|
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 20, 2018 23:33:18 GMT
I don't even understand this. The world has lots of different trap doors and everybody experiences subtly different sensations when they fall into one of the trap doors, and not everyone falls into all of the same trap doors. But everyone can be harmed and is harmed. Yes everyone can be physical harmed but the feelings and thoughts about this harm are subjective and different. So are you saying that just the mere fact of being harmed warrants no procreation? I'm just going by your definition of instinct. So instinct is overridden and not overridden, conveniently relative to your given cases? What does this even mean? Because a moral nihilist thinks that moral statements are not true, it doesn't mean they are valueless. You obviously don't know that moral nihilism is a meta-ethical view. Why are moral statements true? You said this: I get this about people already existing, what i don't get is why we should not procreate if not talking about future people. And if you think I allude to some objective sense of fairness, then you haven't been reading properly. I give my example statement, not because I think it is true, but because any optimistic statement will negate your pessimistic statement. So no consideration to your own ethics, just appealing to the zeitgeist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 0:40:13 GMT
I don't even understand this. The world has lots of different trap doors and everybody experiences subtly different sensations when they fall into one of the trap doors, and not everyone falls into all of the same trap doors. But everyone can be harmed and is harmed. Yes everyone can be physical harmed but the feelings and thoughts about this harm are subjective and different. So are you saying that just the mere fact of being harmed warrants no procreation? I think the fact that people and animals will be harmed and will not have consented to the harm, and will have had someone else (someone who doesn't know what that person's fortunes will be, nor their disposition towards how much harm is worth how much unneeded pleasure) make the determination for them that the purported rewards are worth the unknown harms. There's no evidence so far that people can be made impervious to harm. There's certain instincts that we can decide not to act upon, but harm will always be harmful. It means that only subjective value exists. In a universe barren of sentient life, there is no value. Whether there's an objectively verifiable truth concerning moral statements (there isn't) has no relevant application to anything, except for psychopaths justifying the harm, they cause. If you wouldn't want to be tortured, then how can you justify signing up your innocent counterpart to be tortured, knowing that he has the capacity to feel harmed just as you do? If procreation does occur, then there will be future people whose welfare is worth considering. If no procreation occurs, then there will not be future people to consider (except, of course the ones who already existed at the time when the procreation stopped). So the 'optimist' is creating needs and problems which don't have any reason to exist aside from the desires of those who already exist. You can do something now which will end up harming someone who doesn't exist yet, but will in the future. Future generations will pay the price of what has been done in the present and past to cause climate change, and most liberal minded people do not consider it to be irrational to spare consideration for those people, even though they don't yet exist. You can't do anything to harm (or disadvantage, or deprive) someone who only ever exists as a figment of your imagination. My ethics are that if it's wrong for someone to arbitrarily endanger me for their own selfish reasons, then it's equally wrong for me to commit the same act when it's someone else's welfare that is in jeopardy. It would be impossible to organise a civilised society on any other ethical foundation than this; people have to play by the same fundamental rules that they would expect others to play by. Otherwise, everyone will deem themselves to be worthy of an exception to the rules, and anarchy will result. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 21, 2018 1:55:41 GMT
tpfkar You rejected them based on nothing, just like you've claimed it's from a "promulgated expert consensus" based on nothing. At least I've used arguments and examples to support my claims. All you can do is name-call, lie, asspull claims with no evidence, and try to libel me because you have no actual arguments based on anything resembling facts. Of course, there's no "ass-pull natters" about that bottom quote; it's a restatement of the well-known sampling bias problem in research. Anyone who knows a lick about scientific research would agree with what I said. I rejected them because they're the hopeful made up arse-pulls of kiddie-fiddlers. And you can wail that it's based on nothing, but then go check with laws, docs, teachers, just about any place other than your NAMBLA meetings and boards where pedophiles congregate, and you'll get the same. And I'll let your own words and run-aways keep telling the tale. Volumes of asserted pro-pedophilia content followed by denials and yelps of "slander" just make for good laughs.  And the existence of sampling bias doesn't yield your assertions that the actual trained professionals don't know it or factor it in when rejecting something nasty predators want regardless of the humorous tripe they assert out of their greasy air.
Eva Yojimbo: Well, the "conceivable way it could be worth it" is if the experts were wrong, and there are always conceivable ways that experts could be wrong. I'll give you one obvious way in which experts come to be wrong: their own experiences biases them. By that I mean experts in certain fields, like psychology, would only end up seeing people that were damaged by pedophile experiences; they wouldn't necessarily see those who weren't damaged or who considered their experiences positive.So, again, you rejected them based on nothing. Thanks for confirming. I already gave examples of "laws, teachers, and media" (last time you said media) peddling pure lies and BS, which is precisely why you need to consult actual experts. None of what I've written has been "pro-pedophilia," it's been "pro-you-didn't-base-your-opinion-on-experts-you-based-it-on-social-mores-and-moral-outrage." I didn't say "the actual trained professionals don't know it or factor it in," I said IF they didn't that's one hypothetical way in which they could've been wrong, or which could've biased their opinions on the matter. IF they took it into consideration and were sampling from the entire population of children who've had sexual encounters with adults, THEN there would be no problem. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 2:43:44 GMT
tpfkar Actually, mic, I see it more as 'word vomit', and that is why I have him on 'Block'.  I have just joined you in that after his extreme rudeness to me. Still in your bark and "bye" senile loop I see. Why don't you get back to your "sweetness" of the phallic things you say gun owners do with their guns. 
List of massacres in Australia |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 2:44:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 2:44:31 GMT
tpfkar They are, of course, with PRoFaN. Of course this refers to those physically compromised; mentally and minimally physically competent can trivially suspend the ongoing requirements of life and be unconscious in moments and gone in a few short minutes if they've actually decided. And there's the ongoing increasingly aggressive treatment of discomfort and treatment for mental illnesses. And you called treatment "brainwashing", regardless of how badly you want to walk that back now, and also regardless of whatever morbid bastardization of treatment / death shuttling you'd like to replace it with per your Cult of Universal Death.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Disabled people have to go to court just to be able to refuse nutrition and hydration, and if there is a mental illness, this is likely to count against them being entitled to do so, and consequently being force fed if they try to resist hydration or nutrition. As I've stated previously, look up the Dan Crews case, where he refused nutrition, but was threatened with force feeding, so had to back down. And the man in the story that I posted did everything that a person in his predicament and with his living circumstances could have done to ensure death, and was shown to be mentally competent by the fact that he was top of his college classes at the time. Sure, if they're mentally incompetent then we can't feed the disease but have to treat them. Of course this is if they're not effectively terminal anyway. And as I've stated previously, I don't believe a single slant or framing that you constantly gush.
This must be why the government is so keen to replace the lost native religion with conservative Islam. Also because the Muslims are brown and skepticism of the claims of Islam is being conflated with racism, I predict that it will eventually be illegal to publicly express skepticism of religion, or at least Islam. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 2:47:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 2:47:56 GMT
tpfkar You're as ever utterly full of it; nothing has stood still for 30 years. In any case, just killing them in their distraught state/derangement/delusion even if you have to hold them down while they fight against it, all on the back of the Universal Death Cult, will never be a sane response. And I'm good with my mortality regardless of how obsessed you are. Gettin' it and helping others get it until we're dirt is it, and what a grand a thing it is. 
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.The annals of psychiatry are filled with cases of people who have been afflicted with severe mental illness over the course of decades. In your view, the option of just ceasing to exist is somehow worse than having to go on indefinitely in that condition, even though you have likely never experienced what they are feeling and have no rational reason to think that death is a bad option. Regardless of the perversely twisted nature of most of your claims, the existence of difficult cases does not yield kicking the mentally ill over the cliff but in fact treating them more aggressively and working harder to ameliorate their symptoms and help them thrive. As many times noted, death is the logical option in countless hypothetical and actual cases, but the mentally competent and physically minimally so don't need assistance, and we can't feed the disease in the case of the mentally incompetent, regardless of your Universal Death religious obsessions.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 2:49:05 GMT
tpfkar Perfection is for the religious, of course. And your demented "pro-life" usage remains high irony with your desired forced mass-sterilization, mass forced pregnancy termination, and just outright mass murder, which of course is the definition of "impose it upon people who don't share your outlook".  Before we ever get anywhere near your desire to feed the mentally ill to fellow predators if they can get them to "assent", and to just put them down at the behest of their illness, or even if they later kick and scream against it, as opposed to ameliorating and treating them to help them thrive, or as you like to shat, "brainwash" them.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"TSometimes it's necessary to impose/infringe on someone else's liberty in order to prevent them from imposing. Like the would-be child molesters you're so obsessed with, or those who would place a harmable being into an environment where they become vulnerable to more harms than can be cataloged, including molestation. I've never expressed any desire to 'feed' the mentally ill to anyone. I am a firm advocate for the right to die. I find cannibalism morally problematic, but ultimately am not sure that it should be the government's place to impose harsh penalties for something that was done at the explicit request of the 'victim'. Sure, for psychotic homicidal supervillain psychopaths. Always "reasons" claimed by the serial killers and other bestial predators. And I do get that a solution for your fellow predators is to kill all the kids. And you've outright said that you freaks should be able to do anything at all to the mentally encumbered, even sexually cannibalize and gut, if you can just get the poor victims to "assent" to it, regardless of whatever specifically-worded "desires" you have or haven't expressed.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 2:51:15 GMT
tpfkar Actually, mic, I see it more as 'word vomit', and that is why I have him on 'Block'. Yes, he spends about 12 hours a day spitting out bitter invective on the Internet at anyone who so much as has a different favourite colour from him...and then he expects me to take it from him that life is a wondrous gift bestowed upon sacred and gorgeous human beings.  The bawly hypocrite now moaning about time spent here when his user name is constantly camped on the board. And whose shattered melon confuses homicidal irrationality and murderous psychopathy with "favorite color". And like many, who starts with the most fatuous projected epithets and then of course continuously collapses into nomsensical hissy fits and bawling baby girl victim-wailing, most ironically begging for safe space protection from criticism for his actual comical shattered-mind irrationalities, hypocrisies and lunatic viciousness. Unlike you though, most of these other hypocrite bark-then-bawlers aren't stark raving gruesomely insane.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 3:04:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 3:11:56 GMT
tpfkar So, again, you rejected them based on nothing. Thanks for confirming. I already gave examples of "laws, teachers, and media" (last time you said media) peddling pure lies and BS, which is precisely why you need to consult actual experts. None of what I've written has been "pro-pedophilia," it's been "pro-you-didn't-base-your-opinion-on-experts-you-based-it-on-social-mores-and-moral-outrage." No, I rejected the transparent silly because that particular hopeful arse-pull had no basis other than "things have been wrong in the past". But thanks for your silly typical "thanks for confirming" vacuousness. And marijuana is certainly not completely harmless, just one of those things we're coming to allow adults to decide for themselves on. And pot is certainly not child rape. And sorry, but variously it's just "moral outrage", it's just "Puritanism", it's just "xenophobia", a system of "consent" that only requires that a child articulate that they want sex wouldn't subject countless young children to sex with predator adults, talking about how sexual children as young as 2 are in defense of adult-kid sex - all of that is advocacy that can't be brushed away with frankly absurd tacked-on denials. Not to mention your withering away at the clutch when your dishonest & silly is laid bare. IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/threadIMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/threadIf you've got actual evidence for your advocacy, then you should field it to see if it is convincing to anyone, as opposed to dumping absurd fabrications, hopeful "could be's", and perversely inapt analogies. In the absence of some hopeful dramatic discovery/overturn, people go with the obvious and the promulgated expert consensus that kids need to be able to mature unmolested by predatory adults, regardless of vociferous complaints of "it's just those Puritans keeping me away from those delectable kids".
Eva Yojimbo: And what "facts already established by experts" are you referring to? What would you say in response to someone posting a list of pro-to-neutral studies of pedophilia like THESE? Now, I haven't read any of them, and neither have you; but I'm also guessing that you (like myself) have done zero actual research into the subject in general. All you're doing is basing this on your gut reactions and social mores, reactions and mores that history has taught us are remarkably unreliable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 5:06:06 GMT
tpfkar Yes, he spends about 12 hours a day spitting out bitter invective on the Internet at anyone who so much as has a different favourite colour from him...and then he expects me to take it from him that life is a wondrous gift bestowed upon sacred and gorgeous human beings. The bawly hypocrite now moaning about time spent here when his user name is constantly camped on the board. And whose shattered melon confuses homicidal irrationality and murderous psychopathy with "favorite color". And like many, who starts with the most fatuous projected epithets and then of course continuously collapses into nomsensical hissy fits and bawling baby girl victim-wailing, most ironically begging for safe space protection from criticism for his actual comical shattered-mind irrationalities, hypocrisies and lunatic viciousness. Unlike you though, most of these other hypocrite bark-then-bawlers aren't stark raving gruesomely insane.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I've made less than 40% of the total number of posts that you have, and I'm the one saying that life isn't a gift. And I've never asked for 'safe space protection' from criticism. I invite criticism with unabashedly controversial opinions and then defending them comprehensively. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 5:12:59 GMT
tpfkar The bawly hypocrite now moaning about time spent here when his user name is constantly camped on the board. And whose shattered melon confuses homicidal irrationality and murderous psychopathy with "favorite color". And like many, who starts with the most fatuous projected epithets and then of course continuously collapses into nomsensical hissy fits and bawling baby girl victim-wailing, most ironically begging for safe space protection from criticism for his actual comical shattered-mind irrationalities, hypocrisies and lunatic viciousness. Unlike you though, most of these other hypocrite bark-then-bawlers aren't stark raving gruesomely insane.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I've made less than 40% of the total number of posts that you have, and I'm the one saying that life isn't a gift. And I've never asked for 'safe space protection' from criticism. I invite criticism with unabashedly controversial opinions and then defending them comprehensively. And wail like a stuck sow about the n-word and "blasephemy"  , unfairness, and similar sobs. And you're a one trick pony, and you're the one whining about time spent here, and your username is popping up constantly for long periods. But feel free to come up with yet another diversionary hissy to wail about. 
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 21, 2018 5:34:34 GMT
I'm not the one who is claiming that 'life is a blast' and then spend all of that life spewing invective on a poxy Internet message board and obsessively cataloging opinions that disagree with my own. I don't find life to be a worthwhile endeavour at all, but even I spend a fraction of the amount of time doing this, and I do it far less hatefully. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 5:42:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 5:54:01 GMT
I'm not having 'fun', I post here because I have to somehow fill in the hours of this onerous existence that was imposed upon me. Funny that you're still upset over a throwaway comment from 2 years ago when I wasn't familiar with your odd idioms, coupled with the fact that you were probably intoxicated at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 6:01:20 GMT
I'm not having 'fun', I post here because I have to somehow fill in the hours of this onerous existence that was imposed upon me. Funny that you're still upset over a throwaway comment from 2 years ago when I wasn't familiar with your odd idioms, coupled with the fact that you were probably intoxicated at the time. Funny how you're confused with putting the silly lie about "hate" given your "atavistic", "selfish", "religious" absurd projections and "English as a second language" hissies from the very beginning with "upset". You keep moaning about this stuff. I love every one of your crass highly-hypocritical wailing derangements.  And I can't help it that you're grossly inefficient with the massive amount of time you spend here as evidenced by your username showing even when you're not posting. I'll wager I spend far less repeat time and effort than you do, likely by an order of magnitude. I just don't bawl away with insipid victimbully irrelevances as you constantly do.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 6:13:15 GMT
I'm not having 'fun', I post here because I have to somehow fill in the hours of this onerous existence that was imposed upon me. Funny that you're still upset over a throwaway comment from 2 years ago when I wasn't familiar with your odd idioms, coupled with the fact that you were probably intoxicated at the time. Funny how you're confused with putting the silly lie about "hate" given your "atavistic", "selfish", "religious" absurd projections and "English as a second language" hissies from the very beginning with "upset". You keep moaning about this stuff. I love every one of your crass highly-hypocritical wailing derangements. And I can't help it that you're grossly inefficient with the massive amount of time you spend here as evidenced by your username showing even when you're not posting. I'll wager I spend far less repeat time and effort than you do, likely by an order of magnitude. I just don't bawl away with insipid victimbully irrelevances as you constantly do.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.So you're in the habit of checking below so that you can find out whether I'm viewing the board or not? I don't close my browser windows when I am away from my computer, nor do I always shut the computer down when not in use. Then there's also the fact that there isn't much worthy of deigning with a response on here, even at the best of times. Life is boring so I still browse out of habit even when I'm not in the mood for posting anything, or there's nothing worth responding to. I don't waste time with pursuing vendettas against everyone who so much as has a different favourite colour than me. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2018 6:20:23 GMT
Funny how you're confused with putting the silly lie about "hate" given your "atavistic", "selfish", "religious" absurd projections and "English as a second language" hissies from the very beginning with "upset". You keep moaning about this stuff. I love every one of your crass highly-hypocritical wailing derangements. And I can't help it that you're grossly inefficient with the massive amount of time you spend here as evidenced by your username showing even when you're not posting. I'll wager I spend far less repeat time and effort than you do, likely by an order of magnitude. I just don't bawl away with insipid victimbully irrelevances as you constantly do.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.So you're in the habit of checking below so that you can find out whether I'm viewing the board or not? I don't close my browser windows when I am away from my computer, nor do I always shut the computer down when not in use. Then there's also the fact that there isn't much worthy of deigning with a response on here, even at the best of times. Life is boring so I still browse out of habit even when I'm not in the mood for posting anything, or there's nothing worth responding to. I don't waste time with pursuing vendettas against everyone who so much as has a different favourite colour than me. I don't have to check below, I see who's on right at the top whenever I get a reply or just peek in. But I do know you have massive delusions of grandeur in all kinds of ways.  I don't care why you're here all the time, or the fact that you're here all the time. I'm just responding to your nonsense bawling  , this time about time spent here. And I respond to post content, the "vendetta" thing must be your reason for replying. And wannabe mass female abuse, mass slaughter, murderous psychopathy is not a "colour", much like the gift of this blast is not "violence".
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
And you started the "hate" from the very beginning, and just like any highly ironic safe spacer, you can't handle the tone you set nor the actuality of your deranged nonsensical projections being pointed out so of course you alternate nonsensically bark / squEEEAAAl. ::gushinghypocriticaltears::