one-more-time said: Are you arguing that the non-existent have feelings or needs? Sorry, but keep your pseudo-bullshit to yourself. Aha! So you do understand that non-existent beings don't have feelings. On one hand, you pronounce that you wouldn't want people to give birth because of lack of consent of the unborn, yet on the other hand you consider the idea of them having feelings or rights as nonsensical. There is a limit to hypocrisy. And if you hate life so much, why are you still around bitching about it on the internet - on an anime/manga forum no less. If you hate life, then stop pretending to enjoy it by watching anime and visiting the internet. If you hate life, then stop being a two-faced deceit and kick the bucket. Go on, don't be afraid, I hear it's an excellent way to end suffering. |
Hitchens said: Aha! So you do understand that non-existent beings don't have feelings. On one hand, you pronounce that you wouldn't want people to give birth because of lack of consent of the unborn, yet on the other hand you consider the idea of them having feelings or rights as nonsensical. There is a limit to hypocrisy. There would be no problem if this ride would be fail-safe. You could ride this roller-coaster as much as you want. When it comes to risk and this risk is imposed on someone else - here's the problem. Do you think that potential person has no right to not no be born in a squalor? They have no right to not not be born in a drug addicts family? Do you think that way? Well, that's a rhetorical question. And if you hate life so much, why are you still around bitching about it on the internet - on an anime/manga forum no less. If you hate life, then stop pretending to enjoy it by watching anime and visiting the internet. If you hate life, then stop being a two-faced deceit and kick the bucket. Go on, don't be afraid, I hear it's an excellent way to end suffering. And that is how you approach such important philosophical question. Instead of giving a fact based arguments which would approach the Physics, Biology and Chemistry as well, you'll just call me a bitchy whiner, how mature, how intelligent, that's the way to go, the way Atheist argues on such important subject. It's pretty obvious that people would call me a suicidal person when I lay out the truth in front of them and this truth is not their Pink Unicorn delusion. I haven't said that you cannot enjoy some things in life, but that does not mean that they justify this sloppy and shitty life. I'm not centered around my wants and how I feel, I'm approaching to this subject philosophically, where you fail, you're the one going by the emotions and your fairy-tale delusions. Quite honestly I don't see a difference between religious people and the Atheists which have moved to DNA delusion, instead of having the conversation we had 2000 years ago. I'm basically done with you, you give me no challenge at all, I've seen your arguments provided before by other people, it's just boring to discuss something that important with a person who's so short-sighted. So that's a good-bye from me, in terms of a discussion. But with Baman it's another story, I love to see how the Elitist people will argue about anything and tip-toe around even the definitions when it's pointed out that they're wrong and the definitions has no real relevance to the argument whatsoever. I love to see his fanatic, sadistic thoughts of "We're Humans, we're the greatest thing on this planet, we can do anything we want, etc". He's filling my life with a purpose, to argue with assholes to stop drawing the straws of someones elses destiny. And filling my heart with a hatred towards such people, which don't care for others than themselves. |
one-more-timeJun 4, 2012 6:00 PM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: selective_yellow said: I don't want kids, but I am pretty damn glad I exist. It's not about your life, your life experiences and your life experiences is not consciousness on Earth. It doesn't answer the question. There's a scenario here. Germany, middle 1930's. There's a concentration camp down the street and there's nothing you can change it, you can't stop it from happening, it's the Nazis they're going to kill you if you try anything, so you just have to live with it. But you can smell their burning bodies, you can hear their screams at night. You could make an argument: Yea, I'm just gonna have fun time, I'm going to sit in my backyard have a BBQ play some Adelvice and it'd be cool. Then I would argue: No, that's enough for me, I just can't go on about my life, I just can't go and say that everything is just fine on planet Earth. That's the difference between you and me - I see it where ever I go, I understand this is DNA molecule, this is I've seen the world for 10+ years. I've looked at everything and seen the blood stains. You can't argue that it's dishonest or inappropriate way to see the life because that is the reality. You're the one saying: No, I'm going to ignore the truth, I'm not going to hear the screams, I'm going to live my life and eat my hamburger and I'm going to be happy, I'm just going to worry about how I feel and I'm not going to worry about what's happening down the road. I'm going to argue that you're the trivial person, you're not taking life seriously, not taking any real responsibility. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAA. "It's not about your life, your life experiences and your life experiences is not consciousness on Earth. It doesn't answer the question." I have tried to decipher the meaning of these two sentences for a few minutes now. I am still unsure of your point, but I suppose I will respond by pretending like I understand. I would like to see some evidence that the Earth has "a consciousness." I find that unlikely, and have not found any evidence that supports your claim thus far. When you talk about people creating individual lives, I do believe that their creation--a child-- would find their own experiences to be extremely important. That's just obvious. Now, to respond to your nazi-side tangent is against my better judgement. Yet, as you've addressed me personally, I am compelled to respond. Yes, I am quite flawed and I already regret typing any sort of response to you, but no matter, I shall trek on. In reality, Nazi Germany fell. It was not through a single person's actions, of course, but many people did put in effort to destroy this regime. There were also individuals that saved lives, and you hear such stories now and again. So I'm not quite sure what exactly you are getting at. Individuals can do things which positively affect others, and they can also work together to help someone. Of course, from the opposite perspective, a lot of German soldiers did die, so it sucks to be them. Yet, looking back on your post, I still am unsure of what I am trying to argue against (or, maybe I agree with you on this point?). You are obviously not going to have any kids, but overall, that probably has less effect than some of the people that hid or saved many Jews. Or are you going to go around punching pregnant women in the womb until they miscarry? I do not claim to know "The Truth." You claim to know some kind of truth, but I do not believe that is possible. What kind of evidence do you have? Do you know the truth about everything? Thus far you have not once yet provided any solid, logical argument for any of your points. Yet, this does not mean what you are trying to say is wrong. Actually, quite the opposite could be true: you can argue something quite logically, yet it still may be false. When it comes down to it, however, I find it hilarious you become angry that people are not taking your horrible arguments seriously. How can you expect that, when most of what you say makes absolutely no sense? Also, when it comes to you making assumptions about me: what? Oh yes and: "That's the difference between you and me - I see it where ever I go, I understand this is DNA molecule, this is I've seen the world for 10+ years. I've looked at everything and seen the blood stains." makes no sense. Are you "10+" years old? Are you implying I don't know what DNA is? Are you implying that I think everyone has a jolly life? one-more-time said: I don't really care if other people want kids. Because you care only when something infringes your rights. Pathetic. P.a.t.h.e.t.i.c. Ah, I see you can spell pathetic. Actually, I think restricting people from having children infringes upon their rights. Just because I do not want children does not mean I should enforce it on others. one-more-time said: and if someone regrets existing they can just kill themselves. No, you cannot do that legally. I already answered this question. Why would I want to exit the dirty way, which may in fact not succeed? Not all suicide methods are terrible. Also, what do you mean you cannot kill yourself legally? I think maybe in the USA this is a law, but I completely disagree with it, and I do not live in the USA. I am not sure about your country. one-more-time said: I don't really understand why you want humans to be extinct but not other animals. Animals suffer from stress too. Did you even read my posts in this thread? I guess you did not. I tried to read what you said. I gave up on some posts, as they were unintelligible. Sorry if I missed it. |
one-more-time said: And that is how you approach such important philosophical question. Instead of giving a fact based arguments which would approach the Physics, Biology and Chemistry as well, you'll just call me a bitchy whiner, how mature, how intelligent, that's the way to go, the way Atheist argues on such important subject. It's pretty obvious that people would call me a suicidal person when I lay out the truth in front of them and this truth is not their Pink Unicorn delusion. I haven't said that you cannot enjoy some things in life, but that does not mean that they justify this sloppy and shitty life. I'm not centered around my wants and how I feel, I'm approaching to this subject philosophically, where you fail, you're the one going by the emotions and your fairy-tale delusions. Quite honestly I don't see a difference between religious people and the Atheists which have moved to DNA delusion, instead of having the conversation we had 2000 years ago. I'm basically done with you, you give me no challenge at all, I've seen your arguments provided before by other people, it's just boring to discuss something that important with a person who's so short-sighted. So that's a good-bye from me, in terms of a discussion. But with Baman it's another story, I love to see how the Elitist people will argue about anything and tip-toe around even the definitions when it's pointed out that they're wrong and the definitions has no real relevance to the argument whatsoever. I love to see his fanatic, sadistic thoughts of "We're Humans, we're the greatest thing on this planet, we can do anything we want, etc". He's filling my life with a purpose, to argue with assholes to stop drawing the straws of someones elses destiny. And filling my heart with a hatred towards such people, which don't care for others than themselves. I find it interesting that you are so critical of Baman for the arrogance of believing that humans are above other species, yet you seem to be convinced that you are somehow more knowledgable and experienced than the rest of us. To me it seems reminiscent of the behaviour of leaders of religious cults. Take for example the stuff you said to selective yellow. What makes you so sure she doesn't think about the holocaust from time to time, or even every day? Just because someone thinks about the same thing as someone else does not mean that both will arrive at the same conclusions, so it's pretty fucking arrogant of you to talk down to people who don't see things your way. Furthermore trying to convince others to believe the way you do is a waste of time if you're not willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Since you appear to be excluding any possibility of that eventuality, failing to convince others towards your point of view rests entirely on your inability to explain it properly. If the message is the absolute truth, then the problem can only be the person who spreads the message, right? I asked you before to avoid the metaphors and analogies, and my suggestion has clearly been ignored. So I ask you yet again, since they do not make what you are trying to say any clearer, and are not original, witty or clever, why do you continue to persist with them? You've got a damn cheek calling anyone else arrogant sir, because the way you conduct yourself is the height of arrogance, and if you're upset because nobody is actually coming up with any proper arguments against you, then you only have your own haughty rhetoric to blame for that. Descend from your pedastal now mortal, and file yourself in amongst the rest of us here who acknowledge that just because someone doesn't agree with us does not make them inferior. |
AnnoKanoJun 4, 2012 6:42 PM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| If you succeed what's it's legality matter, and let's be honest, if you want to succeed odds of you failing are slim to none. |
| |
selective_yellow said: AHHAHAHAHAHAHAA Why the laughter? It amuses you by smelling the burning bodies, hearing the screams of tortured? I won't bother replying to every bit of your post because everything have been already answered in other of my post. And your English comprehension is pretty damn bad. You can't see the difference between "of the Earth" and "on the Earth". and Are you "10+" years old? This is how I see world for past 10+ years, I had slightly different yet similar view on the world before. You haven't dealt with the imposition, you have not dealt with the consumption, reproduction, cannibalism, addiction, you have not dealt with anything of it and I really don't think that you could . All there is in your post is just bibble-babble. |
one-more-timeJun 4, 2012 7:05 PM
| LUL |
| Let's not subtly suggest someone should commit suicide. How's that for a tongue twister? Or blatantly for that matter. You know who you are...but just in case you don't, |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
AnnoKano said: Furthermore trying to convince others to believe the way you do is a waste of time if you're not willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Sorry, I'm not the person who will change my mind the next day. Me and Antinatalists have not received any rational argument for years. They're not dealing with Physics, Biology and Chemistry, they're not dealing with consumption, reproduction, cannibalism and addiction, they're not dealing with imposition. BUT when it comes close these issues there's only their phantasmagorical pseudo bullshit over and over and over and over and over again. No real, fact based arguments whatsoever. Since you appear to be excluding any possibility of that eventuality, failing to convince others towards your point of view rests entirely on your inability to explain it properly. If the message is the absolute truth, then the problem can only be the person who spreads the message, right? It would take too much of my time, that is one of the reasons why I don't want to write an essay to every single one-liner argument. Everything here have been debated and discussed over and over and over again. I'm not here to find adherents, it just turned out that I brought the subject up. As some people see this as entertainment, I'll upset you by saying that the show is over. |
one-more-timeJun 4, 2012 7:15 PM
| LUL |
Post-Josh said: Let's not subtly suggest someone should commit suicide. How's that for a tongue twister? Or blatantly for that matter. You know who you are...but just in case you don't, Much as Dignitas appreciates my efforts to attract new clients to their business, I was not suggesting that One-More-Time should commit suicide, implicitly or explicitly. Although like many others in this thread I did raise the question earlier, but that was entirely because it seemed like a reasonable conclusion given his explanation of how he felt. Angry though my response was, I do not feel it was in any way unreasonable. I believe that my criticism was accurate and the points I made were fair. And since the way One-More-Time has behaved in this thread shows he has no qualms about talking down to others, so I presume he will have no issue whatsoever with me talking down to him. Does that not sound quite fair to you? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| I wasn't talking about you in this thread, I was talking about your dark past. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
one-more-time said: selective_yellow said: AHHAHAHAHAHAHAA Why the laughter? It amuses you by smelling the burning bodies, hearing the screams of tortured? I won't bother replying to every bit of your post because everything have been already answered in other of my post. And your English comprehension is pretty damn bad. You can't see the difference between "of the Earth" and "on the Earth". and Are you "10+" years old? This is how I see world for past 10+ years, I had a different view on the world before. You haven't dealt with the imposition, you have not dealt with the consumption, reproduction, cannibalism, addiction, you have not dealt with anything of it and I really don't think that you could . All there is in your post is just bibble-babble. "It's not about your life, your life experiences and your life experiences is not consciousness on Earth. It doesn't answer the question." Actually, I am not quite sure how you can even pretend that makes any sense. How can my life experiences (x2) not be "consciousness on earth" It starts off quite well: "it's not about your life, your life experiences and.." I am expecting a third thing in this list. Yet instead of a third thing in this list, you write the exact same thing you previously wrote. So what is it not about? 1. My life 2. My life experiences 3. My life experiences... is not consciousness on Earth So I can only assume from here, you actually mean: It's not about: 1. My life OR <--key word 2. My life experiences and that the second half is actually an independent clause. "Your life experiences is not consciousness on Earth." My life has more than one experience, thus, it is "experiences." Yet I see you then use "is." That's not cool. Your verb does not agree with your subject. Consciousness is actually a state of mind. On is a cute little proposition that has many different meanings; none of those meanings work in that sentences. Here are some similarly structured sentences: Your life experiences is obliviousness on earth. Your friends is creativeness on earth. Your addictions is book on dad. --------------------------- I am laughing at you, because you are hilarious. I am not sure if you know this, but I have this strange ability to laugh at one thing, and later, be unhappy about another. I can even laugh at something whilst being unhappy at an unrelated thing. "You haven't dealt with the imposition, you have not dealt with the consumption, reproduction, cannibalism, addiction, you have not dealt with anything of it and I really don't think that you could . All there is in your post is just bibble-babble." How do you know I have not dealt with any of these things? You sure do love making assumptions about everyone else. |
| You are not THE consciousness on the earth. You're not the representative of the consciousness as a whole. Is it better now? Pardon but my English is not my native, what I'm sure you noticed. You could save a step and presume that I made a mistake. I didn't bother re-checking three times what I wrote. selective_yellow said: How do you know I have not dealt with any of these things? You sure do love making assumptions about everyone else. Don't play around with words, it's obvious that I meant your post not your whole life. Sadly enough all you can do is just play around with words, let's say: take an advantage over my non-perfect English, instead of attacking the philosophy. (inb4 another "You sure like to assume a lot about me, how do you know that all I can do is play around with words? How do you know that I'm taking advantage over your shitty, non-comprehensible English?") |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: So I see.This might be the last post on this subject. But with Baman it's another story, I love to see how the Elitist people will argue about anything and tip-toe around even the definitions when it's pointed out that they're wrong and the definitions has no real relevance to the argument whatsoever. I love to see his fanatic, sadistic thoughts of "We're Humans, we're the greatest thing on this planet, we can do anything we want, etc". He's filling my life with a purpose, to argue with assholes to stop drawing the straws of someones elses destiny. And filling my heart with a hatred towards such people, which don't care for others than themselves. Seriously though, this is incredibly amusing, you sound more emo than anyone I've ever heard before. No wonder I never heard about you anti-natalist lot before this thread, you'd all probably bled out in your bathtubs most of the time. |
| I just read through some of the stuff one-more-time has written in this thread, and all I could think was, "Is this guy tripping on acid or something?" What the hell is he trying to say? Could someone translate his barely coherent posts for me? |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
| Morality doesn't exist. It is just a form of social incentive created through fear. |
| As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all. |
| Baman, you can label me as you please, but I'm not an emo if you'd knew me in person, let's not get in-to debate over it. But your post made me smile, in a good way. |
one-more-timeJun 5, 2012 1:17 AM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: You are not THE consciousness on the earth. You're not the representative of the consciousness as a whole. Is it better now? Pardon but my English is not my native, what I'm sure you noticed. You could save a step and presume that I made a mistake. I didn't bother re-checking three times what I wrote. selective_yellow said: How do you know I have not dealt with any of these things? You sure do love making assumptions about everyone else. Don't play around with words, it's obvious that I meant your post not your whole life. Sadly enough all you can do is just play around with words, let's say: take an advantage over my non-perfect English, instead of attacking the philosophy. (inb4 another "You sure like to assume a lot about me, how do you know that all I can do is play around with words? How do you know that I'm taking advantage over your shitty, non-comprehensible English?") You attacked my reading comprehension instead of apologizing or even thinking you may have made a mistake. Language is just for communicating, which you are not quite able to do. Sadly, your correction still is not perfect, but now think I understand what you are trying to say. I honestly had no idea you were trying to say that. Why would I bother fucking with you in this way. I am dating someone that speaks with worse grammar than you, but when I cannot understand the meaning of what he is trying to say I actually ask him. If you do not understand me, feel free to ask me to clarify. I still don't think there is some kind of grand "consciousness of the earth," (which is what I said before). If there was such a thing, or if there were some kind of "grand moral justice," or "Great Truth," I honestly wouldn't know it. How can we? It seems to me you're under the impression that what you believe is "Right." It's complete bullshit. Even if I agreed with the ideas you are proposing, you cannot claim they are the ultimate truth, or that you are somehow more in tune with what is best. It actually relates back to Anno's original question. Humans are creating their laws based on whatever the hell the people with the most power want. I don't really have to explain basic government to anyone, but the end result is these laws are created by humans. I'm not saying people coming together and creating laws and rules is always a bad thing, however, we should all recognize that law is not moral, and law is not "right." Your plan to outlaw reproduction would not sit well with most anyone. It would be quite unpleasant and oppressive to many people. I would fight against such a society, because I want to. Because I've thought about this issue and so far the reasoning I've come to accept seems most logical. I am open to new ideas. It's not a matter of "I'm moral, you're not." It's a matter of you have a shit argument. --- also, what do you mean "it is obvious that I meant your post not your whole life." What? I do not understand. |
jrgcool35 said: I just read through some of the stuff one-more-time has written in this thread, and all I could think was, "Is this guy tripping on acid or something?" What the hell is he trying to say? Could someone translate his barely coherent posts for me? I actually did try and understand what One-More-Time was trying to say earlier in this thread and I posted my own interpretation of it earlier in the thread, but no-one has mentioned it again since, so I am not sure whether or not I was right. Anyway, here is the post in question: AnnoKano said: I can sort of understand his position, but I don't agree with his conclusions nor am I completely satisfied with his arguments, but I am finding it difficult to think of a rebuttal. There are two types of people; those who want to be born and those who do not. There are also two possible situations, being born and not being born. In the first situation, you will have someone being born who is happy about it, and someone who is not. In the second situation, you will have someone who is unhappy about not being born, and someone who is glad they were never born. However, if you were never born in the first place then how could you feel unhappy? You wouldn't exist so you wouldn't feel unhappy. Thus the best way to ensure that everyone is happy is for no-one to ever be born. Since we are all supposedly chasing happiness and trying to avoid sadness, even though this is impossible to do with absolute satisfaction, by not being born in the first place we can never experience anything bad (or anything at all for that matter) and so we will have acheived everything that we set out to. The reason that I am disatisfied with it though is that the conclusion seems unavoidable, and that rests entirely on the first clause. I'm not sure whether it could be classed as a logical fallacy or not, but it doesn't seem satisfactory to me. As far as I can gather the conversation has not really progressed beyond this, instead it has gone over numerous arguments and counteraguments surrounding it. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| The problem is there is no such thing as wanting to be born or not wanting to be born before it actually happens. The argument states that people that do not want to be born would be happy for not being born. It also states that people who want to be born can't feel before they are born, so they do not matter. There is no maximizing happiness in this situation. It is eliminating all possibilities. Or is it? Restricting people from having children would upset many, and currently we need young workers to maintain the old. It would cause net suffering. Dying is not suffering, and neither is not being born. They are both neutral, as you cannot--as far as I know--think or feel post death. While living, people do not neatly fall into categories of "I wish I was never born" or "I am so happy I was born," so easily. I have known people that were quite displeased about existing for a long time, until something changed, or vice versa. External factors post birth weigh heavily on the quality and happiness of life a person has. Wanting to have not been born and suffering may only be temporary, or it may be caused by an external event. There are much more productive things we can do as people to minimize suffering, namely, providing adequate food, shelter, health care and education to people. Oh, and allowing them to flourish. I obviously do not know the exact formulae for some kind of miracle wonder utopia, but I sure as hell think we can improve on it (instead of eliminating happiness and suffering for the future). Or maybe it leaves you unsatisfied, because giving up completely and eliminating the human race is boring. |
| Doesn't law already enforce morality? Courts pretty much determine who is evil and who is good. |
selective_yellow said: To outlaw reproduction would not sit well with most anyone. It would be quite unpleasant and oppressive to many people. I would fight against such a society, because I want to. Because I've thought about this issue and so far the reasoning I've come to accept seems most logical. I am open to new ideas. It's not a matter of "I'm moral, you're not." It's a matter of you have a shit argument. So birth control, eh. Does it makes logical, rational sense that people are not scrutinized when having a child? Do they have enough income for the child, isn't there any guaranteed risk to a child or mother, etc. Letting every retard, every drug addict, people who're too old to be parents, letting everyone have a child.. because they simply can? What about adoption? Not letting everyone to adopt is wrong then? I mean.. you wouldn't let a retard or drug addicts to adopt a child, right? So why would you be for their reproduction rights? It's pretty much you having the shit argument. You're putting Freedom before "right" and "wrong". @Anno, I'd have to write at least five times more of a text than I did to approach every single statement and argument that people did in this thread or to clarity my own arguments and reasoning behind them, well maybe not that much because a lot of them repeated few times. Me and Antinatalists have dealt with them already, several times, I'm not here to fall in a deep discussion about the subject, just turned out that I made few posts. Plus I don't want to torture anyone with the analogies, metaphors and non-comprehensible English, as some pointed out. But the basic argument is: Do you have a right to impose the life on somebody else? Do you have a right to gamble with their welfare? There is no need to answer. I'm done on the Antinatalism subject here. |
| LUL |
JonyJC said: Doesn't law already enforce morality? Courts pretty much determine who is evil and who is good. But I'm not asking whether that is the case, I am asking whether it should be the case. The Law obviously does enforce morality because (depending on where you live) is used to outlaw drugs, prostitution, homosexuality... I am asking whether or not that should be the case. Of course, some have pointed out that things like murder are also considered immoral, but while almost everyone agrees that murder should be a crime, whether the stuff I mentioned should be a crime is disputed by some. So how do we distinguish them? Should we distinguish them? That is what I am interested in hearing; I am not looking for a proper answer, but am trying to prompt a discussion about the issue. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Ask yourself these questions. Do you have a right to eliminate this supposed gamble? Wouldn't your effort be better spent improving life on this planet instead? Your "purpose in life," will accomplish absolutely nothing. Congrats! I also never said I was against population control. Population control is not the same as "no kids ever." lastly, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" ... |
| Morality doesn't exist by itself it depends on people and changes over time, our current western morality is very different from Roman or Greek morality and we don't even need to move in time we just need to compare western and Arabic moral systems to see that moral is not something static and established. So taking that into account I'll say the same thing I usually say when speaking about governments: stay the hell out. Of course we don't live in an ideal world and people still murder and deceive each other so there's a need for a legal system but it should stay as limited as possible as all kinds of power should. |
selective_yellow said: Ask yourself these questions. Do you have a right to eliminate this supposed gamble? I have answered them, I have looked at them from a different sides. Don't worry about it, my beliefs are rock solid for years already, my beliefs have been questioned for several thousand times and they still stand as they are. Wouldn't your effort be better spent improving life on this planet instead? Your "purpose in life," will accomplish absolutely nothing. Congrats! If you want to argue with: That it'd be cool to have a million human beings on Earth completely devoted to science and understanding, trying to figure out a way to maximize the potential of consciousness and create a singularity or create a virtual perfection or some other kind of thing. I'd say: Sure, lets do that! But we know that's not what the human race wants to do, it just wants to eat popcorn and watch American Idol. It will not do anything magnificent and profound, it wants to just be an asshole. Then you might argue that our civilization and science have achieved many, many great things in just one century and it might cure cancer one day. Where I would argue that science still has no answer to exploitation and potential threat to human beings. The future bio-weapons, potential Nuclear war and other nasty stuff. How the country loses a Nuclear war? When it has no Nuclear or Bio-weapons left? History has shown that there is every likely hood that the wars will go on, they are still going on right at this moment as I write. lastly, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" You understand the thought behind, the reasoning behind it. You understand why the rape is wrong. |
one-more-timeJun 5, 2012 5:01 AM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: @Anno, I'd have to write at least five times more of a text than I did to approach every single statement and argument that people did in this thread or to clarity my own arguments and reasoning behind them, well maybe not that much because a lot of them repeated few times. Me and Antinatalists have dealt with them already, several times, I'm not here to fall in a deep discussion about the subject, just turned out that I made few posts. Plus I don't want to torture anyone with the analogies, metaphors and non-comprehensible English, as some pointed out. But the basic argument is: Do you have a right to impose the life on somebody else? Do you have a right to gamble with their welfare? There is no need to answer. I'm done on the Antinatalism subject here. I was not saying that you shouldn't elaborate on your position, I was saying that you should avoid the use of those analogies because they don't make what you are saying any clearer. Trying to make what you are saying as clear as possible would help others understand your position and I'm sure would lead to much more engaging debate for you. What is interesting about your position is that it is actually quite simple and straightforward, but people dislike the conclusion it comes to and so are arguing about that while seemingly ignoring the actual argument. I think Selective_Yellow's response was pretty interesting, and she has probably managed to put into words the doubts I had about your argument as well as some other interesting points. Like she said, you are not really maximising happiness and minimising suffering but are basically removing happiness and suffering from the equation entirely. And while it cannot really be argued that your reasoning would not put an end to human suffering (excluding those who continue to live), it is impossible to argue that ending human suffering is the most important thing in the world, even if we all agree that minimising suffering is ideal. If you take the position that we should maximise happiness for example, or that human progress is what is most important then human suffering is less important. I think the pursuit of happiness makes much more sense as a goal than progress does, but it would still be a viable perspective. From what I can gather you consider that an arrogant point of view, but your position is also based entirely on self interest. That it might benefit other animals too is entirely consequential. one-more-time said: So birth control, eh. Does it makes logical, rational sense that people are not scrutinized when having a child? Do they have enough income for the child, isn't there any guaranteed risk to a child or mother, etc. Letting every retard, every drug addict, people who're too old to be parents, letting everyone have a child.. because they simply can? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2233878/Dad-at-13-Boy-Alfie-Patten-13-becomes-father-of-baby-girl-Maisie-with-girlfriend-Chantelle-Steadman-15.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4617299/13-year-old-father-vows-to-become-good-parent.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/uk-has-highest-teenage-pregnancy-rate-in-europe-397153.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189068/Britains-oldest-mother-Elizabeth-Adeney-gives-birth-5lb-3oz-boy.html http://news.narconon.org/substance-abuse-children-narconon/ I am not sure where you got the impression that people are never scrutinised for having children, but let me assure you that they are. Above should fit in with every demographic, from right to left wing, tabloid to quality newspaper. If they do not satisfy you, I am sure plenty more can be found by searching online. One-More-Time said: What about adoption? Not letting everyone to adopt is wrong then? I mean.. you wouldn't let a retard or drug addicts to adopt a child, right? So why would you be for their reproduction rights? It's pretty much you having the shit argument. You're putting Freedom before "right" and "wrong". It is pretty clear why we cannot perform checks on people giving birth to children. However their children are still sometimes taken into foster care or other arrangements. Forced sterilisation would be immoral because it is a form of eugenics, because it involves forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will, and because it has side-effects on those who are sterilised. What is "right" or "wrong" is also subject to opinion. one-more-time said: I have answered them, I have looked at them from a different sides. Don't worry about it, my beliefs are rock solid for years already, my beliefs have been questioned for several thousand times and they still stand as they are. I am not sure why you see this as a good thing, because it is unquestionably a bad thing. If you are unable to be persuaded to change your mind, then you are relying on faith. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: I was not saying that you shouldn't elaborate on your position, I was saying that you should avoid the use of those analogies because they don't make what you are saying any clearer. Trying to make what you are saying as clear as possible would help others understand your position and I'm sure would lead to much more engaging debate for you. It's quite odd, because they made things clearer for many people yet some did point out that it's sometimes hard to comprehend. The analogies, metaphors, which aren't much different from I give, make things clearer for me. What is interesting about your position is that it is actually quite simple and straightforward, but people dislike the conclusion it comes to and so are arguing about that while seemingly ignoring the actual argument. It might have seemed so if you look at my MAL posts, as I mentioned before - it would take A LOT more time and effort to approach many, many more aspects and arguments. That have been done before, I didn't bring up the subject with a thought that I'll be having a deep discussion about it. LINKS I am not sure where you got the impression that people are never scrutinised for having children, but let me assure you that they are. Above should fit in with every demographic, from right to left wing, tabloid to quality newspaper. If they do not satisfy you, I am sure plenty more can be found by searching online. That's picking on the obvious irresponsible parents and what would make a selling paper, it's not obliging to show the parents what kind of responsibility, that they understand the risks, that they are ready to not to sleep for nights because of the crying baby, why do they think it's good for them and is it good for the child, I could go on, like I mean.. we need parental licensing, if that's the right word. Letting every reckless asshole to procreate will just lead to world full of reckless assholes. It is pretty clear why we cannot perform checks on people giving birth to children. However their children are still sometimes taken into foster care or other arrangements. What do you mean by "pretty clear"? Forced sterilisation would be immoral because it is a form of eugenics, because it involves forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will, and because it has side-effects on those who are sterilised. Having population control would work in just civilized world, the uncivilized population would still procreate like reckless assholes so there should be used some force. What kind of force? That can be speculated about. The slavery didn't end up by saying "We're sick of this, we're outta here" , you have to do something to change something. I am not sure why you see this as a good thing, because it is unquestionably a bad thing. If you are unable to be persuaded to change your mind, then you are relying on faith. My beliefs have been challenged by many arguments, by serious arguments. Most of the arguments were and still are some phantasmagorical bullshit. I've had many struggles about my beliefs when I was a bit younger but with time I've been more and more confident about them, especially when nobody can provide a rational, fact based arguments against Antinatalist arguments. I wouldn't call a faith by acknowledging how sloppy and fail-open the life is, how simply life is a shit if you take a philosophical look at it. And I wouldn't want to other conscious being to be stuck with the misfortune straw. It just makes logical sense to me. I'm not going here by emotions and what would pet me. Here I mean beliefs about Antinatalism, not my beliefs as a whole. I'm open to change my mind on the right way, all my beliefs are open to challenge but Antinatalism has been pretty much rock solid since I started to get into this philosophy and there's pretty much no likely hood that it will change any way soon or ever. |
one-more-timeJun 5, 2012 6:04 AM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: Hitchens said: Aha! So you do understand that non-existent beings don't have feelings. On one hand, you pronounce that you wouldn't want people to give birth because of lack of consent of the unborn, yet on the other hand you consider the idea of them having feelings or rights as nonsensical. There is a limit to hypocrisy. There would be no problem if this ride would be fail-safe. You could ride this roller-coaster as much as you want. When it comes to risk and this risk is imposed on someone else - here's the problem. Do you think that potential person has no right to not no be born in a squalor? Golly, a triple negative. Shakespeare warned us that this day would come. To answer your question, an unborn - ergo non-existent - child has no rights. However, if I was in a squalor with my harem of wives, I wouldn't bang them without protection, as I wouldn't want to have a child in a shit hole. Heck, I can do better than that, I would try to fix the squalor to the best of my abilities, and then debate the topic of having kids. But, and here's the key point, you are comparing the entire world with a shit hole. Not cool, and not true. They have no right to not not be born in a drug addicts family? Holy nipples of child molesting priests it's another triple negative, Shakespeare help us. To answer what I think you mean, no, a child shouldn't have to be born to drug addict parents, assuming the parents won't ever be motivated to improve their ways after having the kid. But all of this amounts to exceptions. The world isn't a squalor, every parent isn't a drug addict. To deprive all of humanity the right to have kids because a few fucks fucked up is not the way to go. That's punishing more innocents than necessary. And that is how you approach such important philosophical question. Instead of giving a fact based arguments which would approach the Physics, Biology and Chemistry as well, you'll just call me a bitchy whiner, how mature, how intelligent, that's the way to go, the way Atheist argues on such important subject. I have provided you with arguments in my previous posts: Hitchens said: Life has more joy than suffering, for if it didn't, we would have cases of mass depression and suicide on a planet wide scale. Many people enjoy their lives more than they despise it. Sure, there are instances in their lives when they wish they hadn't been born - it's only natural, the world isn't perfect; but they still manage to find happiness in life. There is suffering in the world, but is it more numerous and pervasive than happiness? Saying that we should not reproduce on the off chance that the child suffers more than he enjoys life is tantamount to giving up. And giving up is not a solution, it's giving up. Your response to this was an anecdote on how you found suffering in the world whenever you looked around, and a false allusion to NASA supposedly giving up on a shuttle. You're the one not interested in an actual debate, for whenever you're presented with arguments, all you have in your bag of responses is personal experience and how you, personally, find suffering in the world. I have pointed it out before, and I will point it out again (since you seem so fixated on just the insults that others throw at you): Hitchens said: You are your own person, your views are your own, and as such you only speak for yourself. And what's with this "Physics, Biology and Chemistry" bullshit you're spouting? Nowhere in your arguments have you scientifically approached anything. Every single one of them consist of you ranting about how you see more suffering in life than happiness. Quantify your assertions, back them up by sources, and I will consider "Physics, Biology and Chemistry". It's pretty obvious that people would call me a suicidal person when I lay out the truth in front of them and this truth is not their Pink Unicorn delusion. False. People call your kind, the anti-natalists, suicidal, because you proclaim yourselves to be so in your arguments: you wish you hadn't been born... you wish others hadn't been born... you don't want others to have kids because it trespasses on the rights of the unborn child (holy shit)... you feel that the death of humanity is the only escape from suffering... Shall I go on? It is because of your stance on the idea of suffering and the solution of it all that you propose that we assume you to be suicidal. There is nothing challenging being proposed here, all we're asking you to do is to put your money where your mouth it - give humanity a head start. Quite honestly I don't see a difference between religious people and the Atheists which have moved to DNA delusion instead of having the conversation we had 2000 years ago. Oh you mean like whether or not to give your slaves 10 lashes or 11 when they're disobedient? Or perhaps you mean philosophical ramblings on whether or not to end all of humanity to cease suffering? I'm pretty sure that the ancients would have loved to discuss ways to end suffering, but even they would not have proposed the silly idea of ending it like you have: KILL EVERYTHING. In many ways, modern society is a massive improvement over the bronze age tribes. In those times, your argument would bear more weight, since their lifestyle would be relatively down in the dumps. Nowadays, however, we have a better society, a more caring society where people strive to reduce suffering - for example, we have volunteers, charities etc. ----------------- Look, if you truly feel that humanity is suffering more than it is enjoying life, then do some research, find out whether the average Joe is as miserable as you proclaim him to be. You are making the positive assertion, therefore the burden of proof in this debate lies with you. |
AnnoKano said: jrgcool35 said: I just read through some of the stuff one-more-time has written in this thread, and all I could think was, "Is this guy tripping on acid or something?" What the hell is he trying to say? Could someone translate his barely coherent posts for me? I actually did try and understand what One-More-Time was trying to say earlier in this thread and I posted my own interpretation of it earlier in the thread, but no-one has mentioned it again since, so I am not sure whether or not I was right. Anyway, here is the post in question: As far as I can gather the conversation has not really progressed beyond this, instead it has gone over numerous arguments and counteraguments surrounding it. It makes sense as to what he's saying, but realistically such a system wouldn't matter. Biology (probably not the right blanket term to use here) doesn't care if someone is happy or not. The meaning of life is quite simply for us to reproduce. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
| @Hitchens, I already dealt with these things, if you take a look at all my posts I made. Physics, Biology, Chemistry would cost me far over several hours and a migraine. No thanks. I'm not here to have a deep debate on the subject, as I already stated. And your two first arguments of how you would not let your child live in a shit, in a house without the bed. Sure, it's all nice but you're not the whole world. Just look at the Links AnnoKano gave. I could find some more but these are just fine. |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: @Hitchens, I already dealt with these things, if you take a look at all my posts I made. No you didn't, as I pointed out, your response comprised of generalizing all of humanity based on exceptions and your personal experiences. That doesn't constitute as a satisfactory argument. Physics, Biology, Chemistry would cost me far over several hours and a migraine. No thanks. I'm not here to have a deep debate on the subject, as I already stated. Are you sure? Then why did you say this: one-more-time said: And that is how you approach such important philosophical question. Instead of giving a fact based arguments which would approach the Physics, Biology and Chemistry as well, you'll just call me a bitchy whiner, how mature, how intelligent, that's the way to go, the way Atheist argues on such important subject. So you yourself don't want to present any scientific evidence, but want me to produce some? |
Hitchens said: No you didn't, as I pointed out, your response comprised of generalizing all of humanity based on exceptions and your personal experiences. That doesn't constitute as a satisfactory argument. Sucks for you, I found a response to basically every single sentence within my other posts. one-more-time said: Physics, Biology, Chemistry would cost me far over several hours and a migraine. No thanks. I'm not here to have a deep debate on the subject, as I already stated. Hitchens said: Are you sure? Then why did you say this: one-more-time said: And that is how you approach such important philosophical question. Instead of giving a fact based arguments which would approach the Physics, Biology and Chemistry as well, you'll just call me a bitchy whiner, how mature, how intelligent, that's the way to go, the way Atheist argues on such important subject. Hitchens said: So you yourself don't want to present any scientific evidence, but want me to produce some? That was a cheap, weasel way to try to insult you in some way. I'm sorry. |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: Well, the whole antinatalist thing is just as phantasmagorical and irrational. Obviously, it only makes sense to someone in a major depression that can't see any positives in life. You can't understand how stupid it is because you are mentally unable to, just as I can't see its merits because I'm not suicidally depressed.My beliefs have been challenged by many arguments, by serious arguments. Most of the arguments were and still are some phantasmagorical bullshit. I've had many struggles about my beliefs when I was a bit younger but with time I've been more and more confident about them, especially when nobody can provide a rational, fact based arguments against Antinatalist arguments. In the end, non existent entities have no rights, and suffering is all worthless, that's the cold, hard truth, you're just putting loads of subjective and emotional worth to them. Thus your position is no more rational or logical than a philanthropic one. The most rational and logical way to look at existence is the evolutionarily biological one. Without any manmade values or morals, the only thing that matters at all is to live and further one's DNA. That's the only objectively rational and logical position to take, anything else involves subjective preferences. |
one-more-time said: That was a cheap, weasel way to try to insult you in some way. I'm sorry. *sees puppy *forgives mistake |
Baman said: Well, the whole antinatalist thing is just as phantasmagorical and irrational. We're not painting life in pretty colours. We're not saying: Aww, look how beautiful sunrise/sunshine is, etc. Sure, call it irrational but that will not change a thing about it. Obviously, it only makes sense to someone in a major depression that can't see any positives in life. Depression? Everyone suffers from it at some time, but that's irrelevant to the arguments made. I've never said that there are no positives in life, that is nothing that you cannot enjoy. I said that the price is too high and unreasonable to pay for fake cheese. The risk is too high. You can't understand how stupid it is because you are mentally unable to, just as I can't see its merits because I'm not suicidally depressed. And I can say the same thing about you, that you're caught in ego gratification, your DNA delusion has fooled you, the DNA is gaming you and you cannot see further than your feelings and phantasmagorical bullshit, you unempathethic, you sadistic person. Right, here we're back to throwing insults to each other. Antinatalists are not suicidally depressed, unless you have something to provide it as a truth besides your irrational comparesment us being emo's. People have written books about the Antinatalism, it's a philosophy not some kind of teen angst against the world. I can make an argument going by your logic then that everything, what is portraying the world in a not so fun-like way, if the people agree with this philosophy or argument then they're suicidal teenagers. Well, you get the point. In the end, non existent entities have no rights I guess you'd agree that the children have a right to be born in as much fail-safe world as possible, they have a right to be born in a caring family, we can just go on. You're just putting loads of subjective and emotional worth to them. It's other way around actually. Thus your position is no more rational or logical than a philanthropic one. It's not me suggesting that we should go by unintelligent, crude forces. The most rational and logical way to look at existence is the evolutionarily biological one. Without any manmade values or morals, the only thing that matters at all is to live and further one's DNA. That's the only objectively rational and logical position to take, anything else involves subjective preferences. An Evolution, hmm. You're the guy who thinks that evolution is a magical happily ever after story, that somehow it's making something of value. What do you think we have a brain for? Why do you think we have it? Because it was a scheming tool, because it made us more effective as fucking the other guy, getting in there first and getting out last, getting the most. The only standard is Natural Selection, which basically means make bunch of copies, have the copies beat the shit out of each other and compete witch each other, and whoever wins by whatever manner claims victory and replicates.. OH, that's all there is! If comet had not hit the Earth Tyrannosaurus would still rule the planet, would you think that be a good idea? Realistically, if we go back in time and stop the calamity that killed the dinosaurs, would you do it? Because they were so "cool" and that was so great, life on earth was really "cool", it was warm, moist and things were ripping the guts out of other things all day long every day for millions, millions, millions of years. Dragonflies have been the same for 300million years, there is no evolution anymore, it's a successful machine, it doesn't need to evolve and that is how evolution also works, once it makes perfect little killing machine it doesn't have to make it any better. Evolution is a sword sharpener, there's nothing in a theory that validates the life on planet Earth, it actually says to your face that it's unintelligent design managed by unintelligent forces, now you tell me how that's a happy story, how that's a good idea that we should do that all over the universe, lets have unintelligent design managed by unintelligent forces, yea, lets do that all over the place. I doubt that you will explain how that makes any sense. Going by crude, unintelligent forces instead of relying on intelligence and trying to figure out the more efficient ways, to make it any better - no, we should go by unintelligent forces, because they know exactly what we need, because it's Mother Nature. THE MIGHT WINS. Really? |
| LUL |
Baman said: The most rational and logical way to look at existence is the evolutionarily biological one. Without any manmade values or morals, the only thing that matters at all is to live and further one's DNA. That's the only objectively rational and logical position to take, anything else involves subjective preferences. How is that a rational thing to do? Do you enhance your utility by reproducing? Isn't it a man made moral that the best thing to do is simply to continue living? Any existentialist choice that is followed by an individual is per se also a moral decision. Although you can be more rational than another individual with the same moral code (presuming that such a moral law was had standards of rationality), but there is no such thing as a way of looking at existence that is more rational than any other way. I don't see how you can apply logic to existence. They are two different entities that are not correlated. |
one-more-time said: Of course they don't. Morality and rights are just fanciful notions we've made up.I guess you'd agree that the children have a right to be born in as much fail-safe world as possible, they have a right to be born in a caring family, we can just go on. You're the guy who thinks that evolution is a magical happily ever after story, that somehow it's making something of value. What do you think we have a brain for? Why do you think we have it? Because it was a scheming tool, because it made us more effective as fucking the other guy, getting in there first and getting out last, getting the most. Uh, no, no I'm not. Evolution is a blind and natural process, it's completely devoid of value or morals. It's merely a neutral force of nature, and thus it is the only objective standard we can set that's not influenced by human morality.Going by crude, unintelligent forces instead of relying on intelligence and trying to figure out the more efficient ways, to make it any better - no, we should go by unintelligent forces, because they know exactly what we need, because it's Mother Nature. THE MIGHT WINS. Really? Well, destroying mankind is hardly a intelligent and efficient way to make anything better, now is it? Your antinatalist ideology just equates to giving up and deleting the whole prospect of "better" by eliminating all life rather than actually trying to do anything at all. And you're misreading me, I'm not saying following evolution and nature's rules is necessarily the best, indeed, culture has overtaken evolution anyways, and if we truly want to become better, we'll have to rely on our intelligence and technology to proceed, if we don't want to stay like this (though I don't see why not), then some form of transhumanism is clearly our best bet. But taking away human ideas and just looking at the cold facts of nature is the only truly objective way to view the world. Your position is just throwing morality and emotions all over the place in comparison, just the same shit as you accuse everyone else of doing. Sohei said: I don't see why not. If we put away all morality and human values, and just look at the facts of nature through evolution, we can clearly conclude that the closest thing to a objective for life is to survive and spread. The will to survive and spread cannot be a manmade moral when it is clearly observable in every species.I don't see how you can apply logic to existence. They are two different entities that are not correlated. |
| There is no easy answer for this. You cant make someone more moral by making laws against their ways it just discourages them a little bit. Also whats moral isnt always so objective. It would be nice to think cheating in relationships could be illegal and have unusual hilarious punishments for example. |
one-more-time said: Evolution is a sword sharpener, there's nothing in a theory that validates the life on planet Earth, it actually says to your face that it's unintelligent design managed by unintelligent forces, now you tell me how that's a happy story, how that's a good idea that we should do that all over the universe, lets have unintelligent design managed by unintelligent forces, yea, lets do that all over the place. Congratulations, you have succeeded in knocking down a straw-man of an argument. Proud of yourself? First of all, reality doesn't owe you an explanation, nor does it owe you comfort. If something is true, it's true whether you like it or not - evidence matters, not private prejudice. It doesn't matter whether the evolutionary perspective provides you with comfort or not, it matters whether it's true or not. Besides, you're confusing biological evolution with social Darwinism - a twisted ideology (which Darwin himself despised) that literally suggests that humanity should strive to create a world where the weak are disposed of and the strong shall survive. This ideology is either extinct or on the verge of extinction. No one is advocating it, and everyone is advocating the exact opposite - it's the reason scientists are searching, day and night, a cure for cancer and AIDS, it's the reason old people aren't simply killed off, it's the reason why we have hospitals. one-more-time said: Dragonflies have been the same for 300million years, there is no evolution anymore, it's a successful machine, it doesn't need to evolve and that is how evolution also works, once it makes perfect little killing machine it doesn't have to make it any better. This is false on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Reptiles have been around for even longer, yet they are evolving, whales have been around for millions of years, yet they're still evolving. Here's why you know nothing about the evolution of dragon flies: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tait/evolutionofdragonflies.pdf Evolution hasn't stopped for any species, and to suggest that "once [evolution] makes perfect little killing machine it doesn't have to make it any better" is fallacious on the face of it. As has been pointed out to you (and is taught in all non creationist biology class rooms), natural selection is blind - it doesn't strive to make anything, there is no end result. So please stop this display of personal incredulity, it's embarrassing. It's fine if you get emotionally attached to your arguments, but the way to present them isn't to pretend to know things you don't know. |
| this thread is ridiculous... pardon my english but i too suck at writing so.... logically this whole anti birth thing doesnt make sense because it fall apart right at the premise of imposing life on the unborn. its impossible to impose life on something that doesnt exist so the question should never be what right do we have to impose life on someone and instead it should be, what do we do once we are aware of life existing (someone is pregnant). so life exists, now the question is is it moral to allow the child to be born and possibly suffer or abort it before it gets the chance? well, killing the child before its born is imposing, no question about it, so logically, the child must be born and allowed to be given its own choice. so legalize assisted suicde. everyone who wants to exit now has an easy way to do so, all they need to do is sign an x on the dotted line~ of course theres a whole slew of problems with this two. first! what age is accepatble for someone to seek assisted suicide? second! if abortion is imposing death on an life that is still in the womb, than you get the whole abortion arguments and parents rights vs fetus rights why i bring up the own problems in my story is that to show that morality is not black and white, even logically induced morality. saying no one should give birth because everyone suffers eventually is too simple and clean and anser to be taken seriously, it really is. it ignores so many variables of life as an solution. why is suffering put above happiness? what logic decided that? so yeah, as i said, this argument falls apart at the premise because you CANNOT impose life on something that doesnt exist and life is one of those things thats BAM! happens, your alive. and once your alive society has a shitton of a million and one other problems to deal with to ensure that suffereing is minimal and happiness is maximum. the argument birth leads to suffering, so never give birth arbitrarily decides that imlimating suffereing is more important thatn maximizing happiness and that can't be decided just like that, if at all so the best possible solution i can think of for this situation of people that dont want to live anymore is legalized assisted suicde |
Baman said: Uh, no, no I'm not. Evolution is a blind and natural process, it's completely devoid of value or morals. It's merely a neutral force of nature, and thus it is the only objective standard we can set that's not influenced by human morality. In every your posts, where's evolution involved - you're praising like a some kind of a God. That unintelligent forces knows what is best for us. We have a brain, we have intelligence and you want to just throw it in garbage. Well, destroying mankind is hardly a intelligent and efficient way to make anything better, now is it? Your antinatalist ideology just equates to giving up and deleting the whole prospect of "better" by eliminating all life rather than actually trying to do anything at all. I already answered this - why do we have such ideology. But sure, we are up for better world but we just don't see it coming, people are okay with such world, actually I see horizon pretty grim. And you're misreading me, I'm not saying following evolution and nature's rules is necessarily the best, indeed, culture has overtaken evolution anyways, and if we truly want to become better, we'll have to rely on our intelligence and technology to proceed, if we don't want to stay like this (though I don't see why not), then some form of transhumanism is clearly our best bet. But its you who said that we have to sway away human values and morals. I'm not misrepresenting your words. Or you mean something else with that? But taking away human ideas and just looking at the cold facts of nature is the only truly objective way to view the world. Your position is just throwing morality and emotions all over the place in comparison, just the same shit as you accuse everyone else of doing. Not at all, I'm not here and saying that: This is how I feel. I take a philosophical, emotionless point of view on world, pretty much. Hitchens said: Proud of yourself? Actually yes, I am. Received eve a blue ribbon. Besides, you're confusing biological evolution with social Darwinism. That clearly wasn't my point. I've always had the impression that Baman is advocating social Darwinism with his "Survives the strongest, etc". This is false on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Dragonflies first appear on Carboniferous Period, that is ~300 million years ago. And since that time, evolutionists believe, that they have not changed much in that long time. I surely wasn't implying that evolution stops, it's stupid to start with, but I understand what you mean. natural selection is blind - it doesn't strive to make anything I can agree that is has no goal nor intent of making a perfect being. What I was trying to say is that natural selection, evolution sharpens species, it adapts them for better survival, for better hunting. You don't have to take it literally, you understand what I mean. |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: No. Stop building strawmen.In every your posts, where's evolution involved - you're praising like a some kind of a God. That unintelligent forces knows what is best for us. We have a brain, we have intelligence and you want to just throw it in garbage. But its you who said that we have to sway away human values and morals. I'm not misrepresenting your words. Or you mean something else with that? Oh come on, did you even try to read what I've written? My whole point was showing how your position is just as retarded and based on human morality and subjective ideas as you blame everything else of being. Yes, human morals and values are worthless in the end, no that does not mean we have to throw them away as it is sometimes good to make believe. But it does mean they are all equally devoid of any truth or intrinsic value.Not at all, I'm not here and saying that: This is how I feel. I take a philosophical, emotionless point of view on world, pretty much. Except you don't. Your position is obviously highly emotional or else you wouldn't give a shit about people's suffering, derp. So if you are being a antinatalist activists, you are doing the exact same thing as you accuse everyone else of doing, that is, forcing your own subjective morality on other people. So don't feel so righteous and smug as you decry others that "force" children into the world and potential pain because it coincides with their moral values, when you preach about doing the same thing the other way around. |
one-more-time said: Dragonflies first appear on Carboniferous Period, that is ~300 million years ago. And since that time, evolutionists believe, that they have not changed much in that long time. I am going to push you on this one, please present some citations to back up this extraordinary claim. Exactly which evolutionists believe that the dragonfly hasn't changed much since the Carboniferous? What I was trying to say is that natural selection, evolution sharpens species, it adapts them for better survival, for better hunting. Not necessarily for better hunting, for instance gazelles (the hunted) evolved to outrun cheetahs (the hunter). But take the example of the dragonfly in the Carboniferous period - Meganeura, related to the current dragonfly, was bigger and faster, so naturally a better hunter. But it went extinct. It doesn't matter whether the species is a good hunter or not, and the dragonfly is certainly no improvement over the Meganeura. I have stressed this before, and will stress it again: Don't pretend to know things you don't know. You don't have to take it literally, you understand what I mean. Come now, if you didn't want me to take your blatantly absurd claim of evolution making "perfect killing machines" literally, then you should have made that clear. What else was I to make of this then Dragonflies have been the same for 300million years, there is no evolution anymore, it's a successful machine, it doesn't need to evolve and that is how evolution also works, once it makes perfect little killing machine it doesn't have to make it any better. Would it not have helped your case to caution the reader with "don't take this literally", or "this is only metaphorical", or "I know nothing about evolution, so take no offence towards my misrepresentations of it"? Hmm? We're not mind-readers you know, we can only interpret what you wrote as you wrote it. GH0STSMILES said: legalize assisted suicde. everyone who wants to exit now has an easy way to do so Now this is definitely a better solution than exterminating mankind. I'm for assisted suicide, because I believe that an individual's life is their own, and if they wish to end it, they should receive assistance for painlessly getting it over with. what age is accepatble for someone to seek assisted suicide? Probably the same age where you're considered an "adult" in your country. saying no one should give birth because everyone suffers eventually is too simple and clean and anser to be taken seriously, it really is. it ignores so many variables of life as an solution. why is suffering put above happiness? what logic decided that? Exactly. This is something our anti-natalist friend here doesn't seem to get - suffering is part of life. If you want to live in this world, you are going to suffer; some will suffer very little, some will suffer a shit tone, but most of us suffer to a moderate extent. @one-more-time: Your stance would make a little more sense if the amount of suffering outweighed the amount of happiness. Let me pose to you a question that you didn't answer when I first asked: Hitchens said: There are some for whom it is a fetish that which you consider suffering, so consider this: What if a child was born who would grow up to find joy in what you might find suffering? After all, your idea of suffering may not be as bad for the next guy. If this child grows up to develop a fetish out of what you call suffering, and as such enjoys it, would you deny his right to life? Would you suggest that he would have been happier if he'd not been born? |
Baman said: Except you don't. Your position is obviously highly emotional or else you wouldn't give a shit about people's suffering. You can say that when you'll approach the subject without the notions in your head and will stop explaining why the heroin addict likes the heroin. Psychology is death to the truth. Look at what life is: consumption, reproduction, cannibalism and addiction. If you want to put something else in a bowl be sure to back it up. Take a look in nature - does it make sense to you, this every day chase, one beasts chomping other? There's nothing more in human life than ego gratification, it's either through you or through others. The silly notions, the happiness notion. I mean, my life isn't miserable that I'd love to die today or tomorrow, it's about how fucked up this life is, the price for the ride is just too high, the risk is too high, the shitty destiny straw will be stuck for that person forever and you're drawing it for him. Hitchens said: Now this is definitely a better solution than exterminating mankind. I'm for assisted suicide, because I believe that an individual's life is their own, and if they wish to end it, they should receive assistance for painlessly getting it over with. Of course. Assisted suicide and Parental licensing would be the perfect compromise, but I don't see it coming because people suck. Exactly. This is something our anti-natalist friend here doesn't seem to get - suffering is part of life. If you want to live in this world, you are going to suffer; some will suffer very little, some will suffer a shit tone, but most of us suffer to a moderate extent. Your stance would make a little more sense if the amount of suffering outweighed the amount of happiness. Let me pose to you a question that you didn't answer when I first asked: There are some for whom it is a fetish that which you consider suffering, so consider this: What if a child was born who would grow up to find joy in what you might find suffering? After all, your idea of suffering may not be as bad for the next guy. If this child grows up to develop a fetish out of what you call suffering, and as such enjoys it, would you deny his right to life? Would you suggest that he would have been happier if he'd not been born? So this is a popularity contest? As I already wrote: I'd be more concerned about the one out of five people who dislikes and despises existence itself. Especially when there is no need for us to exist. I don't see people making this ride more fail-safe. Our technology will evolve so does the weapons and science has no answer to such exploitation. But people will argue that it somehow brings more good to the world than the bad. Then I'd ask: Why they think that the victory is worth all the defeat. Why do they that think that the greatest day as a human experience on this planet right now and the worst day being experience by a human being on this planet, somehow if you add those two the plus is somehow better than the minus. But it went extinct. It doesn't matter whether the species is a good hunter or not, and the dragonfly is certainly no improvement over the Meganeura. Because the environment is much different than it was then. I am going to push you on this one, please present some citations to back up this extraordinary claim. Exactly which evolutionists believe that the dragonfly hasn't changed much since the Carboniferous? Wrong word there, had to use: By evolutionists own admission* page 13 Dragonflies have been around for almost 300 million years and paleontologists have found huge variations of them embedded in rock, giving scientists excellent documented proof that they haven't changed much over time. (inb4 please provide fossils or it didn't happen) |
one-more-timeJun 6, 2012 3:51 PM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: You can say that when you'll approach the subject without the notions in your head and will stop explaining why the heroin addict likes the heroin. Psychology is death to the truth. Look at what life is: consumption, reproduction, cannibalism and addiction. If you want to put something else in a bowl be sure to back it up. Take a look in nature - does it make sense to you, this every day chase, one beasts chomping other? There's nothing more in human life than ego gratification, it's either through you or through others. The silly notions, the happiness notion. I mean, my life isn't miserable that I'd love to die today or tomorrow, it's about how fucked up this life is, the price for the ride is just too high, the risk is too high, the shitty destiny straw will be stuck for that person forever and you're drawing it for him. Yes, it makes perfect sense. That's the best part of life. Be able to consume more, afford more, be able to be better than others. Humans LIVE to be able to show that they are better than the other guy. Also, yes, it does make sense that nature is done through natural selection. The weak die, the strong survive. It's a simple concept. one-more-time said: So this is a popularity contest? As I already wrote: I'd be more concerned about the one out of five people who dislikes and despises existence itself. Especially when there is no need for us to exist. I don't see people making this ride more fail-safe. Our technology will evolve so does the weapons and science has no answer to such exploitation. But people will argue that it somehow brings more good to the world than the bad. Then I'd ask: Why they think that the victory is worth all the defeat. Why do they that think that the greatest day as a human experience on this planet right now and the worst day being experience by a human being on this planet, somehow if you add those two the plus is somehow better than the minus. I'm sorry but if the ratio for suffering is 1:4, as you showed in your example, that still means 80% of people enjoy living. One person's suffering is worth 4 people finding happiness. Additionally, victory is worth all the defeat because at the end of the day, the person who achieved victory gets something be it glory, money, or what have you, they are able to set themselves apart from the masses of failures in the world. one-more-time said: Because the environment is much different than it was then. The principle of natural selection and evolution hasn't changed ever in the history of life on Earth. one-more-time said: Dragonflies have been around for almost 300 million years and paleontologists have found huge variations of them embedded in rock, giving scientists excellent documented proof that they haven't changed much over time. (inb4 please provide fossils or it didn't happen) He wants proof, he asked for you to provide it. Your anecdotal evidence isn't worth scrap. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
one-more-time said: No, I can say it already because it's the obvious truth.You can say that when you'll approach the subject without the notions in your head and will stop explaining why the heroin addict likes the heroin. Take a look in nature - does it make sense to you, this every day chase, one beasts chomping other? Yes, yes it does.There's nothing more in human life than ego gratification, it's either through you or through others. The silly notions, the happiness notion. Again, just your subjective morals and values, and your position is not any more worthy in any way than anyone else's.I mean, my life isn't miserable that I'd love to die today or tomorrow, it's about how fucked up this life is, the price for the ride is just too high, the risk is too high, the shitty destiny straw will be stuck for that person forever and you're drawing it for him. Still, who gives a shit. You're obviously in a minority, most people think life is worth it enough, therefore your position makes no sense to anyone but yourselves.And the alternative you present would be just as fucked up and shitty, you'd trade one misery for another, and your solution would be a lot lot worse to the majority anyway, simple as that. Also lol, "destiny" and "forever"? Come on now. |
jrgcool35 said: Yes, it makes perfect sense. That's the best part of life. Be able to consume more, afford more, be able to be better than others. Humans LIVE to be able to show that they are better than the other guy. Life makes sense because that I can show how big ego I have? Your argument screams out loud: I'm a greedy gluttonous pig. I'm sorry but if the ratio for suffering is 1:4, as you showed in your example, that still means 80% of people enjoy living. One person's suffering is worth 4 people finding happiness. Additionally, victory is worth all the defeat because at the end of the day, the person who achieved victory gets something be it glory, money, or what have you, they are able to set themselves apart from the masses of failures in the world. For you it's popularity contest. Will it be so even if you'd have flesh-eating disease or some other nasty shit? You sure wouldn't sit there and suffer for the people who find happiness in eating popcorn and watching American Idol, buying a new iPhone. It's sad that you find value in money and exploiting other people, stepping over other people. The principle of natural selection and evolution hasn't changed ever in the history of life on Earth. I don't get your point. The conditions now are different than it was, that is why we don't see dinosaurs in the wild. He wants proof, he asked for you to provide it. Your anecdotal evidence isn't worth scrap. I did that. @Baman, what ever, we're just going in circles. Well yea, you don't give a shit about the people who find your phantasmagorical fairy-tale disgusting. When it comes to assisted suicide I'm sure you are for it, but not because you'd care about the ones who'd use this right, but so you could enjoy your little life-joys in a peace and quiet. |
one-more-timeJun 6, 2012 4:14 PM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: Hitchens said: Now this is definitely a better solution than exterminating mankind. I'm for assisted suicide, because I believe that an individual's life is their own, and if they wish to end it, they should receive assistance for painlessly getting it over with. Of course. Assisted suicide and Parental licensing would be the perfect compromise, but I don't see it coming because people suck. I agree, I don't see assisted suicide being legalized (at least not globally) any time soon. Still, the point remains that an option other than genocide exists. It may not come into action any time soon, but we have to be realistic - flying cars may not arrive anytime soon, doesn't mean we should give up on them. It's the same principle. So this is a popularity contest? Don't misconstrue my words. As I already wrote: I'd be more concerned about the one out of five people who dislikes and despises existence itself. Fallacy. You are essentially counting the hits and forgetting the misses. You seem to be willing to dispel the lives of those 4/5 persons in favor of the 1/5 (to say nothing of where you pulled that statistic from). Even if 1/5 people were miserable, that gives you no right to ostracize the right to life of the majority: the 4/5. As for the statistic you just presented, where did you find it? Our technology will evolve so does the weapons and science has no answer to such exploitation. But people will argue that it somehow brings more good to the world than the bad. Except that it does bring more good to the world. Significantly more. Science and technology has saved more lives than it has taken. The Haber Process is responsible for sustaining one-third of the Earth's population, and that's a single invention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process Life expectancy has gone up, thanks to science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy It all depends on how you use it of course - you wouldn't blames the guy who made the knife for the lives that the knife took. So I wouldn't blame science as much as I would blame human fallibility and the inability to conduct critical thinking. Dragonflies have been around for almost 300 million years and paleontologists have found huge variations of them embedded in rock, giving scientists excellent documented proof that they haven't changed much over time. (inb4 please provide fossils or it didn't happen) I was going to deal with this, but jrgcool35 already replied to this point. So I'll add this: tough shit, people testify to being abducted by aliens. Your anecdotes bear no weight whatsoever on the reality of the issues. Elementary, my dear anti-antalist, provide evidence. Edit: saw what you posted, will take a look. |
HitchensJun 6, 2012 4:26 PM
one-more-time said: Life makes sense because that I can show how big ego I have? Your argument screams out loud: I'm a greedy gluttonous pig. That's how life is for humanity in general, actually that's how all life is in general. It's better than your anti-natalist option where everyone should be dead to appease to a tiny few who are suffering immensely. I see the logic in that! one-more-time said: For you it's popularity contest. Will it be so even if you'd have flesh-eating disease or some other nasty shit? You sure wouldn't sit there and suffer for the people who find happiness in eating popcorn and watching American Idol, buying a new iPhone. It's sad that you find value in money and exploiting other people, stepping over other people. I don't have a flesh-eating disease, and neither does the huge majority of the world (Actually I think the percentage of people with necrotizing fasciitis that cannot be treated is less than 1% in the world). As a counter point, I think it's sad that you believe that a tiny few should be able to dictate humanity's course. That's quite the arrogant perspective. Holy crap, the incidence rate of necrotizing fasciitis is LESS THAN 2 in 1,000,000 with a death rate of 30%. That's isn't worth "killing" 7,000,000,000 over. http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/hfile60.stm one-more-time said: I don't get your point. The conditions now are different than it was, that is why we don't see dinosaurs in the wild. The conditions for natural selection are not different. The dinosaurs were at the top of the food chain because they could kill other things better than they could kill dinosaurs. They were the strongest simply put. The same thing with us today, we are at the top of the food chain. one-more-time said: I did that. Was posted after I posted, but thanks, I'll take a look at that took just because I'm interested in your claims. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
one-more-time said: Sure, doctor assisted euthanasia should be legal. And of course I don't care about random people I've never met.@Baman, what ever, we're just going in circles. Well yea, you don't give a shit about the people who find your phantasmagorical fairy-tale disgusting. When it comes to assisted suicide I'm sure you are for it, but not because you'd care about the ones who'd use this right, but so you could enjoy your little life-joys in a peace and quiet. Just so long as you understand that you're just spewing subjective morality, and are thus just as bad as the ones you judge. That's the only objective truth in the end. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |