|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 5, 2018 1:12:53 GMT
tpfkar No, from the perspective of anyone who realises that risk and harm are REAL, they aren't distributed based on fairness or desert and could happen to anyone. If you were to write a book titled 'How to have a blast with the gift of life: the philosophy of an internet insult troll' by cupcakes (ghostwritten by goz, so that it can at least minimally comprehensible to an average reader), and had to come up with a list of things that would ensure a good life, if you had any shred of honesty, it would probably look like this: Don't be born with a disability. Be born into at least a middle class family in a developed nation. Try to be born into a rich, well connected family if you can. Don't be born to abusive or neglectful parents Don't become chronically ill Don't become mentally ill Don't have an IQ below 90, because otherwise you'll struggle to find work and be exploited terribly if you do. Don't get molested by the local priest as a child Don't get smashed up in a road accident by a drunken driver Don't have a major economic recession happen in your adulthood Don't have global warming cause climatic catastrophes that could be deleterious to your livelihood Don't go blind and the list could go on and on forever Don't let the demented impotent pathological dreamers who wish to force-sterilize all women, have the mentally ill as sexual mutilation and snuff fodder for their fellow predators, and mass murder countless go un-incarcerated or un- put down.  Or we just continue to net-improve on all fronts like we have been.  All better than doing more than laughing hard at gutless & powerless daydreaming predators. And I do like it when you let your airhead sashay take over.  Why don't you cat ignorantly some more about "double negatives" and desperately flail some more with "English as a second language" on typo hunting two snap stuff.  Good good times. 
Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 1:23:41 GMT
tpfkar No, from the perspective of anyone who realises that risk and harm are REAL, they aren't distributed based on fairness or desert and could happen to anyone. If you were to write a book titled 'How to have a blast with the gift of life: the philosophy of an internet insult troll' by cupcakes (ghostwritten by goz, so that it can at least minimally comprehensible to an average reader), and had to come up with a list of things that would ensure a good life, if you had any shred of honesty, it would probably look like this: Don't be born with a disability. Be born into at least a middle class family in a developed nation. Try to be born into a rich, well connected family if you can. Don't be born to abusive or neglectful parents Don't become chronically ill Don't become mentally ill Don't have an IQ below 90, because otherwise you'll struggle to find work and be exploited terribly if you do. Don't get molested by the local priest as a child Don't get smashed up in a road accident by a drunken driver Don't have a major economic recession happen in your adulthood Don't have global warming cause climatic catastrophes that could be deleterious to your livelihood Don't go blind and the list could go on and on forever Don't let the demented impotent pathological dreamers who wish to force-sterilize all women, have the mentally ill as sexual mutilation and snuff fodder for their fellow predators, and mass murder countless go un-incarcerated or un- put down. Or we just continue to net-improve on all fronts like we have been. All better than doing more than laughing hard at gutless & powerless daydreaming predators. And I do like it when you let your airhead sashay take over. Why don't you cat ignorantly some more about "double negatives" and desperately flail some more with "English as a second language" on typo hunting two snap stuff. Good good times.
Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).The bad guys (the real bad guys) are winning and always will win. It will never be possible to do more than partially meet the needs that you're creating. What about all of those things that I listed? Why is the wellbeing of the people who are afflicted in those ways unimportant? What advice can you really offer, other than 'don't allow the unlucky things that happen to others happen to you'? And you make typing mistakes all the time and I don't point them out. The quip about English not as a first language was based on the garbled way that you cobble your posts together, which has been remarked upon by others. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 5, 2018 1:24:39 GMT
tpfkar It's not irrelevant, it's part-and-parcel of the "ad infinitum" part. You can't claim hypocrisy until you define that in numbers and the definition is not "whatever amount rabbit wants it to be so he can claim hypocrisy." And even if you can define it numbers, you'd still have to show it was about values in order to claim hypocrisy. So what's the misconception? Are you going to explain it or just make yet another baseless accusation? I can and do point out your ridiculous droning hypocrisy. You count up your recent responses to Arlon and heal thyself. And you'd have to show that the interactions you were gassing on about were all about values and not also a great amount of 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. That it's more than a heuristic to help prefer equally well-evidenced theories or direct efforts on lesser-evidenced ones, much less the "best evidence" to make you "believe in" something.
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself.So still nothing on how I've gone "ad infinitum" with Arlon about values? No? Well, so much for my alleged hypocrisy. Nice try, though! The main subjects you and mic are discussing (anti-natalism, right to assisted suicide, etc.) are about values. It's those specific subjects I was referring to, not all the tangential stuff. Where are you getting that it's only a heuristic from? Among other things, it's been mathematically formalized via Solomonoff Induction, and similarly formalized in information theory via Minimum Message Length, neither of which are heuristics (they're the exact opposite: so precise they're too complex to compute). Occam can be the best evidence for believing all kinds of things. I gave the example of coming home and finding your house ransacked and property stolen. The only thing stopping you from thinking aliens did it (and believing people did it) is Occam. Occam is the only defense against most of Erjen's conspiracy theories. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 5, 2018 1:24:46 GMT
tpfkar Certainly more so than the empty spaces where nothing resides. And certainly when against the will of the mother. And of course you're still rabidly insane with your "you fully support a woman's right to get an abortion just like those rabid evangelical Christians that oppose a woman's right to get an abortion". Part and parcel for your Ada brain, although I'm probably impugning Ada. And you don't get much more play(timing as a) psychopathic god than by dreaming of force sterilizing all women and mass murdering countless, among other predatory and highly irrational traits. And of course there's no reason there has to be mass extinction, except in the pathologically morbid minds that want their pathetic moany personal misery writ large.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. So you're claiming that an aborted foetus is a victim and has been deprived of life if the mother didn't want the abortion, but not if she wanted the abortion? Please explain how that could possibly make any sense. As far as I'm aware, the foetus is not self aware and thus has no desires or interests invested in its own future. If aborted, it won't even know what's happened, let alone whether it was as a result of the mother's choice or someone else's. So I really fail to see how the foetus is 'deprived' in one scenario, but has not been deprived, or wronged in the other. How does the foetus know whether it's being aborted because the mother didn't want it, or because other people didn't want its welfare being risked without consent? When I asked you to explain why abortion was a hard compromise, you alluded to the benefits that already born individuals would derive from the foetus being born, not anything that relates to the foetus' own invested interests or desires in being born and entering the lottery. Perhaps you're so appalled by antinatalism, but yet so stymied in being able to formulate a cogent argument against it that you're talking yourself round to a fundamentalist pro-life belief. Are these your peeps now?  Of course there has to be a mass extinction, because nothing is eternal. Perhaps not even the universe itself. Continuing to create more life only delays the inevitable, and for every generation that is created, there's billions or trillions of sentient organisms which are going to die (or worst, be forced to continue living until the heat death of the universe, because human views of death are too primitive to let people die when there's any possibility of preventing it, even against the will and pleading of the owner of the life). Except of course you, much like your fellow religious fanatics, dream of forcing women on the matter. All of your bizarre jabber-crazy can't change that fact.  I already explained it to you, it's a hard compromise, but the mother wins outright with time limitations mediated by circumstances. Not everybody lives their life flopping between great deranged extremes as you do. 
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 Eva Yojimbo on Apr 5, 2018 1:24:56 GMT
Harm is only always a bad thing if you're defining harm as whatever someone subjectively finds to be a bad thing, in which case it's basically just true by a defininitional tautology, and people risk harm constantly for purely conjectural rewards... sometimes not GOOD conjectural rewards (that's the only way to explain many of the videos that end up on a show like Ridiculousness). Thing is, I'd argue that most of religion has its roots in evolutionary psychology. One reason stuff like abortion and suicide are frowned on is because larger societies are stronger than smaller ones (smaller ones are constantly threatened with annihilation), and every individual is more important to the survival and continuation of the group. Individuals might value something like consent, but evolutionarily speaking that's less important to survival and reproduction than, well, survival and reproduction. So the reason many value life more than consent likely has deeper roots than just religion. I don't really want to get into the rest, except to say that, again, it's not innately irrational to say that we're not going to transfer our consent values onto those not living and that the decision rests with the (potential) parents. All I'm saying is that you can easily arrive at anti-natalism or, errr, natalism rationally depending on what values you start with. Harm is, by definition, anything that generates an averse reaction (so 'harm is bad' is indeed a tautology, because whatever is bad is harmful and whatever is harmful is bad). I agree that it can be rational for people to risk harm in the hopes of gaining a greater reward. But a non-existent person doesn't have any need or desire of any reward, and when you bring that person into existence then primarily, you create needs. You create a need machine which can only be satiated for brief periods, because you need to need in order to be able to survive; or for the desirable sensations to be desirable, you need to be warding off a deprivation. I agree with you about religion having roots in evolutionary psychology; but the thing about that is that evolution doesn't care about what's rational or fair. All evolution does is create the most successful gladiators, and it's likely that religion and certainly the intense aversion to death were successful traits in evolution. And you raise an interesting point; cupcakes ' views on the right to die may come from deeper roots from just religion, but still atavistic and primordial. Not something that should still be informing jurisprudence in technologically and philosophically advanced civilisations. It's irrational to presume that something that doesn't exist can be consented for, when there's no peril or state of actual or potential dissatisfaction from which it needs to be rescued. It's unethical and cruel to presuppose that we ought to have the right to make that call (play god, in effect) with the wellbeing of someone who may have to suffer through something that we would not have wished to consent to have to endure for ourselves had we had the chance (disability, illness, poverty, homelessness, etc). Also at the time of making this decision, parents haven't even lived a full life, so they don't know what the dying process is like before imposing that on someone else. Seems we agree regarding harm being a tautology. "Need machine" is a nice coinage, but I still don't wanna get into all that. Evolution helped create all our values and biases, including the one to avoid harm, so I don't see how you could avoid that informing our civilizations and philosophies. "Be consented for" is an odd phrasing, so not quite sure what you mean by that; but the "unethical and cruel" part still entirely depends on what values you're starting with. I see how you get there with your values (mostly the "wrong to risk harm on others" part), but clearly most people think the value of life outweighs that risk, and most infer that from their own preferring to be alive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 1:34:28 GMT
tpfkar So you're claiming that an aborted foetus is a victim and has been deprived of life if the mother didn't want the abortion, but not if she wanted the abortion? Please explain how that could possibly make any sense. As far as I'm aware, the foetus is not self aware and thus has no desires or interests invested in its own future. If aborted, it won't even know what's happened, let alone whether it was as a result of the mother's choice or someone else's. So I really fail to see how the foetus is 'deprived' in one scenario, but has not been deprived, or wronged in the other. How does the foetus know whether it's being aborted because the mother didn't want it, or because other people didn't want its welfare being risked without consent? When I asked you to explain why abortion was a hard compromise, you alluded to the benefits that already born individuals would derive from the foetus being born, not anything that relates to the foetus' own invested interests or desires in being born and entering the lottery. Perhaps you're so appalled by antinatalism, but yet so stymied in being able to formulate a cogent argument against it that you're talking yourself round to a fundamentalist pro-life belief. Are these your peeps now? Of course there has to be a mass extinction, because nothing is eternal. Perhaps not even the universe itself. Continuing to create more life only delays the inevitable, and for every generation that is created, there's billions or trillions of sentient organisms which are going to die (or worst, be forced to continue living until the heat death of the universe, because human views of death are too primitive to let people die when there's any possibility of preventing it, even against the will and pleading of the owner of the life). Except of course you, much like your fellow religious fanatics, dream of forcing women on the matter. All of your bizarre jabber-crazy can't change that fact. I already explained it to you, it's a hard compromise, but the mother wins outright with time limitations mediated by circumstances. Not everybody lives their life flopping between great deranged extremes as you do.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.But what is really being compromised if the foetus is not trespassed against? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 5, 2018 1:35:03 GMT
tpfkar No, you would have sterilized her and murdered her with toxin even when she was 100% healthy, care of your death cult religion. And she wasn't really "alive" in any case. And of course a mentally competent person can refuse any medical treatment. Even the "treatment" that you support that puts them down even when they are scratching and kicking against it because you say they are mentally incompetent to decide to change their minds. We can't feed the mental illness but treat it to diminish and ameliorate it's effects - that is the empathy. Not the empathy of force sterilizing woman, mass murdering populations, supporting other predators in their "right" to sexually cannibalize and butcher the mentally ill if they can get the poor victims to assent. Very much like the serial killers and mass murderers throughout history, many found within the ranks of your sister religions. And the sane strive to make things continually better for all, not go on mad abuse and extermination sprees. And I don't know what we'll be able to do with the populations. I know your AI savior has revealed all to you ::winkwink::
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"So then if someone is defined as 'mentally incompetent' because they're deranged with mental illness (traumatised by how harmful existence is), then they're stuck with having their life prolonged to the maximum that medical science will allow. And not wanting to extend life as long as possible would be deemed to be prima facie evidence of insanity. Nobody's suggesting feeding the mental illness, or not making treatment available. Empathy is not to impose on them what you think is best, based on your perspective. Empathy means trying to understand what it would be like to be another person and understanding that their values may be different from yours and that valuing life differently is not a 'derangement'. Of course not, they just don't have to act deranged and just trivially interrupt the fragile requirements of continuous living, if they've actually decided. If they can't manage that, we treat them to ameliorate their symptoms and combat their illness, or as you say, "brainwash" them. Empathy is to help them thrive and not kick them over the cliff, especially not at the behest of wannabe women abusers / murderous psychopaths. Empathy is understanding that normal people would want to be helped through crises and not consumed in political maliciousness against life itself. And of course the bulk of everything you frame is repeated pure derangement.
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 5, 2018 1:44:53 GMT
Harm is, by definition, anything that generates an averse reaction (so 'harm is bad' is indeed a tautology, because whatever is bad is harmful and whatever is harmful is bad). I agree that it can be rational for people to risk harm in the hopes of gaining a greater reward. But a non-existent person doesn't have any need or desire of any reward, and when you bring that person into existence then primarily, you create needs. You create a need machine which can only be satiated for brief periods, because you need to need in order to be able to survive; or for the desirable sensations to be desirable, you need to be warding off a deprivation. I agree with you about religion having roots in evolutionary psychology; but the thing about that is that evolution doesn't care about what's rational or fair. All evolution does is create the most successful gladiators, and it's likely that religion and certainly the intense aversion to death were successful traits in evolution. And you raise an interesting point; cupcakes ' views on the right to die may come from deeper roots from just religion, but still atavistic and primordial. Not something that should still be informing jurisprudence in technologically and philosophically advanced civilisations. It's irrational to presume that something that doesn't exist can be consented for, when there's no peril or state of actual or potential dissatisfaction from which it needs to be rescued. It's unethical and cruel to presuppose that we ought to have the right to make that call (play god, in effect) with the wellbeing of someone who may have to suffer through something that we would not have wished to consent to have to endure for ourselves had we had the chance (disability, illness, poverty, homelessness, etc). Also at the time of making this decision, parents haven't even lived a full life, so they don't know what the dying process is like before imposing that on someone else. Seems we agree regarding harm being a tautology. "Need machine" is a nice coinage, but I still don't wanna get into all that. Evolution helped create all our values and biases, including the one to avoid harm, so I don't see how you could avoid that informing our civilizations and philosophies. "Be consented for" is an odd phrasing, so not quite sure what you mean by that; but the "unethical and cruel" part still entirely depends on what values you're starting with. I see how you get there with your values (mostly the "wrong to risk harm on others" part), but clearly most people think the value of life outweighs that risk, and most infer that from their own preferring to be alive. The need to avoid harm does inform our civilisations and philosophies, but for some reason it's encouraged to impose the source of all possible harm - life itself, based on some non-sensical notion that a lack of sentient life is the same as the deprivation of sentient life. As if the barrenness of Mars is a great tragedy (which nobody thinks that it is). Sorry if my phrasing was odd. What I meant was that it doesn't make sense to suppose that there is any kind of warrant to presume consent for someone who doesn't exist and does not need or desire what you're offering, when presuming consent will mean that a future sentient being will have to suffer the risks. Most people think that the value of life outweighs the risk, but then nobody can imagine what it would be like never to have existed. And what have any of them done that's so special to justify the collateral damage of children born with disabilities which cause them to be in constant agony, holocaust victims, paranoid schizophrenics, catatonic depressives, and so on. Nobody would have lost out on anything if none of them had been born, so on what basis is it ethical or rational to create unneeded pleasures when the cost of it is terrible hardships and sufferings. Surely there are some of those scenarios that I've described, and many others, that you would prefer to be spared as opposed to not existing. And isn't the welfare of those sufferers equally important to yours, and if not, then why not? As far as I can tell, the only difference between those unfortunates and yourself is the luck of the lottery. If there are sufferings that you would prefer to avoid even at the cost of never existing, then why would you find it acceptable to continue creating more life knowing that such a high price will need to be paid by sentient and vulnerable creatures who possess the same qualities as yourself? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 1:50:17 GMT
tpfkar So then if someone is defined as 'mentally incompetent' because they're deranged with mental illness (traumatised by how harmful existence is), then they're stuck with having their life prolonged to the maximum that medical science will allow. And not wanting to extend life as long as possible would be deemed to be prima facie evidence of insanity. Nobody's suggesting feeding the mental illness, or not making treatment available. Empathy is not to impose on them what you think is best, based on your perspective. Empathy means trying to understand what it would be like to be another person and understanding that their values may be different from yours and that valuing life differently is not a 'derangement'. Of course not, they just don't have to act deranged and just trivially interrupt the fragile requirements of continuous living, if they've actually decided. If they can't manage that, we treat them to ameliorate their symptoms and combat their illness, or as you say, "brainwash" them. Empathy is to help them thrive and not kick them over the cliff, especially not at the behest of wannabe women abusers / murderous psychopaths. Empathy is understanding that normal people would want to be helped through crises and not consumed in political maliciousness against life itself. And of course the bulk of everything you frame is repeated pure derangement.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.This is either a case of misdirection or reading comprehension issues. Having a 'right' to do something has no relation to whether the action is harmful or not. Smoking and alcohol consumption are both harmful actions (and can harm others as well as the person consuming), but people have a right to do those things if they are over a certain age. As long as smokers do not smoke in certain locations such as bars and restaurants, police cannot use force to prevent them from doing so. Smokers don't need to procure their cigarettes through shady black market sources based in Mexico and hope that the package doesn't get intercepted en route, or that the police somehow find out that they have obtained cigarettes and break down the door of their home in a raid at 4am to confiscate the contraban. There's no involuntary 72 hour hold period in a hospital for being caught smoking, or being suspected of planning to attempt to light a cigarette. There's no Facebook algorithm which alerts your other Facebook contacts that you are 'at risk' of lighting a cigarette. There are lots of things that people have a right to do that can harm themselves and others, and what all these things have in common is that the police cannot forcibly prevent you from doing these things unless you're doing them in such a way that poses a danger to other people or infringes the rights of other people. I'm not referencing anything other than a legal right, because there's no other type of right that exists. Rights cannot be observed in nature, they are a legal construct. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 5, 2018 1:51:31 GMT
tpfkar What it's based on is recovery prospect, and whether the patient is effectively already dead / terminal. And your "should"s are nearly universally laughable. And of course your theatrical sobs of "aggressor", "highly risky environment", "saddled with debts", "morally relevant", "agreed by proponents of the right to abortion", is simply more of your pure Arlorwillijabbering for "great benefactor", "hopefully highly protected and loving environment", "gifted and supported in the option to have a total blast", "miccee farcical insanity number $", and "miccee uproarious nonsensical derangement number Θ". In addition to "therefore", "correct", "impose", "harm", "aggressive state intervention", "deny", "eventually", "graduate", "relentless torture", "tolerably mundane", "collateral damage", etc., etc., deliciously fanatical madhatter et-cetera. Continuous Pure coo-coo land stuff.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The point that you're missing is that the only times when it's acceptable to consent on someone else's behalf is when there are problems with both options and the person already exists and has a pre-existing stake in the decision. In constrast, to decide against conceiving a child, there is no identifiable child for whom you need to make a decision (therefore nobody to deal with the consequences of not be, but should you decide to have a child, there will be a future person who will deal with the consequences of that decision. And you're just dismissing the idea that there can be any risks at all in life, even when the parents have made the best plans they can (only bad and careless parents give birth to children with disabilities, or those who go on to develop a chronic illness, or develop mental health issues). But that's what you need to do in order to try and make a case against antinatalism, so that argues as well for antinatalism as any argument in favour of antinatalism. The point you're missing is that your ideas are patently deranged. What you just posted you pulled right out of your crazy arse. What's acceptable is not to take action to purposely cause harm when that entity in question will be able to subsequently decide for themselves. When they are dead or effectively so with no future then the harm is already done, or when some others' rights to not be harmed by them trumps, then they trump. And if there's no identifiable anything, then there's no "imposition" or anything else that is possible against the empty space, regardless of your frantic jabbers. Any future person can decide for themselves if they don't have death imposed upon them by silly irrational wannabe abusers + mass murderers. And if you're putting on a flowery party hat and calling yourself Melba, then you'd probably seem a little less ridiculous than your posts thus far. The existence of risks is ok, they're a fact of life. We can mitigate the hell out of them on our way to having blasts right up until we're dirt, and are, net-better all the time. Antinatalism is all fine and good, don't have any kids. Murderous psychopathy of any possible efficacy will be met with whatever violence necessary, or in your case, plenty of laughs at your impotent comical squeals.
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 5, 2018 1:56:47 GMT
Seems we agree regarding harm being a tautology. "Need machine" is a nice coinage, but I still don't wanna get into all that. Evolution helped create all our values and biases, including the one to avoid harm, so I don't see how you could avoid that informing our civilizations and philosophies. "Be consented for" is an odd phrasing, so not quite sure what you mean by that; but the "unethical and cruel" part still entirely depends on what values you're starting with. I see how you get there with your values (mostly the "wrong to risk harm on others" part), but clearly most people think the value of life outweighs that risk, and most infer that from their own preferring to be alive. The need to avoid harm does inform our civilisations and philosophies, but for some reason it's encouraged to impose the source of all possible harm - life itself, based on some non-sensical notion that a lack of sentient life is the same as the deprivation of sentient life. As if the barrenness of Mars is a great tragedy (which nobody thinks that it is). Sorry if my phrasing was odd. What I meant was that it doesn't make sense to suppose that there is any kind of warrant to presume consent for someone who doesn't exist and does not need or desire what you're offering, when presuming consent will mean that a future sentient being will have to suffer the risks. Most people think that the value of life outweighs the risk, but then nobody can imagine what it would be like never to have existed. And what have any of them done that's so special to justify the collateral damage of children born with disabilities which cause them to be in constant agony, holocaust victims, paranoid schizophrenics, catatonic depressives, and so on. Nobody would have lost out on anything if none of them had been born, so on what basis is it ethical or rational to create unneeded pleasures when the cost of it is terrible hardships and sufferings. Surely there are some of those scenarios that I've described, and many others, that you would prefer to be spared as opposed to not existing. And isn't the welfare of those sufferers equally important to yours, and if not, then why not? As far as I can tell, the only difference between those unfortunates and yourself is the luck of the lottery. If there are sufferings that you would prefer to avoid even at the cost of never existing, then why would you find it acceptable to continue creating more life knowing that such a high price will need to be paid by sentient and vulnerable creatures who possess the same qualities as yourself? That's because the desire to avoid harm is directly related to the desire of staying/being alive. Again, evolutionarily speaking, harm represents a potential threat to our existence, which is why we try to avoid it. OK, that's what I thought you meant. Sure, I agree with you, but, again, I don't think you have to presume that to get there. It's simple enough for one to think we don't have to confer our values of consent onto those not-existing. IE, there's no moral burden to consider their hypothetical consent at all. Again, not saying we should think like that, merely that it's not irrational to do so. Again, don't want to get into much of the rest, except for the bolded part: the answer is that if one thinks pleasures, "unneeded" or not, are more valuable than the risk of terrible hardships and suffering. For most people, that's actually true of their own life. I'd even say it's true of my own and I'm someone who has dealt with severe suffering (chronic health problems) for most of my life. I still don't regret having been born. Still, it's perhaps that suffering that allows me to empathize with your position more than others. I can certainly understand why some people more worse off than myself could easily end up on the other side of the coin. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 2:09:54 GMT
The need to avoid harm does inform our civilisations and philosophies, but for some reason it's encouraged to impose the source of all possible harm - life itself, based on some non-sensical notion that a lack of sentient life is the same as the deprivation of sentient life. As if the barrenness of Mars is a great tragedy (which nobody thinks that it is). Sorry if my phrasing was odd. What I meant was that it doesn't make sense to suppose that there is any kind of warrant to presume consent for someone who doesn't exist and does not need or desire what you're offering, when presuming consent will mean that a future sentient being will have to suffer the risks. Most people think that the value of life outweighs the risk, but then nobody can imagine what it would be like never to have existed. And what have any of them done that's so special to justify the collateral damage of children born with disabilities which cause them to be in constant agony, holocaust victims, paranoid schizophrenics, catatonic depressives, and so on. Nobody would have lost out on anything if none of them had been born, so on what basis is it ethical or rational to create unneeded pleasures when the cost of it is terrible hardships and sufferings. Surely there are some of those scenarios that I've described, and many others, that you would prefer to be spared as opposed to not existing. And isn't the welfare of those sufferers equally important to yours, and if not, then why not? As far as I can tell, the only difference between those unfortunates and yourself is the luck of the lottery. If there are sufferings that you would prefer to avoid even at the cost of never existing, then why would you find it acceptable to continue creating more life knowing that such a high price will need to be paid by sentient and vulnerable creatures who possess the same qualities as yourself? That's because the desire to avoid harm is directly related to the desire of staying/being alive. Again, evolutionarily speaking, harm represents a potential threat to our existence, which is why we try to avoid it. And it's ironic, because ceasing to exist is the only way that we can avoid harm. Yet the only place where you can't be harmed is somehow deemed to be the greatest of all harms and people are forbidden to be assisted in avoiding harm. The bolded part is a logical error. There's no person to consider at the time you're making the decision, but you're imposing risk and hazards on a person who will exist in the future. By the time the future person is capable of giving or refusing consent, the harm's already done, at least to a large degree, and we don't even allow people to freely choose to not exist any more in any case. I would say that it's extremely irrational to say that we can consent for a person who doesn't exist yet and has no need to ever exist. Most reasonable people would agree that we shouldn't just scorch the Earth irresponsibly and that there is a duty to future generations when it comes to trying to mitigate the impact of climate change, for example. So people are clearly thinking about the wellbeing of those who do not yet exist and don't have any say, and they're not called irrational for that particular reason. Pleasure is only the relief of harms that were caused by your existence in the first place and there was no want of pleasure in the universe before life existed. It might heighten your personal sense of contentment to have desires which you can then easily fulfil (thus bringing pleasure); but there are too many who struggle to meet their basic needs, let alone fulfil any desires. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 2:14:23 GMT
tpfkar The point that you're missing is that the only times when it's acceptable to consent on someone else's behalf is when there are problems with both options and the person already exists and has a pre-existing stake in the decision. In constrast, to decide against conceiving a child, there is no identifiable child for whom you need to make a decision (therefore nobody to deal with the consequences of not be, but should you decide to have a child, there will be a future person who will deal with the consequences of that decision. And you're just dismissing the idea that there can be any risks at all in life, even when the parents have made the best plans they can (only bad and careless parents give birth to children with disabilities, or those who go on to develop a chronic illness, or develop mental health issues). But that's what you need to do in order to try and make a case against antinatalism, so that argues as well for antinatalism as any argument in favour of antinatalism. The point you're missing is that your ideas are patently deranged. What you just posted you pulled right out of your crazy arse. What's acceptable is not to take action to purposely cause harm when that entity in question will be able to subsequently decide for themselves. When they are dead or effectively so with no future then the harm is already done, or when some others' rights to not be harmed by them trumps, then they trump. And if there's no identifiable anything, then there's no "imposition" or anything else that is possible against the empty space, regardless of your frantic jabbers. Any future person can decide for themselves if they don't have death imposed upon them by silly irrational wannabe abusers + mass murderers. And if you're putting on a flowery party hat and calling yourself Melba, then you'd probably seem a little less ridiculous than your posts thus far. The existence of risks is ok, they're a fact of life. We can mitigate the hell out of them on our way to having blasts right up until we're dirt, and are, net-better all the time. Antinatalism is all fine and good, don't have any kids. Murderous psychopathy of any possible efficacy will be met with whatever violence necessary, or in your case, plenty of laughs at your impotent comical squeals.
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.Are you ever going to answer my point about smoking and what it means to have a "right" to do something that is harmful, because it seems as though you're evading that? I won't go any further until that's answered. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 5, 2018 2:14:46 GMT
tpfkar Why did you respond to my comments about Youtube philosophers by bringing up Philip Nitschke, then? Right to die means the right to die. Having a right to do something implies that it doesn't need to be done covertly and that you can't be forcibly prevented from doing it unless you're directly endangering other people with your actions. If we used your definition of what constitutes a 'right' then a 200lb man has the right to mug a 90lb old lady in a dark alley at night, when there's no security cameras. This is either a case of misdirection or reading comprehension issues. Having a 'right' to do something has no relation to whether the action is harmful or not. Smoking and alcohol consumption are both harmful actions (and can harm others as well as the person consuming), but people have a right to do those things if they are over a certain age. As long as smokers do not smoke in certain locations such as bars and restaurants, police cannot use force to prevent them from doing so. Smokers don't need to procure their cigarettes through shady black market sources based in Mexico and hope that the package doesn't get intercepted en route, or that the police somehow find out that they have obtained cigarettes and break down the door of their home in a raid at 4am to confiscate the contraban. There's no involuntary 72 hour hold period in a hospital for being caught smoking, or being suspected of planning to attempt to light a cigarette. There's no Facebook algorithm which alerts your other Facebook contacts that you are 'at risk' of lighting a cigarette. There are lots of things that people have a right to do that can harm themselves and others, and what all these things have in common is that the police cannot forcibly prevent you from doing these things unless you're doing them in such a way that poses a danger to other people or infringes the rights of other people. I'm not referencing anything other than a legal right, because there's no other type of right that exists. Rights cannot be observed in nature, they are a legal construct. A foetus cannot give consent one way or another, so aborting them cannot be 'against' their consent. It's done without their consent, but there's no adverse consequences to doing it and the foetus doesn't have any desire one way or the other, so it's not done against what they desire. I can't help it if you're so twitted that you can't grok that people have different ideas on the details, even broad ones, of right to die, and most don't include doctors killing/facilitating the killing of the mentally ill/disturbed/intoxicated, distraught, etc., or even include sanctioning anybody else in harming them, much less your "whatever gruesome barbarity fellow predators can convince the incompetent to agree to goes". More of your profound incapacity at play. And your mugger example is just yet another of your hilariously deranged ideas. The inclination we work from is that of protecting the vulnerable, including both the mentally ill and "little old ladies". No misdirection except in the "logic" in your gourd. If something is harmful we look at it a lot closer. If the effects of homosexual actions were in themselves horrible, including death, then we'd probably restrict and even prohibit them. But they're not, except in your own self-hating mind, so we don't. Not a difficult concept for someone not significantly mentally encumbered. And of course you can't navigate the difference between smoking and outright killing.  And even smoking has become more and more restricted as the long term damage to continued breathing has been established. "A foetus cannot give consent one way or another, so aborting them cannot be 'against' their consent."Yet letting them live is an "imposition" to them. Insanity is fun. And btw, to mention once again, nor can letting them live nor conceiving them in the first place be 'against' their consent, of course. 
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 5, 2018 2:24:56 GMT
tpfkar Why did you respond to my comments about Youtube philosophers by bringing up Philip Nitschke, then? Right to die means the right to die. Having a right to do something implies that it doesn't need to be done covertly and that you can't be forcibly prevented from doing it unless you're directly endangering other people with your actions. If we used your definition of what constitutes a 'right' then a 200lb man has the right to mug a 90lb old lady in a dark alley at night, when there's no security cameras. This is either a case of misdirection or reading comprehension issues. Having a 'right' to do something has no relation to whether the action is harmful or not. Smoking and alcohol consumption are both harmful actions (and can harm others as well as the person consuming), but people have a right to do those things if they are over a certain age. As long as smokers do not smoke in certain locations such as bars and restaurants, police cannot use force to prevent them from doing so. Smokers don't need to procure their cigarettes through shady black market sources based in Mexico and hope that the package doesn't get intercepted en route, or that the police somehow find out that they have obtained cigarettes and break down the door of their home in a raid at 4am to confiscate the contraban. There's no involuntary 72 hour hold period in a hospital for being caught smoking, or being suspected of planning to attempt to light a cigarette. There's no Facebook algorithm which alerts your other Facebook contacts that you are 'at risk' of lighting a cigarette. There are lots of things that people have a right to do that can harm themselves and others, and what all these things have in common is that the police cannot forcibly prevent you from doing these things unless you're doing them in such a way that poses a danger to other people or infringes the rights of other people. I'm not referencing anything other than a legal right, because there's no other type of right that exists. Rights cannot be observed in nature, they are a legal construct. A foetus cannot give consent one way or another, so aborting them cannot be 'against' their consent. It's done without their consent, but there's no adverse consequences to doing it and the foetus doesn't have any desire one way or the other, so it's not done against what they desire. I can't help it if you're so twitted that you can't grok that people have different ideas on the details, even broad ones, of right to die, and most don't include doctors killing/facilitating the killing of the mentally ill/disturbed/intoxicated, distraught, etc., or even include sanctioning anybody else in harming them, much less your "whatever gruesome barbarity fellow predators can convince the incompetent to agree to goes". More of your profound incapacity at play. And your mugger example is just yet another of your hilariously deranged ideas. The inclination we work from is that of protecting the vulnerable, including both the mentally ill and "little old ladies". No misdirection except in the "logic" in your gourd. If something is harmful we look at it a lot closer. If the effects of homosexual actions were in themselves horrible, including death, then we'd probably restrict and even prohibit them. But they're not, except in your own self-hating mind, so we don't. Not a difficult concept for someone not significantly mentally encumbered. And of course you can't navigate the difference between smoking and outright killing. And even smoking has become more and more restricted as the long term damage to continued breathing has been established. "A foetus cannot give consent one way or another, so aborting them cannot be 'against' their consent."Yet letting them live is an "imposition" to them. Insanity is fun. And btw, to mention once again, nor can letting them live nor conceiving them in the first place be 'against' their consent, of course.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"You're completely avoiding the point again. I'm not addressing the difference between smoking or homosexuality and assisted dying. The point is that "right" is a legal construct and if you have a right to do something then that means you can't legally be stopped from doing it unless you're endangering the health and safety of others, or encroaching on their rights. Having a right to do something means that you cannot be stopped from exercising the right just because you want to do it. There would have to be extenuating circumstances involving direct risks to other persons, property or animals before someone could be prevented from doing the thing defined as a 'right'. Therefore appearing to be mentally ill whilst committing suicide would be no more of a relevant factor than appearing to be mentally ill whilst smoking. You're so flagrantly dishonest that you're insisting on unconventional definitions of words in order to justify denying a service to a group of people. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 5, 2018 2:25:34 GMT
tpfkar The bad guys (the real bad guys) are winning and always will win. It will never be possible to do more than partially meet the needs that you're creating. What about all of those things that I listed? Why is the wellbeing of the people who are afflicted in those ways unimportant? What advice can you really offer, other than 'don't allow the unlucky things that happen to others happen to you'? And you make typing mistakes all the time and I don't point them out. The quip about English not as a first language was based on the garbled way that you cobble your posts together, which has been remarked upon by others. Only in your morbidly pathetic world. The things you listed are delusional criteria for life-ending "bad", and the ones that are setbacks we need to continually improve support or screening for. As you well know, mental illness being a biggee.  Just like your demented statements of any of it as "unimportant", or that "important" yields "all should die". And your catty sahshay collapses are strictly the result of your great hurt, as you hiss out in pain that your hosed irrational jabber is highlighted, not unlike "others" who lash out in "irritated"  pique. Looks like I'll need to go pull up your "double negative" crash & burn and bump it. 
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 6, 2018 1:12:22 GMT
That's because the desire to avoid harm is directly related to the desire of staying/being alive. Again, evolutionarily speaking, harm represents a potential threat to our existence, which is why we try to avoid it. And it's ironic, because ceasing to exist is the only way that we can avoid harm. Yet the only place where you can't be harmed is somehow deemed to be the greatest of all harms and people are forbidden to be assisted in avoiding harm. The bolded part is a logical error. There's no person to consider at the time you're making the decision, but you're imposing risk and hazards on a person who will exist in the future. By the time the future person is capable of giving or refusing consent, the harm's already done, at least to a large degree, and we don't even allow people to freely choose to not exist any more in any case. I would say that it's extremely irrational to say that we can consent for a person who doesn't exist yet and has no need to ever exist. Most reasonable people would agree that we shouldn't just scorch the Earth irresponsibly and that there is a duty to future generations when it comes to trying to mitigate the impact of climate change, for example. So people are clearly thinking about the wellbeing of those who do not yet exist and don't have any say, and they're not called irrational for that particular reason. Pleasure is only the relief of harms that were caused by your existence in the first place and there was no want of pleasure in the universe before life existed. It might heighten your personal sense of contentment to have desires which you can then easily fulfil (thus bringing pleasure); but there are too many who struggle to meet their basic needs, let alone fulfil any desires. I don't know if I'd call it ironic, but to avoid harm by ceasing to exist would defeat the entire point for most since most only want to avoid harm in order to keep existing. It's only when the harm becomes so great or unavoidable do most consider ceasing to exist to avoid the harm. What you're imposing on a non-existent person is existence, and everything existence entails. Whether that's "moral" or not entirely depends on how one values existence in totality compared to non-existence; and even their own desire to reproduce has some value. I don't think it makes much sense, in general, to consider the act of reproduction as any kind of consenting for the non-existent person; the consent is only between those doing the reproducing. I don't really buy that pleasure is only the relief of/from harms. What harm is being relieved when I listen to music or watch films? The pleasure of art is largely in the kind of emotions and thought they provoke, and it's not as if one is suffering by NOT feeling or thinking those things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 4:55:43 GMT
And it's ironic, because ceasing to exist is the only way that we can avoid harm. Yet the only place where you can't be harmed is somehow deemed to be the greatest of all harms and people are forbidden to be assisted in avoiding harm. The bolded part is a logical error. There's no person to consider at the time you're making the decision, but you're imposing risk and hazards on a person who will exist in the future. By the time the future person is capable of giving or refusing consent, the harm's already done, at least to a large degree, and we don't even allow people to freely choose to not exist any more in any case. I would say that it's extremely irrational to say that we can consent for a person who doesn't exist yet and has no need to ever exist. Most reasonable people would agree that we shouldn't just scorch the Earth irresponsibly and that there is a duty to future generations when it comes to trying to mitigate the impact of climate change, for example. So people are clearly thinking about the wellbeing of those who do not yet exist and don't have any say, and they're not called irrational for that particular reason. Pleasure is only the relief of harms that were caused by your existence in the first place and there was no want of pleasure in the universe before life existed. It might heighten your personal sense of contentment to have desires which you can then easily fulfil (thus bringing pleasure); but there are too many who struggle to meet their basic needs, let alone fulfil any desires. I don't know if I'd call it ironic, but to avoid harm by ceasing to exist would defeat the entire point for most since most only want to avoid harm in order to keep existing. It's only when the harm becomes so great or unavoidable do most consider ceasing to exist to avoid the harm. Harm, combined with survival instinct are the two crude mechanisms that have evolved to motivate animals (including those not cognitively advanced enough to experience the feeling of being glad to enjoy the wonders of being alive) to safeguard their existences and pass on their genes, but harm in itself is bad not just because it is a warning of being in bodily danger (its evolutionary purpose), but the experience itself is unpleasant even when it is not associated with mortal danger. Are you saying that people only dislike the experience of chronic pain because they want to continue existing (even when the pain doesn't present a direct threat to continued existence)? Harm is inherently negative because it induces negative value states in the conscious experience of the harmed. If evolution hadn't resulted in 'harm' and 'survival instinct' as motivating mechanisms in sentient organisms it seems unlikely that the value of continued existence would have been self-evident enough otherwise (especially given all the hardships that would have to be endured) in order for our species to have even evolved. Not existing does not have a negative value state. You can't impose upon a non-existent person. You impose existence upon the person that you caused to exist, and if it were a planned pregnancy you were doing it for purely selfish reasons given that there was no need or desire that you were responding to on the part of a non-existent person. Just because there isn't a person who can grant or refuse consent, it does not mean that consent is an irrelevant issue. When you're unconscious, you cannot grant or deny consent, but you would agree that shouldn't give anyone else the right to take catastrophic and unnecessary risks on your behalf because they have the opinion that it's worth it (without knowing what your own disposition would be towards the risk and the value of the reward). I'm sure you can think of certain scenarios in which you would be very distressed by the life that was thrust on you without consent, especially when there isn't any society on Earth that will allow you to dispose of that existence in a safe and reliable way (in most cases). What would your life experience be if you couldn't listen to music, watch films, or do anything else that you find enjoyable? They are a relief from the ungratified state that you would be enduring if you had nothing to do to pass your time. You weren't missing out on music or films before you were bored. There's more than one way to ward off a deprivation, so it doesn't have to be some kind of binary thing where if you aren't feeling inspired in every which way in every which instance, you are suffering from the lack of those sensations. It's more the fact that you have the constant need to be doing something in order to ward off some unwanted feeling that would result if, like many people in the world, you lacked the resources to gratify your interests and cravings. It's the fact that your consciousness is a liability which creates, in effect, a bottomless pit of needs and cravings that has to be ceaselessly attended to. I understand that consciousness may seem more of a boon than a liability when you are habitually able to satisfy your needs and cravings with expediency, but that doesn't really reflect the reality for most people, most of the time, let alone other animals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 5:18:00 GMT
tpfkar The bad guys (the real bad guys) are winning and always will win. It will never be possible to do more than partially meet the needs that you're creating. What about all of those things that I listed? Why is the wellbeing of the people who are afflicted in those ways unimportant? What advice can you really offer, other than 'don't allow the unlucky things that happen to others happen to you'? And you make typing mistakes all the time and I don't point them out. The quip about English not as a first language was based on the garbled way that you cobble your posts together, which has been remarked upon by others. Only in your morbidly pathetic world. The things you listed are delusional criteria for life-ending "bad", and the ones that are setbacks we need to continually improve support or screening for. As you well know, mental illness being a biggee. Just like your demented statements of any of it as "unimportant", or that "important" yields "all should die". And your catty sahshay collapses are strictly the result of your great hurt, as you hiss out in pain that your hosed irrational jabber is highlighted, not unlike "others" who lash out in "irritated" pique. Looks like I'll need to go pull up your "double negative" crash & burn and bump it.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. There's nothing delusional about what kind of harms one would subjectively appraise as not being worth enduring for the sake of something that itself has only subjective value. What's delusional is that you think that there should be laws in place that essentially prevent people from making legally permitted arrangements with other consenting parties which reflect their own subjective valuation of life. That everyone is legally enjoined to validate your valuation of life through their thoughts and actions, when neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate that there's any reason why painlessly and safely ceasing to make onesself vulnerable to risk is a rationally dubious philosophical choice. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 6, 2018 12:04:51 GMT
|
|
You're in dire need of some "brainwashing". 
