Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 12:36:34 GMT
tpfkar My view is that nobody consented to life, and therefore everybody should have the full and absolute right to opt out of it. Many more people fail in suicide attempts than succeed (there's about a 25 attempts to 1 completion ratio, and that's from the US, where guns are available), and there's no reason why people shouldn't be given the means to end their life swiftly, painlessly and safely. It's diabolical that people think that the suicidal ought to have to risk maiming themselves horribly and surviving, or even having to endure a lot of pain and discomfort, just in order to appease some kind of delusion about the sanctity of human life. Staying alive is the default position and human bodies are pretty resilient and won't usually die without a lot of suffering happening first. Having the right to clinically assisted suicide would weed out the attention seekers, because clinically assisted suicide would be guaranteed to work. Destigmatising suicide and making it a human right would also give people the ability to seek psychiatric help for their issues without the fear of being imprisoned against their wishes, and therefore it would help a great number of those who can be helped. A waiting period to obtain the assistance would also help to safeguard against this. Ultimately though, it can never be irrational to want to end suffering and escape harm, so the idea that they could be wrong about suicide being a good option is a non-starter. At least for those who don't believe that some kind of ethereal 'soul' escapes from the body upon death, and laws should certainly never be based on an article of faith such as that in any case. They do, and you do by your continued going at it when you have the trivial means to end it whenever you like at whatever point you actually decide you don't like your moaning more. Just don't act crazy to make people think you've lost your wits, unless you're just looking for even more attention. Oops, waaaay too late. The fact that people fail just highlights that they were conflicted and not fully decided. Last thing they need is the callous political boot over the cliff. It's patently irrational from a normal human perspective to value elimination of any possible subjective idea of harm by the rabid crazies over the balance of the option to partake or not in making a blast of a time for yourself before you're fertilizer. But youtube it up, I'm sure you'll recruit more Olive Oyls than you'll leave people with the feeling "man, some antinatalists are pure nutjobs". 
Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.I would take the word of a well trained doctor with many years of experience over your words. What are your credentials again that prove that you have a greater level of expertise about the human body than Philip Nitschke? Nobody shoots their face off, or disables themselves permanently by jumping off a multistorey car part onto a concrete pavement because they haven't decided that they really want to die. Nobody is suggesting giving anyone a 'boot over the cliff', merely the option of a fully legally supported choice. Anyway, you see the calibre of person who shares the same views as you on this subject. Perhaps you and Arlon can grab a beer together and talk about how best to use government force to prevent suffering people from having the right to their own body. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2018 12:41:36 GMT
tpfkar Nah, as a short paragraph titled "How Countless Have Done It", subtitled "How Can you be so Narcissistic, Lazy and Stupid" wouldn't be so popular with the projecting self-wallflowers murdrous dreaming or otherwise, nor allow for crusades by crazies that congregate on youtube these days. And if you act mentally ill, then people treat you like you might be Thankfully so, and not like your desired dystopia where fellow predators can sexually cannibalize and gut the mentally ill, or do anything else to them if you can get the poor diminished victims to assent to your psychopathic crazy. And you may very well think that homosexuality is self-harming mental illness. The fact that it's not doesn't lead anybody with a mind not shattered to want society to ignore everything else in the world. And "vulnerable be damned" is just a summation of the callous and pathological "believing" if some distraught kid breaking up offs himself then no harm was done in any circumstance. Or if you or another psychopath put a bullet into his brainpain, no harm no foul if he never knew about it. Sorry, mostly baseline healthy-minded people would like such situations avoided and the distraught instead treated, or as you like to say "brainwashed". Going on and on about what the nonexistent don't need and the need for sterilization, and even mass murder as antidote to the "imposition" of just letting them have the easily rejected option, is just sample your par-for-the course crazytime. "Non-consciousness cannot be turned into some form of torture, and therefore I believe that it is morally unacceptable to put someone at risk of harm for a gain which is both ephemeral and unnecessary. The positive is unnecessary, because nothing would have been lost and there would be no deprivation in the event that consciousness were not created to begin with. Whether you are a deity creating sentient life, or a parent procreating."Who is being put at risk now? Keep jabbering about those that don't exist.  Or how you're not as you continuously do and introduce babble-talk about them being "rescued" or it's opposite or what-babble-not.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Philip Nitschke and Exit International only want to help people die in a way that works reliably, is not risky, and if possible, does not cause pain. If you look at the statistics on how people have successfully committed suicide, it's usually by hanging (which is risky, terrifying and uncomfortable), shooting (in many parts of the world, ordinary people do not have access to guns), jumping from a great height or in front of a fast moving vehicle (which is risky and disturbs and potentially traumatises other people). Neither myself nor the philosophers that I follow on Youtube are of any threat to any 'vulnerable' person, because we believe in allowing people to make their own choices. We aren't looking for people to coerce into killing themselves; we believe that those who want to die and have sought out assistance to do so out of their own volition should be allowed to access that assistance. Allowing homosexuality to be legal has more or less the same negative consequences as assisted dying does. It offends the religious sensibilities of those who believe that the act is immoral, and it upsets the families of those concerned. Same thing with abortion, in which case a foetus is terminated and prevented from having the 'chance to have a blast', but yet in those instances, you find that morally unproblematic. Claiming that I don't want people to have the right to treatment is another libellous strawman, and I've even suggested a compromise in terms of a right to die law that would still privilege your religious beliefs to a degree that is unwarranted. Meanwhile, you are perfectly content to ignore and/or downplay the cases where the person still cannot be helped to live a healthy life even after numerous courses of psychiatric treatment, spanning the course of many years. A bit of psychological collateral damage is fine, as long as isn't you being damaged, right? As ever, the person being put at risk would be whomever comes into existence as a consequence of the selfish and reckless actions of imposers. Sure, just as you do. Ahh, "uncomfortable", one of those things to stamp all life out over to eliminate the possibility of. Pure crazytime stuff. "We"  . I don't think there are many in those ranks as crazy as you. Does Nitschke and E.I. advocate force-sterilizing all women and nuking the planet? Or that "no harm" is done by putting a bullet in someone's brain as long as they never know it? Or that your fellow predators should be able to do whatever horrific things they want if they can just get the mentally ill to assent to it? "Assisted dying" is just part and parcel of your disingenuous bullshyte, as it is already widely sanctioned where sane, and what most people think of for it is not your over the counter Nembutal and no harm no foul if anybody offs themselves for any reason, temporary, solvable or other. And abortion is strictly about the mother having the say over her body and is a hard compromise we've come to, and isn't unlimited. Much like "assisted dying" where the terminally ill get help, just not those wanting to avoid any and every discomfort, or end the world, or whatever other narcissistic insanity. I didn't say you didn't want people to have the "right" to have treatment, your shattered regurgitations aside, I was mocking you calling it "brainwashing", which I suppose you'll now argue that you meant that as a good thing, and that you really want them to be "brainwashed". "As ever, the person being put at risk would be whomever comes into existence as a consequence of the selfish and reckless actions of imposers." As ever, pure unadulterated wackdoodle.
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 1, 2018 13:36:01 GMT
tpfkar Philip Nitschke and Exit International only want to help people die in a way that works reliably, is not risky, and if possible, does not cause pain. If you look at the statistics on how people have successfully committed suicide, it's usually by hanging (which is risky, terrifying and uncomfortable), shooting (in many parts of the world, ordinary people do not have access to guns), jumping from a great height or in front of a fast moving vehicle (which is risky and disturbs and potentially traumatises other people). Neither myself nor the philosophers that I follow on Youtube are of any threat to any 'vulnerable' person, because we believe in allowing people to make their own choices. We aren't looking for people to coerce into killing themselves; we believe that those who want to die and have sought out assistance to do so out of their own volition should be allowed to access that assistance. Allowing homosexuality to be legal has more or less the same negative consequences as assisted dying does. It offends the religious sensibilities of those who believe that the act is immoral, and it upsets the families of those concerned. Same thing with abortion, in which case a foetus is terminated and prevented from having the 'chance to have a blast', but yet in those instances, you find that morally unproblematic. Claiming that I don't want people to have the right to treatment is another libellous strawman, and I've even suggested a compromise in terms of a right to die law that would still privilege your religious beliefs to a degree that is unwarranted. Meanwhile, you are perfectly content to ignore and/or downplay the cases where the person still cannot be helped to live a healthy life even after numerous courses of psychiatric treatment, spanning the course of many years. A bit of psychological collateral damage is fine, as long as isn't you being damaged, right? As ever, the person being put at risk would be whomever comes into existence as a consequence of the selfish and reckless actions of imposers. Sure, just as you do. Ahh, "uncomfortable", one of those things to stamp all life out over to eliminate the possibility of. Pure crazytime stuff. "We" . I don't think there are many in those ranks as crazy as you. Does Nitschke and E.I. advocate force-sterilizing all women and nuking the planet? Or that "no harm" is done by putting a bullet in someone's brain as long as they never know it? Or that your fellow predators should be able to do whatever horrific things they want if they can just get the mentally ill to assent to it? "Assisted dying" is just part and parcel of your disingenuous bullshyte, as it is already widely sanctioned where sane, and what most people think of for it is not your over the counter Nembutal and no harm no foul if anybody offs themselves for any reason, temporary, solvable or other. And abortion is strictly about the mother having the say over her body and is a hard compromise we've come to, and isn't unlimited. Much like "assisted dying" where the terminally ill get help, just not those wanting to avoid any and every discomfort, or end the world, or whatever other narcissistic insanity. I didn't say you didn't want people to have the "right" to have treatment, your shattered regurgitations aside, I was mocking you calling it "brainwashing", which I suppose you'll now argue that you meant that as a good thing, and that you really want them to be "brainwashed". "As ever, the person being put at risk would be whomever comes into existence as a consequence of the selfish and reckless actions of imposers." As ever, pure unadulterated wackdoodle.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.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. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2018 13:39:39 GMT
tpfkar The universe is not without any sentient life, and "uncrushed undemented peepizoids" are here now in reality and not in your morbid paradise. And your uproarious dreams of the nonexistent continue what your nth personality will shortly deny in another post or maybe even in this one. The whole basis of your philosophy is a predatory quest for your broken-down pathetic ideal of religious perfection. Simpy the negative image of the worship you engaged in all your life before you discovered the youtube crazies that matched your self-wallowing Eeyore morbidity. Whatever crazy lengths you need to go to to pretend some status for yourself. I just thank you for your continuous shattered teary deliveries of great broken morbid humor. The fact that you trade on insipid semantics of "cost" of ceasing to exist leaves really no room for anything other than mocking you Erj types. I'd feel bad if you weren't such a lying hypocritical doofus with it. 
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I'm asking who would miss sentient life if the universe was barren of life. Who felt deprived of their life when the universe was in its infancy? Do the uncrushed undemented peepizoids of Venus feel sad about missing out on the opportunity to 'have a blast'? You're the one who stated that right to clinical assistance in dying should be restricted out of fear of the "cost to vulnerables", but what 'cost' can ever possibly accrue to a person who doesn't exist (referring to the person whose wishes are respected and they are peacefully released from their torment)? It isn't semantics, it's the point that there really isn't any downside to allowing 'vulnerable' people to have the right to choose death, except to those that would enslave those vulnerable people in order to maintain someone else's broken-down pathetic ideal of religious perfection. The people whom you purport to be protecting cannot possibly lose from having the right to die. 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*****" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 13:51:34 GMT
tpfkar I'm asking who would miss sentient life if the universe was barren of life. Who felt deprived of their life when the universe was in its infancy? Do the uncrushed undemented peepizoids of Venus feel sad about missing out on the opportunity to 'have a blast'? You're the one who stated that right to clinical assistance in dying should be restricted out of fear of the "cost to vulnerables", but what 'cost' can ever possibly accrue to a person who doesn't exist (referring to the person whose wishes are respected and they are peacefully released from their torment)? It isn't semantics, it's the point that there really isn't any downside to allowing 'vulnerable' people to have the right to choose death, except to those that would enslave those vulnerable people in order to maintain someone else's broken-down pathetic ideal of religious perfection. The people whom you purport to be protecting cannot possibly lose from having the right to die. 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). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2018 13:57:34 GMT
tpfkar I would take the word of a well trained doctor with many years of experience over your words. What are your credentials again that prove that you have a greater level of expertise about the human body than Philip Nitschke? Nobody shoots their face off, or disables themselves permanently by jumping off a multistorey car part onto a concrete pavement because they haven't decided that they really want to die. Nobody is suggesting giving anyone a 'boot over the cliff', merely the option of a fully legally supported choice. Anyway, you see the calibre of person who shares the same views as you on this subject. Perhaps you and Arlon can grab a beer together and talk about how best to use government force to prevent suffering people from having the right to their own body. Of course, just the doctor you want to push your morbid agenda with as opposed the far greater masses that hold otherwise, much like you take the word of the barking youtube misfits you post. My credentials are far better than yours, as I don't continuously post fatuous insanity. Or just the pure stupidity of yapping about poster credentials against doctors for one, but of course not your twitted assertions up against other docs. Much like your always chuckle-worthy one-sided "must consider only the morbid silly I want, but not all of the real life stuff important to the underanged". People have the right to their own body, of course, just not the sanction you want to abuse the mentally encumbered. As far as you and Arlon, there's a hairs breadth difference between you two in terms of ability and reasoning and are religiously virtually identical, you're just mirror image. Maybe you can hook up with him and get your cherry popped to relieve some of your MRA-style persecution complex.
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 Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 14:03:23 GMT
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. I don't know who might do that, but I certainly do not, and obviously have not here. My entire argument is that you have not provided a dependable test for which suicidal people are genuinely so. You still have not provided one, by the way. Might I suggest a test? Do not do anything to help anyone die. That way people who do not genuinely want to die will not in far more cases. Some who do not genuinely want to die might still die anyway in various theatrics and delusions, but there is only so much we can do to prevent that. Your premise is wrong. It is not difficult to commit suicide. That some people have tried and failed does not change the fact that quite many suicides are "successful" if you want to use that word. Your premise is totally wrong that failed attempts happen so frequently because it is so difficult to commit suicide. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2018 22:15:00 GMT
If I'm going to be petitioned by Youtube 'songs', then one with an actual tune would likely be more effective. Cupcakes is the worst person for never allowing anyone else to have the last word on anything, and I'm likely the second worst person on the board for that. In this case, it really irritates and offends me when people want to arbitrarily restrict the rights that I have over my own body, especially when they're doing it for what are essentially intangible reasons that derive from some kind of spiritual delusions about what life means. It is worse coming from someone who poses as being rational and mocks Christians for their beliefs, whilst repackaging and appropriating the same mystical delusions for the same purposes, compared to someone who is an avowed Christian (which means that they're tacitly admitting to not being interested in rationality) doing the same. I'm somewhat more understanding about people not wanting to sign up to antinatalism, although the objections to that are also wholly irrational and unethical. Death didn't need tunes. They were blessed with one of the best guitarists (riff-meister supreme Chuck Schuldiner, RIP) in the history of rock/metal music, and one of the best rhythm sections to boot. How many artist were so original they spawned their own genre named after them? You should check out the lyrics to that song at least; they're right up your alley. Yeah, I know the drill when you get two people together who insist on having the last word. I used to be like that, but then I got a life. Yes, I gave up interacting with Mic on this board for Lent, too. It was a great idea,the Mic thing not Lent, as he is the boards' most rabid hypocrite and nutcase and it is futile to treat him rationally. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 2:06:06 GMT
Death didn't need tunes. They were blessed with one of the best guitarists (riff-meister supreme Chuck Schuldiner, RIP) in the history of rock/metal music, and one of the best rhythm sections to boot. How many artist were so original they spawned their own genre named after them? You should check out the lyrics to that song at least; they're right up your alley. Yeah, I know the drill when you get two people together who insist on having the last word. I used to be like that, but then I got a life. Yes, I gave up interacting with Mic on this board for Lent, too. It was a great idea,the Mic thing not Lent, as he is the boards' most rabid hypocrite and nutcase and it is futile to treat him rationally. I don't think mic is either nuts or irrational; I do think he has a misunderstanding of how rationality applies to his position, though. I think it's possible to rationally arrive at the conclusion of anti-natalism, but doing so depends on what values you start with, and those values aren't rational or irrational. The problem he has is that most don't share his values, or don't share them as strongly as he does, in a way that would allow them to arrive at the same conclusion. He and Rabbit both have a bad habit of just repeating the same arguments ad infinitum and not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values. If they did, they'd eventually have to reach a point of agreeing to disagree since, again, you can't use reasoning to change fundamental values. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2018 3:11:34 GMT
Yes, I gave up interacting with Mic on this board for Lent, too. It was a great idea,the Mic thing not Lent, as he is the boards' most rabid hypocrite and nutcase and it is futile to treat him rationally. I don't think mic is either nuts or irrational; I do think he has a misunderstanding of how rationality applies to his position, though. I think it's possible to rationally arrive at the conclusion of anti-natalism, but doing so depends on what values you start with, and those values aren't rational or irrational. The problem he has is that most don't share his values, or don't share them as strongly as he does, in a way that would allow them to arrive at the same conclusion. He and Rabbit both have a bad habit of just repeating the same arguments ad infinitum and not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values. If they did, they'd eventually have to reach a point of agreeing to disagree since, again, you can't use reasoning to change fundamental values. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 3:19:33 GMT
I don't think mic is either nuts or irrational; I do think he has a misunderstanding of how rationality applies to his position, though. I think it's possible to rationally arrive at the conclusion of anti-natalism, but doing so depends on what values you start with, and those values aren't rational or irrational. The problem he has is that most don't share his values, or don't share them as strongly as he does, in a way that would allow them to arrive at the same conclusion. He and Rabbit both have a bad habit of just repeating the same arguments ad infinitum and not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values. If they did, they'd eventually have to reach a point of agreeing to disagree since, again, you can't use reasoning to change fundamental values. Much the same with Arlon and Yogi Eva using Occam's magic evidence to agree to disagree. 
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 3:49:56 GMT
I don't think mic is either nuts or irrational; I do think he has a misunderstanding of how rationality applies to his position, though. I think it's possible to rationally arrive at the conclusion of anti-natalism, but doing so depends on what values you start with, and those values aren't rational or irrational. The problem he has is that most don't share his values, or don't share them as strongly as he does, in a way that would allow them to arrive at the same conclusion. He and Rabbit both have a bad habit of just repeating the same arguments ad infinitum and not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values. If they did, they'd eventually have to reach a point of agreeing to disagree since, again, you can't use reasoning to change fundamental values. Much the same with Arlon and Yogi Eva using Occam's magic evidence to agree to disagree.
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself.Occam isn't about subjective values. That's apples and oranges. Arlon consistently and blatantly ignores my points about how Occam applies to stuff like God and the afterlife. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 3:55:09 GMT
I don't think mic is either nuts or irrational; I do think he has a misunderstanding of how rationality applies to his position, though. I think it's possible to rationally arrive at the conclusion of anti-natalism, but doing so depends on what values you start with, and those values aren't rational or irrational. The problem he has is that most don't share his values, or don't share them as strongly as he does, in a way that would allow them to arrive at the same conclusion. He and Rabbit both have a bad habit of just repeating the same arguments ad infinitum and not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values. If they did, they'd eventually have to reach a point of agreeing to disagree since, again, you can't use reasoning to change fundamental values. 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. "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. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 3:55:39 GMT
tpfkar Occam isn't about subjective values. That's apples and oranges. Arlon consistently and blatantly ignores my points about how Occam applies to stuff like God and the afterlife. No, it's mockery of hypocritical twittery. Miccee constantly ignores the probably 50+% of my points about the underlying values of normal non-beeping peeps. Occam is a heuristic to help prefer equally well-evidenced theories or direct efforts on lesser-evidenced ones.
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 4:22:23 GMT
tpfkar Occam isn't about subjective values. That's apples and oranges. Arlon consistently and blatantly ignores my points about how Occam applies to stuff like God and the afterlife. No, it's mockery of hypocritical twittery. Miccee constantly ignores the probably 50+% of my points about the underlying values of normal non-beeping peeps. Occam is a heuristic to help prefer equally well-evidenced theories or direct efforts on lesser-evidenced ones.
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself.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. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 4:44:22 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 9:07:04 GMT
tpfkar Occam isn't about subjective values. That's apples and oranges. Arlon consistently and blatantly ignores my points about how Occam applies to stuff like God and the afterlife. No, it's mockery of hypocritical twittery. Miccee constantly ignores the probably 50+% of my points about the underlying values of normal non-beeping peeps. Occam is a heuristic to help prefer equally well-evidenced theories or direct efforts on lesser-evidenced ones.
I really admire how understanding you are to people who have different opinions to you, such as yourself.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.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 9:17:51 GMT
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. "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. You can't use rationality to determine the value of someone's life to themselves, but you can determine that there isn't any intrinsic value (i.e. the universe wouldn't be deprived of life, if there were no life) and that nobody who isn't alive at present needs or wants to be alive. I value consent, as do most civilised people, to some extent, and it is a generally accepted moral principle that people should have the right to consent when someone is going to do something that incurs risk of harm. If someone cannot give consent (such as being unconscious) then it would be generally accepted that we don't take the risk on their behalf unless we have reason to believe that it's somehow necessary or desirable for their wellbeing (e.g. someone in a coma who may have to live with the consequences of either decision and already has a stake in the outcome). The unborn person can't possibly lost out if we decide that consent is too important to this question to be able to waive that requirement (and every potential harm to that person will come as a result of this decision), therefore it should be determined that as consent cannot be given, the person should not be born. 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). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 10:00:49 GMT
I don't think mic is either nuts or irrational; I do think he has a misunderstanding of how rationality applies to his position, though. I think it's possible to rationally arrive at the conclusion of anti-natalism, but doing so depends on what values you start with, and those values aren't rational or irrational. The problem he has is that most don't share his values, or don't share them as strongly as he does, in a way that would allow them to arrive at the same conclusion. He and Rabbit both have a bad habit of just repeating the same arguments ad infinitum and not really digging deep enough to get to the underlying values. If they did, they'd eventually have to reach a point of agreeing to disagree since, again, you can't use reasoning to change fundamental values. 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. That's saying that the argument is already refuted because of the identity of the person espousing it, so you don't have to come up with any refutation. There are many non-autists and people without any mental illness who espouse the same philosophy. If every living organism on Earth could be sterilised and every person currently living had the right to be assisted to die, that would be sufficient for my requirements. However, I suspect that most people would rather die than live in that dystopia. If it was not possible to sterilise everything but it was possible to kill off life, then I would support that because it would be the only way of stopping the cycle of imposition and harm. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 12:15:32 GMT
tpfkar Sure, just as you do. Ahh, "uncomfortable", one of those things to stamp all life out over to eliminate the possibility of. Pure crazytime stuff. "We" . I don't think there are many in those ranks as crazy as you. Does Nitschke and E.I. advocate force-sterilizing all women and nuking the planet? Or that "no harm" is done by putting a bullet in someone's brain as long as they never know it? Or that your fellow predators should be able to do whatever horrific things they want if they can just get the mentally ill to assent to it? "Assisted dying" is just part and parcel of your disingenuous bullshyte, as it is already widely sanctioned where sane, and what most people think of for it is not your over the counter Nembutal and no harm no foul if anybody offs themselves for any reason, temporary, solvable or other. And abortion is strictly about the mother having the say over her body and is a hard compromise we've come to, and isn't unlimited. Much like "assisted dying" where the terminally ill get help, just not those wanting to avoid any and every discomfort, or end the world, or whatever other narcissistic insanity. I didn't say you didn't want people to have the "right" to have treatment, your shattered regurgitations aside, I was mocking you calling it "brainwashing", which I suppose you'll now argue that you meant that as a good thing, and that you really want them to be "brainwashed". "As ever, the person being put at risk would be whomever comes into existence as a consequence of the selfish and reckless actions of imposers." As ever, pure unadulterated wackdoodle.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.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*****" |
|
