of shared subjective superstitious notion of the value of human life. Nobody on this board has ever suggested that the mentally ill should be intentionally harmed (notwithstanding the dilemma of someone who wants to do something that may likely be experienced as harm, which is something that I wouldn't want formally instituted anyway). Nah, it's sad from here, regardless of your continuing jabbers. Just as your ruminations on hooking up with Arlon will remain sad even after your aged self finally passes while still grasping for yet more time with your posed half-naked southeast Asians in dungeon torture pics. Uncrushed peepaziods don't generally beep themselves into utter psychopathic stupidity like that of "you can't feel that a barren universe would be sad because you won't be there to feel it even if you are here now feeling it, and by the way, if I vaporize you with my AI-delivered Illudium Pu-36, you won't be harmed". And blah blah blah, Arlonize "being harmed" and "avoiding harm" as much as you feel like Orwellijabbering. The mentally ill should be assisted in recovering. The mentally competent would never gain the notice of any mental health professionals. And I understand that all you can see are "sacred essences" and the like. As that has been your whole life up to and including your current cult worshiping of bizarre Objective and morbid perfection and the like via pure impotent wannabe tinpot psychopathy.
It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence.What it seems like from here is irrelevant. Perhaps people are sad thinking about the billions of years without life at the start of this universe, but that doesn't mean that it was a bad thing at the time. I've never argued that the mentally ill shouldn't be assisted in recovering (if that's the route that they choose to go down), and I've even compromised to the extent of saying that a rule requiring some form of treatment before assisted dying would be signed off on would be acceptable. But you will brook no compromise, even in the cases of severely disturbed people who have already tried decades of different treatments, none of which resulting in any improvement. The mentally competent are aware of the risks, harms and pains involved in suicide with only the means available to an average person. And I don't believe anything about sacred essences, which is why I believe, and have always believed, that the value of life should be determined exclusively by the person living it. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 15:13:52 GMT
tpfkar What have I ignored specifically? I understand what your values are, as far as I'm aware (you think that life is so important that it gives you the right to impose risk on others without having first obtained consent, and you think that it's also so precious that it should be made as difficult as possible for a person to dispose of their own). And I'm amused at how you seem to be developing a case of hurt feelings on this thread. I wonder if you'll start following Eva Yojimbo around the board, as per your modus operandum when you get hurt feelings.  That right there is yet another bit where you ignore the values of uncrushed mostly-normal peeps and substitute your own that you've flipped on as your miserableness progressed. You're amused by you own dementia, I suppose with your patent "wonder" and "feelz" (where's the "seems" ) that underpins most of your deranged patent ramblings, poor little "irritated" murderous loon. And you're ever the outright liar so beat down you make up things about "following people around", when you're not bawling like a little girl about being oppressed. Your own fantasy world like any religious nutcase. Still ruminating on those dreams of getting with Arlon?
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 Apr 2, 2018 16:19:29 GMT
tpfkar What have I ignored specifically? I understand what your values are, as far as I'm aware (you think that life is so important that it gives you the right to impose risk on others without having first obtained consent, and you think that it's also so precious that it should be made as difficult as possible for a person to dispose of their own). And I'm amused at how you seem to be developing a case of hurt feelings on this thread. I wonder if you'll start following Eva Yojimbo around the board, as per your modus operandum when you get hurt feelings. That right there is yet another bit where you ignore the values of uncrushed mostly-normal peeps and substitute your own that you've flipped on as your miserableness progressed. You're amused by you own dementia, I suppose with your patent "wonder" and "feelz" (where's the "seems" ) that underpins most of your deranged patent ramblings, poor little "irritated" murderous loon. And you're ever the outright liar so beat down you make up things about "following people around", when you're not bawling like a little girl about being oppressed. Your own fantasy world like any religious nutcase. Still ruminating on those dreams of getting with Arlon?
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I do understand your 'values' and have recognised them, but I disagree with the fact that other people (who cannot consent, or in the case people who want to die, have rejected those values) should have to pay for your values to be manifest in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 16:24:30 GMT
tpfkar Yes, he is. Maybe let me re-phrase that. He is self admittedly 'on the spectrum' and ANYONE who wants seriously to stop everyone and every living thing on earth to be unable to breed AND then kill the rest off in acts of barbarity, is not your average bear. Firstly, I never stated that I was a diagnosed autistic, but I suspect that I may be. Secondly, autism is not a mental illness, and that is disability discrimination. See the doc quick, beep-beep! And . Of course, because you're an impotent daydreaming deranged religious psychopath.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 23:37:44 GMT
A psychopath isn't someone who wants to prioritise the victims (potential and actual) over the aggressors. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 23:39:51 GMT
tpfkar Right, they aren't in the totally bonkers playtime youtube psychopath camp. And you've already asserted that the mentally ill should be able to be sexually cannibalized and gutted if they assent to it, whatever twittedness you're struggling to straddle here with "formalized system". Assistance for the terminally ill is spreading most everywhere and is pretty standard in places where it is not formally codified. There aren't many "hurdles" to relieving pain to the point of curtailing time and consciousness left, it just happens all over. Regardless of your continuing fascinations with your sister-religions. And getting help is not "severe penalty". What you really shat is whatever stupidity pops into your shattered morbid perfection-seeking brain, Ada like. "Hubristic", I like it. And you Pee-Wee'd "delusional" (very convincingly, too ) I suppose I should start your bawling for safe spaces now. People value new chillens. I understand psychopaths who beep themselves to whatever insanity can't grok that and apparently all kinds of basics. And they can't "decide" for themselves to make a trivial exit with your force abortion daydreams. And right, helping people get over their unnecessary morbidity and to valuing what they have while they have it is "brainwashing". You can repeat your crazytime all you like, I sure will as appropriate. And of course you see "mysticism" in everything, as it is part and parcel to your whole life and current being. And of course, those in the throws of wild psychoses often don't recognize their humorously non-"authoritarian" murderous psychopathies. Sorry, you just weren't made for the hinged and rational world.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I didn't claim that they were part of that. But the right to die is something that intelligent and educated secular atheists (such as Philip Nitschke) support, because not to support it is to impose religion on people's bodily autonomy. There's no reason against it that doesn't ultimately boil down to either 'it offends my religious beliefs' or 'we need those people to pay taxes'. The former is the most common, and is the one that you're espousing, even if cognitive dissonance makes it hard to admit to. Assistance for the terminally ill hasn't even been made law here in the UK, and this is hardly thought of as being a fundamentalist religious theocracy. The doctrine of double effect doesn't really help people who aren't already in a hospital bed and is at the discretion of the attending physicians. People value new children, but the value has to be paid for via the wellbeing of the future children and foetuses do not have a desire to be born. So people such as yourself want to get the value and then make those "chillen" pay the high price of the benefit that you will be reaping. The narrative that is being pushed by psychiatry (life is infinitely valuable and always infinitely preferable to death, and death should never be an option under any circumstances and the only reason people are ever allowed to die is because it's currently scientifically impossible to force people to remain alive eternally) is based on a fairy tale narrative that humans have built up about our importance and place in the universe. I didn't claim you did, nor half a billion other things you want to irrelevantly shat. And "some" is not "all" nor even "most", and "right to die" is ambiguous and all over the spectrum and decidedly not your psychopathic morose malice version. And of course there's no reason for you to think otherwise as religion pulses through your veins and you can't see anything without what you've lived and embraced your entire life, constant though all of your wild zigs and zags of crazy. And you and Erj should tube together on the people for taxes thing.  And people who aren't terminal don't need kicking over the cliff, but treatment for their mental illnesses, or "brainwashing" as you like to shat. And your last para is just more of your pure cockeyed coo coo. Going on about the nonexistent that you don't go on about once again. And getting what you can out of life before you're dirt, that peeps are overwhelmingly grateful for the opportunity for and overwhelmingly choose the up side as opposed to trivially easy exist, is about as distant as is possible from fairytales / your various religions including your current rabid nonsensical death cult.
And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first place |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 3, 2018 1:29:12 GMT
tpfkar I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. If you agree that Occam isn't about values then the two situations (You vs Mic, Arlon vs myself) aren't equatable. If you think Mic is ignoring your posts about the values, then you should just say "these are the values that it comes down to. If you disagree with these values then there's nothing left to discuss/debate so we should just agree to disagree" since you can't use arguments to change fundamental values. With Arlon and I, even one of the non-Occam debates (the sales of modern vs classic video games) is over factual matters rather than values, which isn't something that people should agree to disagree about since it's not about subjective feelings. Quelle surprise. Maybe you're just not digging deep enough to get to the underlying values?  And as I pointed out, the line was mockery - combining your hypocrisy when you go on and on repeated, "ad infinitum" with Arlon in multiple threads with mostly reasonable stuff and then yap about "last word", "bad habits", and "not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values" - slapped together with the ad infinitum repeated misconception of Occam. But please feel free to continue to consternate over the nonliteralness of a chuckle line all you like. In any case, people can agree to disagree about anything in this world, or just leave it. Or go at it ad infinitum while gassing about it elsewhere. And I really could care less what you think I should do in my posts.
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself.Mockery or not, there's no hypocrisy. If you can point out a thread where we've gone back and forth for >100 posts and in which that discussion was carried over from past threads on a subject that's about subjective values, then you'll have a basis for claiming hypocrisy. As is, it's apples and oranges. Also: whose misconception of Occam? Arlon's? Sure, people can agree to disagree about anything, but there's a fundamental difference between factual matters in which evidence should change minds, and subjective values where it can't. In cases where it can't, I don't see the point of continuing on past the point where you recognize those differing values; but that's just my own values speaking. Maybe you could elucidate me on the value you see in doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 3, 2018 1:30:25 GMT
"Yes he is" isn't much of an argument. I don't know what "on the spectrum" means. Sure, I'd agree that the anti-natalist position is unusual, but all that's saying is that someone has unusual values. That doesn't in itself make someone irrational. People just have a misunderstanding about how rationality applies (or doesn't) when it comes to stuff like this. Rationality applies when we agree on our values an agree on what kind of world we want to live in (or not live in as this case may be); it doesn't apply when determining what our values should be to begin with. As an example, you can't use rationality to determine the value of life to start with, nor that living has a greater value than dying; but if you agree that life is valuable and that living is better than dying, you can use rationality to figure out how best to keep yourself and others alive. It is a values issue, but values can be defended through rationality, in my opinion. My values tell me that consent is important if you're going to be roping someone into something that is at once extremely risky (with risks that are, to some degree, distributed unpredictably), whilst also unnecessary for their welfare. The idea that life has such intrinsic value that it overrides these consideration seems like a matter of religious faith… I snipped your post here because I think the rest gets too far into the specifics of this topic and too far away from the generalizations I’m talking about. First, no, you can’t defend fundamental values rationally because those fundamental values are what you reason from. It’s the same principle as in logic; you must have propositions that are assumed without being proven in order to do logic at all. Now, many propositions are indeed conclusions derived from other logical arguments, but if you keep going back you’ll eventually find the fundamental propositions that are assumed/not proven that everything else rests on. Second, you don’t need religion to value life itself. Most people, including atheists, value life to some extent. The value doesn’t have to be intrinsic or objective either. Third, most value consent as well, but there’s no reason one can’t value life more than consent, or even say that in a situation where consent isn’t possible we can’t value the desires of the parents more. There's not even a problem, rationally speaking, with not conferring our "consent" values onto those not living, or on non-humans. We make exceptions for all kinds of values we have. Finally, I’m not saying we SHOULD value life or parents’ desires more, or that we SHOULDN'T confer our consent values onto the unborn; merely that it’s not innately irrational to do/not do so. It's still founded on what people's values are to begin with, but I think that I can effectively demonstrate that people such as cupcakes and goz would be going against what their values would usually be in the case of bringing someone into existence unnecessarily, and I think that I can prove that they are invoking religious values that they would normally disavow when it comes to allowing people to have a say over the continuation of their own existence (especially cupcakes, goz may be a little bit more liberal on that score). If you think that you can show a logical contradiction in their fundamental values and what actions they're taking or advocating, then that would indeed be a logical/rational contradiction, and you can have at it. I'm not convinced you can do this though. For one thing, most people hold multiple values that frequently come into conflict, and when they do their choice between them is extremely difficult to rationally parse, but extremely easy for them to rationalize (and these are two very different things). It's also very difficult to untangle the distinction in order to show any actual contradiction. It also seems to me that if you were going to get there, at least with rabbit, you would've gotten there by now. You guys have discussed this subject... like... a whole lot.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 3, 2018 2:01:28 GMT
tpfkar Quelle surprise. Maybe you're just not digging deep enough to get to the underlying values? And as I pointed out, the line was mockery - combining your hypocrisy when you go on and on repeated, "ad infinitum" with Arlon in multiple threads with mostly reasonable stuff and then yap about "last word", "bad habits", and "not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values" - slapped together with the ad infinitum repeated misconception of Occam. But please feel free to continue to consternate over the nonliteralness of a chuckle line all you like. In any case, people can agree to disagree about anything in this world, or just leave it. Or go at it ad infinitum while gassing about it elsewhere. And I really could care less what you think I should do in my posts.
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself.Mockery or not, there's no hypocrisy. If you can point out a thread where we've gone back and forth for >100 posts and in which that discussion was carried over from past threads on a subject that's about subjective values, then you'll have a basis for claiming hypocrisy. As is, it's apples and oranges. Also: whose misconception of Occam? Arlon's? Sure, people can agree to disagree about anything, but there's a fundamental difference between factual matters in which evidence should change minds, and subjective values where it can't. In cases where it can't, I don't see the point of continuing on past the point where you recognize those differing values; but that's just my own values speaking. Maybe you could elucidate me on the value you see in doing it. Gargantuan hypocrisy. I don't care about your number criteria, you've gone back and forth over and over again. The only way that it's not apples and oranges is I'm not droning on shatting stupid about other people wasting their time going on and on with Arlon. And the values was not all of it in any case; there's the flat out lies, patent murderous crazy and repeated irrationalities of the kind that get people to beep their way to all kinds of predatory psychopathy. Your repeated ad infinitum misconception on Occam. And I don't plan "educating" you on anything any more than you "educate" anybody here, and certainly not by reciting armchair readings nor confusing getting used to with "factual". I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 3, 2018 2:14:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 14:26:36 GMT
It is a values issue, but values can be defended through rationality, in my opinion. My values tell me that consent is important if you're going to be roping someone into something that is at once extremely risky (with risks that are, to some degree, distributed unpredictably), whilst also unnecessary for their welfare. The idea that life has such intrinsic value that it overrides these consideration seems like a matter of religious faith… I snipped your post here because I think the rest gets too far into the specifics of this topic and too far away from the generalizations I’m talking about. First, no, you can’t defend fundamental values rationally because those fundamental values are what you reason from. It’s the same principle as in logic; you must have propositions that are assumed without being proven in order to do logic at all. Now, many propositions are indeed conclusions derived from other logical arguments, but if you keep going back you’ll eventually find the fundamental propositions that are assumed/not proven that everything else rests on. Second, you don’t need religion to value life itself. Most people, including atheists, value life to some extent. The value doesn’t have to be intrinsic or objective either. Third, most value consent as well, but there’s no reason one can’t value life more than consent, or even say that in a situation where consent isn’t possible we can’t value the desires of the parents more. There's not even a problem, rationally speaking, with not conferring our "consent" values onto those not living, or on non-humans. We make exceptions for all kinds of values we have. Finally, I’m not saying we SHOULD value life or parents’ desires more, or that we SHOULDN'T confer our consent values onto the unborn; merely that it’s not innately irrational to do/not do so. It's still founded on what people's values are to begin with, but I think that I can effectively demonstrate that people such as cupcakes and goz would be going against what their values would usually be in the case of bringing someone into existence unnecessarily, and I think that I can prove that they are invoking religious values that they would normally disavow when it comes to allowing people to have a say over the continuation of their own existence (especially cupcakes, goz may be a little bit more liberal on that score). If you think that you can show a logical contradiction in their fundamental values and what actions they're taking or advocating, then that would indeed be a logical/rational contradiction, and you can have at it. I'm not convinced you can do this though. For one thing, most people hold multiple values that frequently come into conflict, and when they do their choice between them is extremely difficult to rationally parse, but extremely easy for them to rationalize (and these are two very different things). It's also very difficult to untangle the distinction in order to show any actual contradiction. It also seems to me that if you were going to get there, at least with rabbit, you would've gotten there by now. You guys have discussed this subject... like... a whole lot. I'm certainly not saying that one can 'prove' that values are correct. They are subjective, of course. But harm is ALWAYS a bad thing, and if you can avoid harm without incurring some kind of cost (even if that cost is merely a deprivation), then most rational people would always choose (for themselves) to avoid the harm and not take the unnecessary risk for a purely conjectural 'reward' that would never have been missed in its absence. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that one needs to be religious in order to value life. But denying people the right to bodily autonomy (as in abortion, right to die, sexuality) usually has a basis in religion. What I'm actually arguing is that saying that the social value of life reins supreme over any other ethical considerations (consent, bodily autonomy, intellectual freedom) is akin to a religious creed. And yes, you can value life over consent to the extent that you'll metaphorically run up a credit card debt and then force someone else to spend a lifetime trying to pay off that debt (which can never be paid off, because you can never eliminate needs and desires), but to do so would make you extremely selfish. It's irrational to suggest that you can consent on anyone else's behalf, because that isn't how consent works. Sometimes it is necessary to make a contingency based decision on behalf of someone who is comatose or is unconscious, but in that situation, you're trying to figure out what would be the less risky option and what option would be consistent with that person's values. But there's no imaginable contingency under which you would need to bring someone into existence, when you know that there is no risk or harm in the decision of refraining from bringing them into existence, and you have absolutely no idea what the person's values will be if born. I would argue that it's impossible to rationalise the idea that we're doing someone else a favour by bringing them into existence and waiving the requirement of consent, even when the person would never know if you had refrained from taking the risk. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 17:44:01 GMT
tpfkar I didn't claim that they were part of that. But the right to die is something that intelligent and educated secular atheists (such as Philip Nitschke) support, because not to support it is to impose religion on people's bodily autonomy. There's no reason against it that doesn't ultimately boil down to either 'it offends my religious beliefs' or 'we need those people to pay taxes'. The former is the most common, and is the one that you're espousing, even if cognitive dissonance makes it hard to admit to. Assistance for the terminally ill hasn't even been made law here in the UK, and this is hardly thought of as being a fundamentalist religious theocracy. The doctrine of double effect doesn't really help people who aren't already in a hospital bed and is at the discretion of the attending physicians. People value new children, but the value has to be paid for via the wellbeing of the future children and foetuses do not have a desire to be born. So people such as yourself want to get the value and then make those "chillen" pay the high price of the benefit that you will be reaping. The narrative that is being pushed by psychiatry (life is infinitely valuable and always infinitely preferable to death, and death should never be an option under any circumstances and the only reason people are ever allowed to die is because it's currently scientifically impossible to force people to remain alive eternally) is based on a fairy tale narrative that humans have built up about our importance and place in the universe. I didn't claim you did, nor half a billion other things you want to irrelevantly shat. And "some" is not "all" nor even "most", and "right to die" is ambiguous and all over the spectrum and decidedly not your psychopathic morose malice version. And of course there's no reason for you to think otherwise as religion pulses through your veins and you can't see anything without what you've lived and embraced your entire life, constant though all of your wild zigs and zags of crazy. And you and Erj should tube together on the people for taxes thing. And people who aren't terminal don't need kicking over the cliff, but treatment for their mental illnesses, or "brainwashing" as you like to shat. And your last para is just more of your pure cockeyed coo coo. Going on about the nonexistent that you don't go on about once again. And getting what you can out of life before you're dirt, that peeps are overwhelmingly grateful for the opportunity for and overwhelmingly choose the up side as opposed to trivially easy exist, is about as distant as is possible from fairytales / your various religions including your current rabid nonsensical death cult.
And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first placeYes you did claim that. After I was referring to philosophers that I follow on Youtube (really one in particular) you referenced Philip Nitschke and Exit International, when I never claimed that they were an antinatalist organisation. Right to die means just that. Most people who say that they support the right to die actually support the privilege to die under certain circumscribed circumstances. The right to die doesn't have such qualifications. Right to die means that everyone is entitled to their own body, and therefore law enforcement and emergency services would only have the right to prevent a suicide using force in the event that the suicide was going to endanger others (for example, someone jumping off a motorway bridge in front of oncoming traffic). It shouldn't be a 'right' only in the (non)sense that people can do it covertly, because if that's the definition of 'right' then homosexuals already had the right to homosexual sex before homosexuality was decriminalised. A non-existent person isn't your victim, the person you forced into existence is your victim. And I am profoundly concerned about their wellbeing, even if caring about suffering and consent qualifies as psychopathy in your estimation. People should have the right to free treatment for their mental illnesses, having such a right doesn't imply precluding a right to be supported in opting out of suffering altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 3, 2018 18:28:16 GMT
tpfkar I'm certainly not saying that one can 'prove' that values are correct. They are subjective, of course. But harm is ALWAYS a bad thing, and if you can avoid harm without incurring some kind of cost (even if that cost is merely a deprivation), then most rational people would always choose (for themselves) to avoid the harm and not take the unnecessary risk for a purely conjectural 'reward' that would never have been missed in its absence. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that one needs to be religious in order to value life. But denying people the right to bodily autonomy (as in abortion, right to die, sexuality) usually has a basis in religion. What I'm actually arguing is that saying that the social value of life reins supreme over any other ethical considerations (consent, bodily autonomy, intellectual freedom) is akin to a religious creed. And yes, you can value life over consent to the extent that you'll metaphorically run up a credit card debt and then force someone else to spend a lifetime trying to pay off that debt (which can never be paid off, because you can never eliminate needs and desires), but to do so would make you extremely selfish. It's irrational to suggest that you can consent on anyone else's behalf, because that isn't how consent works. Sometimes it is necessary to make a contingency based decision on behalf of someone who is comatose or is unconscious, but in that situation, you're trying to figure out what would be the less risky option and what option would be consistent with that person's values. But there's no imaginable contingency under which you would need to bring someone into existence, when you know that there is no risk or harm in the decision of refraining from bringing them into existence, and you have absolutely no idea what the person's values will be if born. I would argue that it's impossible to rationalise the idea that we're doing someone else a favour by bringing them into existence and waiving the requirement of consent, even when the person would never know if you had refrained from taking the risk. Sure, when you have insane definitions for "bodily autonomy", "consent", "intellectual freedom", "harm", "debt", "selfish", and on and on and on. "It's irrational to suggest that you can consent on anyone else's behalf, because that isn't how consent works."Righto, you can't consent on their behalf to kill them or consent on their behalf prevent them from coming into existence. Except in patent crazyland. You can let them decide when they're able, of course.
It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 18:40:18 GMT
tpfkar I'm certainly not saying that one can 'prove' that values are correct. They are subjective, of course. But harm is ALWAYS a bad thing, and if you can avoid harm without incurring some kind of cost (even if that cost is merely a deprivation), then most rational people would always choose (for themselves) to avoid the harm and not take the unnecessary risk for a purely conjectural 'reward' that would never have been missed in its absence. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that one needs to be religious in order to value life. But denying people the right to bodily autonomy (as in abortion, right to die, sexuality) usually has a basis in religion. What I'm actually arguing is that saying that the social value of life reins supreme over any other ethical considerations (consent, bodily autonomy, intellectual freedom) is akin to a religious creed. And yes, you can value life over consent to the extent that you'll metaphorically run up a credit card debt and then force someone else to spend a lifetime trying to pay off that debt (which can never be paid off, because you can never eliminate needs and desires), but to do so would make you extremely selfish. It's irrational to suggest that you can consent on anyone else's behalf, because that isn't how consent works. Sometimes it is necessary to make a contingency based decision on behalf of someone who is comatose or is unconscious, but in that situation, you're trying to figure out what would be the less risky option and what option would be consistent with that person's values. But there's no imaginable contingency under which you would need to bring someone into existence, when you know that there is no risk or harm in the decision of refraining from bringing them into existence, and you have absolutely no idea what the person's values will be if born. I would argue that it's impossible to rationalise the idea that we're doing someone else a favour by bringing them into existence and waiving the requirement of consent, even when the person would never know if you had refrained from taking the risk. Sure, when you have insane definitions for "bodily autonomy", "consent", "intellectual freedom", "harm", "debt", "selfish", and on and on and on. "It's irrational to suggest that you can consent on anyone else's behalf, because that isn't how consent works."Righto, you can't consent on their behalf to kill them or consent on their behalf prevent them from coming into existence. Except in patent crazyland. You can let them decide when they're able, of course.
It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence.If someone is comatose, then the doctors may seek consent from the family to pull the plug on the patient. That's a case of having to decide one way or another for someone who lacks capacity to decide for themselves. If someone requests to die and assistance in doing that, then their consent can and should be taken at face value. In the case of a foetus, it is only by the actions of the aggressor that they are forced into a highly risky environment and are saddled with debts that can only be fully paid off upon death. In that scenario, the foetus isn't morally relevant (which is agreed by proponents of the right to abortion) and don't have anything invested in their own continued existence. Therefore, the morally correct thing to do is to deny the aggressor the right to impose risk and harm upon someone who could not consent. It can't be against the values of the foetus to do so, or against anything that they already have invested in their own future, and can only save them from future harm. And you're in favour of aggressive state intervention to deny people the choice to decide, and if they're never 'able' (by your standard), then they're going to have to suffer until the limit has been reached in terms of how long medical technology can forcibly prolong their life. The only option that you have for those who, by your definition, are not 'mentally competent' to decide to die, or complete suicide effectively, is to hope that eventually a treatment will come along so that they can graduate from an existence of relentless torture to the type of tolerably mundane existences that most people have. Absolutely no guarantee of being able to grant them their relief of course, but life is so infinitely valuable that they'll just have to accept the fact that their constant suffering is collateral damage that people are willing to impose on unfortunate others. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 3, 2018 18:41:52 GMT
tpfkar Nah, it's sad from here, regardless of your continuing jabbers. Just as your ruminations on hooking up with Arlon will remain sad even after your aged self finally passes while still grasping for yet more time with your posed half-naked southeast Asians in dungeon torture pics. Uncrushed peepaziods don't generally beep themselves into utter psychopathic stupidity like that of "you can't feel that a barren universe would be sad because you won't be there to feel it even if you are here now feeling it, and by the way, if I vaporize you with my AI-delivered Illudium Pu-36, you won't be harmed". And blah blah blah, Arlonize "being harmed" and "avoiding harm" as much as you feel like Orwellijabbering. The mentally ill should be assisted in recovering. The mentally competent would never gain the notice of any mental health professionals. And I understand that all you can see are "sacred essences" and the like. As that has been your whole life up to and including your current cult worshiping of bizarre Objective and morbid perfection and the like via pure impotent wannabe tinpot psychopathy.
It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence.What it seems like from here is irrelevant. Perhaps people are sad thinking about the billions of years without life at the start of this universe, but that doesn't mean that it was a bad thing at the time. I've never argued that the mentally ill shouldn't be assisted in recovering (if that's the route that they choose to go down), and I've even compromised to the extent of saying that a rule requiring some form of treatment before assisted dying would be signed off on would be acceptable. But you will brook no compromise, even in the cases of severely disturbed people who have already tried decades of different treatments, none of which resulting in any improvement. The mentally competent are aware of the risks, harms and pains involved in suicide with only the means available to an average person. And I don't believe anything about sacred essences, which is why I believe, and have always believed, that the value of life should be determined exclusively by the person living it. More freely-given pure psychopathic derangement. How people perceive it and judge it is all that matters in terms of good and bad. And again I don't care what half billion things you've never done that nobody's talking about. But much like you advocate force sterilizing all women and murdering countless, you termed treatment to get people thriving again as "brainwashing". And who cares what you might or might not "compromise" on. You have less than negative power that would make any such thing even infinitesimally relevant. And sacred essences, as you constantly natter on about, are your own essence, as evidenced by your morbid malicious playtime ideas about what you want to do to people in your pursuit of gruesome perfection and your stated belief in the Great (sickly) Objective and your inability to distinguish even the most secular of things from your pathologically morbid religious embodiment.
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 20:48:02 GMT
tpfkar What it seems like from here is irrelevant. Perhaps people are sad thinking about the billions of years without life at the start of this universe, but that doesn't mean that it was a bad thing at the time. I've never argued that the mentally ill shouldn't be assisted in recovering (if that's the route that they choose to go down), and I've even compromised to the extent of saying that a rule requiring some form of treatment before assisted dying would be signed off on would be acceptable. But you will brook no compromise, even in the cases of severely disturbed people who have already tried decades of different treatments, none of which resulting in any improvement. The mentally competent are aware of the risks, harms and pains involved in suicide with only the means available to an average person. And I don't believe anything about sacred essences, which is why I believe, and have always believed, that the value of life should be determined exclusively by the person living it. More freely-given pure psychopathic derangement. How people perceive it and judge it is all that matters in terms of good and bad. And again I don't care what half billion things you've never done that nobody's talking about. But much like you advocate force sterilizing all women and murdering countless, you termed treatment to get people thriving again as "brainwashing". And who cares what you might or might not "compromise" on. You have less than negative power that would make any such thing even infinitesimally relevant. And sacred essences, as you constantly natter on about, are your own essence, as evidenced by your morbid malicious playtime ideas about what you want to do to people in your pursuit of gruesome perfection and your stated belief in the Great (sickly) Objective and your inability to distinguish even the most secular of things from your pathologically morbid religious embodiment.
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.It doesn't matter if nobody's ever going to have to experience it. The people who didn't want to allow the plug to be pulled on Terri Schiavo were reacting to their own instinctual and reactionary fear of death, and their innate believe that there's some kind of terrifying void that Terri Schiavo was going to be experiencing after dying. They have no rational basis to have an aversion to something that they'll never have to experience for themselves, and nor will anybody else. I consider the psychiatric ethos of 'death is always a patently irrational option in every instance, and if it were possible to force people to remain conscious for the rest of eternity then it should be forced upon them because anything else would be insanity, and insane people cannot make decisions for themselves' to be a religious doctrine, rather than anything based on secular rationalism. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to why death is always an irrational option?  And you're decrying what I 'want to do to people'? What have I ever suggested be done to people that is more than devised to prevent them from imposing risk on those who cannot consent? What have I ever suggested that goes further than cleaning up the mess that you want to continue making, and proposes that people should be harmed for no motive other than sheer malice? If you didn't create the victims or agreed to stop making more victims, there would be no need to come up with a coercive strategy to prevent you from doing so. What you're also conveniently ignoring is that all sentient life will some day become extinct, and that is an inevitability. So you're still imposing some kind of catastrophic extinction on a planet full of life, but seem to believe that delaying it (and making untold trillions more humans and animals suffer in the meantime) it is more moral than trying to introduce it in a controlled way that will cause less suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 3, 2018 20:49:40 GMT
tpfkar That right there is yet another bit where you ignore the values of uncrushed mostly-normal peeps and substitute your own that you've flipped on as your miserableness progressed. You're amused by you own dementia, I suppose with your patent "wonder" and "feelz" (where's the "seems" ) that underpins most of your deranged patent ramblings, poor little "irritated" murderous loon. And you're ever the outright liar so beat down you make up things about "following people around", when you're not bawling like a little girl about being oppressed. Your own fantasy world like any religious nutcase. Still ruminating on those dreams of getting with Arlon?
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I do understand your 'values' and have recognised them, but I disagree with the fact that other people (who cannot consent, or in the case people who want to die, have rejected those values) should have to pay for your values to be manifest in reality. You don't even understand your own thoughts (see you choosing frantically trying to get people to choose when you don't "believe" actual choice exists, for a particularly boneheaded one). Nobody "pays" for my values and if anybody can't consent, they should never be terminated or pushed in that direction instead of receiving "brainwashing", as you call it, to help them thrive or even more basic should just not be force terminated nor masses of women force sterilized and countless people murdered for the dreams of ridiculously wacked murderous psychopaths.
They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 4, 2018 0:56:34 GMT
tpfkar Mockery or not, there's no hypocrisy. If you can point out a thread where we've gone back and forth for >100 posts and in which that discussion was carried over from past threads on a subject that's about subjective values, then you'll have a basis for claiming hypocrisy. As is, it's apples and oranges. Also: whose misconception of Occam? Arlon's? Sure, people can agree to disagree about anything, but there's a fundamental difference between factual matters in which evidence should change minds, and subjective values where it can't. In cases where it can't, I don't see the point of continuing on past the point where you recognize those differing values; but that's just my own values speaking. Maybe you could elucidate me on the value you see in doing it. Gargantuan hypocrisy. I don't care about your number criteria, you've gone back and forth over and over again. The only way that it's not apples and oranges is I'm not droning on shatting stupid about other people wasting their time going on and on with Arlon. And the values was not all of it in any case; there's the flat out lies, patent murderous crazy and repeated irrationalities of the kind that get people to beep their way to all kinds of predatory psychopathy. Your repeated ad infinitum misconception on Occam. And I don't plan "educating" you on anything any more than you "educate" anybody here, and certainly not by reciting armchair readings nor confusing getting used to with "factual". I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself.So the hypocrisy is so gargantuan you can't show where I've gone "back and forth over and over again" with Arlon as much as you have with mic, nor where our discussions were about values? Well good luck continuing to play that card! So what's my supposed misconception of Occam? This should be good for a larf. |
|
